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.
Except that Wastes has a card number, not a token number... it is a card that is played in the deck.
December 9, 2015 10:08 a.m.
EpicFreddi says... #4
Plus the ability to exile lands on demand when damage is dealt is just too insane, dont you think?One hit and my opponent can only play colorless stuff in the early turns. Or I cut off his splash color forever. Seems a little bit extreme to me.
December 9, 2015 10:14 a.m.
AgentGreen says... #5
Depends on the flip side; ok the threat of losing colored mana is extreme, but let's balance it out to make the critter on the other side have a CMC in the mid-to-high range (with one or two <> in the casting cost) to make it difficult to drop but a real threat when dropped
December 9, 2015 10:20 a.m.
Excluding the 99% change that the card is legit...
Your whole theory on 'Wastes' extends from seeing that card.
I'm just pointing out that this card, the one your entire theory is based on, is not a token.
December 9, 2015 10:20 a.m.
To expand on the theory though.... and not need it to be a token.
I like the idea of an Eldrazi creature which lets you 'exile a land you control' to 'search your library for a basic land with no basic land subtype and put it onto the battlefield tapped'.
December 9, 2015 10:24 a.m. Edited.
AgentGreen says... #8
For an Eldrazi player (like me), who will want to have colorless mana; that would be an awesome ability to have.
December 9, 2015 10:26 a.m.
wwhitegoldd says... #9
I think you guys are WAY over complicating this thing. I think it's just a land.
December 9, 2015 10:46 a.m.
I completely agree, it's just a land. - But with the inclusion of a new type of basic land (something which will inevitably have unforeseen consequences), as well as Spells/Abilities which specifically require colorless mana... as well as lore revolving around the Eldrazi creating these land... there should be some form of interesting interactions.
At this point, Evolving Wilds will be the best means of fetching for this, as it can also allow you to fetch for coloured mana when needed.
December 9, 2015 11:02 a.m.
Making a "colorless only" cost is actually an alright way to effectively add a sixth color with existing support. Now they can, for example, make a (2)<><><> 5/5 Flying, Vigilance creature without fearing that it breaks the color pie- other colors only have access to it if they run a lot of lands/cards which give colorless mana, and colorless gets access to everything at steep costs (in this case, it is the steep mana requirement of <><><> that makes it hard to cast).
In any case, people won't really run wastes when they can just run utility lands like Blighted Fen.
December 9, 2015 12:57 p.m.
I'm just waiting for Cryptic Command that costs <><><><> so that I can cast it with Mystic Gate without even tapping for colored mana.
(Let me just put the standard "Sarcasm" note here...)
December 9, 2015 1:05 p.m.
On the contrary. Having a mono-black deck with "easy" access to a 5/5 Flying Vigilance completely obliterates the color pie. (Relatively easy to insert an artifact that produces <>, compared to mana of specific color).
Wizards needs to ensure that "<>" as a 'must be colorless' cost is used sparingly. It should only be used for Eldrazi, and perhaps other things that have a 'truly' colorless flavour to them.
They also need to ensure that when they use <>, the card sits near the middle of the color pie... or off it completely.
December 9, 2015 1:11 p.m. Edited.
Rayenous The mono black deck wouldn't be mono black. To be able to produce <><><> turn 5, it would have to dip heavily into colorless, even with artifacts.
Essentially, by increasing the <>s in a mana cost in relation to (1)s, you make it harder to play in decks which aren't colorless (so they may as well have cost the steep colorless cost) while colorless decks find it easier to cast them. This increases how plausible it is to play a colorless deck while not affecting other decks at all. By your argument, Scion of Ugin is a color pie break; it couldn't be any bigger or cheaper because other colors could play it, but colorless could play it if it just cost <><><> instead. I mean, Anafenza is easier to play and probably better.
December 9, 2015 1:40 p.m.
@ Rayenous have you seen Rune-Scarred Demon, Desecration Demon, Abyssal Persecutor or Ob Nixilis, the Fallen?
Having to use <> to cast it is the drawback that makes it fall in line with every other demon because mono 
wants to be using Devotion with Gray Merchant of Asphodel and to cast tripple or quad symbol cards such as:
Dread
Bridge from Below
Dark Prophecy
Erebos's Titan
Garza's Assassin
Geralf's Messenger
Grave Pact
Greater Harvester
Helldozer
and many more.
A 5/5 flying Vigilance is pretty vanilla. The only part that might "break" the color pie there is the actual Vigilance.
The real concern isn't a color getting something from outside it's color pie. The real concern is colors having their key defining attributes taken so that they aren't the only color that does it. (White isn't the only color with Vigilance. Vigilance is not a special snowflake.)
Colorless Counterspell = bad. On the other hand colorless Islandwalk = who cares?
Colorless Lightning Bolt that really doesn't require any 
to cast is bad. Colorless haste = meh?
Colorless discard for cheap = OH GOD NO! On the other hand colorless menace = who cares? (They already have colorless menace anyways).
The point I'm trying to make is moving something that's already got secondary and tertiary colors into colorless isn't that big a deal as far as color identity goes especially if it's Evergreen. Moving effects that are still highly specialized into colorless is a big deal.
December 9, 2015 1:46 p.m.
A land maybe or something silly like "Destroy target wall".
December 9, 2015 1:55 p.m.
@TheNextRedDude, You would be correct. It is Sea Gate. To find out why it looks like that though you'll have to go read today's Uncharted Realms. I don't want to give out any spoilers for those who haven't read it yet and are planning to.
December 9, 2015 3:48 p.m.
TheNextRedDude says... #20
I actually went straight to read it after i left the comment. Awesome UR.
December 9, 2015 3:54 p.m.
Looks like Kozilek took a chunk out of sea gate. And I believe the theories of each eldrazi having there own corruption can be confirmed. Now we just need to see the mysterious sixth basic confirmed.
December 9, 2015 9:04 p.m.
DarkLaw they could also just play a bunch of colorless lands and Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth. Also, not modern but Grand Coliseum could work great in EDH/casual formats with the colorless cards.
December 9, 2015 9:27 p.m.
IvoryFrost says... #23
I'm going to make a guess and say it's an enchantment where all your lands can produce wastes.
I know, it's crazy.
December 9, 2015 10:25 p.m.
I just read the UR and Kozilek is scarier then Ulamog. Also Kiora is stupid.
December 10, 2015 1:33 a.m.
TheNextRedDude says... #26
Kozilek and Ulamog kind of form Cthulu together. Giant, ancient god beasts, make you go mad, tentacles.
December 10, 2015 6:55 a.m.
From what I saw, you can pay (1) with <>, but you can't pay <> with (1).
<> got it's own color, "colorless color" sounds kinda welsh, so voidmana will just do fine for me.
So basically the new Mystic Gate upgrades the old Mystic Gate because it now can produce colored mana (<> to be exact) for tapping instead of (1).
Although, that mana can only be spend on eldrazi stuff atm, so it's not too strong yet.
They will propably keep the voidmana for other sets as the story unfolds.
That's my theory atleast, else they wouldn't need to print basic lands giving <>.
December 10, 2015 11:59 a.m.
masterHephner57 says... #28
So can wastes be added with cards like Chromatic Star and others that add any color or does it not count unless it says it can add the wastes color?
December 10, 2015 1 p.m.
We don't know yet. I am guessing that your land has to be capable of making colorless such as Llanowar Wastes (based on how they changed Mystic Gate). I would think that a land like Mana Confluence wouldn't be able to make colorless.
December 10, 2015 1:20 p.m.
------ The point is, they wouldn't errata an old card (which isn't in the set) to do something that it didn't originally. That's why we all think <> is a cost that can only be paid by colorless mana, and that <> is effectively the new symbol for when something adds colorless to your mana pool.
Unless you meant (1) as generic mana, of course.
December 10, 2015 1:21 p.m.
@------I think you have that wrong. Previously Mystic Gate added 
which means colorless mana in this context, but the symbol for colorless mana and generic mana were the same. Now the errata to Mystic Gate says that it adds 1 <> (1 colorless mana). <> mana can be spent on something that requires <> mana (just like you would tap a plains for something that required 
or you can spend it on something that requires (just like you would tap any other land for ). The <> mana symbol is a way for Wizards to differentiate between things that need generic mana (any many can be spent toward this cost) and things that need colorless mana (only <> mana can be spent toward this cost).
@masterHephner57 I think you may be confused by the post above you. The new basic land "Waste", does not add mana of any color to your mana pool. It specifically adds colorless mana, and as the name suggest, colorless mana does not have a color. So just as Chromatic Star could not produce colorless mana before, it still can not do it. There is just now a distinguishable difference between <> (colorless mana) and (generic mana/ aka mana of any color can be spent) because before there wasn't since they both used the same symbol.
December 10, 2015 1:23 p.m.
lucasfanti says... #32
They can't reprint a card and change its text. The expedition Mystic Gate all but CONFIRMS that <> = colorless mana. That way, 1 will now stand for only GENERIC MANA, and only appear in costs, not be produced. <> is now a mana with NO COLOR, that way, can't be produced by Chromatic Star or Mana Confluence or anything like that.
December 10, 2015 1:25 p.m.
MagicalHacker says... #33
I wonder how Everflowing Chalice will be errata'd...
December 10, 2015 1:32 p.m. Edited.
GreenGhost says... #34
Pretty simple actually. All that needs to be changed is the mana being added from 1 to <>.
December 10, 2015 1:40 p.m.
I think people are confusing themselves by thinking that colorless mana is something new. We already had many things that previously added colorless mana, like lots of mana rocks (i.e. Sol Ring). So this is not a new concept to magic but because colorless mana and "generic mana cost" used the same symbol there was no way to signify when something required colorless mana specifically in it's cost. They could only specify when something added colorless mana to your mana pool. All they've done is give colorless mana it's own symbol so they can specify when things require colorless mana specifically in it's cost. Just like they've done with White, Blue, Black, Red, and Green since forever. Again, colorless mana is not a new concept, only the symbol has changed so it's no longer using the same symbol as generic mana cost.
Aside for there being a new symbol for colorless mana, the only other new thing is that we have a basic land called "Waste" that specifically adds colorless mana. Magic has had numerous lands that specifically added colorless mana before, just never one that was "Basic". It will function like any other basic land does with one noticeable difference. All other basic lands have a supertype "Basic Land" and a subtype (plains, island, swamp, mountain, or forest). Waste only contains the supertype "Basic Land" and has no subtype at all. This shouldn't be an issue though as it can be fetched by anything that searches for a basic land still. Since these are new, adding a subtype means that there would not be any older cards that would interacted with the new subtype, so adding a subtype to Waste would only affect future cards printed. Leaving it off probably effects design the least as now the only real change they have to worry about is specifying when something (like the new kozilek) requires colorless mana specifically, and when something (like the new ulamog) requires generic mana of any color.
December 10, 2015 1:52 p.m.
It seems strange that they're changing the (1) in Mystic Gate when that will make it strictly better than a basic (Wastes), which is something the design team is supposed to avoid? I guess they're making an exception for colourless, as it is a bit less valuable than a regular colour, and Wastes doesn't have a basic land type, and is most likely just a way around the 4-of rule. Still, I'm not sure I like that, assuming all (1)'s are now <>, Wastes is strictly worse than painlands and filterlands (amongst others, like Haven of the Spirit Dragon and Ally Encampment.)
December 10, 2015 2:16 p.m.
Schuesseled says... #37
@lucasfanti Well actually they can and have at times, this just is not one of these times.
December 10, 2015 2:32 p.m.
Schuesseled says... #38
@RubyRobin Unless they make pain lands and filter lands basic lands, then that is not true.
December 10, 2015 2:34 p.m.
abenz419 I agree wholeheartedly. There's a lot of fuss about a massive change that isn't actually happening. Colorless mana has been in the game for most of its life, just sharing a symbol with generic mana.
I am very happy to see them taking advantage of an element of the game that has been here for so long, unused.
All this talk about a massive errata update is a bit exaggerated too. The only thing changing is the symbol. I see so many people upset that Sol Ring is now going to tap for <><>, saying that it's messy. Yet we've been totally fine with Dark Ritual, Pyretic Ritual, Geosurge, etc.
The REAL question is how the heck are they going to errata Mox Lotus?????????
December 10, 2015 2:39 p.m.
@Schuesseled: How would that not be true? Design have said that they no longer make lands that are strictly better than basics, ignoring the downside of being non-basic, and in this case there is no reason (ignoring that filter/painlands are nonbasic) to run Wastes over them, as even in a mono-colourless deck you may as well have the option to produce other colours just on the off chance you end up exchanging control of creatures that have an effect requiring a colour of mana (Alesha, Who Smiles at Death, for example) as there is no disadvantage to doing so (bar cards that interact with non-basic lands which, as per designs rules with determining what is strictly better, are to be ignored).
December 10, 2015 2:47 p.m.
DoyleDixon says... #41
The greatest advantage of the Waste land is it is a BASIC land!!! You have a basic colorless land!! It can be targeted by spells that target basic lands and as a basic land it can have more than four copies in a Standard deck and more than one copy in an EDH. Strictly better than Ally Encampment in a Colorless EDH deck (IMO)
December 10, 2015 3:13 p.m.
In an EDH deck, that is definitely true, but the point is, with coloured lands, design have always said they will not make lands that once you ignore the fact it is non-basic are better than basics (otherwise you could argue Badlands is worse than a Swamp because it's non-basic!), by which they mean it enters untapped, produces mana (for free), and has an additional (beneficial) effect.
December 10, 2015 3:35 p.m.
Schuesseled says... #43
Bang on.
Basic lands carry inherent advantages, such as being easy to fetch but more importantly YOU CAN HAVE MORE THAN 4 in a deck!!!!!!!!!
So no not every land with tap: (1) is better.
December 10, 2015 3:49 p.m.
Schuesseled says... #44
"always said they will not make lands that once you ignore the fact it is non-basic are better than basics" I could think of ummmmm...doing the math.....thousand cards that defy that statement.
December 10, 2015 3:50 p.m.
@RubyRobin - Solemn Simulacrum and Sundering Titan both completely disagree with your assessment, as do I.
The statements Wizards made were in reference to the basic land in print at the time. - This is obviously changing.
Also, the statements they made were referring to land like Oboro, Palace in the Clouds, where if run a blue deck there would be no reason not to play at least one of these, even if your deck has no need for the 'extra ability'.
In the case of 'Wastes', it is intact the opposite... 'Wastes' are specifically being printed so that things like Solemn Simulacrum, Borderland Ranger or Absorb Vis can search for them, while not being hit by things like Blood Moon, Tectonic Edge or Sundering Titan.
If you are playing a non-
deck running 'Waste', then Mystic Gate is not likely an upgrade, as you need neither the or the ... you likely don't have or to activate it... and there are potential downsides to running the gate. - But if you need and/or , then there's a fair chance you would be playing one anyway... even if you DON'T run 'Waste'
December 10, 2015 4:10 p.m. Edited.
TheRedMage says... #46
kyuuri117: I agree with you that the power level of BFZ was very low, but I think that is not the reason the cards in it are worth so little.
Khans of Tarkir had creatures that any sane person would describe as absolutely stupid like the aforementioned Siege Rhino, that went on to become a 4-of in 30% of the standard meta, a 4-of in 30% of the modern meta, and even played in some legacy nic-fit lists. And yet, three weeks after seeing print Siege Rhino was like 7$. Know why? Rhino was not driving the price. People were opening enough product to keep fetches around 15-20$, and that drove the value of cards like Siege Rhino and Mantis Rider down.
It seems to me that BFZ is suffering much of the same phenomenon. Drana is only 5$, but that is because Drana is not driving the price. The quest for expeditions has driven people to open so much product that it has crashed the value of the rest of the set. Obviously the fact that BFZ placed few cards in standard did not help.
As per the draft format, the only thing I have to say is that it grows on you. A couple drafts in I had the same feeling as you, but where I am now (which I think is around 20-ish drafts), with some more experience and some more ability to draft decks that are not steaming piles of garbage, I think that the format is pretty good. It's not triple Khans good, but definitely better than things like triple Gatecrash, or triple Avacyn Restored, or Born-Theros-Theros.
Try awakening a Coastal Discovery. You are going to start liking the format too :)
December 10, 2015 6:10 p.m.
bennybubbles says... #47
I'm not sure where all this hate for BFZ is coming from, it is one of my favourite sets (Which is pretty strong coming from me considering that no set will ever live up to Dragons of Tarkir in my opinion, besides Return to Tarkir of course). One thing that I have noticed is that all the hate seems very Spike-y (all towards value and elite level playability). I think you all need to chill out. I mean, Ulamog, the Ceaseless Hunger exiles 20 cards from your opponent's library! Dragonmaster Outcast is a 1 drop that can summon dragons for free! The allies are essentially Slivers! There are so many awesome cards in the set if you just open your minds, so the real question is: what's not to love?
December 10, 2015 7:52 p.m.
CanadianShinobi says... #49
bennybubbles Well, it's as Ryotenchi said, a lot of the users here (at least a fair few of the more frequent users) tend to be more competitive in nature. I can attest to this. BFZ as a set is weak. It has some big creatures, but that's it. There's nothing even in the set that inspired me to brew. It just felt... generic, I suppose that's a good a word as any.
December 10, 2015 8:23 p.m.
Named_Tawyny says... #50
RubyRobin, Wastes can be fetched with anything that fetches basic lands (eg Evolving Wilds) while the pain lands cannot.
kengiczar says... #1
@ AgentGreen - Yes, that is exactly what needs to happen! That is perfect mechanically and flavorful-wise.
December 9, 2015 9:43 a.m.