Grillo_Parlante
Contributor
Thats probably, at the end of the day, the most sensible way to approach these cards
Sets [OGW] Oath of the Gatewatch Spoiler Thread
- Thread starter shamizy
- Start date
The new wastes mana business just seems so out of character, such a bizarre, trying angle to pursue. What's the point of it? To try and wean players off a higher power level in standard by distracting them with Super Gimmicks? There is not nearly enough stuff in the set that cares about colourless for Devoid to feel like it has much meaning, and the new mana symbol... Just, wow. An ocean of confusion just washes over Magic's history and for such a boring, low-impact idea. I just think it was such a huge mistake, personally. I'd have rather seen a new, rare, high-power colour come out than this extreme nonsense about colourless. Or heck, maybe not even go down this gimmicky road from the get-go? I don't know. It just doesn't make sense to me, and it's quite unsatisfying.
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
I think you are objectively wrong. Time will tell if the mechanic will receive enough support, but in my mind, this is how colorless mana should have worked from the start! If you're not agreeing you're just glossing over the fact that
has been used to mean two entirely different things throughout Magic's history. Generic mana and colorlous mana are not the same, but until now, there was no way to tell so from the cards. Now there is, and that's a great improvement from a number of perspectives!
I think it is meant to make players more prone to playing 1-2 color decks, less goodstuff rainbow. But colorless as it is now looks like a wonky 3rd color without good lands and few cards. If they print tap for colorless or color lands it becomes no different really from any other color. Unless they print a lot of cards like reality smasher so that colorless becomes integral to most decks. In which case we have a new problem.
If colorless is going to work, and not just be another color, they have to think more carefully about what they print. And they have to think even more carefully about what not to print. I think there are a lot of interesting things they can do with colorless if they are really careful.
If colorless is going to work, and not just be another color, they have to think more carefully about what they print. And they have to think even more carefully about what not to print. I think there are a lot of interesting things they can do with colorless if they are really careful.
Grillo_Parlante
Contributor
I think its a solution to a problem that never existed.
I think you are objectively wrong. Time will tell if the mechanic will receive enough support, but in my mind, this is how colorless mana should have worked from the start! If you're not agreeing you're just glossing over the fact that
It's clear that from a strict rules perspective, generic mana and colorless mana are not the same and need to be differentiated, but the difference was not remotely confusing or unintuitive to me when I was a 10-year old opening packs of Ice Age and Mirage and playing with my neighbors (and believe me, we made a LOT of rules errors! Cumulative upkeep cards were bombs since we didn't understand "cumulative".)
A numbered mana amount or cost just meant to us "pay or add this much mana, the color of the mana added or required is N/A."
From an elegance standpoint, I loathe the diamond mana symbols - (2) or (3) just looks so much nicer than <><> or <><><>.
Unless they really go somewhere interesting with the "color pie" of colorless mana, I feel like the loss of elegance and simplicity is a net negative. Time will tell of course.
I'm with Raveborn on this.
I mean, I understand Onderzeeboot's point about the difference between colourless and generic mana. That is true and makes sense. But the execution is very poor. I think they should have devoted more space to it in order to flesh out the concept. Maybe introducing colourless mana in BFZ would have been better in this regard.
Also, I fail to see a philosophy behind this "colourless colour". I don't know if this is due to the limited amount of
cards we have, or if it is because WotC didn't bother to think about it. All I know is that you can describe what White does and cares about; the same applies to the other four colours. But colourless? Some cards have abilities which clearly belong to other colours (see the colourless Nameless Inversion and the beefier Mesmeric Fiend), while others seem to be colourless just because their abilities feel wacky/random or too powerful for their mana cost. They have had 20 years to fix this colourless/generic mana inconsistency, and now that they finally did it feels like when you're late to write your essay and just fill it with enough crap to reach the minimum amount of pages required.
The thing that bugs me the most, though, is the current Oracle wording of cards like Urza's Tower. It's so inelegant. To me, that's enough justification to never again print lands that provide more than one mana. But that is something they hopefully learned regardless of this, honestly.
Regarding the inclusion of cards in our Cube lists, I came to think that it only makes sense if we are also running an artifacts-matter theme or a morph theme. That way we can more easily support colourless-producing lands and colourless-matter cards. Otherwise, I don't think it's worth it to complicate our life. Again, most colourless cards (most of the interesting ones, at least) simply borrow abilities from the actual colours and pair them with slightly beefier stats. I would rather go for the less-powerful, coloured-cost versions and keep mana bases simple.
I mean, I understand Onderzeeboot's point about the difference between colourless and generic mana. That is true and makes sense. But the execution is very poor. I think they should have devoted more space to it in order to flesh out the concept. Maybe introducing colourless mana in BFZ would have been better in this regard.
Also, I fail to see a philosophy behind this "colourless colour". I don't know if this is due to the limited amount of
cards we have, or if it is because WotC didn't bother to think about it. All I know is that you can describe what White does and cares about; the same applies to the other four colours. But colourless? Some cards have abilities which clearly belong to other colours (see the colourless Nameless Inversion and the beefier Mesmeric Fiend), while others seem to be colourless just because their abilities feel wacky/random or too powerful for their mana cost. They have had 20 years to fix this colourless/generic mana inconsistency, and now that they finally did it feels like when you're late to write your essay and just fill it with enough crap to reach the minimum amount of pages required.The thing that bugs me the most, though, is the current Oracle wording of cards like Urza's Tower. It's so inelegant. To me, that's enough justification to never again print lands that provide more than one mana. But that is something they hopefully learned regardless of this, honestly.
Regarding the inclusion of
cards in our Cube lists, I came to think that it only makes sense if we are also running an artifacts-matter theme or a morph theme. That way we can more easily support colourless-producing lands and colourless-matter cards. Otherwise, I don't think it's worth it to complicate our life. Again, most colourless cards (most of the interesting ones, at least) simply borrow abilities from the actual colours and pair them with slightly beefier stats. I would rather go for the less-powerful, coloured-cost versions and keep mana bases simple.
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
If colorless mana had looked like this from the start, you would not have batted an eye. I can understand you guys questioning the execution, because there doesn't seem to be a coherent plan for what colorless mana 'does'. Then again, Kozilek and his spawn are supposed to be weird and undefinable, outside the color pie, so to speak. This is however, imho, confusing the execution of the colorless theme in Oath with the elegance and mechanical 'sense' of the colorless mana symbol. Maybe I'm just a sucker for rules elegance, but it has always bugged me that
meant two different things. Did it impair my ability to play Magic correctly? Of course not, someone explained to me what the deal was in one of my first games of Magic and it was never a problem. The important thing, however, is that it had to be explained. Even if it's easy to get, that shows how impossible it is to derive the difference between and from the cards. I really, really like that they finally fixed that inconsistency in symbolic representation.As for the colorless theme, I ordered a few cards that I'm willing to try out, simply because they look like fun to play. Colorless was a blast at the prerelease as well, at least for me! It's likely wrong though to just treat
as , because at that point you're just creating new Wurmcoil Engines, i.e. bombs that require no color commitment and are thus objectively good first picks. If has a real cost, and you have to adapt your mana base to include these awesome cards, I'ld feel much more comfortable. I therefore plan on accomodating colorless mana to support the cards, by adding new customs to the cube, and Crumbling Vestige to the basic land pile. Currently thinking of this design.
If you strip the colorless requirement from costs, you should probably replace with , not . This is how costing works for the 5 original colors.
with , not . This is how costing works for the 5 original colors.
I'm definitely with Onder on this one, it should have been put into use long before now, they are fun to play, and they'll be fun to try out.
I also personally find the symbol aesthetically pleasing. Sol Ring getting looks cool to me.
I've so far tested out Endbringer in Jori En edh, and have had 0 trouble casting and using the, Draw a card ability. I like that my reliquary tower etc actually are pulling more weight now, and it adds a cool dimension to manabase building imo. I don't think of my Jori En deck as a deck now, I just made sure I had the support. Same goes for limited decks. My RUGb value deck (4-0) at the prerelease had blinding drone and a couple others, but it just came down to making sure I had enough support in my non-basics, and it made for a fun mana base building experience.
I zero percent recommned you errata it to generic. Ferritovore is on the right track, but I more think that = , maybe can swing to on the right card. But really. Thought-knot seer at , are you kidding? First pickable guaranteed, no thought etc etc. Guaranteed better thanVendilion Clique at that point, and already gives it a solid run for it's money. Spatial distortion just a generic kill spell any control-oriented deck can highly pick? no thanks.
I will say that I agree on "why oh why not execute it from the start?" Would have been awesome to have >1 set of cards to choose from.
I also personally find the symbol aesthetically pleasing. Sol Ring getting
looks cool to me.I've so far tested out Endbringer in Jori En edh, and have had 0 trouble casting and using the
, Draw a card ability. I like that my reliquary tower etc actually are pulling more weight now, and it adds a cool dimension to manabase building imo. I don't think of my Jori En deck as a deck now, I just made sure I had the support. Same goes for limited decks. My RUGb value deck (4-0) at the prerelease had blinding drone and a couple others, but it just came down to making sure I had enough support in my non-basics, and it made for a fun mana base building experience.I zero percent recommned you errata it to generic. Ferritovore is on the right track, but I more think that
= , maybe can swing to on the right card. But really. Thought-knot seer at , are you kidding? First pickable guaranteed, no thought etc etc. Guaranteed better thanVendilion Clique at that point, and already gives it a solid run for it's money. Spatial distortion just a generic kill spell any control-oriented deck can highly pick? no thanks.I will say that I agree on "why oh why not execute it from the start?" Would have been awesome to have >1 set of cards to choose from.
I love the new colorless mechanic. Drafted OGW on Friday and had a blast with it. It introduces interesting draft tension by having to prioritize your fixing if you end up drafting a lot of cards with colorless activation costs and there's neat play with a card like Crumbling Vestige. There's a lot of space left to be explored with this new "color" and I'm interested in seeing where they end up going with it.
I zero percent recommned you errata it to generic. Ferritovore is on the right track, but I more think that
I feel like you are cherry-picking to prove your point. Thought-Knot is the only one that I feel is really pushed by converting
to straight up, and it does probably belong at . Reality Smasher is comparable to Thundermaw Hellkite, Distortion isn't any worse than including Dismember, Displacer is slow regardless of the colorless requirement (the only argument I can see is that it's slightly easier to activate twice), Endbringer seems much worse than anything in the Titan cycle. Please remember the context too - I run a high-power cube. JtmS, Jitte, Wurmcoil, etc. - I know they are maligned here but my playgroup enjoys them, and last weekend I saw resolved Jittes/Wurmcoils/Jaces all get crushed. Obviously if I was running a cube full of Kiln Fiends and Ondu Giants, I probably wouldn't even consider running the set of colorless cards I listed.
I feel like you are cherry-picking to prove your point. Thought-Knot is the only one that I feel is really pushed by converting
Please remember the context too - I run a high-power cube. JtmS, Jitte, Wurmcoil, etc. - I know they are maligned here but my playgroup enjoys them, and last weekend I saw resolved Jittes/Wurmcoils/Jaces all get crushed. Obviously if I was running a cube full of Kiln Fiends and Ondu Giants, I probably wouldn't even consider running the set of colorless cards I listed.
That is how someone makes an argument, else debates would take a million years as everyone lays out every single scrap of evidence at every turn. In any case, I think the fact that you have to compare these cards to design mistakes and GRBS is telling enough. I like that you bring up the titan cycle, because I think an actually good comparison is:
vs. Replacing all the
with generic, look how outclassed the soul (a perfectly powerful card in the right deck) looks! Endbringer can draw probably a similar amount of cards for ~half the total cost, but does it in two easy optional payments, and provides alternative utility otherwise! In multiplayer, it just blows the soul out of the water. That's just unfair for colored spells, and the reason they put the restriction. Same goes for spatial distortion at , and yes, same goes for the design mistake dismember.As always, feel free to not follow my recommendation
.For the rest of you out there thinking this is a nifty way to go about it, please rethink unless you are very high power.
I listed six cards.
In any case, I think the fact that you have to compare these cards to design mistakes and GRBS is telling enough. I like that you bring up the titan cycle, because I think an actually good comparison is:
Replacing all the
I agree, I believe the Soul is outclassed in a cube of my power level, not just by Endbringer, but in totality. If you don't enjoy cubes of that power level, that's alright.
My playgroup enjoys the "play with the most powerful cards of Magic's history" aspect of the cube. The most powerful cards in Magic's history are in a lot of cases, design or development mistakes.
At any rate, I think the generic mana conversion is worth trying out, worst case scenario I pull them back out of the cube or change the errata. You are acting like I'm making some sort of unfathomable mistake and it's kind of turning me off of this discussion
I listed six cards.
I agree, I believe the Soul is outclassed in a cube of my power level, not just by Endbringer, but in totality. If you don't enjoy cubes of that power level, that's alright.
My playgroup enjoys the "play with the most powerful cards of Magic's history" aspect of the cube. The most powerful cards in Magic's history are in a lot of cases, design or development mistakes.
At any rate, I think the generic mana conversion is worth trying out, worst case scenario I pull them back out of the cube or change the errata. You are acting like I'm making some sort of unfathomable mistake and it's kind of turning me off of this discussion
I wasn't referring to you, only arguments in general. In fact, none of my posts are aimed just at you, because I'm trying to include the rest of the community. For the vast majority of cubes over in the cube lists thread, this change as laid out would be a big mistake for them, even if they immediately realize it and abort. If it's not a big mistake for you, go to town!
I'm sorry if I'm turning you off to something, my only goal is to evaluate topics and let people know what I feel about them in a broad sense.
Speaking of evaluating things, Onder, when do you think you'll be getting your first chance to try out Crumbling Vestige in the BLB? I'm really excited to see how that goes
I like high power environments in theory but for me I still want design restrictions because they bring flavor to the environment, like color pie and themes (and tribes). I think it is worth considering what happens to a drafting environment when adding a lot of generically good cards that do not even have color restriction. I can understand the sentiment of wanting to up the power closer to wormcoil on these new cards, but I think it might hurt other parts of the drafting and cubing experience.
You can and should still do you.
You can and should still do you.
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
I think he agreed with you that he was cherrypicking, because that is how discussions play out. As in: of course he's cherry picking, if he would do a full recap you'ld still be reading his post next year
I think in your cube replacing
by is okay. The premise of his argument is that Wurmcoil Engine and Dismember are design mistakes and unfun in cube. If your playgroup finds these cards fun, upping a few cards to the same power level by ignoring seems perfectly fine. It's not my cup of tea, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be yours! I got double sniped while writing my own counterpoint
. Seriously, any data on this would be A+.
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
Oof.. I hope soon, but the weekends in the first three months are always overbooked because of all of our close relatives have their birthday then. Work and other hobbies get in the way of cubing midweek, and I'ld have to update my cube before I can play again. Pretty big overhaul as well, because I want to make sure this theme is viable. So, honestly, it might take longer then I'ld care to admit to myself :/I got double sniped while writing my own counterpoint
Don't get me wrong, I am a design and balance nerd myself. Despite having a high-power cube, I do not subscribe to power-maxing, and have omitted commonplace cards like Ancestral Vision, Treachery, and recently Vedalken Shackles due to how much they tip the scales towards blue in an uninteresting way. Mtgsalvation amateur designer-quality shit like Mystic Confluence will never see my cube. However, I keep similarly powerful cards like Fact or Fiction around just because of the interesting moments they lead to.
But I also have learned that things that excite me turn off my cube group. Ex. Breaking singleton was not well-received by my cube group despite being commonplace on this forum, except for double fetches which everyone agreed made the environment more interesting (I have eventually convinced them to allow me to break singleton on black one-drops.) In the end, I build my cube for my friends to enjoy. One guy just loves Kargan Dragonlord and Geralf's Messenger so they stay in the cube despite their restrictive mana costs.
What's one other thing that my group likes? Cards from new sets. The new colorless symbol has also been uniformly panned by them. In addition, we play pick-one-burn-one so if someone really hates a particular card's existence, they can just throw it in the trash as soon as they see it.
The differences we all have in our environments does make it difficult to discuss things and come to shared understanding, but I appreciate all of the feedback on the idea regardless.