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.
Sorry.... my mistake. Kor Haven was not on Dominaria, it was on Rath.
Kor Haven was a specific city's name.
Barring the name, which seems generic, Kor Haven was the center of en-Kor culture. It was a city built into living rock.
Seems Legendary to me.
December 15, 2015 1:05 p.m. Edited.
MurderHood did you even got what I was talking about??? cause idk you must be very smart idk idk idk
December 15, 2015 1:14 p.m.
This set sounds like it will be changing the game in so many ways, but the thing I'm most worried about is availability. As soon as the set comes out, everyone's going to be itching to build a colorless commander deck (myself included), or just use the wastes in most of the constructed formats. If the wastes will be randomly appearing at random in packs alongside other basics, they are sure to be pretty expensive, especially in comparison to the other basic lands, even if they're full arts. This is definitely something I hope has been thought out, otherwise things might just be difficult for everybody.
December 15, 2015 1:21 p.m.
MurderHood says... #5
Yea, I did get (p.s. It's get bc we are in the present tense. You should probably got some grammar.) But I did got what you meant. You're complaining and being salty about something that is very easy to add to "good decks". Also WoTC needs to include changes so the game keeps appealing to their market. If nothing changed, we'd get nothing cool.
December 15, 2015 1:28 p.m.
Kenthris - I think everyone gets what you are talking about... They just feel it's moot.
1) The flavour of Kozilek, and thus it's Mechanic, trumps your desire to play these colorless creatures without playing sources of colorless mana.
2) Your belief that 'colorless is the 6th color' does not make it so. - (If this is were a 'new color', all other additional requirements printed before that... sac'ing creatures, paying life, etc.... would be 'colors' as well, so this would be like color #15)
3) Your fears that colorless mana requirements are going to become the new norm for colorless cards is unfounded, and has been debunked.
4) Your inability to see that others are simply trying to clarify your misconceptions does not make them 'retarded' or 'idiots'.
5) Repeating your views, without adding any relevant ideas or concepts, will do nothing to aide in your attempt to change other peoples views.
December 15, 2015 1:29 p.m.
Something that might help clear up some confusion.... they announced with the first run of expeditions that this would be an opportunity for collectors to get foil printings of iconic lands with the special boarder and with Zendikar flavor. Hence why all of the art for the expeditions has resembled something of Zendikar. It does not mean that any of the lands, including Kor Haven, are in any way associated with Zendikar, they simply used Zendikar flavor for the art since Zendikar is a land matters plane (gameplay and lore).
December 15, 2015 1:34 p.m.
Rayenous - I'm fine with Kor Haven because Zendikar is the Kor's home plane. In the lore, Volrath moved several races from their home planes to Rath, among them were the Kor. So a Zendikar flavoring of Kor Haven is perfectly acceptable. But a Zendikar flavoring of Nykthos? or Academy Ruins? or Boseiju, Who Shelters All? Those don't make sense.
December 15, 2015 1:43 p.m.
Rayenous ok, I was mad, because every single person, replied to me , about how the new mana-cost can be played. But I ask one thing and this question is for you, that you manage to keep calm and put facts into account.
How come this new colorless cost isn't a new "color" after all? is this because it is labeled as colorless? Cause I don't repeat my opinions, I just try to get a proper answer and no-one has given me one!!
Am I, or am I not "forced" to pay this new type of mana?
New type of mana------>colorless. Please, if you want, try to be as calm as you can and explain to me , without any irony... If you manage to see the previous comments, everyone started to explain to me how magic is "played". I simply try to point some facts m80...
December 15, 2015 2:09 p.m.
canterlotguardian says... #10
Holy shit, TappedOut. Can you not go one fucking day without turning into salty little shits? Guess not.
Anyways, onto what I actually wanted to comment on. I have reversed my stance on Chandra. I still don't quite think I'll warm up to new Nissa but after re- (and re-re-) reading Chandra's abilities, I'm actually super excited for her. She alone may actually convince me to start playing Standard again. I'm thinking mono-red aggro, run her alongside a bunch of gobbos and Monastery Swiftspear.
December 15, 2015 2:30 p.m.
Kenthris - You aren't being "forced" to play Wastes any more than you're being "forced" to play Mountains or Forests. If you want to cast Kozilek, then you'll need some way of producing colorless mana. That is the only instance we have of being "forced" to pay colorless mana to cast a spell.
December 15, 2015 2:43 p.m.
I'm not sure if you want game mechanic differences, relative differences, or just concepts. - I'll try to list the differences as best I can.
- This mana does not affect Converge.
- This mana cannot be produced by things that produce a mana of any color (Mana Confluence).
- This mana does not have any specific attributes associated to slots on the 'color pie'.
- This mana symbol is not intended to be used, as a 'cost' for anything outside OGW, and if used in the future, it will be used sparingly, and only if there is a strong flavour fit. (Note: They have not re-used Phyrexian mana else ware.)
Yes, you need colorless mana producers in order to pay for the new cost... but that does not make it a new color, its something you can decide to play or not play.
- Burn at the Stake requires you tap creatures for it's cost. If a creatureless control deck wanted to play this, it would have to change and decide to play creatures.
- Bond of Agony requires you pay life. If a Lich deck wanted to play it, it would likely have to give up on the idea of being at 0 life, and include 'life' in it's deck concept.
- Abjure requires the sac'ing of a Blue permanent. If a deck wants to play this it has to include Blue permanents.
In the same respect - NewKozi requires the payment of colorless mana. (The only difference here is that it is represented in it's mana cost instead of through text) - If your deck wants to play NewKozi, you will have to adapt the deck accordingly.
You could view this as him having 
for the cost, and the text "As an additional cost to cast NewKozi, pay 2 mana that have no color." - Of course, there are other differences, as it would lower the CMC to 8 instead of 10, but that's a different concept.
Yes, adding this card to your deck may mean running a different land base, but that is not the same as adding another color... It may even be harder for some decks to do... but that's kind of the flavour/point. He's a titan, and shouldn't be 'easier' to bring out.
Now, I believe you can agree to all of the above. Yet you still choose to view the new symbol as a '6th color'.
It is only a personal opinion to view this symbol as a '6th-color', nothing more. - There are far more differences than similarities, and the similarities it has are also shared by other 'payments/requirements'.
I choose to view this as an 'additional cost cast', just like in Collateral Damage... only this one affects the total CMC, so it has to be displayed mechanically in the casting cost. - I, and others, have tried to show you why we feel it is a misconception to view this as a '6th-color', but you have chosen not to take this view.
This is my last attempt to do so. I hope I have gotten the concept and differences through.
December 15, 2015 2:48 p.m.
TheNextRedDude says... #13
Kenthris In terms of casting, colorless is basically colored mana. You are right about that. If you want to play a card that costs <>, you must pay colorless mana. Just like to play a green card, you must pay 
. However, getting salty because cards cost colored mana you cannot produce is pointless. You might as well complain that Mono-Red aggro cannot play Part the Waterveil. If you want to play Kozilek and friends, play a deck that can produce colorless mana. Now, remember, not ALL colorless cards will cost <>. In fact, most sets after Oath of the Gatewatch will use it sparingly, or not at all.
December 15, 2015 2:54 p.m.
The only times you need to pay <> are for cards that specifically have that symbol in their costs. The generic mana symbol (e.g. 
) can be paid for with anything.
Really, the only change that is occurring is the need for colorless mana to cast spells with <> in their costs.
Nothing else has changed.
If that gets you mad because you need Wastes to cast certain cards, then that's no different (as someone already said) from complainign that you need Blue sources in your Mono-Red deck to cast Part the Waterveil. It's the exact same thing. Also, as others have been quick to point out, spells with <> in their costs are likely only going to be in Oath since the Eldrazi warp mana and generate their own energies.
December 15, 2015 3:12 p.m.
canterlotguardian says... #15
TheNextRedDude eeurgh Part the Waterveil. stupid exile clause on modern extra turn spells. :|
December 15, 2015 3:12 p.m.
@zandl - I think you're helping prove his point that it is like another color... You're saying "he needs to produce 
(a color) in a Red deck if he wants to play Part the Waterveil".
- In his view (and some others), this is the same as saying "he needs to produce <> (a pseudo-color) in a Red deck if he wants to play NewKozi." ... You can see why some could draw the comparison.
This is why he's referring to it as a 6th-color. - My post #687 is an explanation of the differences, and reasons as to why it should not be viewed as such.
December 15, 2015 3:21 p.m.
TheNextRedDude says... #18
Rayenous It doesn't really matter how he views it as long as he understands it. If he chooses to view it as a 6th color, so be it, as long as he knows when to make the distinction, which I assume he does. I'm not saying it isn't misleading, just that he can still understand it. (Note: he asked for the explanation about how it works in costs, where it is essentially a 6th color)
December 15, 2015 3:24 p.m.
The only reason I feel it sort-of matters, is that most new players learn by other players... If people start teaching new players that there are 6-colors, there will be long-term issues.
December 15, 2015 3:28 p.m.
Is he incorrect, though? When we look at the new <> cards, then <> is like a new color in certain aspects.
However, I was striving to prove a point as it seemed he was complaining that there are now colorless creatures that require more thought and deck-building prowess than just counting your lands and smudging them sideways.
December 15, 2015 3:30 p.m.
It is like a new color but for all cards that care about color it has no color itself. That I think is where the problems come in if you treat it as if it were a color
December 15, 2015 3:44 p.m.
Here's the thing, Colorless is by definition not a color. So there are 5 symbols for the colors of mana 
and a symbol for colorless C. You'll mostly see C when it comes to producing mana that isn't one of the 5 colors. If you see a number inside a circle like , then it is referring to generic mana or mana of any type.
December 15, 2015 4:03 p.m.
The term "Generic mana" is something I had never heard of until Mark used it on blogatog, several times, in the last week. Understanding that almost every card requires "Generic" mana to play, not colorless, and that colorless is not a color, has really helped me out. Trying to understand this without knowing about "generic mana" I kept going to a sixth color. Once I understood Generic mana that was done.
December 15, 2015 4:29 p.m.
It's cool. I think everyone had that one panic-stricken second where they thought Draco's cost would be <> x 16, but then learned that that's not the case.
December 15, 2015 4:34 p.m. Edited.
Ok, just to be clear, I don't have ANY problem with anyone... I love ALL the mtg community! Sometimes, we say the same thing, but in different way...
I may be salty, but I am afraid... Mtg has cost me much money and time already. I will be sad, if another variable enters the game and makes it harder to play. I didn't and don't see the point of adding a new type of casting creatures, but at least I am not alone! In time, I may come used to it.
I am sorry, if I offended anyone with my saltiness xD
December 15, 2015 4:46 p.m.
to throw into the colorless thing I remember either last summer or last year they had asked an RD person, or Maro, about colorless commanders since it was a bit of a bummer that in order to play with a commander like ulamog or kozilek your mana base had to be all nonbasic, colorless and colorless identity lands.
Anyways they mentioned that one of the things they were working on was a way to remedy that problem in the coming year or so (this was the same article that mentioned it wanted to move on from Jace as the main blue planeswalker) The fact this happened didn't totally surprise me when I thought back to that as I was expecting it to be remedied in a commander set. side note call due to this recalled information and some art I saw for Shadows over Innistrad Jace becomes UB in the next block and we get a new main blue walker within the year.
TL;DR: Wizards has alluded to this happening within the last year.
December 15, 2015 5:06 p.m.
Now, this is why i think its OK to post separate forum posts about specific cards spoiled. Spoiler season hasn't started yet and this thread has 15 pages. Can we all agree that posting a thread in the spoiler forum during spoiler season is OK?
December 15, 2015 5:07 p.m.
TheNextRedDude says... #28
Kenthris At least it was sodium chloride and not just sodium. You would have a hard time playing blue, if you know what I'm saying.
December 15, 2015 7:29 p.m.
Going back to your "salty" post, WoTC has said that it is not a new type of mana.
December 15, 2015 8:44 p.m.
EDHNUT I, as well as many others, see it as a new mana... Hell, it does what a new mana would do! , it is obligatory to have waste to play some creatures
December 15, 2015 9:06 p.m.
Colorless is not new... The only thing that is different is that <> cannot be produced by anything that doesn't say: Tap to add [<>] to your mana pool...
December 15, 2015 9:19 p.m.
ToolmasterOfBrainerd says... #33
So correct me if I'm wrong, but Birds of Paradise (or more relevantly Beastcaller Savant) cannot produce <> mana. That makes it more annoying than another color, but at least Evolving Wilds can fetch Wastes.
December 15, 2015 9:28 p.m.
@ ToolmasterOfBrainerd - Correct. Neither birds of paradise nor beastcaller savant can produce colorless mana.
December 15, 2015 9:30 p.m.
wwhitegoldd says... #36
You guys are way over dramatising the colorless thing. If Wizards was going to be printing like 25 new colorless cards with each set then yeah, it would be a problem. But there not. It's barely going to be used in oath let alone any other block so it's very likely they don't even print a playable card for another year. Just chill out. I'm 99% sure you won't even have to worry about putting a colorless card in your deck because they're won't even be a playable card in the first place.
December 15, 2015 9:37 p.m.
I don't know about you guys, but aside from all of the blah-blah mechanic details (yeah I know I love them too but thats not the point ;D), FINALLY an upgrade to my U/B hyper-aggro eldrazi deck (Ingest Pressure), if the blue and black eldrazi (shush don't bring Devoid into this) are just as flavorful and maybe even better than BFZ, I'm thinking that eldrazi aggro might just get the push it needs to get past Dragons of Tarkir aggro bases in standard! Thoughts on how playable eldrazi-based decks will become, considering the power level of Dragons of Tarkir and Jace are insanely high?
December 16, 2015 12:09 a.m.
And come on Kiora, WHY did you have to get Lorthos killed? He was my fav! And why aren't YOU featured in the Oath? Were you too uncooperative and stuck up? Or do you just want the rest of Zendikar to end up like Lorthos* O_O or maybe you just aren't an important enough planeswalker to get on the front spoilers ;P
*RIP- Lorthos, you will always be remembered for your huge CMC, power level, and big waves
December 16, 2015 12:12 a.m.
big BIG waves.
Hey necromancers out there can we go trade kiora for lorthos please?
December 16, 2015 12:32 a.m.
As a humble servant to my one and only Queen, I herby inform you on her behalf, that your request has been denied. Liliana has no interest in bringing back stinky fish.
December 16, 2015 4:11 a.m. Edited.
EpicFreddi says... #41
Putrefy it sounded like a fishy deal in the first place, amirite?
December 16, 2015 4:14 a.m.
On behalf of my one and only Queen I have to inform you EpicFreddi, that your attempt at being funny failed miserably. If you intend to try that again in the future, you might want to reconsider or else... She hinted at something something "rip his face off". My apologies.
December 16, 2015 6:57 a.m. Edited.
Is it just me, or does the wastes/ruined sea gate art left by kozilek look a lot like bismuth crystals?
December 16, 2015 10:01 a.m.
xavrr - That's on purpose. They've called the lands ravaged by Kozilek as Bismuth. Which is different than the bony/desiccated corruption of Ulamog.
December 16, 2015 10:03 a.m.
TheAnnihilator says... #45
Has anyone mentioned the duel-decks Geist of Saint Traft reprint (presumably, I don't read the language)?
December 16, 2015 10:06 a.m.
1.) It is Geist of Saint Traft. You can deduce that from the text that mentions a 4/4.
2.) That's really not an Oath of the Gatewatch spoiler, so it really doesn't belong here.
December 16, 2015 10:09 a.m.
canterlotguardian says... #47
TheAnnihilator wait. Geist as a duel deck print? I'm going to get at least four. I need em for a Modern deck I'm considering.
December 16, 2015 10:11 a.m.
TheAnnihilator says... #48
JWiley129 While you're right, I'm so not making a new forum. I'm too lazy. xD
December 16, 2015 10:15 a.m.
kyuuri117, BFZ is not a financial failure. Sure, on the ultra-competitive GP/PTQ circuit, you won't see much BFZ at ALL. But that isn't even a majority of sales here. A lot of singles that are "fairly" cheap are used in so many FNM budget decks I've seen. They also make plenty of money off of selling packs? If you want 4 Ulamog, boom thats $60. One Jace. But the only reason they aren't making as much money on it as they will post-rotation is because of power creep. KTK block is just so overwhelmingly powerful that BFZ looks bad... when compared to other sets, its actually pretty darn good. When the power of KTK block is put out of standard, BFZ prices are probably going to see a bump- the "bad cards" that are weaker than KTK are all the sudden possibly some of the best style of card in the format. Take Ugin's Insight for example. That's a good draw spell that I think will rise about $1 or more after rotation for use in blue control decks, unless OGW comes out with a better one. People only overlook it because we have Dig Through Time and Treasure Cruise- THE 2 best draw spells in the format. (Unless your dragons and playing Dragonlord's Prerogative). You can't expect every set to have 20+% playables at near a standard staple price.
MurderHood says... #1
There might just be a Kor Haven tho, we just don't know it
December 15, 2015 1:04 p.m.