loadingreadyrun.com

Welp, Ancient Tomb and Forbidden Orchard revealed as two of the new Expeditions.

I'll admit, I'm very surprised by that. Partly because I assumed that they would all be cycles.

Forbidden Orchard has just leapt to the top of my "please let me crack that" list.

http://imgur.com/a/gke40
[hyperventilates]
[edit]
Not posting the original source because I'm rather certain it will get taken down swiftly.
There's also a new Kalitas not included in the first imgur link: http://i.imgur.com/EWzedK8.png

I'm really excited by that new Chandra. reminiscent of Elspeth. Win con, card draw, and board control. Very sweet. Also that art rocks.

Holy shit. That Kalitas + Process.

So someone has already worked out all 311 erratas that will be needed now that things specifically produce ✧ mana.

Already Brewed up a deck with Kalitas.

Zombie Sacrodelve
Creatures (22)
3 Sultai Emissary (Zombie and 2 Sacrifice Guys)
2 Screeching Skaab (Graveyard Filler and Zombie for Sac)
3 Nantuko Husk (Secondary Sac Outlet)
4 Fleshbag Marauder (Removal, Zombie, comes with a friend with Kalitas)
4 Risen Execitioner (Zombie Lord that doesn't die.)
4 Kalitas, Traitor of Ghet (Main card of the deck.)
2 Gurmag Angler (Delve Payload)

Spells (12)
2 Disdainful Stroke (Counterspell.)
4 Ruinous Path (Removal, comes with a frined with Kalitas or awaken.)
2 Murderous Cut (Delve and removal, comes with a frined with Kalitas.)
2 Silumgar's Command (Everything.)
2 Dig Through Time (Delve and Card Draw.)

Lands (26)
3 Sunken Hollow
16 Swamp
7 Island

Sideboard (15)
4 Encase in Ice
4 Self Inflicted Wounds
3 Dispel
4 Increasing Miasma (Against token decks with Kalitas on the field? >:) )

I started out with just Kalitas and Executioner, but along the way I realized that Exectutioner worked well with delve, so I added that as a subtheme.

Ladsworld wrote:Already Brewed up a deck with Kalitas.


4 Increasing Miasma (Against token decks with Kalitas on the field? >:) )

Neat deck idea! but just wanted to remind that he appears to say "nontoken" for his ability.

Neat to see all the cards, but man...someone (printer? distributor?) is in biiiiiiiiiig trouble.

The Martini wrote:Neat to see all the cards, but man...someone (printer? distributor?) is in biiiiiiiiiig trouble.

I'd almost feel sorry for the person, but I have to remind myself that leaks like this are big no-no's even with WotC who seem to allow small leaks anyway.

Glad to see the fixing in this, for Limited at least. Holdout Settlement makes ana colored mana from a creature, Unknown Shores makes any colored mana from any mana, and Crumbling Vestige makes any colored mana once, when it enters (which makes it oddly less like a tap-land, if you can use the mana right away), all at common. Then allied-color tap-lands at uncommon? Not bad.

...dare I ask what set DDQ is (from the Japanese cards later on in the imgur link)? Did someone seriously leak something from the set AFTER SOI?

The mana symbol is split, and the right half is Avacyn's symbol... Maybe a SOI-flavored Duels deck?

Actually, with DDQ being the set code... That makes sense... Duels: Demons vs. Q???

It's the symbol for the "Blessed vs Cursed" duel deck.

AdmiralMemo wrote:Actually, with DDQ being the set code... That makes sense... Duels: Demons vs. Q???

Duel Deck Q, ie the 17th duel deck set. After the first couple of duel decks, the codes have just been DDC, DDD, DDE, etc.

That said, I would totally buy Duel Deck: Demons vs Q.

Somehow I don't think Demonkind will do very well at their trial...

Is anyone else surprised by how much confusion the new colourless mana symbol is causing? Very little has changed. The only change is in notation, and allowing a spell to require colourless mana to cast, as opposed to any mana. Even sources I generally consider reputable have explained this either poorly, or in some cases, incorrectly. I can see how the change might be confusing for new players, but in the long run, making this distinction makes a ton of sense

I was a bit confused until I heard this explanation. Anything that created colourless mana is exactly the same, but every card that had colourless in its casting cost was never colourless but actually generic

Which you know in hindsight makes perfect sense, but generic was always said like colourless or any colour so I never really clicked at the difference.

So now there are cards that require colourless not generic and that diamond thing is the way to show it. Basically a sixth colour that has always been around.

I think part of the problem is that people now feel like they have to differentiate between colorless and generic mana. It seems like a lot of people are making a big deal about how the difference isn't generally known. But, really, the difference never came up and wouldn't even be relevant without colorless mana being a required part of the cost. As it stands, I think that confusion on that end will be helped once the <> symbol starts appearing more often.

The easiest thing to explain is that nothing will ever generate generic mana. Once the person understands that, they'll understand that generic mana is only ever in casting and activation costs. Once the person understands that, it's an easier step for the person to understand that the only real new mechanical change, other than the symbols, is that some casting/activation costs will sometimes now require mana that is specifically colorless, and not just any color.

My only niggle about this change is that it came mid-block, and it looks like Maro agrees with me.

Edit: Wait... wait... Magic has 3-year lead times, right? This blogatog is 2 years old... Maro you sneaky bugger!

I would kind of explain it as though 'colorless' mana that is produced is essentially another color. You can use that "color" of mana in the same way as the other colors. For anything that has that specific symbol required in it's mana cost, like the new Kozilek, and to pay for generic mana. For newer cards, this should be a lot easier to explain it. But then you need to add that the number added by older cards like Sol Ring are actually that sixth color of mana as well.

But that's just me and how I would describe it.

Yeah, that works. Anyone using MtGO will just get it a whole lot easier than people using paper because everything on MtGO gets auto-errataed.

The only issue is explain things that tap for any color of mana not producing colorless, now that I think about it.

I wouldn't go that route for exactly the reason you mentioned. Magic has very strict rules, and I do my best to never circumvent one of those rules by saying A is basically B, when A is very strictly _never_ B.

Whenever one says 'A is basically B', I find that more often one spends more time retconning their explanation; sometimes the player just ends up more confused (and more wrong) than when they started. This is a risk I'm not personally willing to take when instructing new players. It should be very rare that you will 'waste time' explaining the specifics of it while adhering to the strict definitions. Most of the time you will at least be on par with any other explanation, and not have the risk of an incorrect understanding.

I would focus on the fact that generic mana is in a cost, and is mana that can be paid with any _type_ of mana (type including any colored or colorless mana).

(Oh, the 'basically another color' explanation also has a not insignificant chance to cause confusion wrt what something being 'colored' or 'colorless' means.)

I think we just need to get used to not using the phrase "any color" as we used to.

There are 5 colors of mana, and there is colorless. Each has its own unique symbol. The generic mana can be any those types of mana.