Thanks. All these suggestions are great except for copying the Stronghold which is legendary. Mortuary Mire feels meh even with blink effects, which I'm not really running at this time.
Thanks for the suggestion, but I feel pretty comfortable with my sweeper suite. I also prefer Ugin over All is Dust for the utility he provides for just one more mana.
I run a deck that focuses on resetting the board whenever a threat is posed or opponents attempt to achieve critical mass by recurring cards like Child of Alara, False Prophet, and Oblivion Stone. I'm looking for suggestions along the lines of lands (Volrath's Stronghold), cards with an immediate value that don't care about sticking around (Eternal Witness) or don't have to stick around long to generate value (Consecrated Sphinx), and sweeper-resistant pieces like Darksteel Ingot.
Bonus Question: What cards to you play to get around this type of strategy?
If the first two lands are dancers, then why is the third the dance itself, and not another dancer? That nickname would make more sense if we were talking about a cycle of sorceries of enchantments or somesuch.
The dance isn't the third land; it's the act of that land entering the battlefield untapped. "It takes two [basic lands] to tango (get an untapped dual)." Otherwise, you just have a tapland worse than a refuge. This argument against it seems like a prime example of overthinking the analogy. Additionally, the tango (the dance itself) did not originate in North America; and although the phrase did, it is more internationally accepted than some people would care to admit. Straight from Wikipedia for what it's worth:
Quote from Wikipedia »
The phrase originated in a song, Takes Two to Tango, which was written and composed in 1952 by Al Hoffman and Dick Manning. The lyrics and melody were popularized by singer Pearl Bailey's 1952 recording.
The phrase was reported widely in the international media when Ronald Reagan quipped about Russian-American relations during a 1982 presidential news conference. Reagan stated: "For ten years détente was based on words by them [the Russians] and not any words to back them up. And we need some action that they — it takes two to tango — that they want to tango also." Since that time, the tango metaphor has appeared regularly in the headline of the international press. The phrase has gained currency as a proverb in loan translation in other languages.
I didn't coin the term for these duals and I'm not particularly attached to it, but it resonates a lot more than Battle Lands or any other suggestion I've heard yet.
Except the analogy falls apart in practice: "It takes two to tango" means a task or activity requires two people (or things) to do, and comes from the requirement of two people to properly tango dance. Not a third person (or thing) joining a pre-existing task or dance of two. So not only is it silly, it doesn't make sense.
The fact is it an American idiom is even more support for NOT calling them that ridiculous name.
The dual land coming in untapped is the tango, hence, tango land. Did this really go over your head?
What is so hard about saying "Oh, that used to be the symbol for generating colorless mana before OTG. They changed it because it was identical to the symbol for generic mana costs, which got some new players confused."? It is no harder to explain than why there are thousands of artifacts with brown frames; white bordered cards; cards that say "[This card] is [color]" (for example old printings of pacts); or any other cosmetic change they made over the years.
As for the bolded part, you can't use that for justification because before "strictly colorless matters" cards in Oath, the difference between generic and colorless mana never mattered on a technical level. Many players conflated the two terms, but that never caused issues or interfered with their ability to play the game. There's no way that conflation of terms ever amounted to anything resembling the confusion that will now be caused by the existence of three different symbols, two of which are aesthetically different but functionally identical, and two of which are aesthetically identical but functionally different; that will actually force people to stop the game and explain what's going on. Replacing a well-established and self-apparent number symbol with an arbitrary geometric shape is a far cry from changing a border or frame color; even still, you talk as if no one has ever been thrown off enough to ask a question like, "is it legal to play white-bordered cards in this format?" All of these changes have repercussions and it's important to weigh their supposed benefits against potential consequences.
Not quite two seconds. As far as I know, it's unprecedented that a mana symbol appearing in a cost of a spell has such a different meaning as one appearing on the card generating the mana, and it creates a somewhat less direct interpretation of costs versus resources. So, colored mana can satisfy either colored costs or generic costs (though generic costs appear identical to pre-OGW colorless mana generators aesthetically), while a colorless mana source (represented physically in every set up to OGW the same way generic costs are depicted) can pay for generic costs or <> costs.
I believe the concept that colored mana was always strictly more versatile than colorless mana made teaching the mana system to new players a simpler task. The idea that colorless mana now has advantages over colored mana adds another layer of complexity to the system. It'll be easy for experienced players to pick up, but I'm not sure how well newbies will grasp it.
It's not unprecedented at all. Colored mana, as you described, WORKS EXACTLY LIKE THIS. When explaining how you can use W to pay for W or generic costs, you say you can use <> to pay for <> or generic costs too. Just like all other mana. It will be exactly as easy for newbies to grok as is any colored mana. It's literally exactly the same.
Except it's not as simple as you'd like to present it, because <> isn't merely a new mana symbol: it's replacing an old symbol which exists on literally hundreds of thousands of cards in circulation, and it shares a color backdrop (grey) with the generic mana cost symbol which will continue to exist. It's about as easy to explain as if WotC decided to change any of the existing symbols (or backdrops) for colored mana to something radically different.
EDIT: Thinking about it further, I couldn't help noticing that parasitic Eldrazi mana would be simpler to explain (and grok) by your logic. Go figure.
First off, you are doing the exact same thing as Bolas, only on the 'losing' side of the argument. Don't call out someone for being smug when you act like a sore 'loser'.
I'm not lamenting the change and was always open to either outcome despite my personal beliefs; that's why you never saw me saying anything idiotic like how I would set fire to a valuable card if I turned out to be wrong, or how other peoples' theories were "garbage".
And as far as "hundreds of thousands of physical cards"? 318 printed before this set will receive cosmetic errata. Not nearly the change you are describing.
Sorry Team_Overthink, but you made mtg Salvation an enjoyable read, while it lasted.
There were so much garbage theories on <>, the people who thought <> was some alien concept fail to understand that the people in Magic have already pledged themselves to make the game as simple to understand as possible, because Magic itself is already very complex. There was no need to overturn or make worse a very good mana system already.
My advice is to think how WotC would think of Magic first, then react to it. But 5/5 for effort.
You don't sound nearly smug enough for someone who happened to fall on the right side of a conceptual discussion. I mean, come on, rub it in a little! You deserve it. How'd you do it? I can only dream of such powerful hindsight. Someone get this guy a job already.
Nothing proposed by intelligent and informed users who were arguing for Eldrazi mana was wrong per se; this is just the direction WotC decided to take things. But hey, that's garbage theories for ya. I can't wait to explain to the newer players at the shop why there are hundreds of thousands of physical cards in circulation that produce 1, and how that's the same as <>, which is not the same as 1 in costs, though it can be used to pay for it: "Because Wizards."
You cannot get a Waste with a Sakura Tribe Elder. Kessig Wolf Run and such gets hit by non-basic hate pretty hard as well. Waste plays pretty well in heavy colorless decks using the Battle for Zendikar duals. It is really only as useless as any basic.
You CAN get a Wastes with Sakura-Tribe Elder.
Sacrifice Sakura-Tribe Elder: Search your library for a basic land card, put that card onto the battlefield tapped, then shuffle your library.
Wastes is a basic land, it can be fetched. I think there are only two generic fetch cards that can fetch basics that can't fetch Wastes because they look for a basic land type.
If you take the post in its entirety, I think it's pretty dang clear BauerBoss made a typo and meant to say "can". If you slow down and take in what people are saying with a bit of common sense, you might not end up arguing with those who are on your side of the fence.
I wish there was a filter for quote blocks, misconceptions, Revolutionary's formatting...lifestyle, and my wisecracks. There's no way there's five whole pages of constructive, non-repeated discussion here.
I'm afraid you won't find a better filter for that than the power button...
Zing!
On a serious note, at this point we're all obligated to do our part to hit 100 pages before information is leaked which decides who eats mist intruder crow.
Can you provide a specific example of this confusion you keep citing, and the scope of how far it extends? I imagine a conversation like this:
"Hey, there's a 1 there and a 1 there... does that mean I have to pay 1 for 1?"
"Actually, the 1 in the cost can be paid by any mana, it's a generic symbol. But the 1 produced by that card is colorless; it can be used to pay for 1, but not for a specific color of mana (not coincidentally)."
"Oh I get it. So what's the difference between generic and colorless mana?"
"Practically nothing."
The bolded portion is where the confusion lies. Why does a new player need to ask the bolded question in the first place? If a new player never needed to ask the question in the first place, then the confusion would not be an issue since it would have never existed to start with. But since a player needs to ask the question, the confusion is an issue.
The speed at which a typical new player has in understanding the difference is directly correlated to how big of an issue learning the difference between the two concepts is, but it doesn't say anything about the confusion. In the dialogue you posted, the new player instantly understands the difference between colorless and generic. However, they have only learned the difference after having asked the bolded question.
I'm arguing that the bolded question shouldn't even be asked in the first place.
Why not? It's simply answered (more so than most), and questions are a natural part of the learning process. How do you feel about the confusion caused for new players which might cause them to ask any of the following questions?
-What's the difference between an instant and a sorcery?
-What's the difference between a forest card and a mountain card?
-Whats the difference between a creature and an artifact creature?
-Why isn't this colorless creature an artifact?
-What does t mean?
-What does 'tap' mean?
-How do you win the game?
- If {<>} replaces 1 in mana-production effects, then the question no longer becomes appropriate, since "paying with 1" would no longer exist. This would get rid of the confusion entirely.
And replace it with a similar confusion as to what <> means, how to pay for grey numbers in mana costs, and why they both have grey backdrops but aren't the same.
You agree that since both theories open up design space, that in order for that design space to be actually seen by the player base, the set structure would have to be modified. The question is this: How would you change the set structure to accommodate this new design space? Note that the question applies regardless of whether "{<>} = 1 in production effects" or "{<>} = new type of mana" is true. I explain this question in more detail below.
Based on your previous post, I assume you're looking for an answer with specific numbers. I can't see a reasonable way to answer that question as I'm not on R&D and set numbers and distributions change literally from set to set. Anything I could say abstractly would be speculative; suffice to say that some model would be possible, can we agree on that?
If {<>} were introduced as a seventh group, then white, blue, black, red, green, {<>}, and pure-generic would each be contending for the spots in a set. With the assumption that {<>} opens up design space, the goal is to make the set structure portray the design-space-to-set-representation ratio as much as possible.
As stated by who? You? By something other that an imaginary metric you cooked up?
That is, if {<>} opens as much design space as a color, it gets just as much set space as a color does; if {<>} opens even more design space than a color, it gets even more set space than a color does; if {<>} opens up about 2/3 of the design space as a color, it gets about 2/3 as much representation as a color.
This was never anyone's stated position that I'm aware of. It was that "<> = new type of mana" would open up (at least) as much space as "<> = 1".
Locke has summarized perfectly. I wish we could delete the 76 pages and just show his post until we have official confirmation.
I wish there was a filter for quote blocks, misconceptions, Revolutionary's formatting...lifestyle, and my wisecracks. There's no way there's five whole pages of constructive, non-repeated discussion here.
That strictly-colorless ideas have never been explored in design space isn't an answer as to why newer players' confusion between generic and colorless mana isn't an issue.
I'm asking why newer players confusing generic and colorless mana is a non-issue. Your reply is that strictly-colorless ideas have never been implemented.
No, my reply was that the difference between colorless and generic mana has yet to matter on a practical level of gameplay. "Strictly colorless" design space would be something that would change that, but there are ways around it, and it definitely wasn't the meat of my reply.
Your reply addresses newer players' eventual need to distinguish between generic and colorless mana. This differentiation requirement is certainly a non-issue, because players will eventually learn how to distinguish the two similar concepts, regardless of their background.
My question doesn't involve this eventual differentiation requirement. My question involves the initial confusion that players get from seeing "1" in two different places. A player confused about the two concepts is required to learn how to differentiate the two, but that doesn't mean the confusion leading up to that differentiation should be required.
Can you provide a specific example of this confusion you keep citing, and the scope of how far it extends? I imagine a conversation like this:
"Hey, there's a 1 there and a 1 there... does that mean I have to pay 1 for 1?"
"Actually, the 1 in the cost can be paid by any mana, it's a generic symbol. But the 1 produced by that card is colorless; it can be used to pay for 1, but not for a specific color of mana (not coincidentally)."
"Oh I get it. So what's the difference between generic and colorless mana?"
"Practically nothing."
If a player is able to understand the difference between generic mana and colorless mana without being initially confused by an identical representation for the two concepts, presumably by having some form of design change implemented, then that design change is good.
And I've already explained why I feel an arbitrary symbol doesn't necessarily accomplish that.
Quote from Thought Criminal »
Your assertion was merely that both theories of {<>} would open up design space, to which I agree.
But how much design space would each theory open up? How much of a future set would each theory's new design space need to occupy for that theory to be feasible?
Wrong. My assertion was that the design space made available by the change would be the same in either case. See Locke's and lueg's posts.
Very well. It wasn't exactly clear what your assertion was when I first responded. Knowing your assertion, I'm not necessarily of the opinion that the two approaches open up different amounts of design space. But we may differ in how much of each method's design space would be able to be represented in a set.
Can. You. Provide. A. Counter. Example? Can you prove otherwise? With a hypothetical card design or anything else?
Having said what I've said, I'm not even sure what I'm supposed to be countering here. I'm asking for your thoughts on how much design space that each approach opens up would be feasibly used in a set.
Did you forget? You disagreed with my statement that "<> = 1" and "<> is strictly colorless, but not equal to 1" would open up the same design space. I'm asking why, or how?
Suppose that a conventional set that has been released so far is represented by 36 cards of each of the five colors, and 16 colorless. Clearly, this imbalance shows that there isn't enough representation for whatever group we're trying to add. Two things can be done to increase the amount of representation the new group gets. The first is just plainly adding more cards to make the representation about equal. The second is to remove cards from the other colors and adding them to the new group to make the representation about equal.
In the first approach, the "new group" is just the 16 colorless cards that are already included in the hypothetical set. How many cards would be explicitly added, and how many cards would be taken from each of the colors, to create enough representation for the colorless cards?
In the second approach, the "new group" isn't the 16 colorless cards, but rather a new group of cards. This would lead to seven "groups" -- white, blue, black, red, green, colorless, and {<>}. How many cards would be explicitly added, and how many cards would be taken from each of these six groups, to create enough representation for the {<>} cards?
Hopefully that makes my question more clear.
Emphasis mine, and Not. At. All. I'm not saying there's no validity in that mess of text, but I really can't make much sense of what you're getting at, or what it has to do with hypothetical design space.
The increasing number of candlejack'd reddit threads say hi. The permanence of any thread discussing this topic is uncertain.
Bonus Question: What cards to you play to get around this type of strategy?
The dance isn't the third land; it's the act of that land entering the battlefield untapped. "It takes two [basic lands] to tango (get an untapped dual)." Otherwise, you just have a tapland worse than a refuge. This argument against it seems like a prime example of overthinking the analogy. Additionally, the tango (the dance itself) did not originate in North America; and although the phrase did, it is more internationally accepted than some people would care to admit. Straight from Wikipedia for what it's worth:
I didn't coin the term for these duals and I'm not particularly attached to it, but it resonates a lot more than Battle Lands or any other suggestion I've heard yet.
The dual land coming in untapped is the tango, hence, tango land. Did this really go over your head?
As for the bolded part, you can't use that for justification because before "strictly colorless matters" cards in Oath, the difference between generic and colorless mana never mattered on a technical level. Many players conflated the two terms, but that never caused issues or interfered with their ability to play the game. There's no way that conflation of terms ever amounted to anything resembling the confusion that will now be caused by the existence of three different symbols, two of which are aesthetically different but functionally identical, and two of which are aesthetically identical but functionally different; that will actually force people to stop the game and explain what's going on. Replacing a well-established and self-apparent number symbol with an arbitrary geometric shape is a far cry from changing a border or frame color; even still, you talk as if no one has ever been thrown off enough to ask a question like, "is it legal to play white-bordered cards in this format?" All of these changes have repercussions and it's important to weigh their supposed benefits against potential consequences.
Except it's not as simple as you'd like to present it, because <> isn't merely a new mana symbol: it's replacing an old symbol which exists on literally hundreds of thousands of cards in circulation, and it shares a color backdrop (grey) with the generic mana cost symbol which will continue to exist. It's about as easy to explain as if WotC decided to change any of the existing symbols (or backdrops) for colored mana to something radically different.
EDIT: Thinking about it further, I couldn't help noticing that parasitic Eldrazi mana would be simpler to explain (and grok) by your logic. Go figure.
I'm not lamenting the change and was always open to either outcome despite my personal beliefs; that's why you never saw me saying anything idiotic like how I would set fire to a valuable card if I turned out to be wrong, or how other peoples' theories were "garbage".
Learn to read.
You don't sound nearly smug enough for someone who happened to fall on the right side of a conceptual discussion. I mean, come on, rub it in a little! You deserve it. How'd you do it? I can only dream of such powerful hindsight. Someone get this guy a job already.
Nothing proposed by intelligent and informed users who were arguing for Eldrazi mana was wrong per se; this is just the direction WotC decided to take things. But hey, that's garbage theories for ya. I can't wait to explain to the newer players at the shop why there are hundreds of thousands of physical cards in circulation that produce 1, and how that's the same as <>, which is not the same as 1 in costs, though it can be used to pay for it: "Because Wizards."
If you take the post in its entirety, I think it's pretty dang clear BauerBoss made a typo and meant to say "can". If you slow down and take in what people are saying with a bit of common sense, you might not end up arguing with those who are on your side of the fence.
Zing!
On a serious note, at this point we're all obligated to do our part to hit 100 pages before information is leaked which decides who eats
mist intrudercrow.Why not? It's simply answered (more so than most), and questions are a natural part of the learning process. How do you feel about the confusion caused for new players which might cause them to ask any of the following questions?
-What's the difference between an instant and a sorcery?
-What's the difference between a forest card and a mountain card?
-Whats the difference between a creature and an artifact creature?
-Why isn't this colorless creature an artifact?
-What does t mean?
-What does 'tap' mean?
-How do you win the game?
And replace it with a similar confusion as to what <> means, how to pay for grey numbers in mana costs, and why they both have grey backdrops but aren't the same.
Based on your previous post, I assume you're looking for an answer with specific numbers. I can't see a reasonable way to answer that question as I'm not on R&D and set numbers and distributions change literally from set to set. Anything I could say abstractly would be speculative; suffice to say that some model would be possible, can we agree on that?
As stated by who? You? By something other that an imaginary metric you cooked up?
This was never anyone's stated position that I'm aware of. It was that "<> = new type of mana" would open up (at least) as much space as "<> = 1".
I wish there was a filter for quote blocks, misconceptions, Revolutionary's formatting...lifestyle, and my wisecracks. There's no way there's five whole pages of constructive, non-repeated discussion here.
No, my reply was that the difference between colorless and generic mana has yet to matter on a practical level of gameplay. "Strictly colorless" design space would be something that would change that, but there are ways around it, and it definitely wasn't the meat of my reply.
Can you provide a specific example of this confusion you keep citing, and the scope of how far it extends? I imagine a conversation like this:
"Hey, there's a 1 there and a 1 there... does that mean I have to pay 1 for 1?"
"Actually, the 1 in the cost can be paid by any mana, it's a generic symbol. But the 1 produced by that card is colorless; it can be used to pay for 1, but not for a specific color of mana (not coincidentally)."
"Oh I get it. So what's the difference between generic and colorless mana?"
"Practically nothing."
And I've already explained why I feel an arbitrary symbol doesn't necessarily accomplish that.
Did you forget? You disagreed with my statement that "<> = 1" and "<> is strictly colorless, but not equal to 1" would open up the same design space. I'm asking why, or how?
That's a funny choice of words considering what comes next.
Emphasis mine, and Not. At. All. I'm not saying there's no validity in that mess of text, but I really can't make much sense of what you're getting at, or what it has to do with hypothetical design space.