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!
Gidgetimer says... #2
Because the distinction, though not always clear, has always existed in MtG. Generic Mana is in costs and is just a requirement that a certain amount of magical essence be used to cast the spell. Colorless Mana until now has only ever been specifically produced, never specifically consumed. It is raw magical energy that is devoid of any of the minute flavorings of colored mana. It is not the energy of order, the mind, anarchy, emotion, nor nature. It is just magical essence.
November 26, 2015 12:49 p.m.
Lastdaysgunslinger says... #3
DemonDragonJIt was that way until these preview leaks came out. Im clueless on why it would be changing now. They shot down the sixth color years ago.
November 26, 2015 12:50 p.m.
Lastdaysgunslinger says... #4
Gidgetimer colorless has never ever been specific. Its always been basically any mana used.
November 26, 2015 12:53 p.m.
Gidgetimer says... #6
Just because you never knew the difference between colorless and generic don't say that they have always been the same. Mindablaze quoted from Mark Rosewater, the lead designer, saying how they are different. They made the mistake of using a number in a grey circle for both of them so now people think they are the same. 
isn't "2 colorless and a blue" it is "2 generic and a blue". Sol Ring's ability doesn't produce 2 generic, it produces 2 colorless. The other part of the confusion comes from there being no where to spend colorless mana besides generic costs up until now.
I understand people's confusion, but this isn't some huge change where they are making the distinction or adding a 6th color. The are clarifying a distinction that has always existed and colorless will act as it always has. Colorless just now has a mana symbol.
November 26, 2015 1:03 p.m.
MindAblaze says... #7
Lastdaysgunslinger that's incorrect. "Generic" mana has never been specific. Up until now they've just never had a reason to differentiate between generic and Colorless because people have never needed there to be a difference.
Edit: yeah, what he said...
November 26, 2015 1:03 p.m. Edited.
Lastdaysgunslinger says... #8
I disagree. Other than a card being "colorless"But colorless mana and generic mana are the same thing only because you can use any mana for generic and colorless is only now being introduced as specific.
November 26, 2015 2:10 p.m.
Lastdaysgunslinger says... #9
Until now if a card needed 1 colorless mana could we use any?If you answer yes then you understand what im saying
November 26, 2015 2:13 p.m.
TheNextRedDude says... #10
Lastdaysgunslinger No. That is generic mana. If you add 1 colorless to your mana pool, it is mana that cannot be used to pay for any colored costs. Generic mana is a cost that can be paid with any mana. they are different
November 26, 2015 2:19 p.m.
Lastdaysgunslinger says... #11
You still dont understand what im saying.Technically yes they are 2 forms of mana and i understand that but they've been "used" as the same until "now". Hense the slogan "they are the same" Like my question above answers.
November 26, 2015 2:41 p.m.
Lastdaysgunslinger says... #12
TheNextRedDude read what i wrote again you must have misread.
November 26, 2015 2:43 p.m.
MindAblaze says... #13
You're using the words incorrectly though, which renders your question invalid. A card never needed "Colorless mana." Cards produce Colorless mana and require generic mana.
November 26, 2015 2:43 p.m.
Lastdaysgunslinger says... #14
Yes that is correct but my statement is no different than when you cast cancel most say its 2 blue an 1 colorless to cast even though its generic.
November 26, 2015 3:57 p.m.
Femme_Fatale says... #15
Replace the word generic with something else and this whole thing is a lot easier to understand. Generic Mana is incorrect, as a name and wording, but rather "any type of mana" should have been the proper useage from the beginning.
November 26, 2015 3:58 p.m.
MindAblaze says... #16
Generic - "of, applicable to, or referring to all the members of a genus, class, group, or kind; general."
The mana is generic in that it refers to any/all members of the group of possible colours of mana.
November 26, 2015 4:14 p.m.
Femme_Fatale says... #17
But it is incorrect now in that people are using it as a name when it isn't a name of anything. That is why generic is incorrect, because it is used as a name in the same way we name every type of mana.
So in a sense, when you say "Generic Mana", to most people it sounds like you are either speaking about the exact same thing as "Colourless Mana" or a sixth colour entirely. The meaning of generic never comes across as what it is meant to due to ____ Mana being now a commonly used naming convention in the MTG community.
In this, you can circumvent this linguistical annoyance by using a phrase in that blank to prevent people from thinking it as a name, since the common naming convention was always (one word) Mana.
November 26, 2015 4:57 p.m. Edited.
Epochalyptik says... #18
Or you could continue using it as a technical term because Magic is a game of technical terms and it's perfectly serviceable within the context of the rules.
November 26, 2015 4:59 p.m.
Femme_Fatale says... #19
But then you get the confusion which is plaguing most of MTGS forums. The idea is to prevent confusion, not bring about more >.>
November 26, 2015 5:03 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #20
You get rid of confusion by properly differentiating between the terms, not by changing the game's vocabulary to suit the lowest common denominator. Technical terms exist precisely so these concepts don't have to be written out in most places, including rules documentation.
November 26, 2015 5:08 p.m.
MindAblaze says... #21
So we're confused because people are using Generic instead of generic.
I'm not saying it isn't a mite counterintuitive...but...learning, people.
Edit: again, what he said.
November 26, 2015 5:13 p.m. Edited.
Epochalyptik says... #22
107.4b Numeral symbols (such as 
) and variable symbols (such as 
) represent generic mana in costs. Generic mana in costs can be paid with any type of mana. For more information about X, see rule 107.3.
Generic Mana
Mana in a cost not represented by colored mana symbols; it can be paid with mana of any type. See rule 107.4.
November 26, 2015 5:19 p.m.
TheFoilAjani says... #23
Okay, I've stepped away for a while from this discussion and now I'm back.
So there have been two somewhat plausible theories mentioned, and I think other theories are minor variations on the two ones. As said before, a new type of mana or such I basically shot down my WotC. The second theory is colourless destinctions.
There are problems with that though. Having <> as a cost that can be paid for only by is not inherently bad. Having 
<><> is not problematic either. However, having <> being produced by lands and such is, when combined with the previous statements. So <> can only be paid for by , and if being produced isn't a thing, <> can only be paid for with <>. And in costs, can be paid for by <>, , 
, 
, etc. <> is now an even more confusing . Before, could only be spent on . in costs could be paid for by any type of mana. That was pretty apparent for most new players. But now <> is paid for by <>. is paid by everything, including <>. For old cards, do they all produce <> now? How do you decide if you should errata a cost to include <> or ? How will it help new players if they have to learn 7 (8-9 including Phyrexian/snow) symbols, one of them doing something akin to snow mana? Logically, <> can only be basically snow mana, which WotC said will never happen.
November 26, 2015 6:11 p.m.
TheNextRedDude says... #24
Do not forget, maybe Wizards is planning ahead for something we don't yet know of, and it will make this whole thing a lot simpler. I can only think of one possibility though.
November 26, 2015 6:22 p.m.
Femme_Fatale says... #25
Word of mouth from LGS owners who are in contact with WotC have said that this was an unofficial spoiler done by a WotC employee who was promptly fired.
I imagine WotC wanted to spoil this along with an explanation of what the Eldrazi Mana is. However I don't think OGW would have gotten this much attention as it is getting now if the wastes stuff wasn't unofficially spoiled, ie: people not getting the chance to argue and debate about this.
November 26, 2015 7:52 p.m.
TheNextRedDude says... #26
That is probably true Femme. People aren't happy until they are right and everyone else is wrong. I suspect when we find out what it really is there will be an interesting mix of "I told you so!" "Cool, but I could've done it better," and "I QUIT MAGIC! THIS SUCKS!"
November 26, 2015 8:06 p.m.
Lastdaysgunslinger says... #28
Thanks for posting that Epochalyptik i was to lazy to dig it up. That is basically all i was saying. Generic = any color manaColorless until now= any color manaLooks the same to me no matter what the names are.
November 26, 2015 9:51 p.m.
MindAblaze says... #29
...Colorless is not any color mana. Sol Ring doesn't tap for two mana of any color.
November 26, 2015 9:54 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #30
@Lastdaysgunslinger: That's just blatantly wrong.
November 26, 2015 9:55 p.m.
Lastdaysgunslinger says... #31
Everyone on here that keeps making points on colored mana please understand when i say any color of mana im not saying a sol ring is producing colored mana. Im saying that when casting your sol ring it can be paid with any colored mana because it requires colorless mana to cast the artifact or generic mana since now colorless will be specific..
November 27, 2015 10:30 a.m.
Lastdaysgunslinger says... #32
Epochalyptik nope your rules quote was exactly what i was talking about the whole time.Mana in a cost not represented by colored mana symbols; it can be paid with mana of any type. and both generic an colorless are both represented in rule 107.4
November 27, 2015 10:35 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #33
Still wrong.
Sol Ring requires one generic mana to cast. It does not require colorless mana. To require colorless mana is to exclude players from spending colored mana. It produces two colorless mana.
in a cost means that you must pay one generic mana, which can be mana of any kind (colored or colorless).
When you add to your mana pool, you are producing colorless mana, which is a kind of mana that has no color.
The difference already exists. This isn't something that's just being invented now.
November 27, 2015 10:36 a.m.
TheNextRedDude says... #34
So, aside from the new mana, what other mechanics should we look forward to? We know the ELdrazi have access to colorless matters, spell manipulation, and card draw. I'm guessing they will get a mechanic that makes things colorless or colored like "Distortion (Whenever you cast a spell, you may have it become the color of your choice or colorless. This effect lasts indefinitely.)"
November 27, 2015 11:52 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #35
It would be interesting to see a lens-type artifact that would assist with <> costs (a la Sunglasses of Urza). Generally speaking, it will be interesting to see what support is actually offered for <>.
November 27, 2015 11:58 a.m.
MindAblaze says... #36
Eldrazi Burnchantment
Enchantment
Whenever you cast a spell with <> in its mana cost, ~ deals 2 damage to target creature or player.
November 27, 2015 12:49 p.m.
The interesting thing is the <> symbol. We have no idea how it works. Kozilek could be a lot easier- or harder- to get out than we think. Currently, we are just assuming that <> is a new mana type that is not particularly special. Heck, even if it is exactly that, the cards for this theme could be powerful and synergistic enough to support a new bunch of decks, not necessarily even in standard.
I'm not going to judge this idea quite yet.
November 27, 2015 3:59 p.m.
Lastdaysgunslinger says... #38
Well spoiler season is coming so hopefully some interesting things will arise.
November 27, 2015 4:26 p.m.
TheNextRedDude says... #39
DarkLaw <> clearly has some powerful abilities in it already, and may support a colorless deck in Modern outside of Affinity.
November 27, 2015 4:42 p.m.
TheNextRedDude says... #41
Oops, a colorless deck that isn't affinity and isn't stupid.
November 27, 2015 6:38 p.m.
Just thought about the following: Mirror pool + Dig Through Time. Dig 14 deep for 4 cards.
or with Feed the Clan and Felidar Sovereign. why not get 20 life in 1 turn?
Totally standard playable.
November 28, 2015 12:35 p.m.
See, WotC isn't stupid. They wouldn't introduce another "color" (though, at this stage in our knowledge about it, it would be more accurate to call it a mechanic) with such a potentially drastic effect on MtG without having ways to justify it. We have to wait to find out what's going on, but I am actually optimistic about this change.
November 28, 2015 12:56 p.m.
TheNextRedDude says... #45
DemonDragonJ Because Wizards is not stupid. It is likely this will be a well-designed mechanic, not a radical new color of mana or a major, game-threatening shift.
November 28, 2015 5:14 p.m.
It opens up some interesting design space. I'm personally hoping for a Spreading Seas type card that makes the enchanted land a Waste, maybe even a Blood Moon for Wastes.
November 28, 2015 5:15 p.m.
TheNextRedDude says... #48
Ruffigan Thing is, Wastes without a basic land type that wouldn't really work. Although it could be more like, "Nonbasic lands lose all abilities and gain "T: add <> to your mana pool."
November 28, 2015 5:19 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #49
If the spoilers we've seen are real, then Wastes does not have a basic land type. As was discussed earlier, it's likely that the rules will be amended to grant "T: Add <> to your mana pool" to basic lands with no basic land type. This would be the most streamlined approach, I think.
November 28, 2015 5:24 p.m.
MindAblaze says... #50
"Enchanted land loses any mana producing abilities it previously had and gains "add <> to your mana pool."
DemonDragonJ says... #1
MindAblaze, I can understand that, but why even have colorless if it is not the same as generic? How is colorless not a sixth color if there are cards that require colorless mana to cast, meaning that they cannot be put into any deck without that deck having the proper type of lands? In the Pokemon trading card game, colorless energy costs can be paid for with colorless energy or energy of any other type, but there are no "generic" energy costs in that game; colorless is generic in that game, so I do not see why that cannot be the case in this game, as well.
November 26, 2015 12:07 p.m.