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!
Schuesseled says... #2
Okay.
It's not the first time Wizard's have made changes to card design that have caused bajillions of eratas nor will it be the last.
For example, they have already changed how colourless mana is presented on cards, so to imagine they might do it again isn't that hard.
Secondly 'why would cards cost <> if it could also be paid for with any colourless mana?' Because <> is colourless mana and colourless mana is <>. Doesn't take sherlock to puzzle that one out.
November 19, 2015 3:28 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #3
Of course, if Mirrorpool is real, that theory goes out the window because its mana ability uses the new mana symbol instead of 
.
November 19, 2015 3:30 p.m.
TheNextRedDude says... #4
How so, Epoch? Seems like that would actually make sense with the theory.
November 19, 2015 3:34 p.m.
Schuesseled says... #5
Why are people concerned over limited drafts in here anyway. If 'wastes' is a real basic land, you'll be able to take as many as you like from outside the draft to include in your deck, as with the other basic lands, you dont need to draft them.
November 19, 2015 3:42 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #6
Because a card that says "Add <> to your mana pool" is now differentiating between <> and from a mana production standpoint. Otherwise it would just use . If <> just meant "spend only colorless mana on this symbol," then you wouldn't produce <>.
November 19, 2015 3:47 p.m.
Schuesseled says... #7
And if (1) = <>?
You got to think about how it is possible to add colorless required mana to casting costs, at the moment if colourless mana remains denoted the same way, the new kozilek would read (8)(2). Now that doesn't make a lick of sense.
November 19, 2015 3:50 p.m. Edited.
griffstick says... #8
What I'm saying is the <> symble can't be placed the the wastes is on the lands cause if they put symble on the wastes land the the confusion for casting kosilik would look like 
and that's just really confusing. So to get rid of confusing they added the new <> symble as saying you can't cast this without out a colorless source of mana .
November 19, 2015 3:51 p.m.
So you're saying... Island has symbol 
, and produces ... Forest has symbol 
, and produces .
But 'Wastes' has symbol <>, but produces ...
Sounds like easy confusion for new players, which Wizards is always trying to avoid.
If <> on Kozilek can be paid for with any, but only, colorless, it would have likely been printed with a reminder text to state that.
Without any reminder text, it really should be assumed that it works just like any other mana symbol.
As far as draft goes, you cannot simply add ANY basic land.
Snow-Covered Island is a basic land... but you cannot use it in draft.
Currently, the rule is that you can use and of the 5 original basic land. This does not fall into those 5. - They may change that, we'll have to see... but if that were the plan, the land would likely have been printed at rarity 'L' instead of 'C'.
November 19, 2015 4:08 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #10
You're both missing the point. If <> means "spend only colorless mana on this cost," then you would never produce <> because it would be cost-specific (like how you never produce Phyrexian mana). A mana ability that says "Add <> to your mana pool" instead of "Add to your mana pool" therefore means that (1) all colorless mana is now represented by <> or (2) that <> is a new kind of mana. The latter is more likely.
November 19, 2015 4:09 p.m.
Femme_Fatale says... #11
The entire MTGS forum says that this is just a way for WotC to differentiate between colourless and generic mana.
November 19, 2015 4:12 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #12
If that's true, please address the concern I raise above.
November 19, 2015 4:17 p.m.
TheNextRedDude says... #14
Kozilek is a mythic, and it does not really have enough room for the reminder text. Neither does Mirrorpool. Wastes is a basic land. All three are cards that have excuses for no reminder text.
November 19, 2015 4:32 p.m.
Rhadamanthus says... #15
@ Epochalyptik: It's only really a "concern" if the graphic design principles for Magic are expected to stay the same as they are right now in light of this mechanic. If <> is the new symbol for colorless mana, it means that after 22 years WotC is finally differentiating between the colorless mana symbol and the generic mana symbol.
For illustrative purposes, consider the following and how odd it sounds: If means "spend any color or colorless mana on this cost", then you would never produce because it would be cost-specific.
That doesn't make sense to us today, because we've been taught that 
means different things in costs and rules texts. Does it have to, from a design perspective? Can it be avoided or revised? Overloading the meaning of game elements by making them stand for different things in different contexts can cause confusion, which I'm sure you've observed on this site. Overloading was the main reason why "play" was retired from its use for lands, spells, abilities, and zones pre-M10 and replaced with a more diverse set of terms.
November 19, 2015 4:34 p.m.
Schuesseled says... #16
It's not the first time they've changed (or more accurately added) a symbol for colourless mana. Prior to onslaught all lands/artifacts that created colourless mana just said "Tap: Add one colourless mana."
They changed it to the current format, but it conflicts with the generic mana symbol in casting costs, so they maybe are changing it once more.
November 19, 2015 5:03 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #17
I agree that there's something to be said for differentiating between colorless and generic mana in some cases. And if <> is adopted as the new symbol for colorless mana, then there's no inconsistency. But if we see a card from OGW that produces or any other quantity of colorless mana using the original colorless/generic notation, then we can confirm that <> is indeed a new type of mana.
I also think that updating the colorless mana notation is something that we'd be hearing about from official sources because it's a fairly significant thing. But it's still early yet.
November 19, 2015 5:09 p.m.
Rhadamanthus says... #18
It's far too early for any news like that from WotC regarding Oath of the Gatewatch. If whoever leaked these gets found out, they're definitely looking at unemployment and/or legal action.
Unless, of course, this is an intentional leak, but I'm not so conspiracy-minded as to be thinking that.
November 19, 2015 5:19 p.m.
Schuesseled says... #19
It's not unusual for a company to rush forward an announcement after an unfortunate leak. Watch this space.
November 19, 2015 5:23 p.m.
Femme_Fatale says... #20
I honestly think it was intentional to stir the pot of hype for OGW. They obviously noticed feedback on BFZ and realized that they can't hold punches when getting people to get into OGW.
November 19, 2015 5:24 p.m.
...What do you mean by, ""play" was retired..."?
Explore... Abbot of Keral Keep... Haakon, Stromgald Scourge... all text, and oracle text, for these use 'Play' for spells, land, cards etc. (Yes, they edited Play to Cast for the Haakon... but it still uses Play for "Knight Cards")
They didn't stop using it, they just started properly applying 'cast' and 'activate' to make it easier (mainly for new players) to distinguish between a spell being cast, from an ability being triggered/activated, from putting a land into play.
It made better sense from a logical view to have a standard way of stating things.
November 19, 2015 5:24 p.m. Edited.
Epochalyptik says... #22
I'm more in Schuesseled's camp. Unless WOTC adamantly does not want to engage in spoiler discussions at this time, it seems likely that they'd drop a few hints to alleviate the confusion in the community, even if they give nothing away about other cards in the set. The fact that we still have no announcement that these cards are fake does, to some minor extent, suggest that they may be real, but the community is embroiled in this discussion of what the new symbol means and what's coming. I sort of expect that if <> is indeed the new symbol for colorless mana, we would at least get an acknowledgement of that so the confusion dies down.
Conversely, I have to wonder whether confusion and disagreement is a viable marketing strategy two months before release. It certainly does get people talking about the product.
November 19, 2015 5:27 p.m.
Rhadamanthus says... #23
@Rayenous: I did use the wrong word, and I had a thought to replace it with a more clear description but I had to go do something else in the middle of posting and forgot about it by the time I got back to my computer. Sorry about that.
November 19, 2015 5:29 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #24
@Rayenous: "Play" was retired in the sense that it no longer carries the meaning it originally did. It now refers only to effects that concern lands (either in part or in their entirety). It would perhaps have been more accurate for that comment to say "retired from its use for spells, abilities, and zones" instead of "lands, spells, abilities, and zones."
November 19, 2015 5:29 p.m.
Rhadamanthus says... #25
As far as I know, the official WotC policy on unofficial leaks and spoilers is still "We don't discuss unofficial leaks and spoilers".
November 19, 2015 5:30 p.m.
maybe, MAYBE wotc created two kozileks - one with the new mana and one without - and leaked the funky one early to see if everyone loses their lids over it. if so they'll have enough time to retract their titan for the alt version
November 19, 2015 5:41 p.m.
TheFoilAjani says... #27
Epochalyptik and I have raised the same point and it has not be adequately answered. To reiterate, if <> = , and <> can only be paid by , then why have lands produce <> and not ? Producing <> while still having as a type of cost makes the generic vs. colourless mana problem far from simplified; it adds an extra barrier to entry. In fact, it just furthers the problem. Instead of having generic costs and Colourless mana, we now have <> in costs, <> mana, and generic mana, and still possibly colourless mana. In order for <> mana to make any sense, it needs to be like snow mana, which WotC has pretty much said they will never do. So at the very least, Mirrorpool and possibly Wastes are easily fake. Of course, there is the matter of Salvation and such with good sources, so I'm not sure what to think.
November 19, 2015 6:11 p.m.
griffstick says... #28
@TheFoilAjani "and I have raised the same point and it has not be adequately answered. To reiterate, if <> = , and <> can only be paid by , then why have lands produce <> and not ?"
the <> in the wastes is the new colorless mana symble to simplyfy this new casting cost mechanic, when tapped it produces which can be used as mana or <> whitch is still mana, which in some cases is a requirement to cast spells like kozilik. If you tap a Mountain for and use it to cast kozilik u can use it on the but not the <> <> cause that's not a colorless generated source of mana. The wastes lands can be used to cast colorless spells cause it makes colorless mana. <> = colorless mana produced from a colorless source can be used on any spell or ability using <> in its cost. So there's no difference in the <> mana and the . But when its in a casting cost or ability it means it must be mana produced from a colorless source. This is my theory and it makes the most sense to me and its not complicated to me at all.
Waste lands is a colorless source of mana. If it didn't have the new <> in it, it would have in it instead but that would not make sinse with the new casting cost mechanic. And I truly believe its a new basic land which helps with commander decks that when going with a colorless commander you cant use any basic lands to build your colorless commander deck but with the new basic lands you can.
November 19, 2015 6:41 p.m.
Schuesseled says... #29
Mana sources only ever produce that specific mana. Wastes will produce <> (previously noted on cards as 1 colourless. ) This mana can be used to pay the cost of spells or abilities that require <> or it can be used to pay for the generic cost of spells and abilities.
This is true for coloured mana sources as well.
To say that wastes produces <> or (1) I'd incorrect. The latter terminology is being replaced.
(Assumably)
November 19, 2015 7:22 p.m.
Schuesseled says... #30
It is important to note that not only colourless permanents can produce colourless mana. And the source the mana comes from has no relevance to whether or not it can be used to cast a particular spell unless stated on the cards in question.
A lot of people are assuming that 'eldrazi mana costs' can only be paid by colourless sources, this I believe to be inherently wrong.
November 19, 2015 7:27 p.m.
TheFoilAjani says... #31
griffstick The whole point of doing away with the being produced was to make it less complicated. In the old rules, = . Now, <> = <> == = <>. At least in the old rules, could be paid by any mana, including by . Now <> means 1 when paying in costs, <> actually is , <> can only be paid by , and still exists in costs! That is confusing for new players and old players.
November 19, 2015 8:21 p.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #32
Femme_Fatale: forgive me for asking, but what is the difference between colorless mana and generic mana, and is that a distinction that needs to be made? I have long been under the presumption that the two terms are interchangeable, so are you saying that they are not?
November 19, 2015 8:45 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #33
I think the distinction she's trying to make is between actual colorless mana and a cost that can be paid with any kind of mana.
November 19, 2015 9:03 p.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #34
Epochalyptik, that does make sense, but does WotC really need to do that? Why wait until now, twenty-three years into the game? If they had wanted to do that, they should have done it, earlier; it is too late to do that now, in my mind.
Also, why have costs that can be paid only with colorless mana? Is that not treating colorless as if it were its own color, which entirely defeats the purpose and idea of colorlessness?
November 19, 2015 9:31 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #35
There are flavor and balance reasons to have certain colorless-only costs. But they're rare; the Eldrazi present a good vehicle for that requirement.
And the game is constantly changing. It's not a foregone conclusion that it's too late to change anything; rather, it's a question of whether the change is implemented well.
November 19, 2015 9:37 p.m.
I'm with Epochalyptik on this. A game that is all about giving us new experiences can't be too stubborn on "this can't happen", just as long as there is some best practices of "don't do X" with some good reasons.
November 19, 2015 9:40 p.m.
Its a new type of land that represents a new source for colorless mana. Im not sure where colorless mana comes from, but im sure it isnt drazi corrupted land.
These are unique colorless lands because of the new mana source. This is why it can exist as it's own color slot (2 on Kozi) rather than have the usual numbered grey circle (grey circle numbered 8 on Kozi).
November 20, 2015 3:19 a.m.
Named_Tawyny says... #38
So this was recently posted on MaRo's Tumblr. May be en pointe.
November 20, 2015 6:53 a.m.
...I would take "a new type of mana" as meaning not just colorless, but actually a new type.
But, hey... still just speculation.
November 20, 2015 7:44 a.m.
Named_Tawyny says... #40
As would I. Which lends creedence to the theory that it functions similarly to snow.
November 20, 2015 8:07 a.m.
I see no similarity to snow.
could be paid for by any mana produced by snow permanents (Snow being a super-type). This means that , if produced by a Snow-Covered Island, could pay .
In fact, was never a mana type, but rather a mana cost.
This new mana does not have a new super-type, or even a sub-type, associated with it.
If it is a new type of mana, it will take <> to pay <>, not just any colorless. - Just like the 5-types of coloured mana are required to pay costs of those colors.
MaRo's brief statement of 'When', plus a lack or reminder/explanation text on any of the cards is really strengthening my view... albeit still just speculation.
November 20, 2015 8:19 a.m. Edited.
Named_Tawyny says... #42
For context - the past day, Maro has been answering if/when questions - essentially 'when' means that it will happen at some point, and 'if' means that it could happen, but may not (for some value of may between not-quite-certain and nearly-impossible)
November 20, 2015 8:26 a.m.
Femme_Fatale says... #43
The flavour text on Mist Intruder/Ruin Processor is interesting.
November 20, 2015 12:19 p.m.
JakeHarlow says... #44
Um.
For that "Wastes" card, there's a problem, I think.
Basic lands, as per the Magic 2015 card frame update, have the rarity abbreviation "L". The Wastes card has a C as an abbreviation, yet it still has a basic land designation.
Thus, I'm going to cast some real doubt about the legitimacy of these images.
Sorry if this concern has already been noted. I didn't feel like reading through the whole thread.
November 20, 2015 12:50 p.m.
JakeHarlow already been addressed. And these are confirmed.
November 20, 2015 1:24 p.m.
@x7890 You are correct... Omnath, Locus of Rage features 'Waste' patterning in it's artwork.
You know what else bares a striking similarity to 'Waste' patterns?
- The Neck-Fringes on Ugin
- Hedrons (Created by Nahiri, but designed by Ugin)
I think my 'Conspiracy-Theory' gains some slight credibility:
- Ugin created/controls the Eldrazi.
- They are designed to eradicate coloured mana throughout the multiverse.
- He does this because with no coloured mana, a colorless PW (himself) becomes the most powerful being in the multiverse.
- Sorin and Nahiri wanted to destroy the Eldrazi. - Ugin tricked them into 'meerly' locking them away.
- He was going to release them once the multiverse forgot about them.
- Bolas discovered this secret, killed Ugin, and organized the release of the Eldrazi for other PW's to kill. (Note: Bolas was not 'protecting the multiverse', so much as entering a battle over the position of 'ultimate power'.)
- Nahiri discovered Ugin's secret, and that he why she went into hiding; fearing what Ugin may do to those who know.
- Ugin sent Sorin to find Nahiri. Not to fight the Eldrazi, but to determine what she may have discovered, while guarding Zendikar, which made her leave.
- Ugin has now convinced Jace that he too must 'lock the Eldrazi away' rather than kill them.
November 20, 2015 1:33 p.m. Edited.
You sound a bit paranoid Rayenous, but its a beautiful theory.
November 20, 2015 1:48 p.m.
I'm not a writer, but I do enjoy shaping and developing plots and plot twists.
November 20, 2015 1:50 p.m.
I am a writer and that is what I call a heel-face turn. It's good, if not somewhat overdone.
November 20, 2015 1:59 p.m.
Femme_Fatale says... #50
That's for the completely reverse situation, bad guys going good >.>
griffstick says... #1
@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 Wastes lands or Worn Powerstone to pay for the <> <> in kozilik's casting cost. It seems to be a new WOTC way to add some difficulties to casting a card
November 19, 2015 3:24 p.m.