Oath of the Gatewatch: WotC's Failure
Spoilers, Rumors, and Speculation forum
Posted on Nov. 18, 2015, 6:09 a.m. by Femme_Fatale
For those of you who don't know, these were just recently spoiled.
If you doubt the legitimacy of this, I would direct you to these to artworks from BFZ, and links number one and number two.
BFZ artworks Show
I'm not here to talk about these as spoilers or as cards themselves, no, there is something I want to say. Something that has been common knowledge among the community set builders of Magic Set Editor. I will however forewarn that there is A LOT of text and A LOT of reading to do, so make sure you got yourself an hour so before reading it all.
There are two types of mechanics on mana/colours that eventually turned out to be pointless creations that don't add anything to the game and pointlessly complicates things. They are frequently used or created by players looking to make brand new sets, but those of us from MSE strongly advise against them.
I am referring to two types of mana symbols.
- One is the colourless mana symbol. You can only use colourless mana to pay for these symbols. Since in OGW this represents the Eldrazi, I'm going to call this "Eldrazi Mana" to prevent confusions.
- The other is the multicoloured mana symbol. You can only use coloured mana to pay for these symbols.
The biggest problem with these is that balancing and applying them to the card pool is so fringe that it makes hybrid mana costs easy to balance in comparison.
As a sort of example, when building a set, balancing comes as an issue for us custom set makers as we don't have the experience that WotC does. In this, hybrid mana frequently makes appearances as just another symbol, even if it isn't a theme of the set. It may be on as little as 10 cards in a 300 card set, but they are there to help balance.
Why does hybrid mana help balance a card? Well, consider the types of cost for a card as a sort of decimal rating determining how much it alters the cost requirements. Colourless costs are at the bottom at around 0.1. Coloured mana is at the top at around 0.8. Depending on the focus of your theme, cards with two colours (
) or cards with double of one colour () can cost 1.4 or so, but in general two separate colours is lower on average than double of one colour. Hybrid mana functions as single colour, double, and multiple colours all at once. They are easier to cast than just a simple coloured mana, but are harder than colourless. In this, the colourless cost of a card being an inherent reverse exponential graph of the power level of that card (ie, a card is more likely to have a higher colourless cost than a coloured cost, and it is easier to change the numbers of a 8 to an 6 rather than a 3 to a 1.), can be partially applied to hybrid mana. And if you look at the history of hybrid mana, you can certainly see this being applied in the Shadowmoor block. Wrapping this up, Hybrid Mana can help balance a card by lowering the card cost from having to put too much colourless mana in, or increasing a card cost from not having enough coloured mana in. And I'm not saying difficulting in casting but their position on the converted mana cost chart.
So essentially, hybrid mana being easier to cast than a solid colour makes it lower on the scale, at about 0.6. Now if we were to look at this and realize that this is only 2 colours, (the 
symbols are right inbetween hybrid and solid colour, at 0.7), a mana symbol that can only be paid in coloured mana would be even easier to cast, but just barely harder to cast than a colourless mana. This puts it at 0.2. Note that in comparison with cards that generate coloured mana, there is a scarcity in cards that generate colourless mana, so you really shouldn't have any problems with them.
However ... I finally get to the issue I brought this point up for, colourless mana symbols. Remember when I said that there was a scarcity in cards that generate colourless mana when compared with coloured mana? Well, this basically means that it is harder to cast this symbol. While constructed formats with large card pools may not have difficulties, Limited and perhaps Standard will definitely have problems. In this, it makes the colourless mana symbol much higher than the regular mana symbol, at around 1.2.
Now let's chart these off and compare them. While yes, these symbols are arbitrarily designated by me, I do believe that their essential feel of "difficulty in paying" for them is captured by the point values.
- Colourless X: 0.1
- Multicoloured X: 0.2
- Phyrexian Mana: 0.5
- Hybrid Mana: 0.6
- Colourless Hybrid Mana: 0.7
- Coloured Mana: 0.8
- Eldrazi Mana: 1.0
- Muliple Coloured Mana: 1.3
- Double Coloured Mana: 1.4
What does these findings tell us? First, it tells us that it is easy to add more colourless X cost to a card than it is to add more coloured symbols. Next, it tells us that on a fundamental level, the Multicoloured X cost holds no real mechanical potential value above colourless cost and would then just needlessly complicate a set. New World Order was specifically set in to prevent needless complications.
It also tells us that Eldrazi Mana are fundamentally more costly than regular coloured mana symbols, which makes them really hard to balance and forces them into a block only mechanic. Except that WotC failed in that regard and made it a SMALL SET ONLY MECHANIC.
In the past, articles hosted by WotC design team touched on the concept of a 6th colour, purple, for Dominaria, and how the biggest difficulty for them was giving it a spot in the colour pie. They ended up constantly taking slices of the pie from existing colours to flesh this out, and it didn't have it's own inherent identity. Does this apply to Eldrazi Mana? ... Not really. The Eldrazi have been around long enough and explored enough that what they do the best has really been solidified into their own portion of the pie. A problem with Eldrazi Mana is that no current land scheme beyond utility lands actually supports Eldrazi Mana. And even utility lands usually have a coloured mana cost to them.
It is not that Eldrazi Mana doesn't have its own portion of the pie, or thematically doesn't have any complications, it's that everything it holds for or does is mechanically already done and solved for by regular colourless mana. Therein lies the biggest problem, a problem similar to the Multicoloured Only Mana. By the principles of New World Order, a mechanic that does the same thing as an already widely accepted and fully fleshed out existing mechanic, but makes it more complicated, is not a mechanic you want to be using. What Eldrazi Mana does is it takes the colourless mana we all know and enjoy in its simplicity, and it complicates it beyond our ability to even play it as all of what made it simple is now gone.
Let's look at the consequences of making it a feature that is only available in ONE SMALL SET. Something as impactful, ambitious and large as Eldrazi Mana is a block defining mechanic, something that makes the entire block be what it is. And for some god knows reason why, WotC decided that it wasn't the main mechanic of the block. In fact, WotC has a recent history with this in the past two blocks. In Theros, they gave the Enchantment matters mechanic the middle finger by making it only appear in the last set, in a block that was supposed to have been an Enchantment matters block. In Tarkir, the Dragons theme was supposed to be the main theme of DTK, but it didn't even show up at common. Instead, WotC decided that they should put common dragons in FRF, a set that wasn't entirely about the dragons but the conflict between the Khans and the Dragons. Both times WotC lamented on their failures. And yet we see that they haven't learned from their failures at all.
Making it the small set of the block means that there is going to be a limited card pool to support that mechanic. Something as large and defining as adding another colour that also uses an existing colour needs a very hefty amount of support in order to be fully fleshed out, appreciated and incorporated into the Limited and Standard environments. But it wasn't. In fact, a previous WotC article clearly stated that they didn't want the Eldrazi to be colourless in a card design standpoint because they needed them to fit into Limited and Standard properly. That's what Devoid was for, to give the Eldrazi a colourless flavour that didn't mess with Limited or Standard by having a plethora of colourless only cards. But now we all of the sudden are getting a football to the face with this Eldrazi Mana which basically says "yeah, you know devoid? Yeah, it completely contradicts this set." In short, the Limited environment was practically screwed over by devoid being in the larger set and Eldrazi Mana being in the smaller set. I feel that the only reason that this got through the design team was because they knew that they had already failed on BFZ because they foolishly brought back old mechanics (which they didn't do for Scars of Mirrodin or RTR, and they were absolutely wonderful blocks) that don't fit with the existing Standard, nor how the plane is at that current time.
In closing, BFZ block looks like to be like the biggest screw up since Kamigawa. I really fear for what will come of SOI. I really do.
TL;DR
Eldrazi Mana fails the principles of New World Order, should have been implemented in BFZ instead of devoid, and because it wasn't, it will never be used in Standard and destroys BFZ Limited.
Add EDIT #2: Didgeridooda showed me a recently released video portraying the very first set Wastes was meant to be in way back before Legends!
"Void mana" sounds fair I think. <> <-nothing in there. void/devoid of anything. even sense.
November 18, 2015 12:55 p.m.
Blackshadow415 says... #3
Sorry about that I acted prematurely I agree we should wait these cards could or could not be real they could make all the eldrazi have that symbol maybe we get urza land like affects for this type of mana that'd be kind of cool honestly
November 18, 2015 1:10 p.m.
Femme_Fatale says... #4
New EDIT #2!
Do you want to see the very first set that hosted Domain? The very first set that Wastes was designed to be in? The set that was meant to come out before Legends but never did? Well now you can!
November 18, 2015 1:14 p.m.
griffstick says... #5
I'm not reading all the comments. I think the new basic land "Wastes" aka "eldrazi mana" is as simple as Darksteel Citadel, except not an artifact and not indestructible. I like this because this will help anyone who is making a EDH deck with a colorless commander at the helm. With this colorless basic land type, its much easier for budget players to build around colorless commanders. Also Ruination destroys a colorless commander deck, but not anymore. I support the new colorless basic land type aka "eldrazi mana". Further more I assume the converted mana cost on kozilik 8 colorless and 2 wastes means that you can tap any kind of mana to produce the 8 colorless but its a must to use colorless mana produced for the 2 wastes in its cost meaning that you don't need to tap a wastes land to cast him but a Sol Ring would work as well. So if you can't make colorless mana you can't cast kozilik
November 18, 2015 1:17 p.m. Edited.
Femme_Fatale says... #6
So uh ... Mythic Rares were in development before Legends 0.o
November 18, 2015 2:05 p.m.
Rhadamanthus says... #7
FYI: Barry's land did have a subtype, but the current templating convention of printing a Land's subtype(s) on its typeline didn't exist until 8th Edition. Also note that the extant text for Barry's land is not from a final, print-worthy Magic Card. Unless "Barry's Land" was simply added to the list of basic land types in the then-current Comprehensive Rules, it would have needed a slight bit of help in the text box to work 100% properly.
Because they lack a subtype, Wastes will not add to domain. And since the speculation of colorlessness is most likely correct, neither will Wastes add to converge.
November 18, 2015 2:45 p.m.
Femme_Fatale says... #8
That extant text was taken straight from a WotC article. This is from the playtest files after-all, they don't fully name the cards until well after everything plays out properly.
November 18, 2015 2:47 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #9
It doesn't matter. The concept that Rhad and I mentioned is critical because it directly affects how the cards interact with the rules. You cannot just assume that things necessarily work despite incongruities between them.
November 18, 2015 2:59 p.m.
Rhadamanthus says... #10
@Femme_Fatale: I know that's the last official text of Barry's Land. What I meant was that since it never made it out of development, it never got the "final draft" treatment it would have needed to be a real card. I was just adding the point that a fully functional booster pack version of Barry's Land may have needed some more work. From what I remember of the rules at the time that would have been either:
- Extra rules text saying "counts as a Barry's Land in addition to its other types" a la Dromar's Cavern etc., which I think is the least likely approach for them to have used
- Updating the CR to add Barry's Land to the list of basic land types, which is what I think they actually would have done
Regarding the rules at the time: the fact that Plains, Island, Swamp, Mountain, and Forest were basic land subtypes was only documented in the CR, not anywhere on the cards themselves. It was just expected for players to know that these were the names of the 5 basics, and that the subtype of a basic land was the same as its name. The "counts as a basic land" rules text on Barry's Land would have left it up to the player to deduce that it was also a new subtype of basic land.
I remember reading about Barry's Land in an InQuest magazine article back in the day (yes, I am enough of an MtG geezer to have followed it in print media), which also described the design and development problems related to domain effects. I think getting rid of that pesky subtype is a really slick solution.
November 18, 2015 3:15 p.m.
So we know that these are being printed at Common, rather than Land rarity. How this will affect draft is uncertain. Currently the rules state that after the drafting is complete you may add any number of basic lands to your deck but, as mentioned above, these will be the only basic lands with a different rarity. Since they will be in the Common slot there could be any number of them in a booster pack and it would be unfair to have to remove them from the pool as a normal basic land would be (there is always 1 basic in a booster), meaning that you most likely will not be able to add them post-draft. We can assume there will be more lands and spells that produce this type of mana (in addition to our current ramp and Evolving Wilds and Blighted Woodland) so having 2-3 Wastes would not preclude using cards that require Waste mana.
As far as Standard is concerned, Wizards has gone on record saying that the Eldrazi story will be multi-block (can't find the source at the moment) so Wastes will be relevant in Standard until at least after Shadows Over Innistrad and co..
As far as Color Identity goes, here are the rules as of Battle for Zendikar...
From the Comprehensive Rules (Battle for Zendikar (September 26, 2015))
903.4. The Commander variant uses color identity to determine what cards can be in a deck with a certain commander. The color identity of a card is the color or colors of any mana symbols in that card’s mana cost or rules text, plus any colors defined by its characteristic-defining abilities (see rule 604.3) or color indicator (see rule 204).
Example: Bosh, Iron Golem is a legendary artifact creature with mana cost {8} and the ability “{3}{R}, Sacrifice an artifact: Bosh, Iron Golem deals damage equal to the sacrificed artifact's converted mana cost to target creature or player.” Bosh’s color identity is red.
903.4a Color identity is established before the game begins.
903.4b Reminder text is ignored when determining a card’s color identity. See rule 207.2.
903.4c The back face of a double-faced card (see rule 711) is included when determining a card’s color identity. This is an exception to rule 711.4a.
Example: Civilized Scholar is the front face of a double-faced card with mana cost {2}{U}. Homicidal Brute is the back face of that double-faced card and has a red color indicator. The card’s color identity is blue and red.
We don't know if the mana produced by Wastes is considered colorless so anything on this front is pure speculation. We do know that it has no subtype (Island, Mountain, etc.) so, as the rules currently stand, it does not interact with Domain (which is good flavor, I think).
November 18, 2015 3:17 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #12
I'd like to see confirmation from WOTC that this card is being printed at all. Only after that would I like to see it confirmed at common.
November 18, 2015 3:20 p.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #13
An interesting read. I too feel there's a lack of evidence to be making these assumptions. Basic land support would imply this could expand beyond just OGW. So as always, let's wait and see. However, Femme_Fatale I fully agree with your assessment of WOTC recent designs for blocks being failures. BFZ is utterly underwhelming and a disappointment considering what this original block set up.
November 18, 2015 3:29 p.m.
TheNextRedDude says... #14
CanadianShinobi How do you consider BFZ underwhelming? On a power level basis? I measure sets by how fun they are to play, and BFZ has delivered.
Until we know exactly how this Voidmana works, and how it interacts with the other colors, we cannot judge it. I, personally, am looking forward to making a MonoVoid deck, if possible.
November 18, 2015 3:42 p.m.
FAMOUSWATERMELON says... #15
First off, I personally find that a "sixth color" (not exactly, but...) is a fun idea meant to spice the game up a bit. Then, of course, there's the issue of information: we have 3 cards. Three cards. That's it. And for the "draft is going to suck because of these, etc..." people, there's probably a reason that Wizards decided to not implement it in BFZ, perhaps because it has to do with the oath itself. So I would just wait and see what happens.
November 18, 2015 3:42 p.m.
TheNextRedDude says... #16
I agree, fruity friend. Maybe the Voidmana works in a way none of us anticipated. Only time and Kozilek will tell.
November 18, 2015 4:05 p.m.
instead of a basic land, every booster should come with a Wastes land
full art WUBRG basics in BFZ, full art Wastes in OGW
November 18, 2015 4:06 p.m.
It does make sense from a lore perspective: Ob Nixilis releases Ulamog by absorbing mana from the Aligned Hedron Network which coaxes Kozilek out of hiding/hibernation/slumber for two reasons: Ulamog is distressed and there is a single, massive burst of mana. With Shadows Over Innistrad being a thing... maybe Zendikar falls and they resort to a fallback plan: Plan A was trap trap them on Nahiri's home world, Plan B, trap them on Sorin's home world?
November 18, 2015 4:45 p.m. Edited.
TheNextRedDude says... #19
I'm good with everything as long as Emrakul is on New Phyrexia.
November 18, 2015 4:48 p.m.
SwaggyMcSwagglepants says... #20
This to me is really disappointing.
As much as "Eldrazi Mana" is cool, I don't think there should be cards with that in their cost. The interactions in conjunction with past sets are bad. E.G. No fetchland (I don't mean Evolving Wilds and those type of lands) can get them. This makes Wastes not very constructed playable in old formats, since they can't be played fast enough (unless there are a dual set of lands that also have the Wastes subtype attached to them).
Limited with BFZ also seems not very fun. If you are going to make an "Eldrazi mana" mechanic, you got to support it in the large set as well. I think it'll have to be triple Oath to help have these "Eldrazi mana" cards be played.
Overall, while I think its cool in concept, I think it was right to never have this concept executed. I'm really hoping this was just a well made fanfic.
November 18, 2015 5:41 p.m.
Femme_Fatale says... #22
The cards are confirmed real by a reliable source SwaggyMcSwagglepants.
November 18, 2015 5:47 p.m.
SwaggyMcSwagglepants says... #23
Awwwwwwwwwwwwwww...
Not liking this...
I don't think I'm going to be buying OGW packs unless there some hella good modern staples in here. I'm probably jumping to conclusions, but this set seems like a drag, all from this Wastes mana.
Only thing I'm happy for about it is that a colorless EDH deck doesn't have to run garbage like Esper Panorama in its manabase. And maybe that the Pro Tour is modern.
November 18, 2015 5:51 p.m. Edited.
Epochalyptik says... #24
Where is the source?
I've seriously been asking for a page and a half now and have yet to see anything beyond assumptions and hand-waving.
November 18, 2015 5:51 p.m.
TheNextRedDude says... #25
I doubt that Wizards would print an entirely new color (sort of) without fixing for it.
November 18, 2015 5:58 p.m.
SwaggyMcSwagglepants says... #26
Wait, yeah, where is it? Unless the reliable source is someone in Wizards or Wizards itself, I'm not so sure this is real. A lot of things don't line up to make this seems plausible.
Even MythicSpoiler is saying this might not be real...
November 18, 2015 5:58 p.m.
Femme_Fatale says... #27
Sorry, forgot to hit the "post" button. Sources are near the beginning in two new links. Whether or not you believe them is up to you.
November 18, 2015 6:08 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #28
Post them again. Because I looked and didn't find anything credible.
November 18, 2015 6:13 p.m.
TheFoilAjani says... #29
WARNING: WALL OF TEXT AHEAD
So far I've been spectating this discussion on multiple forums and such, and I would like to add my piece.
So first off, I think Wizards wouldn't spoil a new mechanic without having one of those cards having REMINDER TEXT. The lack of any reminder or rules text on all 3 of the spoiled cards makes the cards less plausible. I could be wrong, but even early spoilers (like the bolster elephant) had some kind of rules text to tell people what the cards do.
But if we are to believe that these are real, there are a few theories. One theory is the snow mana theory. At first glance, this is the most plausible explanation. Basically, like has been said, the <> mana can only fuel <> costs. But making that the way it works is a bad move on wizard's part. Say what you will, but it has been my experience that WotC is printing less things that have that limited of a use. Snow mana type mana just doesn't make sense in this trend.
The next, more plausible theory is that <> can only be paid for by colourless mana, and that things producing <> basically produce 
. But this runs into two problems. One, do you have to errata every one of hundreds of lands and mana rocks to read as producing <>? That is quite honestly a waste of time and energy. Two, why would lands produce <> if that symbol in costs of cards that can be paid for by colourless mana? It basically adds a layer of complexity that is unnecessary.
These oversights lead credibility to at least the non-basic mythic land is fake. At least on the mythic land topic, there are a few reasons why that land can be considered fake. The first, most insubstantial sign of a fake is that the photo was taken on a phone from a computer. However, that is fairly easy to excuse. But if the picture is to believed, then I will move onto the card itself. Beside the obvious poor quality of the picture, the card itself has quality not on par with the other spoiled. The <> is weirdly faded, the text looks off, I don't think that it can be real. In addition, the precedent for modern-legal mythic lands tell a story. Maze's End is a prime example. It is the locatio of a major story moment. The mythic land doesn't even hint at a larger event.
Onto Femme_Fatale's points.
Barry's Land. In no sense is this a Barry's land scenario. Saying that Wastes=BL is false. BL was an old card from a time basic lands didn't even have subtypes. MaRo was saying that BL would become a thing YEARS AND YEARS ago. Why wouldn't R&D change their mind if it didn't work? Preaching that now is the time BL is ridiculous. People make mistakes, even Wizards fumble. Just because it is a basic land that is colourless doesn't mean that it is a BL. Leading to a fairly unrelated note, but that still needs to be addressed. Femme, you stated that BFZ was a failure. Why? Is it power level? Was it because Anihilator wasn't reprinted? Why? WotC makes mistakes, but in no way was BFZ a Faliure.
Artwork. Thw artist credited on the Wastes art is Raymond Swanland. But the art on Wastes isn't consistent with how Swanland's art generally is. It looks a bit off. The rocks look too pastel for the previous art. Just because it looks like a duck doesn't make it a duck. Could be a clever pigeon. Or a Phyrexian Metamorph.
The video. How is the video related to the discussion? It's... Cool, I guess, but it doesn't prove any point. The cards weren't even talked about. Only design process. If it was for fun trivia, that's fine. But it comes across in your post that it is empirical evidence that proves your point.
Anyways, that took a long time to write. Thanks for reading. Tell me if my arguements are poorly worded or unorganized. I've been watching Desert Bus. I'm tired.
Edit 1: I remembered the last thing I needed to say! Saying that limited is doomed based on 3, probably fake cards is jumping the gun at least, pure and total idiocy at worst. Just stop. For the children.
November 18, 2015 6:14 p.m. Edited.
Harashiohorn says... #30
Okay this is probably not real. Why is that? Because Macro-typing has gone TERRIBLY ALMOST EVERY SINGLE TIME. Why has it been so many years since we last saw the "Snow" super-type? Because it was complicated, and needs a lot of thematic sense. What was the last "New Mana color thingy" to be done? I believe that was phyrexian mana, which produced insane cards, some so powerful they got banned in every non-Vintage format. So WOTC decides to roll out "Purple" mana? I'm Highly doubtful. Assuming the cards are real they are TERRIBLE. JUST TERRIBLE. While thematically interesting, new mana mechanics can't rely entirely on one set, and where else are we going to see wastes? Mirrodin? Because Innistrad sure isn't known for it's wastes. Snow lands are currently not successful in eternal formats really because they don't have enough cards that utilize them, that WOTC would continue to abandon Snow lands, and introduce a new type of snow-land-esque thing seems really really odd. But anyway, back to why theses cards are terrible: A 10 mana 12/12 without evasion, or any survivablilty (No, that discard counter thing is about as much a form of survivability built onto a creature as having a Remand in hand is) that requires a specific type of mana to cast is really really not what we want mythics to be like. I'll admit the draw clause is nice, but not even tron would touch that Kozilek in eternal formats. Oh and a card called "Mirror Pool" popped up on MTGSPOILER and if it's real... I may be taking a long Hiatus from limited. A REEEEEAAAAALLLLL long Hiatus.
November 18, 2015 6:14 p.m.
Femme_Fatale says... #31
Epochalyptik, right underneath the main image, above the first spoiler for the next two images are two links dubbed number one and number two.
Though I doubt you are going to trust them.
November 18, 2015 6:18 p.m.
TheNextRedDude says... #32
Guys, can we at least hold off judgment until we KNOW WHAT <> IS? At this point we know:
It is mana that is probably colorless.
I think that the Voidmana has room to be very good or very bad. Though I agree that Mirrorpool should not be mythic. Mythic are supposed to be epic. Also, Harashiohorn, Kozilek is very mythic. Mythic isn't about survivability or eternal playability. Mythic are supposed to feel epic, and Kozilek does just that.
November 18, 2015 6:58 p.m.
I think we should call the new mana symbol "Hedron Mana" b/c really, doesn't it look like a hedron?
November 18, 2015 7:04 p.m.
Femme_Fatale says... #34
Mirror Pool as the potential to be VERY epic. A land that can win you the game? That is epic!
November 18, 2015 7:31 p.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #35
I am very displeased about this announcement, for several reasons.
First, I do not wish for Kozilek to appear in this block. The inhabitants of Zendikar already have a ridiculously difficult fight against Ulamog, the least of the three titans, with that battle costing them dearly, so I fail to see how they could possibly defeat two Eldrazi titans when one alone is devastating Zendikar. Hopefully, if Kozilek really does appear in this block, only Ulamog shall be defeated, and Kozilek shall depart Zendikar for another plane, since I believe that each titan should have its own epic block dedicated to the battle against it.
Second, I really do not like the idea of a new basic land; this game has functioned perfectly well for nearly twenty-three years with five basic lands, so there is no need to add another one, now. Also, that new mana symbol is very bothersome. Why not have "spend only colorless mana to cast [cardname]" as a line of text, since having a new symbol for colorless mana, when the existing symbols work perfectly well, is almost treating colorless as if it were a color of its own, which it is not; it is the absence of color.
I really hope that these new cards are fakes, but, if they are not, then I hope that the new basic land, as well as the new mana symbol, are intended only for this block and appear only with extreme infrequency in the future.
November 18, 2015 9:12 p.m.
TheNextRedDude says... #36
Maro has said on his tumblr that it is too late to add another color of mana to magic. This is probably a weird version of Phyrexian Mana representing some sort of alternate cost
November 19, 2015 7:06 a.m.
balmung014 says... #37
While the specifics of this new land arike not known I think I understand why.
I am more alarmed that said land appears in the 2nd set of battle for zendikar and not the first.
THis card represents land that cannot give any sort of mana, and no other effects attached.
It also would allow cheaper costs of some of these eldrazi spells, and therefore they would be more playable in standard and modern.
THink about how many of the high costing eldrazi colorless cards you play in those formats that don't have a extreme purpose like annihilator, or all is dust.
THis set probably is experimenting with colorless concept for sets that deal with artifacts and the like. though this is likely to be a set only card
November 19, 2015 9:21 a.m.
Schuesseled says... #38
As far as I understand, (based off of my own assumption) they are correcting an old mistake. The current colourless symbol is used to represent mana of any colour and colourless mana depending on where it appears on the card.
This correction allows for cards that can only be cast if a certain amount of mana is colourless without additional rules text.
So presumably all newly printed mana rocks and utility lands will use the new mana symbol to avoid further contradiction.
November 19, 2015 10:57 a.m.
Schuesseled says... #39
Just to further explain when the current colourless symbol appears in the mana cost, (left hand bit of kozy's cost) it doesn't mean corlourless at all, it means the card can be cast using x mana of any colour including colourless.
Where as the right hand side, says that strictly only colourless mana may be used.
November 19, 2015 11:01 a.m.
Skilgannon says... #40
source? I still haven't seen any comment from WotC on this
November 19, 2015 11:21 a.m.
@Schuesseled - I'm not convinced.
I think that <> will still require a <> mana, not just any colorless.
If <> could be paid for by any colorless (but colorless only) mana, then 'Wastes' would have instead of <> for a symbol.
Won't know for sure until Wizards officially spills the cards, and makes some sort of statement... assuming that these are even real.
November 19, 2015 11:29 a.m.
Schuesseled says... #42
@Rayenous If <> is the new colourless symbol they will erata that onto all previous colourless mana producers
November 19, 2015 11:48 a.m.
@Schuesseled: This makes sense. It was the only thing I couldnt explain to my self why they put that sympol on the land.
November 19, 2015 12:22 p.m.
Real Quick thing i want to point out since i noticed you showed a BFZ card with "Waste" designs in the setting. Take a good look at Omnath, Locus of Rage. look at the land around it, Waste is there too.
November 19, 2015 12:24 p.m.
TheFoilAjani says... #45
balmung014 But a concern is that this can't be a set-only mechanic. Changing the game fundamentally by adding a 
th basic land isn't something you do for a single set.
November 19, 2015 2:48 p.m.
TheFoilAjani says... #46
Schuesseled and Jirayamo, refer to my earlier post as to the symbols. The contradictions between the cards lends at least one of the cards to be fake.
November 19, 2015 2:52 p.m.
TheFoilAjani says... #47
Schuesseled and Jirayamo, refer to my earlier post as to the symbols. The contradictions between the cards lend at least one of the cards to be fake.
November 19, 2015 2:52 p.m.
TheNextRedDude says... #48
TheFoilAjani It probably won't. Anywhere the Eldrazi go, Wastes will probably go too. And we will be seeing the Eldrazi for a while, as well as the fact that Wastemana might be a thing even after the Eldrazi, wherever it makes sense. Wastemana might even get a special slice of the color pie, but it would be weird-flavored pie.
November 19, 2015 2:55 p.m.
griffstick says... #49
Wastes mana would go right in the middle of the pie in my opinion . but it will never happen cause the backs of the cards can never change
November 19, 2015 3:01 p.m. Edited.
griffstick says... #50
@Rayenous in comment #90 the waste mana and the <> symble in the casting cost have the same symble. (I'm of course guessing) I feel pretty confident the waste mana produces mana, the <> symble in the cmc of a card, (again in my opinion) is a way of saying its a requirement to have had colorless mana produced from a source that doesn't produce color. For kozilik you can't tap 10 Swamp and cast him for 
otherwise his converted mana cost would read instead you have to tap 
in swamp or colorless mana this is the non-requirment colorless produced mana cost then tap Sol Ring or water else that creates colorless mana like Worn Powerstone to pay for the <> <> in kozilik's casting cost.
Epochalyptik says... #1
First, we still don't have confirmation that these cards are real. Second, if they are real, we still have yet to as the rest of the set. Saying everything is bad and you're thinking about quitting Standard is premature and sounds more like a tantrum than a reasoned conclusion.
Once again, it would be nice if this discussion could focus on parting confirmed fact from speculation and making reasoned arguments based on what we know. If everyone just knee-jerks and assumes they're right, then we have a useless thread.
November 18, 2015 12:44 p.m.