That is well and fine, except for one small thing: Adding the snow type changes its abilities due to the inherent nature of snow mana. Because the mana produced by the proposed snow duals can be used to activate abilities that require snow-mana ( S ) specifically, they are functionally different from a similar dual land that is not snow.
Edit: Just to clarify, the Legendary Supertype does not change the nature of a cards abilities, the Snow Supertype however alters the way mana production functions by giving it a new and additional characteristic. (Thank you Coldsnap!).
I'm not arguing that snow doesn't affect how the card plays. I'm arguing that the definition of "functionally identical" laid out by WotC in their official reprint policy is the same type and subtypes. "Land - Island Swamp" has the same type and subtypes as "Snow Land - Island Swamp." A strict reading of the definition laid out in the RL says that the cards would be functionally identical in WotC's eyes. To the best of my knowledge everything WotC has publicly communicated about the RL in recent years has been doubling down on it (removing the premium card loophole after FTV: Relics, saying that they won't violate the "spirit" of the RL after Reverberate), which doesn't make me think that they're going to take a looser approach here. If there's something I'm unaware of, please let me know. I like to think I'm pretty up to date on the RL policy.
Also, to be incredibly nitpicky and pedantic, the snow supertype doesn't change the way an ability functions. Island and snow-covered island have the exact same ability and only that ability. The fact that snow costs care about the source of the mana doesn't change the ability. It gives the land a characteristic in the same way that adding legendary to a creature gives it a characteristic that carries some rules baggage and lets it interact with a subset of cards. That's the point of supertypes. If a legendary Thunder Spirit would be violating the RL, snow duals would be violating the RL.
I'm honestly not trying to bash the idea of snow duals. If WotC is willing to print them, I hope we get the announcement tomorrow. I just don't see anything in any of their public facing communications that suggests it's likely and one twitter thread with MaRo talking about them doesn't indicate a policy shift to me.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[Pr]Jaya | Estrid | A rotating cast of decks built out of my box.
I'm thinking the "snow restriction" may not be as much of a restriction as people are speculating. What if the new duals read, "___ ETBT if you control another snow permanent." That way the new duals are almost effecivealy legendary if you're playing a high number of these new snow duals, but enter untapped on turn 1. These proposed duals would alter legacy manabases but would be funtionally similar enough to real duals that legacy could still function, even if they did end up banning RL cards in legacy.
Edit: or "ETBT unless you reveal a snow permanent from your hand."
That is well and fine, except for one small thing: Adding the snow type changes its abilities due to the inherent nature of snow mana. Because the mana produced by the proposed snow duals can be used to activate abilities that require snow-mana ( S ) specifically, they are functionally different from a similar dual land that is not snow.
Edit: Just to clarify, the Legendary Supertype does not change the nature of a cards abilities, the Snow Supertype however alters the way mana production functions by giving it a new and additional characteristic. (Thank you Coldsnap!).
I'm not arguing that snow doesn't affect how the card plays. I'm arguing that the definition of "functionally identical" laid out by WotC in their official reprint policy is the same type and subtypes. "Land - Island Swamp" has the same type and subtypes as "Snow Land - Island Swamp." A strict reading of the definition laid out in the RL says that the cards would be functionally identical in WotC's eyes. To the best of my knowledge everything WotC has publicly communicated about the RL in recent years has been doubling down on it (removing the premium card loophole after FTV: Relics, saying that they won't violate the "spirit" of the RL after Reverberate), which doesn't make me think that they're going to take a looser approach here. If there's something I'm unaware of, please let me know. I like to think I'm pretty up to date on the RL policy.
Also, to be incredibly nitpicky and pedantic, the snow supertype doesn't change the way an ability functions. Island and snow-covered island have the exact same ability and only that ability. The fact that snow costs care about the source of the mana doesn't change the ability. It gives the land a characteristic in the same way that adding legendary to a creature gives it a characteristic that carries some rules baggage and lets it interact with a subset of cards. That's the point of supertypes. If a legendary Thunder Spirit would be violating the RL, snow duals would be violating the RL.
I'm honestly not trying to bash the idea of snow duals. If WotC is willing to print them, I hope we get the announcement tomorrow. I just don't see anything in any of their public facing communications that suggests it's likely and one twitter thread with MaRo talking about them doesn't indicate a policy shift to me.
Except a Snow Land and a Nonsnow land are functionally different. One can be used to activate Boreal Centaur's ability, the other can not. That makes them by definition functionally different. It is the same if the mana came with a restriction that it could only be used to pay for certain things (such as the difference between the mana produced by Thran Turbine compared to Sol Ring.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It's about time for the reserved list to die, for the sake of Vintage and Legacy (And Commander).
According to Maro's discussion, the fact he asks for drawbacks on snow duals implies the snow supertype isn't enough not to violate the RL policy. Otherwise he wouldn't mind going deeper on that topic.
What Weebo tries to say is : yes in Wonderland, you can play lawyers with your "snow" technicality and convince it's okay to print Snow Taiga. But in the Real world, lawyers would laugh at you and say "no sir, you cannot, how dare you". Weebo might be wrong as he stated, but I tend to agree with him on this.
It's very sneaky to approach reprints with the snow or legendary key words as the only difference. Changing the color pie is already less awkward (e.g. the 2 spirits quoted above), and to be honest, it really doesn't change the value of crappy cards when you reprint a very close version of them. Here, we're talking about some of the rarest and most played cards in the RL !
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Pioneer - A bunch of stuff Modern - Humans Legacy - Grixis Phoenix / Death & Taxes
According to Maro's discussion, the fact he asks for drawbacks on snow duals implies the snow supertype isn't enough not to violate the RL policy. Otherwise he wouldn't mind going deeper on that topic.
What Weebo tries to say is : yes in Wonderland, you can play lawyers with your "snow" technicality and convince it's okay to print Snow Taiga. But in the Real world, lawyers would laugh at you and say "no sir, you cannot, how dare you". Weebo might be wrong as he stated, but I tend to agree with him on this.
It's very sneaky to approach reprints with the snow or legendary key words as the only difference. Changing the color pie is already less awkward (e.g. the 2 spirits quoted above), and to be honest, it really doesn't change the value of crappy cards when you reprint a very close version of them. Here, we're talking about some of the rarest and most played cards in the RL !
It's not that they aren't different enough (they are), it is that the original duals, or similar cards are to powerful for Standard.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It's about time for the reserved list to die, for the sake of Vintage and Legacy (And Commander).
You're not replying to what I was stating though. One argument I can read on this topic is the "snow" mechanic is enough of a difference because some cards make use of it. But Captain Sisay (and possibly future printed cards) could search for a legendary land. So what's the technical/legal difference between Legendary and Snow here ? Both can be interacted with because of their supertype. It makes no sense to pretend Snow is different enough from Legendary, so Wizards can print Snow Taiga in a glimpse. Neither of these supertypes are enough actually, this is real life. That's precisely why Maro has led the discussion towards acceptable drawbacks for legacy standards.
You can fight over technical differences here and finally be right, but reality is that the legal threshold from where Wizards can print dual lands lies above the supertype discussion. It doesn't mean that, on top of a real drawback, those lands wouldn't be Snow and/or Legendary.
Besides, you stipulate it would be too good in standard, but it's not a relevant point, hopefully. Those lands would be printed in Commander, Conspiracy or whatever pack that does not concern the standard environment anyway.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Pioneer - A bunch of stuff Modern - Humans Legacy - Grixis Phoenix / Death & Taxes
You're not replying to what I was stating though. One argument I can read on this topic is the "snow" mechanic is enough of a difference because some cards make use of it. But Captain Sisay (and possibly future printed cards) could search for a legendary land. So what's the technical/legal difference between Legendary and Snow here ? Both can be interacted with because of their supertype. It makes no sense to pretend Snow is different enough from Legendary, so Wizards can print Snow Taiga in a glimpse. Neither of these supertypes are enough actually, this is real life. That's precisely why Maro has led the discussion towards acceptable drawbacks for legacy standards.
You can fight over technical differences here and finally be right, but reality is that the legal threshold from where Wizards can print dual lands lies above the supertype discussion. It doesn't mean that, on top of a real drawback, those lands wouldn't be Snow and/or Legendary.
Besides, you stipulate it would be too good in standard, but it's not a relevant point, hopefully. Those lands would be printed in Commander, Conspiracy or whatever pack that does not concern the standard environment anyway.
All three current supertypes change the way a card works. Legendary and World both work in a similar way in that you can only have one copy of any given legendary card on the battlefield under your control, while World Enchantments effectively destroy any other world enchantments on the battlefield when they enter play. Snow in the same way fundamentally changes the interactions the card in question has. The mana from snow permanents can be used to activate abilities that require the snow symbol (S), while a the mana from a non-snow permanent can not. THAT MAKES THE CARDS FUNCTIONALLY DIFFERENT, which was the entire point of the discussion. In addition other cards with the Snow Supertype are affected by cards that care about said supertype (such as Rimescale Dragon and Rimefeather Owl), while nonsnow permanents do not. I reiterate, the Snow Supertype makes a card functionally different from a card that lacks the supertype. Which fulfills the requirements stated by the reserved list in regards to similarity.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It's about time for the reserved list to die, for the sake of Vintage and Legacy (And Commander).
You're not replying to what I was stating though. One argument I can read on this topic is the "snow" mechanic is enough of a difference because some cards make use of it. But Captain Sisay (and possibly future printed cards) could search for a legendary land. So what's the technical/legal difference between Legendary and Snow here ? Both can be interacted with because of their supertype. It makes no sense to pretend Snow is different enough from Legendary, so Wizards can print Snow Taiga in a glimpse. Neither of these supertypes are enough actually, this is real life. That's precisely why Maro has led the discussion towards acceptable drawbacks for legacy standards.
You can fight over technical differences here and finally be right, but reality is that the legal threshold from where Wizards can print dual lands lies above the supertype discussion. It doesn't mean that, on top of a real drawback, those lands wouldn't be Snow and/or Legendary.
Besides, you stipulate it would be too good in standard, but it's not a relevant point, hopefully. Those lands would be printed in Commander, Conspiracy or whatever pack that does not concern the standard environment anyway.
All three current supertypes change the way a card works. Legendary and World both work in a similar way in that you can only have one copy of any given legendary card on the battlefield under your control, while World Enchantments effectively destroy any other world enchantments on the battlefield when they enter play. Snow in the same way fundamentally changes the interactions the card in question has. The mana from snow permanents can be used to activate abilities that require the snow symbol (S), while a the mana from a non-snow permanent can not. THAT MAKES THE CARDS FUNCTIONALLY DIFFERENT, which was the entire point of the discussion. In addition other cards with the Snow Supertype are affected by cards that care about said supertype (such as Rimescale Dragon and Rimefeather Owl), while nonsnow permanents do not. I reiterate, the Snow Supertype makes a card functionally different from a card that lacks the supertype. Which fulfills the requirements stated by the reserved list in regards to similarity.
You are demonstrably incorrect here. You are using an inverse WOTC term, "functionally different" as compared to "functionally identical," and equivocating it with your own definition. The definition for "functionally identical" – and therefore by extension "functionally different" - has already been provided. I will provide it again:
Reserved cards will never be printed again in a functionally identical form. A card is considered functionally identical to another card if it has the same card type, subtypes, abilities, mana cost, power, and toughness.
There is no mention of supertype in their definition. And that's not just quibbling on terms, as supertype has its own section (separate from type and subtype) in the comp rules (see section 205.4). Any lawyer worth their salt would put those two pieces together and make a watertight case that WOTC broke their promise to not print functionally identical cards as those on the reserved list. It doesn't matter what kind of argument you bring about the functionality of the card as it pertains to the game or interaction with other cards. WOTC has defined Snow Taiga as functionally identical to Taiga and therefore cannot print it (see below for proof). If you want to argue it, argue with how WOTC defined functionally identical.
Functional comparison of Taiga / Snow Taiga Card Types - Land / Land (same) Card Subtypes - Mountain & Forest / Mountain & Forest (same) Abilities - T: add R to your mana pool & T: Add G to your mana pool / T: add R to your mana pool & T: Add G to your mana pool (same) Mana Cost - no mana cost / no mana cost (same) Power - N/A / N/A (same) Toughness - N/A / N/A (same) Result of comparison - functionally identical as per WOTC definition
You're not replying to what I was stating though. One argument I can read on this topic is the "snow" mechanic is enough of a difference because some cards make use of it. But Captain Sisay (and possibly future printed cards) could search for a legendary land. So what's the technical/legal difference between Legendary and Snow here ? Both can be interacted with because of their supertype. It makes no sense to pretend Snow is different enough from Legendary, so Wizards can print Snow Taiga in a glimpse. Neither of these supertypes are enough actually, this is real life. That's precisely why Maro has led the discussion towards acceptable drawbacks for legacy standards.
You can fight over technical differences here and finally be right, but reality is that the legal threshold from where Wizards can print dual lands lies above the supertype discussion. It doesn't mean that, on top of a real drawback, those lands wouldn't be Snow and/or Legendary.
Besides, you stipulate it would be too good in standard, but it's not a relevant point, hopefully. Those lands would be printed in Commander, Conspiracy or whatever pack that does not concern the standard environment anyway.
All three current supertypes change the way a card works. Legendary and World both work in a similar way in that you can only have one copy of any given legendary card on the battlefield under your control, while World Enchantments effectively destroy any other world enchantments on the battlefield when they enter play. Snow in the same way fundamentally changes the interactions the card in question has. The mana from snow permanents can be used to activate abilities that require the snow symbol (S), while a the mana from a non-snow permanent can not. THAT MAKES THE CARDS FUNCTIONALLY DIFFERENT, which was the entire point of the discussion. In addition other cards with the Snow Supertype are affected by cards that care about said supertype (such as Rimescale Dragon and Rimefeather Owl), while nonsnow permanents do not. I reiterate, the Snow Supertype makes a card functionally different from a card that lacks the supertype. Which fulfills the requirements stated by the reserved list in regards to similarity.
You are demonstrably incorrect here. You are using an inverse WOTC term, "functionally different" as compared to "functionally identical," and equivocating it with your own definition. The definition for "functionally identical" – and therefore by extension "functionally different" - has already been provided. I will provide it again:
Reserved cards will never be printed again in a functionally identical form. A card is considered functionally identical to another card if it has the same card type, subtypes, abilities, mana cost, power, and toughness.
There is no mention of supertype in their definition. And that's not just quibbling on terms, as supertype has its own section (separate from type and subtype) in the comp rules (see section 205.4). Any lawyer worth their salt would put those two pieces together and make a watertight case that WOTC broke their promise to not print functionally identical cards as those on the reserved list. It doesn't matter what kind of argument you bring about the functionality of the card as it pertains to the game or interaction with other cards. WOTC has defined Snow Taiga as functionally identical to Taiga and therefore cannot print it (see below for proof). If you want to argue it, argue with how WOTC defined functionally identical.
Functional comparison of Taiga / Snow Taiga Card Types - Land / Land (same) Card Subtypes - Mountain & Forest / Mountain & Forest (same) Abilities - T: add R to your mana pool & T: Add G to your mana pool / T: add R to your mana pool & T: Add G to your mana pool (same) Mana Cost - no mana cost / no mana cost (same) Power - N/A / N/A (same) Toughness - N/A / N/A (same) Result of comparison - functionally identical as per WOTC definition
Except they are still not the same because, and I reiterate, the mana produced is different because of the supertype. Snow mana makes the card functionally different.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It's about time for the reserved list to die, for the sake of Vintage and Legacy (And Commander).
Functional comparison of Taiga / Snow Taiga Card Types - Land / Land (same) Card Subtypes - Mountain & Forest / Mountain & Forest (same) Abilities - T: add R to your mana pool & T: Add G to your mana pool / T: add SR to your mana pool & T: Add SG to your mana pool (notsame) Mana Cost - no mana cost / no mana cost (same) Power - N/A / N/A (same) Toughness - N/A / N/A (same) Result of comparison - functionally identical as per WOTC definition
FTFY
On a side note, I wish we could make the snow mana symbol colored on the forums.
Woahhh... Didn't post this in here to start a semantic argument over the RL. I wanted to discuss the possibility of snow duals being eventually printed and speculate about what drawback would be attached to those, considering thay can't functionnally reprint RL duals.
THAT is what MaRo was asking about, per say what drawback would make this land cycle playable, even for legacy players.
The RL and everything it implies is a whole different debate.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"De potentia juvenis somniabat, nunc de Mundo somniat..."
Except they are still not the same because, and I reiterate, the mana produced is different because of the supertype. Snow mana makes the card functionally different.
Snow mana is not a type of mana. There is no card that has or can have the ability " : Add to your mana pool." The snow symbol is meaningless in that ability. The symbol has only meaning as part of a cost. The snow symbol does not describe a quality of mana, but a quality of the mana source. What this means is that the mana is not different any more than green mana from Forest and Bayou - they just carry a pointer to their source that other effects can care about.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Planar Chaos was not a mistake neither was it random. You might want to look at it again.
[thread=239793][Game] Level Up - Creature[/thread]
Well, if you look at gatherer, supertypes are listed under the type section. The reserved list was also written before supertypes existed, so snow-covered was a type and legend was a creature type. It was written some time around Mirage block, I think. Supertypes didn't exist until 8th edition. Still, even if you want to argue that, making them gates would work since gate is a subtype even if it's nearly meaningless. You could even make them blah subtype where blah has zero interaction with anything. You could technically even make Thunder Spirit into Thunder Angel. Sure, angels don't really have much support but it's still a new subtype. I doubt anyone cares about limited fodder like that though.
You're not replying to what I was stating though. One argument I can read on this topic is the "snow" mechanic is enough of a difference because some cards make use of it. But Captain Sisay (and possibly future printed cards) could search for a legendary land. So what's the technical/legal difference between Legendary and Snow here ? Both can be interacted with because of their supertype. It makes no sense to pretend Snow is different enough from Legendary, so Wizards can print Snow Taiga in a glimpse. Neither of these supertypes are enough actually, this is real life. That's precisely why Maro has led the discussion towards acceptable drawbacks for legacy standards.
You can fight over technical differences here and finally be right, but reality is that the legal threshold from where Wizards can print dual lands lies above the supertype discussion. It doesn't mean that, on top of a real drawback, those lands wouldn't be Snow and/or Legendary.
Besides, you stipulate it would be too good in standard, but it's not a relevant point, hopefully. Those lands would be printed in Commander, Conspiracy or whatever pack that does not concern the standard environment anyway.
All three current supertypes change the way a card works. Legendary and World both work in a similar way in that you can only have one copy of any given legendary card on the battlefield under your control, while World Enchantments effectively destroy any other world enchantments on the battlefield when they enter play. Snow in the same way fundamentally changes the interactions the card in question has. The mana from snow permanents can be used to activate abilities that require the snow symbol (S), while a the mana from a non-snow permanent can not. THAT MAKES THE CARDS FUNCTIONALLY DIFFERENT, which was the entire point of the discussion. In addition other cards with the Snow Supertype are affected by cards that care about said supertype (such as Rimescale Dragon and Rimefeather Owl), while nonsnow permanents do not. I reiterate, the Snow Supertype makes a card functionally different from a card that lacks the supertype. Which fulfills the requirements stated by the reserved list in regards to similarity.
You are demonstrably incorrect here. You are using an inverse WOTC term, "functionally different" as compared to "functionally identical," and equivocating it with your own definition. The definition for "functionally identical" – and therefore by extension "functionally different" - has already been provided. I will provide it again:
Reserved cards will never be printed again in a functionally identical form. A card is considered functionally identical to another card if it has the same card type, subtypes, abilities, mana cost, power, and toughness.
There is no mention of supertype in their definition. And that's not just quibbling on terms, as supertype has its own section (separate from type and subtype) in the comp rules (see section 205.4). Any lawyer worth their salt would put those two pieces together and make a watertight case that WOTC broke their promise to not print functionally identical cards as those on the reserved list. It doesn't matter what kind of argument you bring about the functionality of the card as it pertains to the game or interaction with other cards. WOTC has defined Snow Taiga as functionally identical to Taiga and therefore cannot print it (see below for proof). If you want to argue it, argue with how WOTC defined functionally identical.
Functional comparison of Taiga / Snow Taiga Card Types - Land / Land (same) Card Subtypes - Mountain & Forest / Mountain & Forest (same) Abilities - T: add R to your mana pool & T: Add G to your mana pool / T: add R to your mana pool & T: Add G to your mana pool (same) Mana Cost - no mana cost / no mana cost (same) Power - N/A / N/A (same) Toughness - N/A / N/A (same) Result of comparison - functionally identical as per WOTC definition
Except they are still not the same because, and I reiterate, the mana produced is different because of the supertype. Snow mana makes the card functionally different.
And you would be wrong. Snow mana is not different mana. Here is a link to Arctic Flats on Gatherer. The text on the card and the Oracle text show the same thing. It produces regular G and regular W. Don't agree with me still? Let's consult the comp rules again:
107.4h The snow mana symbol {S} represents one generic mana in a cost. This generic mana can be paid with one mana of any type produced by a snow permanent (see rule 205.4f). Effects that
reduce the amount of generic mana you pay don’t affect {S} costs. (There is no such thing as “snow mana”; “snow” is not a type of mana.)
Once again, WOTC contradicts your opinion in their official, published document. Snow mana does not exist. There is nothing different about the mana. It is regular mana. Now, the card itself has a unique supertype that allows its mana to be used for a specific purpose, namely, to pay for S. It would be like if WOTC printed a card that had cost "M," where "M" can only be paid with mana produced from lands with artists whose names begin with the letter M. In no way does it change the mana the land produces, but it does limit the number of lands that can pay the cost. It also doesn't make a Mountain whose artist is Mark Tedin functionally different from one whose artist is Cliff Childs, yet both of those Mountains could not pay the cost of the made up card. The artist clearly does not affect gameplay and plays no role in functional equivalency, but my example does demonstrate that a difference in the source of card based on a characteristic that is not defined on the functional equivalency comparison does not affect functional equivalency.
Functional comparison of Taiga / Snow Taiga Card Types - Land / Land (same) Card Subtypes - Mountain & Forest / Mountain & Forest (same) Abilities - T: add R to your mana pool & T: Add G to your mana pool / T: add SR to your mana pool & T: Add SG to your mana pool (notsame) Mana Cost - no mana cost / no mana cost (same) Power - N/A / N/A (same) Toughness - N/A / N/A (same) Result of comparison - functionally identical as per WOTC definition
FTFY
On a side note, I wish we could make the snow mana symbol colored on the forums.
I've always been a fan of the "legendary" clause in the potential Dual reprints: if it was a Snow Legend, then we'd be getting two functional differences: while both are minor, they'd add up together.
If you had duals enter the battlefield tapped only when fetched they would be UNPLAYABLE in legacy, as they would be strictly worse then the fetch dual manabases that exist in legacy right now. You also wouldn't see people cut fetchlands for the new duals because fetches give a lot of cards in legacy their power like brainstorm, ponder, top, etc. etc. as well as fetchlands being able to fetch any color of mana in a deck whereas an underground sea in your hand can only tap for UB but not the R you need to cast past in flames, young pyromancer, lightning bolt, etc. etc.
The most simple way to get snow duals through would be to revise the reserved list to include supertype, as such a change would make snow duals with no drawbacks easy as **** to print because snow land is functionally different from land if supertype is included in the functionally identical clause. The best part is that no one can do anything about it lawsuit wise, as the list has been revised many times before with no lawsuits occurring.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Yawgmoth," Freyalise whispered as she set the bomb, "now you will pay for your treachery."
So, what if they added "t: add to your mana pool" to the duals and put this problem to bed forever? Obviously, no one's complained about printing superior versions of reserved list cards in the past. It just might make people sick of Matter Reshaper and Thought-Knot Seer.
I've always been a fan of the "legendary" clause in the potential Dual reprints: if it was a Snow Legend, then we'd be getting two functional differences: while both are minor, they'd add up together.
There's just one problem with legendary dual lands, and it's a huuuuge one. Karakas makes them all but unplayable.
That's not correct. karakas only bounces legendary creatures. Now if they were animated legendary lands...... genju of the realm, it would be a different story.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
pucatrade
big receipts
alpha mox emerald
beta time walk
4 goyfs received
3 liliana of the veil
4 karn liberated
3 force of will
4 grove of the burnwillows
snapcaster mage
3 horizon canopy
2 full art damnation
If adding snow to ABU duals would sufficiently sidestep the Reserve List, then what'd stop 'em from printing a Snow Black Lotus, Snow Moxen, etc.? What about Time Walk with Arcane?
What about something like:
Picky Tundra
Land - Plains Island (T: Add W or U to your mana pool.)
Mana produced by Picky Tundra can't be used to pay generic mana costs.
If adding snow to ABU duals would sufficiently sidestep the Reserve List, then what'd stop 'em from printing a Snow Black Lotus, Snow Moxen, etc.? What about Time Walk with Arcane?
What about something like:
Picky Tundra
Land - Plains Island (T: Add W or U to your mana pool.)
Mana produced by Picky Tundra can't be used to pay generic mana costs.
The reserved list isn't preventing them from printing absurdly broken cards that resemble card on the reserve list. The fact that they would be broken does. The reserve list stops two 'real' things. First, the thing people want, over powered reprints such as original dual lands. Second a few interesting limited fodder cards that would too closely resemble reserved list cards like Thunder Spirit. If they wanted they could print cards that are significantly stronger than reserved list cards obsoleting them without violating the list. However, they have no interest in printing new cards that are knowingly broken. Almost everyone knows and accepts this, thus they argue for getting rid of the list or working around it in some reasonable way.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That comment leaves me to believe the land he has in mind will enter untapped from your hand but tapped if it enters from your deck when you fetch.
Also, to be incredibly nitpicky and pedantic, the snow supertype doesn't change the way an ability functions. Island and snow-covered island have the exact same ability and only that ability. The fact that snow costs care about the source of the mana doesn't change the ability. It gives the land a characteristic in the same way that adding legendary to a creature gives it a characteristic that carries some rules baggage and lets it interact with a subset of cards. That's the point of supertypes. If a legendary Thunder Spirit would be violating the RL, snow duals would be violating the RL.
I'm honestly not trying to bash the idea of snow duals. If WotC is willing to print them, I hope we get the announcement tomorrow. I just don't see anything in any of their public facing communications that suggests it's likely and one twitter thread with MaRo talking about them doesn't indicate a policy shift to me.
Edit: Oh hey page 2.
Edit: or "ETBT unless you reveal a snow permanent from your hand."
Except a Snow Land and a Nonsnow land are functionally different. One can be used to activate Boreal Centaur's ability, the other can not. That makes them by definition functionally different. It is the same if the mana came with a restriction that it could only be used to pay for certain things (such as the difference between the mana produced by Thran Turbine compared to Sol Ring.)
---
Numquam evolutioni obstes. Solum conculceris.
Pascite draconem, evolvite aut morimini.
What Weebo tries to say is : yes in Wonderland, you can play lawyers with your "snow" technicality and convince it's okay to print Snow Taiga. But in the Real world, lawyers would laugh at you and say "no sir, you cannot, how dare you". Weebo might be wrong as he stated, but I tend to agree with him on this.
It's very sneaky to approach reprints with the snow or legendary key words as the only difference. Changing the color pie is already less awkward (e.g. the 2 spirits quoted above), and to be honest, it really doesn't change the value of crappy cards when you reprint a very close version of them. Here, we're talking about some of the rarest and most played cards in the RL !
That would actually be a cool condition for a dual land.
It's not that they aren't different enough (they are), it is that the original duals, or similar cards are to powerful for Standard.
---
Numquam evolutioni obstes. Solum conculceris.
Pascite draconem, evolvite aut morimini.
You can fight over technical differences here and finally be right, but reality is that the legal threshold from where Wizards can print dual lands lies above the supertype discussion. It doesn't mean that, on top of a real drawback, those lands wouldn't be Snow and/or Legendary.
Besides, you stipulate it would be too good in standard, but it's not a relevant point, hopefully. Those lands would be printed in Commander, Conspiracy or whatever pack that does not concern the standard environment anyway.
All three current supertypes change the way a card works. Legendary and World both work in a similar way in that you can only have one copy of any given legendary card on the battlefield under your control, while World Enchantments effectively destroy any other world enchantments on the battlefield when they enter play. Snow in the same way fundamentally changes the interactions the card in question has. The mana from snow permanents can be used to activate abilities that require the snow symbol (S), while a the mana from a non-snow permanent can not. THAT MAKES THE CARDS FUNCTIONALLY DIFFERENT, which was the entire point of the discussion. In addition other cards with the Snow Supertype are affected by cards that care about said supertype (such as Rimescale Dragon and Rimefeather Owl), while nonsnow permanents do not. I reiterate, the Snow Supertype makes a card functionally different from a card that lacks the supertype. Which fulfills the requirements stated by the reserved list in regards to similarity.
---
Numquam evolutioni obstes. Solum conculceris.
Pascite draconem, evolvite aut morimini.
You are demonstrably incorrect here. You are using an inverse WOTC term, "functionally different" as compared to "functionally identical," and equivocating it with your own definition. The definition for "functionally identical" – and therefore by extension "functionally different" - has already been provided. I will provide it again:
There is no mention of supertype in their definition. And that's not just quibbling on terms, as supertype has its own section (separate from type and subtype) in the comp rules (see section 205.4). Any lawyer worth their salt would put those two pieces together and make a watertight case that WOTC broke their promise to not print functionally identical cards as those on the reserved list. It doesn't matter what kind of argument you bring about the functionality of the card as it pertains to the game or interaction with other cards. WOTC has defined Snow Taiga as functionally identical to Taiga and therefore cannot print it (see below for proof). If you want to argue it, argue with how WOTC defined functionally identical.
Functional comparison of Taiga / Snow Taiga
Card Types - Land / Land (same)
Card Subtypes - Mountain & Forest / Mountain & Forest (same)
Abilities - T: add R to your mana pool & T: Add G to your mana pool / T: add R to your mana pool & T: Add G to your mana pool (same)
Mana Cost - no mana cost / no mana cost (same)
Power - N/A / N/A (same)
Toughness - N/A / N/A (same)
Result of comparison - functionally identical as per WOTC definition
Except they are still not the same because, and I reiterate, the mana produced is different because of the supertype. Snow mana makes the card functionally different.
---
Numquam evolutioni obstes. Solum conculceris.
Pascite draconem, evolvite aut morimini.
FTFY
On a side note, I wish we could make the snow mana symbol colored on the forums.
THAT is what MaRo was asking about, per say what drawback would make this land cycle playable, even for legacy players.
The RL and everything it implies is a whole different debate.
Snow mana is not a type of mana. There is no card that has or can have the ability " : Add to your mana pool." The snow symbol is meaningless in that ability. The symbol has only meaning as part of a cost. The snow symbol does not describe a quality of mana, but a quality of the mana source. What this means is that the mana is not different any more than green mana from Forest and Bayou - they just carry a pointer to their source that other effects can care about.
Finally a good white villain quote: "So, do I ever re-evaluate my life choices? Never, because I know what I'm doing is a righteous cause."
Factions: Sleeping
Remnants: Valheim
Legendary Journey: Heroes & Planeswalkers
Saga: Shards of Rabiah
Legends: The Elder Dragons
Read up on Red Flags & NWO
And you would be wrong. Snow mana is not different mana. Here is a link to Arctic Flats on Gatherer. The text on the card and the Oracle text show the same thing. It produces regular G and regular W. Don't agree with me still? Let's consult the comp rules again:
Once again, WOTC contradicts your opinion in their official, published document. Snow mana does not exist. There is nothing different about the mana. It is regular mana. Now, the card itself has a unique supertype that allows its mana to be used for a specific purpose, namely, to pay for S. It would be like if WOTC printed a card that had cost "M," where "M" can only be paid with mana produced from lands with artists whose names begin with the letter M. In no way does it change the mana the land produces, but it does limit the number of lands that can pay the cost. It also doesn't make a Mountain whose artist is Mark Tedin functionally different from one whose artist is Cliff Childs, yet both of those Mountains could not pay the cost of the made up card. The artist clearly does not affect gameplay and plays no role in functional equivalency, but my example does demonstrate that a difference in the source of card based on a characteristic that is not defined on the functional equivalency comparison does not affect functional equivalency.
See my post above ^^.
The most simple way to get snow duals through would be to revise the reserved list to include supertype, as such a change would make snow duals with no drawbacks easy as **** to print because snow land is functionally different from land if supertype is included in the functionally identical clause. The best part is that no one can do anything about it lawsuit wise, as the list has been revised many times before with no lawsuits occurring.
Currently Playing:
Retired
That's not correct. karakas only bounces legendary creatures. Now if they were animated legendary lands...... genju of the realm, it would be a different story.
pucatrade
big receipts
alpha mox emerald
beta time walk
4 goyfs received
3 liliana of the veil
4 karn liberated
3 force of will
4 grove of the burnwillows
snapcaster mage
3 horizon canopy
2 full art damnation
Currently Playing:
Retired
What about something like:
Picky Tundra
Land - Plains Island
(T: Add W or U to your mana pool.)
Mana produced by Picky Tundra can't be used to pay generic mana costs.