Official Spoiler Thread: Oath Of The Gatewatch
Spoilers, Rumors, and Speculation forum
Posted on Dec. 3, 2015, 5:58 p.m. by ChiefBell
Official Spoiler Thread.
Have at it.
ToolmasterOfBrainerd says... #2
Nice catch! That's awesome! Any thoughts on what it might mean?
December 14, 2015 8:50 p.m.
BlastercoolWeird says... #5
It's possible but I'm skeptical given they just gave us Transgress the Mind which is sort of like the mirrored twin of Inquisition.
honestly I feel like I always get more excited to see the commons and uncommons. like, show me the burn spells, WotC, just, lemme put my eyeballs on that sweet direct damage to a player action.
December 14, 2015 10:03 p.m.
Would love to see a new IoK, possibly with art inspired by the most recent Uncharted Realms (Rise of Kozilek), when Shen's mind was siezed by Kozilek and a halo of obsidian shards was floating around his head.
December 14, 2015 10:33 p.m.
zephramtripp says... #7
if we're mentioning card easter eggs, did people see Part the Waterveil behind Omnath, Locus of Rage?
December 14, 2015 10:51 p.m.
00xtremeninja says... #10
I get that, but hey, would have taken that over Forbidden Orchard or Mana Confluence
December 14, 2015 11:44 p.m.
ToolmasterOfBrainerd says... #11
Yeah. Some of those expeditions won't be worth much. I bet there will be a time when the battleland expeditions are $25 and $35 for the lesser expeditions from oath. That Wasteland though....
December 14, 2015 11:53 p.m.
Wasteland = value all day long. Id love to pull one. It'd finish off my deck with the money I get from selling it/trading it.
December 15, 2015 12:56 a.m.
Am I weird for thinking grixis control might like kalitas or really some removal centered modern deck? He dodges bolt which is the big one and turns off kolaghan command shenanigans for the graveyard recursion.
December 15, 2015 2:50 a.m.
beakedbard says... #14
Kalitas + Board wipe + Anything that stops him from dying from said board wipe. That and being slightly tribal is enough for me to start brewing him in edh for fun.
December 15, 2015 3:37 a.m.
You wouldn't even need anything to prevent him from dying. He would see every creature die, so you would get a token for every non-token creature your opponent controls that would die from the board-wipe.
December 15, 2015 3:44 a.m.
beakedbard says... #16
Still ideally i'd want to keep him alive if possible.
December 15, 2015 3:53 a.m.
EpicFreddi says... #17
Soo.. I want to talk about this. Basic question: Is the 3cmc worth the instant speed for tron? The upside of the card is clear: Early game instant pyroclasm and lategame boardwhipe that can even hit goyf and tasigur. I would play two of these and two pyroclasms, but I might be wrong about this. What do you guys think?
December 15, 2015 3:58 a.m.
3 Koz return main and 2 pyroclasms in board. Maybe 2-3 the other way. Pyroclasm is necessary for the burn and affinity matchup.
December 15, 2015 8:05 a.m.
So... Crumbling Vestige
Crumbling Vestige enters the battlefield tapped.
When Crumbling Vestige enters the battlefield, add one mana of any color to your mana pool.
: Add <> to your mana pool.
Interesting card... very flavourful.
Is it playable? - I think it's definitely playable in Standard Devoid, where you are needing primarily colorless, but want an occasional color.
Beyond that, I'm thinking Amulet Bloom.
- T1 you can play it and still cast Amulet of Vigor. (Though next turn it is only <>)
- With Amulet in play it becomes a good land to bounce as it an produce 2 mana - one colorless, one of your choice - every time you play it.
- It becomes a little less worthwhile, however, when you have 2 Amulets in play... as it will produce <><> and one of your choice. (Still better than Gemstone Mine, which only produces 1)
Being a common, I see new players who are building Amulet Bloom using these over Gemstone Mine... but does it end there, or will it be the new Gemstone Mine for the build.
Any other decks that may run it?
December 15, 2015 8:30 a.m. Edited.
I'd rather compare it to Tendo Ice Bridge. And that one is at most a 1-of in Bloom, plus it's more versatile than the new land. I don't think the interaction with Amulet of Vigor justifies running another colorless land. You need so much color early on, for your Serum Visions and Ancient Stirrings and Sleight of Hand you really can't afford having colored mana only for 1 turn.
December 15, 2015 8:43 a.m.
Remember the first cards that were spoiled in every set, from theros, to bfz... I was excited af ... now, the new cards are completely junk. Some of them are good for commander, BUT standard has become shit... What the fuck was the meaning of waste mana? Now, every powerful colorless creature that they will make, will prolly require a waste mana...
They could as well, add a new color...
December 15, 2015 9:29 a.m.
EpicFreddi says... #22
Kenthris if I translate your post it goes something like "It's new, I hate it". The new mana will be exciting. It'll add a new layer. Given they add it now means it will come more often, throughout the planes. maybe we'll chase emrakul through the dimensions, just to find every world in ruin. Sounds like fun to me. :>
December 15, 2015 9:34 a.m.
This is not 'Waste Mana' any more than it is 'Sol Mana' or 'Basalt Mana', this is colorless mana... something the game has had since Alpha (Sol Ring, Basalt Monolith).
The symbol in Kozilek's casting cost is the same as having the words, "While casting Kozilek, at least 2 mana spent must be colorless." - Instead of printing this on every card they want to use this mechanic on, they are using the <> symbol.
As far as 'going forward', Mark Rosewater has stated that this 'colorless requirement' is not likely to be used on anything other than Kozilek style Eldrazi. - It certainly will not be use on 'every powerful colorless creature'.
December 15, 2015 9:47 a.m.
Rayenous - To be fair, MaRo said that Colorless as a cost will be used sparingly, and less often than hybrid. Your point stands, but we could see it outside the purview of Eldrazi.
December 15, 2015 10 a.m.
Rayenous So, u mean to tell me, that they changed ALL land texts, just for Kozilek's brood? I don't think so...
We will see though. I know what waste mana means. The point , is , that you cannot splash "colorless" creatures any more, WITHOUT adding some waste mana in your deck! In other words, I miss old times, when I would play kozilek, just with any mana...
December 15, 2015 10:04 a.m.
You can still play Kozilek with any mana... just not the new Kozilek.
What you are saying is that you don't like the new Kozilek.
As I mentioned, it would be no different than having his Cost be 
, and adding the text, "While casting Kozilek, at least 2 mana spent must be colorless."... or something like that.
Which lands text are you thinking I'm saying has changed... They HAVE changed all land/artifact/creatures that produced 
to now produce <>.
Example: Mystic Gate now states ": Add <> to your mana pool" - LINK
December 15, 2015 10:11 a.m.
Kenthris - They changed the text in order to clear up the distinction between "generic mana" and "colorless mana". If you look at Basalt Monolith, it uses 
in two different ways. IF it were reprinted now it would read ": Add CCC to your mana pool" and ": Untap Basalt Monolith". Which clarifies that the 3 you need to untap it does not need to be colorless. It was a change they had been eyeing for some time, and the Kozilek brood makes use of it. Also if Mark Rosewater says it, it's pretty much gospel. Don't expect to see more "Colorless casting cost" for a while after Oath of the Gatewatch.
Also, it's one thing to be butthurt about spoilers, it's expected. But at least be butthurt over reasonable things. This change is not one of them.
December 15, 2015 10:13 a.m.
EpicFreddi says... #28
But I get his point. You can't just "splash" it anymore. If I wanted to play the new kozilek in, say, modern jund (stupid example), I had to add lands that produce colorless.
December 15, 2015 10:13 a.m.
Yes... the new creature that requires colorless mana (which fits its theme/flavor) will require you to play a mana source that produces colorless mana. - I see nothing wrong with the concept.
December 15, 2015 10:18 a.m.
EpicFreddi, I think that's exactly (part) of the point. A card that only costs generic mana to play has to be over costed to make up for the fact that it can be dropped into any deck (see: Scour from Existence) With the addition of a specific symbol to denote a colorless mana source, it gives them another way to balance cost and power on colorless cards by requiring you to use a specific type of mana to cast it. Any deck can still splash the cards, but now any deck will also have to devote some resources to being able to cast it...
December 15, 2015 11:04 a.m.
EpicFreddi !!! at least someone understands my point... I think that I am talking to idiots that explain to me how (waste) works!!!
NO GUYS I know how it goes... they added another color in a nutshell... And I don't like it, cause I am forced to add lands that produce (waste) in every deck, if I wanna splash in a kozilek-brood creature!
For all the retards out there, trying to convince me the "no, this ain't no new color" , I suggest doing some math...
Let me help you with that:
I have ONE colorless mana in my mana pool.
Where has this mana come from? We don't know.
It may have come from blue, green, black, red, white AND waste.
In other words, colorless mana , cannot become ANY of the above. That makes me think, that waste is a new type of mana. And by saying new type of mana , I mean a freaking new color! A color with the name colorless.
Also, I have a creature, that requires (c) (c) and (waste).
Now, say that I have in the field, that I have 2 black and 1 white mana. Can I play the creature???? NOPE!
So, I am obligated to have 1 mana that produces waste. Now, I know that there are plenty of lands that produce (waste), BUT I don't run one in my deck!. I only run shambling vents, white and black mana. So, they added a new variable in the game. I HAVE TO PLAY SOME (waste) to play spells that in other sets, would be colorless and I could play with any mana I wanted to...
In a nutshell, they fucked some potentially good decks up! .
December 15, 2015 11:11 a.m.
EpicFreddi says... #32
saj0219 in other words, brown did really become the 6th color. :D
December 15, 2015 11:11 a.m.
Kenthris - You need to chill out, friend. And yes, that's how Magic works. If I want to cast a spell that costs 
, then I need to run a Swamp, Mountain, and Forest to do so. Now if I have a card that costs 
<>, then I'll need to run a Forest, and a Wastes (or some other land that produces colorless like I don't now how about Yavimaya Coast?) to cast it. It's how Magic's worked since the dawn of time (dawn of time being 1993).
December 15, 2015 11:18 a.m.
If the waste theme continues do you think this makes the painlands stronger? It would seem to me those would become the go to lands to splash the colorless mana into decks
December 15, 2015 11:22 a.m.
The thing I like about this mana requirement; people were saying that the 'mana base is too perfect', and/or 'too good for standard' (even though it wasn't as 2 enemy color decks don't work well)... this adds another layer and makes the mana base 'less perfect'. - Essentially fixing something that wasn't broken. :)
December 15, 2015 11:27 a.m.
wizards has supplied you with a challenge. live up to it
December 15, 2015 11:29 a.m.
Kenthris A few things that, hopefully, clear up the other side of this. First, however, I'd strongly encourage you to avoid use of the word 'retard' in such a casually insulting and uncaring context. It can appear callous, inconsiderate, and downright disrespectful to do so.
Now, do you have to have something that produces colorless mana in order to cast a card with <> in its mana cost? Yes. Does this have to be a "wastes" land? No. Pain lands, Tron Lands, Filter Lands... There are plenty of lands that produce colorless, and a ton of artifacts. Granted, they aren't all in standard, but I believe there are a handful of other ways to produce colorless in standard. I see you're not excited to do this with your current deck, and I sympathize, to an extent. But I have a hard time imagining what cards you're mad you can't run if no cards with <> in their cost have actually been released yet.
Rather than rehash an explanation of "how this works" (since you've said you already know, and I believe you,) I'll instead offer an alternate explanation for this change. Your post seems to imply that you're looking at this as a block mechanic. In reality, I believe this is a fix they intend to implement from here on out. In future blocks and future sets, anything that produces colorless mana will produce <>. So if Sol Ring were to, in theory, be reprinted in two years, it would be reprinted with the ability to produce <> instead of . Does this change up the impact of some decks? Yes. But so does every new release (in theory). They are making it more difficult to splash colorless cards, which I think is a good thing. Colorless has traditionally been difficult to design for because it was so ubiquitous. Forcing us to use colorless mana to pay for these powerful spells will allow them to be more reasonably costed in the future and open up more design space; design no longer has to consider the impact of colorless cards in literally every deck. If this accidentally strayed into a rehashing of things you already knew, I apologize. I'm just trying to think about what a move in this direction means beyond a single block because I do believe this is how we'll see cards printed outside of Oaths as well.
On a completely unrelated note: I think I now understand why they reprinted the pain lands in Origins. Still annoyed, but I get it.
December 15, 2015 11:35 a.m.
MurderHood says... #38
Kenthris - Suprise, if you wanted to play that card (the (c)(c)(waste) card) in a W/B deck, you could idk maybe use Caves of Koilos but idk seems way to complicated for a mana base of Shambling Vents, Swamps, and Plains.
December 15, 2015 11:39 a.m.
GoblinBushwacker says... #39
After taking a short hiatus from checking the spoilers, and this thread, I came back and found a bunch of new cards (A some kid named Kenthris raging about wastes). Personally, I not to happy with the new expeditions, as I believe that there is two high a variance between the price range of them. I mean, the card Eye of Ugin should not even be spoken in the same sentence as Wasteland, let alone them same expedition run. I feel that this expedition variance takes away from some of the excitement in pulling an expedition, as now you have to hope to be lucky enough to pull an expedition, AND pull a good one. I know that there was variance in the rifts expeditions in the tango lands, but this run seems a bit more extreme.
December 15, 2015 12:31 p.m.
shepherdofire says... #40
I feel Nykthos, Shrine to Nyx would have been better than the eye
December 15, 2015 12:40 p.m.
@GoblinBushwacker - Agreed!
Q: "Would you rather open Expedition Polluted Delta or Sunken Hollow?"
A: "Polluted Delta, of course!"
Q2: "Would you rather open Expedition Wasteland or Tectonic Edge?"
A2: Glares at person asking... "Is that even a question, or is it some kind of back-handed slander?"
December 15, 2015 12:44 p.m.
shepherdofire - Except one of those is a Legendary land on Zendikar and the other is a Legendary land on Theros. And all the expeditions are set on Zendikar, so Nykthos and other legendary lands like Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth couldn't be expeditions.
December 15, 2015 12:45 p.m.
shepherdofire says... #43
I also suspect there being spells called "oaths" like charms but for each of the four pictured above in the title. What do you think?
December 15, 2015 12:45 p.m.
Any land can be set on any plane, just look at the difference between a RTR Steam Vents and an Expedition Steam Vents. But a Legendary land can't be in two places at once. So Eye of Ugin was fair game, but Nykthos, Shrine to Nyx was not.
December 15, 2015 12:53 p.m.
JWiley129 - By that definition, Kor Haven should not be an expedition.
It is a Legendary Land on Dominaria, not Zendikar.
December 15, 2015 12:53 p.m.
MurderHood says... #47
Rayenous - But technically, there could be a Kor Haven on Zendikar as a place of refuge versus the Eldrazi.
December 15, 2015 12:55 p.m.
If there are 2, then it could not be a 'Legendary Land'.
December 15, 2015 12:56 p.m.
MurderHood says... #49
Imo Kor Haven isn't even specific enought to warrant being legendary...
December 15, 2015 12:59 p.m.
...or even a step further. - Ally Encampment and "Holdout Settlement" are the places of refuge in BfZ. - As there is not really a 'Kor" settlement any longer, just outposts for all Allies.
Kor Haven makes me think that it is for Kor only.
GlistenerAgent says... #1
Whoa.
December 14, 2015 8:47 p.m.