A smart opponent will almost always split the piles 2 and 2, and they'll never knowingly put a game-winning card in the face up pile because then you'd just take that pile. That means taking the face-down pile is usually the optimal choice. Knowing this, a smart opponent will always put the weaker cards in the face-down pile if there isn't an obviously game-winning card in the 4. That means functionally, this card gets you the card you're fishing for if it's in your top 4, and gets you the two worst cards in the top 4 if it's not. In a vacuum, it's worse than instant scry 2 draw 2, but can be a bit better in the right deck, since the cards go to the graveyard instead of the bottom of the library. Not bad, but not great either. Very fun though. Shame it wasn't 5 cards, it would have added an extra dimension to the mind games and made it much more playable.
What is the best play?
1. Suspend vision on T1 with the watery grave?
2. Play a tar pit to guarantee the T2 blossom?
I'm guessing #2 since that is the best chance at surviving, even though this delays visions resolving until T7+?
In this scenario, are we on the play or the draw, and what did we see on top with the mulligain scry?
On the play, and let's assume you had to ship the scry for whatever reason
So something like a third Tar Pit or a second AV. Yeah, I would open with a Tar Pit in that case. That way not only can you guarantee T2 blossom if you need it, but you've still got the option to suspend AV T2 and Blossom T3 if you get signals that your opponent is playing a slower deck or burn.
not happy with the next release gate crash with "the battlefield "
I think you're a little confused. The next release is Oath of the Gatewatch. Gatecrash came out almost 3 years ago, and "the battlefield" has been standard templating on Magic cards for over 5 years.
Right, so like I said, they didn't add anything to the game, they started using design space that existed (nothing was stopping them from requiring colorless costs) but hadn't yet been utilized. In doing so, they did blur the line between the five types of mana that are considered colors and the one type that isn't. In that way, it is very much like adding a sixth color, except that the "new color" is technically neither a color, nor is it new.
So, to answer your original question, yes I think it's similar to adding a 6th color but no I don't have a problem with that because they are exploring existing but unused design space, and doesn't functionally change any color-matters cards whereas actually adding a 6th color would be kludging a space into the game to design in and would functionally change color-matters cards. YMMV and that's fine.
I never said I had a problem with it as a mechanic or as a function of the game. I do, however, think it's lazy and pointless design. There's no real reason to make colorless its own thing. Why fix what ain't broken?
Because it's untapped design space. The game is over 22 years old, and showing no signs of stopping any time soon. This train runs on design space, if there's some sitting there, it's got to be used eventually.
Soooo...you're saying you agree with me that they're "cheating" in a sixth color?
I said that in my first post, yeah. It's not technically a color (because it doesn't interact with any color matters mechanics), but it's otherwise functionally like a color, so it could accurately be described as "like cheating a 6th color into the game." Fortunately, they've done it in a way that I like.
Right, so like I said, they didn't add anything to the game, they started using design space that existed (nothing was stopping them from requiring colorless costs) but hadn't yet been utilized. In doing so, they did blur the line between the five types of mana that are considered colors and the one type that isn't. In that way, it is very much like adding a sixth color, except that the "new color" is technically neither a color, nor is it new.
So, to answer your original question, yes I think it's similar to adding a 6th color but no I don't have a problem with that because they are exploring existing but unused design space, and doesn't functionally change any color-matters cards whereas actually adding a 6th color would be kludging a space into the game to design in and would functionally change color-matters cards. YMMV and that's fine.
I never said I had a problem with it as a mechanic or as a function of the game. I do, however, think it's lazy and pointless design. There's no real reason to make colorless its own thing. Why fix what ain't broken?
Because it's untapped design space. The game is over 22 years old, and showing no signs of stopping any time soon. This train runs on design space, if there's some sitting there, it's got to be used eventually.
Right, so like I said, they didn't add anything to the game, they started using design space that existed (nothing was stopping them from requiring colorless costs) but hadn't yet been utilized. In doing so, they did blur the line between the five types of mana that are considered colors and the one type that isn't. In that way, it is very much like adding a sixth color, except that the "new color" is technically neither a color, nor is it new.
So, to answer your original question, yes I think it's similar to adding a 6th color but no I don't have a problem with that because they are exploring existing but unused design space, and doesn't functionally change any color-matters cards whereas actually adding a 6th color would be kludging a space into the game to design in and would functionally change color-matters cards. YMMV and that's fine.
There have always been six types of mana: five that were called "colors" and one that was called "colorless". Until now, there had been no cards or abilities that required the sixth type in their cost. This made the distinction between it and the other types of mana quite clear and intuitive: if a type of mana appeared in costs, it was a color. If it didn't appear in costs, it wasn't. Now that they've added colorless mana in costs, that line has been blurred. Colorless mana now functions just like the other five types of mana do, but is still not defined by the rules as a color (which matters for cards that produce mana "of any color" and other color matters mechanics). So, yes, it could accurately be described as "like cheating a sixth color into magic". The "like" part is key though, because this "color" is not a color and it isn't being added to the game, it's actually been there, unused, all along. To me personally, this makes all the difference. A genuine 6th color would be adding something to the game that it was not designed to account for (I have similar feelings about the Planeswalker card type). But what they have done instead is utilized design space that has been in the game since its creation but has been untapped so far.
This is the argument about Colorless as a thing that makes me crazy. You say it's always existed but that's simply not true. Yes, we always had artifacts and later cards that had no color requirement, but this is completely different because it requires colorless specifically. Just because the lands that used to provide this have been retroactively changed doesn't mean this has always been a part of the game. It's literally never been a part of the game. Colorless has never, ever been a requirement until now. It's not something that lied dormant and "unused", it's a fundamental change to what this, , means on a land.
You might want to re-read the comprehensive rules. Pay particular attention to rule 106.1b.
Colorless mana has never appeared in costs until now, but it did exist. Just look at a Beta Sol Ring.
There have always been six types of mana: five that were called "colors" and one that was called "colorless". Until now, there had been no cards or abilities that required the sixth type in their cost. This made the distinction between it and the other types of mana quite clear and intuitive: if a type of mana appeared in costs, it was a color. If it didn't appear in costs, it wasn't. Now that they've added colorless mana in costs, that line has been blurred. Colorless mana now functions just like the other five types of mana do, but is still not defined by the rules as a color (which matters for cards that produce mana "of any color" and other color matters mechanics). So, yes, it could accurately be described as "like cheating a sixth color into magic". The "like" part is key though, because this "color" is not a color and it isn't being added to the game, it's actually been there, unused, all along. To me personally, this makes all the difference. A genuine 6th color would be adding something to the game that it was not designed to account for (I have similar feelings about the Planeswalker card type). But what they have done instead is utilized design space that has been in the game since its creation but has been untapped so far.
I think it would be better off saying ANY lands named Wastes have that ability because that opens you up to a Spreading Seas type of effect, but otherwise that's pretty elegant.
Well, that was until WotC answered a question on Facebook which tells me that Wastes basically pulls its "T: Add {C} to your mana pool" ability out of its arse, since apparently it will still be able to tap for {C} even with an Urborg on the field.
The Oracle text of Wastes can just say "T: Add {C} to your mana pool." Doesn't matter what's printed on the card. No reason to have a game rule specifying that basic lands with no types tap for {C}, that brings up even more future weirdness.
It's also possible they'll add a rule saying "basic lands name Wastes have T: add <> to your mana pool".
So something like a third Tar Pit or a second AV. Yeah, I would open with a Tar Pit in that case. That way not only can you guarantee T2 blossom if you need it, but you've still got the option to suspend AV T2 and Blossom T3 if you get signals that your opponent is playing a slower deck or burn.
In this scenario, are we on the play or the draw, and what did we see on top with the mulligain scry?
The word battlefield isn't even on this card, dude.
I think you're a little confused. The next release is Oath of the Gatewatch. Gatecrash came out almost 3 years ago, and "the battlefield" has been standard templating on Magic cards for over 5 years.
To be honest, think it's an inside joke about Stoneforge Mystic and Squadron Hawk.
I said that in my first post, yeah. It's not technically a color (because it doesn't interact with any color matters mechanics), but it's otherwise functionally like a color, so it could accurately be described as "like cheating a 6th color into the game." Fortunately, they've done it in a way that I like.
Because it's untapped design space. The game is over 22 years old, and showing no signs of stopping any time soon. This train runs on design space, if there's some sitting there, it's got to be used eventually.
So, to answer your original question, yes I think it's similar to adding a 6th color but no I don't have a problem with that because they are exploring existing but unused design space, and doesn't functionally change any color-matters cards whereas actually adding a 6th color would be kludging a space into the game to design in and would functionally change color-matters cards. YMMV and that's fine.
You might want to re-read the comprehensive rules. Pay particular attention to rule 106.1b.
Colorless mana has never appeared in costs until now, but it did exist. Just look at a Beta Sol Ring.
What rules headaches? This change barely touches the comprehensive rules, and has no effect on the functionality of any previously printed cards.
That's a good point. I like yours better.
It's also possible they'll add a rule saying "basic lands name Wastes have T: add <> to your mana pool".