Sets [OGW] Oath of the Gatewatch Spoiler Thread
- Thread starter shamizy
- Start date
Chris Taylor
Contributor
Yup. Slam dunk, and it's even the buy a box!
Chris Taylor
Contributor
Neat
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
Yup, that's neat alright!
Talk about an inelegant design. Isn't this the sort of thing yall typically call out for being Commander garbage? It's just so much little fiddly crap for a mountain of mana. It looks like a toolbox for a control player, but at that rate, I'd rather it just be an artifact or something. Pseudo-vigilance on a 5/5 for 6 that pings every damn turn or pacifies or draws cards for a bunch of mana, like.. idk. Why? Why does it have four lines of not related skills? It looks like it should be, what, 
? Eesh. Does this have any precedent, outside of Commander pile-o-effect cards? I don't think I've ever been so offended by card design in my life.
? Eesh. Does this have any precedent, outside of Commander pile-o-effect cards? I don't think I've ever been so offended by card design in my life.
Everybody, switch your manabases to painlands, quick!
I like the Seedborn Muse ability on this. The 3 activated abilities seem a bit excessive.
Power-wise, it controls the board well, but is slow and "dies to Doom Blade"(tm). Looks good for low-mid power cubes if you do support the "colorless" color. Better than it looks for Monolith cubes because it goes perfectly with Grim Monolith et al. Probably unplayable in high-power, high-tempo.
I like the Seedborn Muse ability on this. The 3 activated abilities seem a bit excessive.
Power-wise, it controls the board well, but is slow and "dies to Doom Blade"(tm). Looks good for low-mid power cubes if you do support the "colorless" color. Better than it looks for Monolith cubes because it goes perfectly with Grim Monolith et al. Probably unplayable in high-power, high-tempo.
Oh, I thought everyone was just going to put some wastes with their basic lands?
Card is very weird. The free ability is weak, and the second and third abilities just seem off on a 5/5. I guess "beats for five then you get one of these things on your opponent's turn" but it just looks bad.
Card is very weird. The free ability is weak, and the second and third abilities just seem off on a 5/5. I guess "beats for five then you get one of these things on your opponent's turn" but it just looks bad.
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
That depends on if anything is worth running in my cube. But since I focus on three-color cards, I doubt it. I still think <> is an elegant design though!
At the moment, I'm not super excited by the <> mechanic as explaining that 1 = <> when tapping for mana but doesn't in mana costs is going to confuse newer players (and probably piss off some old timers). So even if I didn't think that card was a pile of random shit, I wouldn't be interested.
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
It's not that hard aha, a colorless mana symbol with a number in it can be paid with any kind of mana, while mana symbols have to be paid with that exact type of mana. Anything that generated 1 (or more) now generates <> (or more).
We all picked this up in nanoseconds because we have played Magic for years. I think you are underestimating the increase in confusion this brings with it to newer players.
Someone new to the game is already fairly overwhelmed most of the time, and <> raises the learning curve when you now have to explain to them that there is a mechanical difference between the in Blood Artist's cost and the on Sulfurous Springs. The idea of generic mana was cleaner before <>. Now, if every single card that produces colorless mana in your cube is updated to have the <> symbol, it will be easier to digest because you no longer have to explain the errata (treat it as the 6th color of Magic and move on). But outside custom proxies, we are never getting to that point.
Someone new to the game is already fairly overwhelmed most of the time, and <> raises the learning curve when you now have to explain to them that there is a mechanical difference between the
in Blood Artist's cost and the on Sulfurous Springs. The idea of generic mana was cleaner before <>. Now, if every single card that produces colorless mana in your cube is updated to have the <> symbol, it will be easier to digest because you no longer have to explain the errata (treat it as the 6th color of Magic and move on). But outside custom proxies, we are never getting to that point.
Chris Taylor
Contributor
Come on, I think we all knew ahadabans was going to be cranky about this
LOL. I'm really trying to have a good attitude about it. Honest.
It's a clever idea and from a game design standpoint I give Wizard's props on how they just added the 6th color of Magic and yet integrated it with the existing card base in an intriguing way. Well played. But it does add some complexity and I'm not yet sold on it being net positive. I'll shut up now.
It's a clever idea and from a game design standpoint I give Wizard's props on how they just added the 6th color of Magic and yet integrated it with the existing card base in an intriguing way. Well played. But it does add some complexity and I'm not yet sold on it being net positive. I'll shut up now.
Someone new to the game is going to be looking at new cards where there is no such thing as being added to your mana pool. They will understand that <> is a type of mana just like , and can be paid with any type of mana. If anything, confusion will be reduced because no one will thing you need to add to your mana pool to pay for a cost that requires . Once they are introduced to older cards (including cards from the same block, so great execution there) they will have to learn that "add to your mana pool" and "add one colorless mana to your mana pool" are older ways of writing "add <> to your mana pool," but there have been two ways of writing it for a long time and it hasn't been a problem.
being added to your mana pool. They will understand that <> is a type of mana just like , and can be paid with any type of mana. If anything, confusion will be reduced because no one will thing you need to add to your mana pool to pay for a cost that requires . Once they are introduced to older cards (including cards from the same block, so great execution there) they will have to learn that "add to your mana pool" and "add one colorless mana to your mana pool" are older ways of writing "add <> to your mana pool," but there have been two ways of writing it for a long time and it hasn't been a problem.
Honestly, this idea of the sixth color of magic was introduced in alpha or whenever artifacts first showed up. The specific colorless cost I think is just a set gimmick, otherwise its just an errata.
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
I think <> is one of the most elegant changes to the game ever. It is much more intuitive than the old "add to your mana pool", and if you can't get past the "but it has always been that way and that worked too" you're just too stuck in the past in my opinion. <> is the cleaner way to do the concept of colorless mana, and if they had done this from alpha on, the game would have been better for it. Switching now might be rough, but I think it's enough of an improvement over the old way that I'm happy they're doing this. Better change it now to make the game easier to pick up for future players than hold back on improving the game because you're afraid to change your past choices.
Anyway, that's how I'm looking at this. Really, the sheer brilliance of <> excites me to no end! Wizards deserves mad props for pulling this trigger.
to your mana pool", and if you can't get past the "but it has always been that way and that worked too" you're just too stuck in the past in my opinion. <> is the cleaner way to do the concept of colorless mana, and if they had done this from alpha on, the game would have been better for it. Switching now might be rough, but I think it's enough of an improvement over the old way that I'm happy they're doing this. Better change it now to make the game easier to pick up for future players than hold back on improving the game because you're afraid to change your past choices.Anyway, that's how I'm looking at this. Really, the sheer brilliance of <> excites me to no end! Wizards deserves mad props for pulling this trigger.
Hm. Interesting how this could extend to all artifacts. Do we like these guys more:
if their costs are <><><><><><> and <><><><><> respectively?
if their costs are <><><><><><> and <><><><><> respectively?
Dom Harvey
Contributor
no, given that they would be basically impossible to cast
You can't give Wurmcoil or Batterskull a mana cost that would make me run them unfortunately. Some cards do things that just aren't healthy.
I run a lot of custom cards in my cube and found batterskull with trample instead of vigilance was a much less soul crushing card. That being said, the card still slotted into pretty much any deck and didn't do anything exciting so I gave up on it. I'm not sure what would have to happen to wurmcoil to make it less disgusting.
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
Looking at those, wurmcoil really feels like a black card. Lifelink + deathtouch? Mayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyybe green could have that, but definitely none of the other colors, especially not red or blue.
Oh, you done beat me to it.
IMO. Card is insane.