For accuracies sake: Bane of Bala Ged does not have Annihilator 2, BoBG exiles while Annihilator lets the player sacrifice the permanents. It's actually so much worse than annihilator.
Also: Afaik you can't give keywords without using them, it gets pretty weird, some old clerics have the exact effect text of lifelink on them but not the keyword and can gain the keyword ability, which results in double lifegaining. Not that this would matter much for devoid, but well...
The lifelink thing has to do with A) When it happens (Lifelink is instant, some spiritlink abilities aren't) and B) How the ability is granted (If you have an enchantment that makes you gain life when enchanted creature deals damage, you'd get the life from an opponent's creature, rather than them getting it if it were lifelink.)
If it is Egyptian,it will probably should feel like a combination of original zendikar and innistrad.
Adventure and exploring pyramids for zendikar and graveyard matters for innistrad.Maybe even a splash of theros for gods.
Probably Avacyn.
If not, maybe intentionally a figure that could be interpreted as either Avacyn or Nahiri (though it looks more like the mad angel..) without any confirmations.
Last, it is possible that this is the geist of the remaining WB angel sister, leader of the flight moonsilver.
While I know that there was a WB angel sister, I seem to recall she was not the leader of flight moonsilver. IIRC, Avacyn is the leader of flight moonsilver.
I'm not willing to wade through 110 pages in search for one, but I'm curious, is the a collection of all the generated cards, like RRW has? If so, can you provide a link?
Apart from Coalition Victory, what cards would actually change in a bad way? Domain getting better is fine, and cards that change basic land types become only infinitesimally stronger. I can't think of any card other than Coalition Victory...
In no way was I trying to be smug with that comment. I fully concede that there were people being arrogant on both sides. All I meant by that was, because of the fact that more people were arguing for purely colorless, more people were also being arrogant about it (It's hard to gauge proportionally which side was worse, given the difficulty in accurately gauging size. I'd guess proportionally both sides were as bad as each other.)
Oh c'mon Benalicious Hero, it's not about being smug or not. If anything has taught us about assumptions and/or educated guesses ever since we learn how to do/make things, it was always gonna be Occam's Razor.
WotC is making a universal game for folks around the world. The game cannot be made more complex than it already is. 5 colors is already hard to handle, let alone a 6th, or some game-sweeping change that will alter the way we play. The only path Magic can grow is to make it simpler, not harder. How else would Magic reach the stars, as the biggest card game today?
Like I said, 5/5 for effort. But if there's one thing psychology taught us, it's that you might have conditioned yourself to the fact that your prerogative was absolute and you willing to dig deeper to defend yourself, at any cost. One thing we know with a deep hole is that it's harder to get out from.
If anyone just stop and think of the bigger picture; and no, Magic isn't created for only U.S citizens, isn't just for big, fat, smelly fanboys who love boob armor. Magic is for the young, the old, the new, the experienced. Does not take sides into gender, or race, or color. We've become a global game, a global audience to reach out. Your wanting the game to reach supposed new heights, and the methodology to reach them does not match with the viewpoints of the world.
We need Magic to become more layman. And the sooner you realized this, the sooner you leave that hole.
I could be wrong about things the next day. But if I use how WotC would think of Magic globally, it might help a little more than you think.
I think the point of contention was never going for something more complex. Many of us arguing for snow were arguing for something that, and I still believe this even in light of being wrong with regards to the outcome, snow WAS the more simple solution. Purely colorless has a messy limited problem, while snow 2.0 would just be parasitic.
The thing that was overwhelmingly annoying in this thread, and that, as a whole, appears to absent in the victory (which is nice) was the horrendous sense of arrogance (on both sides, but more so for purely colorless) that their side was right. The one thing I've made sure to do, in every one of these arguments (the ones listed in my previous post) is point out that stating "this is true" and "your wrong" without proof is not the way to discuss things, and on the tail end of it, even if you were right, that contribution was worthless.
In much the same way, saying purely colorless was always the only way it could have gone is, as I see it, fundamentally dishonest. Yes, there were ideas that weren't possible, with people fervently standing in their corners anyway, but in the end snow had merits and no fundamental problems (except maybe parasitism, which Wizards has done before.)
Take all this with a grain of salt though. I don't think you were being that bad in comparison to some of the other people in this thread. I'm simply trying to describe why your reply may have come off as "smug".
The debate is over. <> is the new colorless mana symbol, nothing more, nothing less. Check the 'filter expedition' thread for proof.
Sorry, Team Snow.
Well, I must admit I'm surprised.
I've gotten pretty used to arguing on the wrong side of these things, like "Kiora's not gonna be on Theros" and "Tarkir is not wedge world", or rather, telling people to stop saying that it's obvious when it's not. I've always been humble (or tried to be) when I've turned out to be arguing for people to hold back, and this time will not be an exception.
Well done, team purely colorless!
On the other hand, while I felt that it was far from clear what was true, and argued to the bitter end for team snow, I must admit I prefer this from a gameplay point of view, so I'm not to fussed by being wrong.
EDIT: I do, however, think it's dumb that this change happened midblock. Having things in limited with different templates will annoy me to no end...
A change like this, with 26 cards in BFZ needing errata, in the middle of a block? I don't buy it.
we had it befor, so why not again?
I can't think of any change that occurred midblock that would cause such confusion. Explaining to new players that "T: Add 1 to your mana pool." and "T: Add C to your mana pool." are the same thing is an obvious problem in limited alone. With respect to, say, the grand creature type update, I highly doubt any cards in the limited environment it appeared in gained creature types not printed on their card that had rules interacting with them.
I don't think adding phyrexian to your pool is useful unless you're trying to near death experience or something.
Seems you and many others have trouble reading reminder text...that was on every card with the phyrexian mana symbol. It can be paid with (Appropriate color) or 2 life. Even when Elemental Resonance adds mana from a permanent that has the phyrexain mana symbol on it, Resonance only adds the appropriate color mana because the 2 life is an alternate payment option.
The alternate payment option means noting to your mana pool because it's not mana.
I wasn't aware such a card existed, but it raises a question with the exclusively colorless theory. Currently, it adds colorless mana to your mana pool equal to the generic mana component of the cards cost. Would you have it add {<>} to your pool? Currently, it's more intuitive than under the proposed change. (That being said, it's a single card, so I doubt that alone would stop them.)
Just in case anyone is thinking they might include a pack of wastes in the prerelease pack: "For the Oath of the Gatewatch Prerelease, each player will receive a Prerelease pack that they can use after the event as a take-home deck box. Inside each Prerelease box, there will be four Oath of the Gatewatch Booster packs and two Battle for Zendikar booster packs, a spindown life counter, and a randomized, date-stamped premium promo card, drawn from any rare or mythic rare in the set."
As much as I know this is clutching at straws, they *could* add a set of wastes to that list later, once they're spoiled...
I think it unlikely tho.
Quoting an official wizards page telling store owners how to handle things is "clutching at straws"? Wouldn't that statement more accurately be used to describe someone contradicting official statements with their hypothesis?
This is not to say they couldn't change it, but using that possibility to completely discount the source is asinine.
He's saying that he himself is clutching at straws by suggesting that Wizards is holding back information.
Wow, I COMPLETELY misread nawillih's post. My most sincere apologies.
Just in case anyone is thinking they might include a pack of wastes in the prerelease pack: "For the Oath of the Gatewatch Prerelease, each player will receive a Prerelease pack that they can use after the event as a take-home deck box. Inside each Prerelease box, there will be four Oath of the Gatewatch Booster packs and two Battle for Zendikar booster packs, a spindown life counter, and a randomized, date-stamped premium promo card, drawn from any rare or mythic rare in the set."
As much as I know this is clutching at straws, they *could* add a set of wastes to that list later, once they're spoiled...
I think it unlikely tho.
Quoting an official wizards page telling store owners how to handle things is "clutching at straws"? Wouldn't that statement more accurately be used to describe someone contradicting official statements with their hypothesis?
This is not to say they couldn't change it, but using that possibility to completely discount the source is asinine.
Just in case anyone is thinking they might include a pack of wastes in the prerelease pack: "For the Oath of the Gatewatch Prerelease, each player will receive a Prerelease pack that they can use after the event as a take-home deck box. Inside each Prerelease box, there will be four Oath of the Gatewatch Booster packs and two Battle for Zendikar booster packs, a spindown life counter, and a randomized, date-stamped premium promo card, drawn from any rare or mythic rare in the set."
I do believe what many are arguing over is merely some gimmick. They won't shatter the very foundations of a 22-year old game. IF they wanted to introduce a sixth color, MaRo has said they would have done it more than a decade ago. The ship has long sailed, people. A sixth color would need to be pushed in such a way that it has to make up for the 22 year gap of card history. If this doesn't makes sense I don't know what else would.
Firstly, I'd love a citation, or at least a source, of that MaRo statement. I'm sure I've read him talking about how he thinks they may still do a sixth color. Furthermore, this isn't quite that, neither introducing a new color or a new basic land type, two of the most significant problems with introducing a new color.
Furthermore, it doesn't have to be pushed for 22 years. WotC cares very little about most eternal formats, with an exception for Commander. It only has to be pushed with respect to limited and maybe standard. The whole idea of this, from what most of us on the "new mana type" side are arguing, is that it's a one-time, admittedly parasitic but pushed to make up for that set mechanic. It's not shattering the very foundations of magic any more than, say, monstrosity or renown did by introducing a new state for permanents to be in.
Saying it's clearly wrong is ludicrous. I'm by no means saying it's confirmed right, but it's far from off the table as an option.
The thing that was overwhelmingly annoying in this thread, and that, as a whole, appears to absent in the victory (which is nice) was the horrendous sense of arrogance (on both sides, but more so for purely colorless) that their side was right. The one thing I've made sure to do, in every one of these arguments (the ones listed in my previous post) is point out that stating "this is true" and "your wrong" without proof is not the way to discuss things, and on the tail end of it, even if you were right, that contribution was worthless.
In much the same way, saying purely colorless was always the only way it could have gone is, as I see it, fundamentally dishonest. Yes, there were ideas that weren't possible, with people fervently standing in their corners anyway, but in the end snow had merits and no fundamental problems (except maybe parasitism, which Wizards has done before.)
Take all this with a grain of salt though. I don't think you were being that bad in comparison to some of the other people in this thread. I'm simply trying to describe why your reply may have come off as "smug".
I've gotten pretty used to arguing on the wrong side of these things, like "Kiora's not gonna be on Theros" and "Tarkir is not wedge world", or rather, telling people to stop saying that it's obvious when it's not. I've always been humble (or tried to be) when I've turned out to be arguing for people to hold back, and this time will not be an exception.
Well done, team purely colorless!
On the other hand, while I felt that it was far from clear what was true, and argued to the bitter end for team snow, I must admit I prefer this from a gameplay point of view, so I'm not to fussed by being wrong.
EDIT: I do, however, think it's dumb that this change happened midblock. Having things in limited with different templates will annoy me to no end...
This is not to say they couldn't change it, but using that possibility to completely discount the source is asinine.
Furthermore, it doesn't have to be pushed for 22 years. WotC cares very little about most eternal formats, with an exception for Commander. It only has to be pushed with respect to limited and maybe standard. The whole idea of this, from what most of us on the "new mana type" side are arguing, is that it's a one-time, admittedly parasitic but pushed to make up for that set mechanic. It's not shattering the very foundations of magic any more than, say, monstrosity or renown did by introducing a new state for permanents to be in.
Saying it's clearly wrong is ludicrous. I'm by no means saying it's confirmed right, but it's far from off the table as an option.