Don't normally have trouble, this just funny because he wouldn't actually have lost that much...I mean if I hit swung, he'd get one of mine, and then the next turn or two he'd get back the bloodghasts
This looks more like a vampire deck than a MBC control deck. Bloodghast can't block, and has no evasion, or useful abilities, and even dealing 2 damage a turn isn't going to do much.
I'm not saying it's a bad deck, in fact vampires is an excellent deck. Just that it's not really control. A control deck would have duress, probably the new Urge to Feed, and fewer creatures. Also bone splinters isn't all that useful, since it's a sorcery and requires a sac (as opposed to innocent blood), so best case you're playing it turn 3 with bloodghast (when infest/smother/urge to feed/gatekeeper would do the same job), worst case your board is empty and you're staring down a big creature.
Phyrexian arena (stupid flavour, also doesn't really make sense out of context, how does an arena make you smarter? Pox (Durrrr, I r neobie buying 1st cards, yay! my rare loks cooooool! wat do? *brain hemorrhage*) Imp's Mischief (not unreasonable for a rare) Damnation/Mutilate (MBC NEEEEEDS a board clearer, infest just doesn't beat Jund) Cruel Edict/Innocent Blood
Just wanna say the list is circulating again, I found it in a thread on /b/. It's definitely a real threat, 90% of the usernames I checked are one this site too.
And people are at risk for sure, I know a lot of people use the same password for everything, and a lot of the passwords listed look incredibly weak (a LOT of 123456s)
Just wanna say the list is circulating again, I found it in a thread on /b/. It's definitely a real threat, 90% of the usernames I checked are one this site too.
And people are at risk for sure, I know a lot of people use the same password for everything, and a lot of the passwords listed look incredibly weak (a LOT of 123456s)
now, here it is a nice Mythic rare cycle for you guys. How much do you think thes[e] duals would cost?
Well, first off, not all legends have to be mythic.
Second, I'd say 15-20CAN, about as much as a RAV duel. It's a legendary land, so you wouldn't want to play it as a 4 of, at most 3, probably 2. Second, it only goes in decks that run both white and black.
Finally, I don't think anything like that would be printed. There'd be more or less on it, that's just a really boring card. If it had a land type then it could be 25-30
EDIT: Here's my biggest gripe with the whole thing, the way they described it in the article. They really need to realize that the people they want to attract with these changes don't read the website as much. The ones that do read the site come in two flavours:
1. People who take what they say as the word of god, they could say anything they want and it would be the best thing to happen to the game (I almost fall in this camp, I reserve judgment until I see reason)
2. People who hate everything and never believe what they say.
SO what they should have done is given the real reason for these changes. The real thought processes behind it, how much planning, testing, experimenting, different options etc they did. This would have satisfied a lot more people I think.
I don't think there will be any cards of obscene power slipping through the cracks.
Why? Because they will be the cards tested to death. They know what would happen if they released a goyf as mythic. So what will they do? spend the time they save testing from the smaller sets into Mythics. They don't have to sift through 60 or so rares at a time, they have 10-15.
Alright, after reading through ALL 26 pages, and the article, and understand all the math, I think I'm pretty well versed to comment.
First of all, people need to stop looking at past sets trying to figure out what would be mythics. Put simply, sets in the future will be designed differently. A mythics spell will have a clear reason to be so. They will be planeswalkers, big flashy story creatures, and spells that change the way the current match is being played (think global enchantments).
Next thing about mythics (and I think this should be the way to refer to them)
is ignore other games. Period. Imagine if magic was the only card game in the world. Now imagine that out of no where they invented a new rarity for their 3 rarity game, what would you do? Would it be so obscene if they were introducing something different? I don't think so, people hate it because it's "the same" as other games (proven wrong as well), not because they hate the change.
My last comment on mythics is READ THE MATH and don't comment unless you understand. They aren't going to be twice as hard to get as a mutavault now, they're going to be twice as rare as the new rares, which will be 25% easier to get. These cards are going to be no more than 50% more expensive than if they were printed now. And I have a simple solution to if the cards get up too high: Don't Buy Them. most people aren't going to pay 40-50+ for a card, and the vendors will notice, especially on eBay. Having a card worth 50$ in stock isn't so great if it would sell twice as many copies at 30 or 35.
Next is the land issue. I understand it, but I don't really like it. I've had land issues, I've had friends with land issues, I know they happen. But to get 20 of your favourite land, you'd need to buy 100 or so packs. That's just an unreasonable number (I know it's not exact, but it's still a lot. I think what would be better would be have a print run have only one land, and that whole run packaged in packs that mark the type of land on the front, and then randomly sort those into boxes (or in a certain number per box). Heck [ALA] would have been a perfect set to do it, imagine the centre shard always being different, it would have solved the focus issue, and been a clear mark of the land inside. This would actually encourage people to buy packs for the land. Let's say you just finished with your first deck, and want to add a colour to it. You have some cool cards, but need 10 more forests. You could go to a shop and ask for 10 green packs, suddenly you have the land you need, cool cards for your deck, and the store (and wizards by extension) sold 10 packs.
Now onto the draft aspect. I think people are making too much of it, the smaller set sizes will mean less chaff to fill spots. One example that springs to mind is one triple rav draft I did, I keep my packs separate after picking, to make counting easier, and at the end of the draft I flipped up Zephyr Spirit as my forced card. That's right, I'd been last picked the same card 3 times in a row. I'm not saying every common will be a Mulldrifter with the new sizes, but it does mean fewer things like that. The smaller set size also means it'll be easier for the FFL to test cards, more test times means fewer skullclamps, Jitte, goyfs, and the mythics will be better balanced so they won't kill your pockets.
The new set sizes also mean that (assuming they keep up the 3 set block+core+4 set block system for releases) standard will be back to 1500 cards of the past instead of the 2000 it's at now, the exact reason I'm not playing. I missed the last 2 blocks for school, so I can't see how I can catch up now.
Finally, the theme decks. This just confuses me, I don't get 41, such a random number. My guess is it's going to be used for a new limited format for (pre-?)releases. I don't really care, but that may be because the only pre-con I ever bought was the bait and bludgeon affinity deck.
Edit: WALL OF TEXXXXXXXTTTTTTTTT
Edit2: This should be required reading from now on before commenting on mythic rares
Edit3: @plaguezombie: thanks, that's what I meant...I had to wake up at 5 am for work, not my fault, honest! (for the record, I had it as mystic instead of mythic for pretty much my entire post)
Everything posted is great, I've played most of it, and pokemon is always awesome (I just hate how kiddie game it is, I'm way to old to be seen enjoying it).
Other games that I'd suggest are Lost in Blue 1,2 and maybe 3, I haven't tried it yet. They tend to get bad reviews because they aren't very intuitive, repetitive, and damn hard sometimes. But if you like the survival stuff in it, and just the free roaming exploration, it might be worth looking into.
Also, get Ouendan before you get Elite Beat Agents. Ouendan is the original japanese version (you really don't need to read the plot), and sounds a lot better, unless you really like old rock and new pop songs
I would also suggest getting a flash cart (people called it a "mod") it does absolutely nothing the DS. I'm not advocating downloading games illegally, that's wrong and morally objectionable. What it's good for is homebrew. Basically people are out there writing games and applications for the DS and they've made some really impressive advances. They've got Linux (it's kinda useless...), about a half dozen web browsers (plus 2 text based ones in linux), MSN, media players (most audio and specially converted video).
Most awesomely, games/ports/and emulators. Right now they've got Lemmings, Quake, Doom, Quake 2 (needs extra memory, either the official opera expansion, or a 3 party one). And one of my favourites, ScummVM, which lets you play the awesome Lucas Arts adventure games like Day of the Tentacle and Sam and Max. And yes, these are all perfectly legal things as long as you own the original games, which you can buy dirt cheap or use the demo versions (for quake 1 and 2).
I've got one and it's one of the best DS accessories you can get. It can total less than 50$ if you get a cheap one and can get cheap µSD cards. Mine stuff is about 100 cause I went for a better flash cartridge, 3rd party expansion card, and stupid Canada gouges on SD cards.
But remember, illegal game downloading is wrong and should never be done.
Normally I am suspicious of any <System> Player Lost messages, but I have seen this happen before, both to my opponent and to myself. If there is a connection error, access violation error, etc. at the beginning of the game, it can sometime appear that the other person is still there for a while. Other people have thought that I was still around when I wasn't, and I have thought the same of opponents. I only discovered
this after talking with some of the other frequent users.
95% of the time that it's a genuine disconnect, it's because of an error caused by the first card being played, I have yet to figure out what it is, but it happens to me, and mostly to my opponents. First card goes down, I hear the noise the card makes as it's played, then there an error whenever I touch anything.
So if I had to guess, the opponent played a card before rolling, and it just happened to crash his games
I think the best argument for BtQ only having one cost is if they do have all the costs, they're limited to the costs they can make. Assuming they don't wanna go over 20 for erratic explosion/riddle of lightning reasons , or printing any card in the future that does such a thing.
Do the math and you can see it gets ridiculous really quickly, 4 {2/C} makes 30, {2/C}{2/C}{3/C} makes 26, so basically they have 1{4/C}{4/C} and under and 1{2/C}{2/C}{2/C} and under to work with, talk about limiting design space, you can never have more than 3 hybrid alternate costs
Of course again, maybe wizards doesn't care about giving draco explosion a new toy, cause I don't think it's a massive deck at the moment
No, something cannot be "part" colorless. Either it has a color (and is not colorless) or it does not have a color (and is colorless). Beseech the Queen has a color... black, therefore, it is not colorless, not in part, not in whole, even if you pay to play it.
Your can't be 4/5 argument doesn't work. You say that split cards are special, but this card is indeed special, too. There's no reason NOT to put it in the same group as split cards, since they have a lot of similarities (for one, being able to pay different costs). Imagine this card:
Shock
Deal 2 damage to target creature or player.
/////////
Shock
Deal 2 damage to target creature or player.
Now, what would be a better way to word that? With {2/R} as a mana symbol.
Its cost is NEVER 18.... it's 3 or 4 or 5 or 6, which is different. Research//Development's CMC is 2 and 5, not 7.
I bet you're right about the whole thing, I just want to have a fun debate and I do like my ideas and keeping discussion open :p.
I don't agree that BtQ has more than one cost. It's not split. your spell has two costs R and 2, while the hybrid one has 1 cost {2/R}. Does that make sense?
Edit: also, my can't be 4 or 5 doesn't mention split cards, could you explain a little more? I is confused
This is rediculous in so many ways. First off, if they had meant for you to never be able to play it for :6mana:, they would have made the cost {2/B}{2/B}B, so that you wouldn't have that choice. Second, Golgari Guildmage is black and green because it has black and green in the casting cost, not because of what you CAN pay for it. A card cannot be colorless unless it is without color. Any card with a colored symbol in the top right is not colorless. Also, you don't get the CMC of a card by taking the number of symbols, you get it by taking the mana cost of a spell and converting it to a number.
I shouldn't have used "can pay" (I know that's not how the rules work, see reason 2), I just meant one way of seeing the casting cost is one colour, but that doesn't get rid of the other. Edit: ugh, it makes sense in my brain, but I can't get it logically on paper. Do at least get what I'm trying to mean?
Yeah, it's not a great proof, and doesn't actually work too well. I didn't mean that you couldn't pay 6, which you obviously can. What I meant was that if 6 was it's only CMC, then it would be part colourless, hence why I don't agree with it's only CMC being 6. (yes I know this makes little to no sense, but right now BtQ doesn't make sense in the rules either)
My argument is based that a card (split cards are special, but this isn't split) can only have 1 CMC, I think my "can't be 4 or 5" argument works (please tell me if there's a flaw and I will look over my *proof*), and that a CMC of 6 would mean that it's casting cost is 6, which would make it part colourless. This is obviously my most flawed argument, but I will still try to get some more logic for it if you find more flaws. So by this aweful logic the only option left is 3
Of course my argument falls apart if it actually does have all 4 CMCs at once, but I find that unlikely (ie you don't chose the one you like best at the time, it's cost is always 18).
Edit: Of course in the end this will all come down to WotC, so right now this is just a fun debate. My second vote goes to a CMC of 7
A card can't be "part colorless," because colorlessness is the absence of color. If there is B in a card's casting cost, that card is black unless its rules text states otherwise, but a card with 2 in its casting cost has never been automatically colorless in the same way.
I think you misunderstood my explanation. Or my explanation didn't make sense (more likely). What I mean is split mana means both, so a guild mage is black and green because you can pay BB, GG, or BG. With BtQ, the important ones are 222 and BBB, since part colourless isn't an option (frame and rules), the CMC cost can never be 6.
My vote is 3 off the stack, and no idea on the stack.
I have a couple of reasonings to back this up, obviously all based on my interpretation of the rulebook.
Reason one - The frame
If this was meant to have a CMC of 6, then the frame would be part colourless. Why? because a B/G hybrid mana card is B and G, so why wouldn't a 2/B be B and colourless? (other than being coloured implies it not being colourless)
Reason two - The Rules
Right now, colour and casting cost has nothing to do with what you pay for it. Paying BB for a golgari guildmage won't make it a black spell or permanent. So this logic narrows it down to 6 and 3 because 5 is a choice you make when paying for the spell, so just like paying BB doesn't make a guildmage just black, it won't make the queen CMC 5 because you can pay 4B. If you reveal a guildmage checking for its colour, you don't get to choose one of it's colours because you can pay BB, GG, or BG, you get a card that is both colours, so it definitely won't cost 4 or 5 because you don't choose, you get either 3 or 6.
Reason three - Simplicity
This one is based on what Wizards does, they try to avoid rules disputes. How do you currently decide CMC off the stack? Number of symbols in the top right (or left side for future shifted) (this counts 4 as 1111). This is how they always tell us to do it. There are 3 symbols in the corner, so it costs 3.
So by my logic it's 3. 1 says it can't be 6 because it's not colourless. 2 says 3 or 6 because you don't chose one cost or the other when you reveal a split mana. And reason 3 is just my guess of what Wizards chose.
Of course this is just me interpreting how things work now, and two is also assuming an effect asks you to reveal an only black card won't accept a guildmage as just black (makes sense though).
Edit: after writing this, I've decided that CMC on the stack will be either 6 or 3 no matter what, so I vote 3 on the stack too cause I think it's 3 everywhere else
I'm not saying it's a bad deck, in fact vampires is an excellent deck. Just that it's not really control. A control deck would have duress, probably the new Urge to Feed, and fewer creatures. Also bone splinters isn't all that useful, since it's a sorcery and requires a sac (as opposed to innocent blood), so best case you're playing it turn 3 with bloodghast (when infest/smother/urge to feed/gatekeeper would do the same job), worst case your board is empty and you're staring down a big creature.
Phyrexian arena (stupid flavour, also doesn't really make sense out of context, how does an arena make you smarter?
Pox (Durrrr, I r neobie buying 1st cards, yay! my rare loks cooooool! wat do? *brain hemorrhage*)
Imp's Mischief (not unreasonable for a rare)
Damnation/Mutilate (MBC NEEEEEDS a board clearer, infest just doesn't beat Jund)
Cruel Edict/Innocent Blood
And people are at risk for sure, I know a lot of people use the same password for everything, and a lot of the passwords listed look incredibly weak (a LOT of 123456s)
And people are at risk for sure, I know a lot of people use the same password for everything, and a lot of the passwords listed look incredibly weak (a LOT of 123456s)
Well, first off, not all legends have to be mythic.
Second, I'd say 15-20CAN, about as much as a RAV duel. It's a legendary land, so you wouldn't want to play it as a 4 of, at most 3, probably 2. Second, it only goes in decks that run both white and black.
Finally, I don't think anything like that would be printed. There'd be more or less on it, that's just a really boring card. If it had a land type then it could be 25-30
EDIT: Here's my biggest gripe with the whole thing, the way they described it in the article. They really need to realize that the people they want to attract with these changes don't read the website as much. The ones that do read the site come in two flavours:
1. People who take what they say as the word of god, they could say anything they want and it would be the best thing to happen to the game (I almost fall in this camp, I reserve judgment until I see reason)
2. People who hate everything and never believe what they say.
SO what they should have done is given the real reason for these changes. The real thought processes behind it, how much planning, testing, experimenting, different options etc they did. This would have satisfied a lot more people I think.
Why? Because they will be the cards tested to death. They know what would happen if they released a goyf as mythic. So what will they do? spend the time they save testing from the smaller sets into Mythics. They don't have to sift through 60 or so rares at a time, they have 10-15.
First of all, people need to stop looking at past sets trying to figure out what would be mythics. Put simply, sets in the future will be designed differently. A mythics spell will have a clear reason to be so. They will be planeswalkers, big flashy story creatures, and spells that change the way the current match is being played (think global enchantments).
Next thing about mythics (and I think this should be the way to refer to them)
is ignore other games. Period. Imagine if magic was the only card game in the world. Now imagine that out of no where they invented a new rarity for their 3 rarity game, what would you do? Would it be so obscene if they were introducing something different? I don't think so, people hate it because it's "the same" as other games (proven wrong as well), not because they hate the change.
My last comment on mythics is READ THE MATH and don't comment unless you understand. They aren't going to be twice as hard to get as a mutavault now, they're going to be twice as rare as the new rares, which will be 25% easier to get. These cards are going to be no more than 50% more expensive than if they were printed now. And I have a simple solution to if the cards get up too high: Don't Buy Them. most people aren't going to pay 40-50+ for a card, and the vendors will notice, especially on eBay. Having a card worth 50$ in stock isn't so great if it would sell twice as many copies at 30 or 35.
Next is the land issue. I understand it, but I don't really like it. I've had land issues, I've had friends with land issues, I know they happen. But to get 20 of your favourite land, you'd need to buy 100 or so packs. That's just an unreasonable number (I know it's not exact, but it's still a lot. I think what would be better would be have a print run have only one land, and that whole run packaged in packs that mark the type of land on the front, and then randomly sort those into boxes (or in a certain number per box). Heck [ALA] would have been a perfect set to do it, imagine the centre shard always being different, it would have solved the focus issue, and been a clear mark of the land inside. This would actually encourage people to buy packs for the land. Let's say you just finished with your first deck, and want to add a colour to it. You have some cool cards, but need 10 more forests. You could go to a shop and ask for 10 green packs, suddenly you have the land you need, cool cards for your deck, and the store (and wizards by extension) sold 10 packs.
Now onto the draft aspect. I think people are making too much of it, the smaller set sizes will mean less chaff to fill spots. One example that springs to mind is one triple rav draft I did, I keep my packs separate after picking, to make counting easier, and at the end of the draft I flipped up Zephyr Spirit as my forced card. That's right, I'd been last picked the same card 3 times in a row. I'm not saying every common will be a Mulldrifter with the new sizes, but it does mean fewer things like that. The smaller set size also means it'll be easier for the FFL to test cards, more test times means fewer skullclamps, Jitte, goyfs, and the mythics will be better balanced so they won't kill your pockets.
The new set sizes also mean that (assuming they keep up the 3 set block+core+4 set block system for releases) standard will be back to 1500 cards of the past instead of the 2000 it's at now, the exact reason I'm not playing. I missed the last 2 blocks for school, so I can't see how I can catch up now.
Finally, the theme decks. This just confuses me, I don't get 41, such a random number. My guess is it's going to be used for a new limited format for (pre-?)releases. I don't really care, but that may be because the only pre-con I ever bought was the bait and bludgeon affinity deck.
Edit: WALL OF TEXXXXXXXTTTTTTTTT
Edit2: This should be required reading from now on before commenting on mythic rares
Edit3: @plaguezombie: thanks, that's what I meant...I had to wake up at 5 am for work, not my fault, honest! (for the record, I had it as mystic instead of mythic for pretty much my entire post)
Other games that I'd suggest are Lost in Blue 1,2 and maybe 3, I haven't tried it yet. They tend to get bad reviews because they aren't very intuitive, repetitive, and damn hard sometimes. But if you like the survival stuff in it, and just the free roaming exploration, it might be worth looking into.
Also, get Ouendan before you get Elite Beat Agents. Ouendan is the original japanese version (you really don't need to read the plot), and sounds a lot better, unless you really like old rock and new pop songs
I would also suggest getting a flash cart (people called it a "mod") it does absolutely nothing the DS. I'm not advocating downloading games illegally, that's wrong and morally objectionable. What it's good for is homebrew. Basically people are out there writing games and applications for the DS and they've made some really impressive advances. They've got Linux (it's kinda useless...), about a half dozen web browsers (plus 2 text based ones in linux), MSN, media players (most audio and specially converted video).
Most awesomely, games/ports/and emulators. Right now they've got Lemmings, Quake, Doom, Quake 2 (needs extra memory, either the official opera expansion, or a 3 party one). And one of my favourites, ScummVM, which lets you play the awesome Lucas Arts adventure games like Day of the Tentacle and Sam and Max. And yes, these are all perfectly legal things as long as you own the original games, which you can buy dirt cheap or use the demo versions (for quake 1 and 2).
I've got one and it's one of the best DS accessories you can get. It can total less than 50$ if you get a cheap one and can get cheap µSD cards. Mine stuff is about 100 cause I went for a better flash cartridge, 3rd party expansion card, and stupid Canada gouges on SD cards.
But remember, illegal game downloading is wrong and should never be done.
95% of the time that it's a genuine disconnect, it's because of an error caused by the first card being played, I have yet to figure out what it is, but it happens to me, and mostly to my opponents. First card goes down, I hear the noise the card makes as it's played, then there an error whenever I touch anything.
So if I had to guess, the opponent played a card before rolling, and it just happened to crash his games
Do the math and you can see it gets ridiculous really quickly, 4 {2/C} makes 30, {2/C}{2/C}{3/C} makes 26, so basically they have 1{4/C}{4/C} and under and 1{2/C}{2/C}{2/C} and under to work with, talk about limiting design space, you can never have more than 3 hybrid alternate costs
Of course again, maybe wizards doesn't care about giving draco explosion a new toy, cause I don't think it's a massive deck at the moment
I bet you're right about the whole thing, I just want to have a fun debate and I do like my ideas and keeping discussion open :p.
I don't agree that BtQ has more than one cost. It's not split. your spell has two costs R and 2, while the hybrid one has 1 cost {2/R}. Does that make sense?
Edit: also, my can't be 4 or 5 doesn't mention split cards, could you explain a little more? I is confused
I shouldn't have used "can pay" (I know that's not how the rules work, see reason 2), I just meant one way of seeing the casting cost is one colour, but that doesn't get rid of the other. Edit: ugh, it makes sense in my brain, but I can't get it logically on paper. Do at least get what I'm trying to mean?
Yeah, it's not a great proof, and doesn't actually work too well. I didn't mean that you couldn't pay 6, which you obviously can. What I meant was that if 6 was it's only CMC, then it would be part colourless, hence why I don't agree with it's only CMC being 6. (yes I know this makes little to no sense, but right now BtQ doesn't make sense in the rules either)
My argument is based that a card (split cards are special, but this isn't split) can only have 1 CMC, I think my "can't be 4 or 5" argument works (please tell me if there's a flaw and I will look over my *proof*), and that a CMC of 6 would mean that it's casting cost is 6, which would make it part colourless. This is obviously my most flawed argument, but I will still try to get some more logic for it if you find more flaws. So by this aweful logic the only option left is 3
Of course my argument falls apart if it actually does have all 4 CMCs at once, but I find that unlikely (ie you don't chose the one you like best at the time, it's cost is always 18).
Edit: Of course in the end this will all come down to WotC, so right now this is just a fun debate. My second vote goes to a CMC of 7
I think you misunderstood my explanation. Or my explanation didn't make sense (more likely). What I mean is split mana means both, so a guild mage is black and green because you can pay BB, GG, or BG. With BtQ, the important ones are 222 and BBB, since part colourless isn't an option (frame and rules), the CMC cost can never be 6.
I have a couple of reasonings to back this up, obviously all based on my interpretation of the rulebook.
Reason one - The frame
If this was meant to have a CMC of 6, then the frame would be part colourless. Why? because a B/G hybrid mana card is B and G, so why wouldn't a 2/B be B and colourless? (other than being coloured implies it not being colourless)
Reason two - The Rules
Right now, colour and casting cost has nothing to do with what you pay for it. Paying BB for a golgari guildmage won't make it a black spell or permanent. So this logic narrows it down to 6 and 3 because 5 is a choice you make when paying for the spell, so just like paying BB doesn't make a guildmage just black, it won't make the queen CMC 5 because you can pay 4B. If you reveal a guildmage checking for its colour, you don't get to choose one of it's colours because you can pay BB, GG, or BG, you get a card that is both colours, so it definitely won't cost 4 or 5 because you don't choose, you get either 3 or 6.
Reason three - Simplicity
This one is based on what Wizards does, they try to avoid rules disputes. How do you currently decide CMC off the stack? Number of symbols in the top right (or left side for future shifted) (this counts 4 as 1111). This is how they always tell us to do it. There are 3 symbols in the corner, so it costs 3.
So by my logic it's 3. 1 says it can't be 6 because it's not colourless. 2 says 3 or 6 because you don't chose one cost or the other when you reveal a split mana. And reason 3 is just my guess of what Wizards chose.
Of course this is just me interpreting how things work now, and two is also assuming an effect asks you to reveal an only black card won't accept a guildmage as just black (makes sense though).
Edit: after writing this, I've decided that CMC on the stack will be either 6 or 3 no matter what, so I vote 3 on the stack too cause I think it's 3 everywhere else