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 
to your mana pool.EDIT #2: Didgeridooda showed me a recently released video portraying the very first set Wastes was meant to be in way back before Legends!
Epochalyptik says... #2
It doesn't.
You would write:
"Enchanted land loses all mana abilities and has 'T: Add <> to your mana pool.'"
Even then, there's no precedent for stripping mana abilities from something.
November 28, 2015 5:30 p.m.
MindAblaze says... #3
It was just a general idea more than an exact design, and as far as I know you're right nothing strips mana abilities. Contamination?
November 28, 2015 5:41 p.m.
Gidgetimer says... #4
Just have it strip all abilities. Blood Moon hoses utility lands as much as multi lands. There is a precedent for stripping all abilities. Humility removes mana abilities from creatures just like all other abilities.
November 28, 2015 5:44 p.m.
Lastdaysgunslinger says... #6
Here comes errata..... Ritual of Subdual should have read generic mana lol.
November 28, 2015 8:27 p.m.
Lastdaysgunslinger says... #8
No just a pun. i had to throw it in there. But it is true though with all of the controversy on this.
November 28, 2015 10:36 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #9
Except Ritual of Subdual is worded properly and you're still not grasping the difference. That's a bit blunt, but I've explained this multiple times.
November 28, 2015 10:39 p.m.
Lastdaysgunslinger says... #10
Also some other cards that may benefit if the colorless does become specific is Celestial Dawn , Pale Moon ,Chaos Moon ,Kruphix, God of Horizons ,Ritual of SubdualThese will go up in value if colorless goes to specific .
November 28, 2015 11:03 p.m.
Lastdaysgunslinger says... #12
If they have cards like koz that require specific colorless then those cards i posted may go up because they create colorless mana conditions. But i still cant see wizards implementing a fifth color ever, though if they would try separating the colorless/generic wordings then it will affect the posted cards.
November 28, 2015 11:27 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #13
The thing is that most of those cards aren't even playable.
November 28, 2015 11:32 p.m.
Lastdaysgunslinger says... #14
Unrelevant but I guess it just depends on your deck building preferences but value can still go up just because of the interactions between the cards
November 28, 2015 11:38 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #15
Irrelevant.
The value won't go up any appreciable amount, especially because colorless-only costs aren't necessarily likely to have a huge impact on any of the constructed formats.
November 28, 2015 11:42 p.m.
Lastdaysgunslinger says... #16
Oh my we have a hit from the grammar police lol.Well i personally think constructed is the only place where wastes will have any bearing(if this leak is real) because limited will be rough trying to draft.Oh and capitalize your E in especially after the comma lol.
November 28, 2015 11:58 p.m.
Femme_Fatale says... #18
They certainly won't see play in constructed for legacy, vintage or modern. Standard is the only place you'll see them. Pauper is a potential, and EDH with colourless commanders (depending on what the rules for these are). With all of that, those cards will not go up in value.
November 29, 2015 12:09 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #19
Someone doesn't know how commas (or economics) work.
November 29, 2015 12:14 a.m.
Lastdaysgunslinger says... #20
There are quite a few cards people thought would never see play in older formats that are staples now.But I say we all agree to disagree because until this leak is confirmed we are all just speculating our ideas.
November 29, 2015 12:15 a.m.
Lastdaysgunslinger says... #21
Epochalyptik lighten up i know your an english major, i can tutor you in sarcasm if you would like.
This post has been getting derailed so lets get back to the point.
November 29, 2015 12:18 a.m.
I'm very new to Magic. Let me say that up front.
I don't mean to create any issues through my lack of knowledge or understanding, but this discussion interests me.
The cards I've seen from an older set look like this.
If the new symbol <> could be paid either with <> or colourless mana, wouldn't that be indicated somewhere on the card?
November 29, 2015 8:04 a.m.
TheNextRedDude says... #23
Femme_Fatale We have seen three cards, one of which is a basic land. If <> = 1 then there is a good chance a Legacy/Vintage power-level card could see play, From what I've heard colorless mana isn't that hard in those formats
Argeaux Yes, but both of the cards were mythic with huge text boxes. Mythic and sometimes rares rarely have much reminder text.
November 29, 2015 8:21 a.m.
TheNextRedDude says... #24
Lastdaysgunslinger Wel, arent yu jus a gud lidle grammahbot. Stop, y'now, cuz it aint nevah gunna be funy.
November 29, 2015 8:24 a.m.
Something about that Kozilek card bothered me and I just worked out what it is.
It's a 12/12.
Do you suppose that <> might be <> or TWO colourless?
That would make so much more sense of a lot of this business.
The card would then cost 12 colourless mana, or 8 colourless and two <>.
November 29, 2015 9:03 a.m.
Oh and to clarify, I'm not suggesting that the opposite would be true and that <> equals 2 colourless mana.
November 29, 2015 9:05 a.m.
If a Wastes can only be used to pay for <> and nothing else, you might be less inclined to stack your deck with them.
November 29, 2015 9:06 a.m.
TheNextRedDude says... #28
Argeaux, that is highly unlikely. The last version of Kozilek was also a 12/12 for ten mana. Making <> in mana form = 2 would make Wastes ridiculously overpowered, an auto include in many Legacy and Vintage decks. Making <> in costs equal 2 would make all these cards unplayable without heavy amounts of Wastes. Neither of these are things Wizards wants to do. Kozilek, Butcher of Truth
November 29, 2015 9:16 a.m.
Look, I think it makes sense with this card, too.
You have to have another Wastes to use it OR a stack of colourless mana.
November 29, 2015 9:18 a.m. Edited.
TheNextRedDude I think you did not understand what I wrote above.
Understandable, as I got excited and wrote a lot.
A Waste could tap for <> but NOT be tapped for two colourless mana.
I take your point about a 12/12 for ten. Do you think they would do this in their "slower" format?
November 29, 2015 9:21 a.m.
Lastdaysgunslinger says... #31
TheNextRedDude omg really, if you read more than one post in this thread you would have seen that Epoc spell corrected my post so i was poking fun. Please read threads through before choosing a villain to gang up on.
I dont think ive ever seen a post where this many readers dont have a clue what others are saying.
Lets stop derailing this.
Oh an Argeaux you may be correct we will have to wait and see.
November 29, 2015 9:21 a.m.
TheNextRedDude says... #32
Argeaux Ten mana is A LOT. Ulamog is 10 mana, and arguably more powerful than this guy. Your idea might be right, but it seems too complicated, and newer players would think that <> = 2, even if it doesn't.
Lastdaysgunslinger True, true. But "gang up" wouldn't be applicable here.
November 29, 2015 9:40 a.m.
TheNextRedDude says... #33
Also, i knew exactly what you were saying. Did you?
November 29, 2015 9:41 a.m.
Weird question. Of course I did.
Tone seems to be problematic. My question was inquisitive, not accusatory.
I found this too.
So 6 Mana wouldn't be a lot to pay for an activation on a land.
I'm most likely incorrect, but it's interesting to speculate.
November 29, 2015 9:46 a.m.
Gidgetimer says... #35
The problem with saying <> could be paid with <> or 2 colorless is that it introduced unneeded complexity and adds an additional type of mana in addition to making the colorless/generic distinction. If you meant that it could be paid with <> or 2 generic, there is already a symbol for a specific or 2 generic. 
November 29, 2015 9:49 a.m.
Lastdaysgunslinger says... #36
Gidgetimer I think they meant for it to be like phyrexian mana but it would be 2 of any available color or 1 waste mana.I hope they soon come out with this being real or fake soon so we can find out how they will work.You would think wotc would send out a shout since the leak, that could lead one to believe they are fake because of no wizards response.
November 29, 2015 10:01 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #37
Then it wouldn't be Phyrexian mana. It would be a C/2 hybrid like Gidgetimer mentioned. And it would be needlessly confusing to make that the entire meaning of <> instead of just representing it in a hybrid symbol and allowing <> to stand alone. It would also just be a needlessly confusing mechanic in general, as colorless mana hasn't been given this kind of significance and there would be no precedent for it.
November 29, 2015 10:08 a.m.
TheNextRedDude says... #38
Lastdaysgunslinger That would be nice, but WOTC has a policy of not discussing unofficial spoilers. Unfortunately, no spoilers for about a month. The 2 or <> thing would be cool, but confusing enough that it probably would not see print at common.
November 29, 2015 10:08 a.m.
That card is on magicspoiler since weeks. (see my previous post)
Also, stop spamming please.
One post at a time it is.
You can link the cards with the link command, stop posting card images of cards that are already in the database.
November 29, 2015 4:24 p.m.
------ That isn't the point. Check the hyperlink below the image.
November 29, 2015 4:28 p.m.
Lastdaysgunslinger says... #43
Just because his tweet has the word mirror still does not confirm anything. Also the person asking mark is asking for bfz spoilers not oath spoilers. So maybe thats an old post.Still unconfirmed.
November 29, 2015 6:14 p.m.
TheNextRedDude says... #44
I wouldn't say unconfirmed. Oath IS BFZ block, and I doubt it is a coincidence. And reliable sources say that Mirrorpool is real.
November 29, 2015 8:53 p.m.
Lastdaysgunslinger says... #45
True it is same block. But im not getting my hopes up until its clear.
November 29, 2015 9:21 p.m.
This seems like a terrible idea from what I see currently. Will reserve any other speculation until more cards are out.
November 30, 2015 1:42 p.m.
Well, we won't be getting any more spoilers for a month. Make yourselves comfortable :(
November 30, 2015 1:57 p.m.
TheNextRedDude says... #49
A leak would probably result in a fired/reprimanded Wizards employee. So, no leaks please.
November 30, 2015 4:41 p.m.
Named_Tawyny says... #50
Assuming, TheNextRedDude that the 'leaks' weren't intentional.
TheNextRedDude says... #1
MindAblaze I don't think that fits with the current templating.
November 28, 2015 5:29 p.m.