I'm not convinced that a colorless-only mana symbol would ever be introduced. There'd be just too much potential for confusion with the existing generic mana symbol. In fact, I think there's not too many more symbols that could be introduced at this point aside from perhaps a more Zelda-like Pink Heart "pay one life" symbol in a life-total matters block.
Perhaps an aura that presents some do-i-destroy-it-or-don't-I tension:
Radioactive Awesomeness 1W
Enchantment–Aura
Enchant Creature
Enchanted creature gets +1/+1 and gains First Strike.
If ~ is put into a graveyard from play, put two +1/+1 counters on the creature it last enchanted.
I could see it at XXWW to discourage splashing for a finisher like this and at mythic. It's very clever, but the complexity of a XX spell, with two Xs in the text is kinda a stretch even at mythic. I'd like it. A lot.
I'd expect that the reserve list itself will be unchanged, but the interpretation of the reserve list's allowance for reprints be re-interpreted. I think we'll see a reserve list reprint in almost every FTV, Duel Decks and Premium Deck collection release henceforth. We still won't see those reserved cards that completely warp formats, but we will start to see reprints of those cards that were set aside by association, not by necessity.
... Oh and what if in worldwake, Walking Atlas was just a slip of the tongue. A hint towards Eldrazi and Colorless non Artifact creatures!
My money's on it not being any intentional foreshadowing, but much more likely something that slipped through because they had been spending too much time working with colorless non-artifacts in RoE.
The Reaper King and countless Alara slash Esper-based colored artifacts all strongly push the notion that the silver frames are assigned to artifacts on the basis of their card type, not casting cost. As a non-artifact Walking Atlas would break that precedent, and as an orphan (the only one of its ilk) and a Limited-relevant common, no less, in a small set just seems sloppy.
The fact that the consensus on this forum tends to believe, or at least hope, that this is a mistake should show how bad a move this, if intentional, would be.
Then I guess I'm not sure what, if anything, is broken about the current system. What struck me about the recent wave of staff additions was how it took many users by surprise, as it seemed to be out of the ordinary. I wouldn't want to change the current system of Moderators choosing Moderators, or to open up Moderators to community recall elections or anything of the sort, but I think that the general process of selecting Moderators ought to be more formalized and regular, moving away from selecting to fill vacancies and towards selecting for the long-term health of the community.
I'll admit that I'm not the most vocally active member on here—far from it—but I take a keen interest in the game and the forums and MTGS community, as any number of Moderators could likely attest to from my frequent reporting of posts. (I'm certain I've reported far more posts than I've ever made.)
Not quite - in the time since I became involved in moderation here, there have been two high level, eyebrow raising "firings". And at least four more that didn't draw so much attention. I don't consider it tactful to name names, so I won't be doing that. But just saying, it happens. People do get dropped when they are performing poorly for whatever reason.
Oh yes, I realize that. I know there's been some high-profile changes now and again, but that's the exception, not the rule. I'm not advocating for the removal of anyone or any presumption of poor performance by anyone newly added to staff, I'm just suggesting that by introducing some schedule or cycle into the process, it could give the process some more buy-in.
One of the shortcomings of the current system, in my view, is that the position of Moderator is essentially a "for life" position. I'd suggest that a designated time twice annually, say in April and October, a board to allow applications be opened up to fill any vacancies. Sitting Administrators, Global Moderators and senior Moderators within a subforum would continue to choose their new membership, as is the case today. Any Moderators chosen would hold the position for a preassigned length of time, and could of course apply for reappointment or for another forum. Only after a set number of reappointments (2 or 3 maybe), the position would become theirs presumptively.
By standardizing the cycle, there would be greater predictability and accountability (or at least the appearance thereof). In working on a college publication in which there was necessarily turnover, a system like this helped to ensure continuity since 1868.
Maybe it's the English teacher in me (or the Bostonian), but that word "wicked" is curious here. Sure, black creatures tend to be bad, vile, wicked, but does anyone think that the choice of adjective here might be portentious?
That's true, MaRo did go to college in Boston, IIRC.
Correct. B would not, as B is not an opponent of himself. C and D would not because they are outside of A's range of influence.
Ninj'edit: 'nathed.
I think the effect is controlled by player A, so, despite the fact that's it's player B's turn, only players A and E would draw.
True. But then the trick is doing it without it feeling tooo too much like equipment. Which is kinda why the Zendikons work so well.
Radioactive Awesomeness 1W
Enchantment–Aura
Enchant Creature
Enchanted creature gets +1/+1 and gains First Strike.
If ~ is put into a graveyard from play, put two +1/+1 counters on the creature it last enchanted.
My money's on it not being any intentional foreshadowing, but much more likely something that slipped through because they had been spending too much time working with colorless non-artifacts in RoE.
Methinks you hit the nail right on the head.
The fact that the consensus on this forum tends to believe, or at least hope, that this is a mistake should show how bad a move this, if intentional, would be.
I'll admit that I'm not the most vocally active member on here—far from it—but I take a keen interest in the game and the forums and MTGS community, as any number of Moderators could likely attest to from my frequent reporting of posts. (I'm certain I've reported far more posts than I've ever made.)
Oh yes, I realize that. I know there's been some high-profile changes now and again, but that's the exception, not the rule. I'm not advocating for the removal of anyone or any presumption of poor performance by anyone newly added to staff, I'm just suggesting that by introducing some schedule or cycle into the process, it could give the process some more buy-in.
By standardizing the cycle, there would be greater predictability and accountability (or at least the appearance thereof). In working on a college publication in which there was necessarily turnover, a system like this helped to ensure continuity since 1868.
That's true, MaRo did go to college in Boston, IIRC.
I'll believe it.