|
Allstone posted:The same mechanic by which Bestowed Auras can't fizzle, I guess. Just a thing in the rules that says it does. I know people that were really annoyed about Bestow just having a weird clause that doesn't appear on any card. Not even that, it's the same reason that Darksteel Tower says "T:Add {1} to your mana pool". They would just print a card called Waste with the typeline "Basic Land" and rules text that says "T:Add {1} to your mana pool", or I guess add ♦, and then shorthand that the way they do with all the other basics - the big green mana symbol they put on forests just means "T:Add {G} to your mana pool". Anyway, these are fake. In a set where the new mechanic is turning colorless mana into a sixth color, why would they print so few colorless cards that Kozilek shows up in the 4 spot? Assuming their name distribution doesn't skew way lower in the alphabet than normal, that's only like 10 colorless cards. Wouldn't they treat colorless as a sixth color and print way more than like 10? Would they make some "multicolor" devoid cards that require colored and uncolored mana? Speaking of devoid, why would they use a colorless mana mechanic here when it interacts terribly with it? VVVV nah, assuming they're printing two new of each basic like they have most the previous small sets that seems correct, at least. Kabanaw fucked around with this message at 02:58 on Nov 18, 2015 |
![]() |
|
![]()
|
# ? Jun 18, 2024 22:17 |
|
If the numbering on Mirrorpool is any indicator there's at least 11 lands in the set? Does that seem like too many to be real?
|
![]() |
|
Not for a Zendikar block set, no.
|
![]() |
|
Balon posted:If the numbering on Mirrorpool is any indicator there's at least 11 lands in the set? Does that seem like too many to be real? Don't small sets have two of each basic land? That's 10 right there already. VV: Magiccards.info has basics for Mirrodin Besieged and New Phyrexia, as well as Fate Reforged so I kinda went off of that. Serperoth fucked around with this message at 03:03 on Nov 18, 2015 |
![]() |
|
Serperoth posted:Don't small sets have two of each basic land? That's 10 right there already. I thought only large sets have basic lands.
|
![]() |
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:That, though, is based on Bestow. This really isn't the problem with the cards spoiled. They can change and add rules however they want, they do it just about every set to make their new mechanics work. The problem with Barry's Land archetypes in the past have been the other cards and mechanics they break by adding the new rules, and at least some of the suggestions for this mechanic break none, so this is a relatively easy addition (if possibly stupidly parasitic, who knows).
|
![]() |
|
I'm excited for Oath just because BFZ has a bunch of mechanics that only key off other cards in the set and right now there's just not enough of them to make anything really worthwhile. Need more than 37 total allies in Standard if you want anyone to play with them.Twiddy posted:(if possibly stupidly parasitic, who knows). It's the set partner to BFZ, so that's probably a design goal.
|
![]() |
|
Balon posted:I thought only large sets have basic lands. From what I can see small sets having Basics is an on-again-off-again thing. Some small sets get new basics others just use the same Basics as the large set before them.
|
![]() |
|
All rules get added when the set is launched, there not being rules for Wastes already in the game does not mean that they can't exist. There was no notion of two sides of a card before flip cards and that didn't stop them from making it a mechanic. I still don't actually believe that these are real yet but all of the reasons they aren't real aren't great reasons yet. Also the most important indicator towards these being fake - they don't seem playable outside of limited / standard / EDH and fakes typically excite me because they are powerful enough to warrant play outside those formats (like the fake R/W land) e: they have specifically added new basics the sets to indicate the changes to the environment before - having new "wasting" arts of existing full art lands would be both sick and awesome. Scars / MBS did this with their land art. Also worldwake had like 12-13 different lands that weren't basics.
|
![]() |
|
Voyager I posted:It's the set partner to BFZ, so that's probably a design goal. BFZ had design goals? ![]()
|
![]() |
|
Serperoth posted:BFZ had design goals? 1. Ruin Magic. 2. See 1.
|
![]() |
|
Angry Grimace posted:Now we're getting weird Milpool
|
![]() |
|
To answer the logistical concerns, I'm assuming they'll function like snow basics do in coldsnap--you only get the ones you draft. In constructed, you can play however many you want.
|
![]() |
|
God if these actually exist I'm gonna have to buy a 100 of these aren't I.
|
![]() |
E: whoops.
|
|
![]() |
|
Twiddy posted:God if these actually exist I'm gonna have to buy a 100 of these aren't I. You only need like 20 for a commander deck maximum and fewer for any constructed deck. This is WotC's way to ensure that everyone buys 20 packs
|
![]() |
|
the biggest reason it's fake is that ♦ is a pretty drat big mechanic to be introducing in the small set. The third set problem's gonna be the second set problem.
|
![]() |
|
As for the rules issue with how this thing could tap for mana, I would speculate that the rule they would go with is just 'If a basic land loses all basic land types, it taps for colorless instead'. As far as I'm aware, there isn't any existing way to cause a basic land to not have a basic land type, so that doesn't break anything.
|
![]() |
|
I'm rereading Kozilek and I'm wondering if that first line of text actually works within the rules of the game. Shouldn't it be worded "draw until you have seven" or something?
|
![]() |
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:the biggest reason it's fake is that ♦ is a pretty drat big mechanic to be introducing in the small set. The third set problem's gonna be the second set problem. whydirt posted:Remember that small sets are now basically medium sized and provide two packs instead of just one for drafting. It should be much easier for them to introduce new mechanics than before.
|
![]() |
|
Some Numbers posted:I'm rereading Kozilek and I'm wondering if that first line of text actually works within the rules of the game. Nah, the wording works.
|
![]() |
Some Numbers posted:I'm rereading Kozilek and I'm wondering if that first line of text actually works within the rules of the game. That's the exact wording on Damia, so it works.
|
|
![]() |
|
Christ, fine then, ♦ is a pretty drat big mechanic to be introducing in one set. The third set problem's gonna be the second set problem. Some Numbers posted:I'm rereading Kozilek and I'm wondering if that first line of text actually works within the rules of the game. ![]() These fakers know their templating, at least.
|
![]() |
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:the biggest reason it's fake is that ♦ is a pretty drat big mechanic to be introducing in the small set. The third set problem's gonna be the second set problem.
|
![]() |
|
The cards are real.
|
![]() |
|
MiddleEastBeast posted:The cards are real. Agreed.
|
![]() |
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:Christ, fine then, ♦ is a pretty drat big mechanic to be introducing in one set. The third set problem's gonna be the second set problem. Nah. If anything BFZ was already stretched thin between callbacks to original ZEN and adding a few new things. There definitely wasn't room for a new basic land. Adding something big splashy and cool in Oathwatch is actually how you avoid the old third set problem.
|
![]() |
|
Unless that art can be found elsewhere on a non-Wizards site, those are likely real.
|
![]() |
|
whydirt posted:Nah. If anything BFZ was already stretched thin between callbacks to original ZEN and adding a few new things. Adding something big splashy and cool is actually how you avoid the old third set problem. But a parasitic mechanic that by virtue of being in the 2nd set can't have much support isn't how you add something big splashy and cool. ![]()
|
![]() |
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:But a parasitic mechanic that by virtue of being in the 2nd set can't have much support isn't how you add something big splashy and cool. It's not parasitic, because any number of lands exist that produce colorless mana.
|
![]() |
|
There are currently at least 20 in standard.
|
![]() |
|
bhsman posted:Unless that art can be found elsewhere on a non-Wizards site, those are likely real. This is the conclusion that i've come to, as well. If that art isn't Aleksi Briclot's, it's a very good style parody, and that doesn't match any known art.
|
![]() |
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:But a parasitic mechanic that by virtue of being in the 2nd set can't have much support isn't how you add something big splashy and cool. It's not a huge mechanic, it's just "Hey, when you pay for this spell or ability, at least X mana must be paid with colorless only."
|
![]() |
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:There are currently at least 20 in standard.
|
![]() |
|
MiddleEastBeast posted:The cards are real. Source: Sammy Sosa.
|
![]() |
|
these will go great in my waste color identity edh deck
|
![]() |
|
Snacksmaniac posted:Source: Sammy Sosa. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYdObwP93Nk
|
![]() |
|
RME posted:these will go great in my waste color identity edh deck I love you RME.
|
![]() |
|
bhsman posted:It's not a huge mechanic, it's just "Hey, when you pay for this spell or ability, at least X mana must be paid with colorless only." Why does Mirrorpool "T:♦" specifically if ♦ is just "pay me with colorless!"
|
![]() |
|
![]()
|
# ? Jun 18, 2024 22:17 |
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kueCCffiBkY I love you Snacksmaniac
|
![]() |