Would it really break the game if Wastes had its own land type?
Yes.
get your radical ideals out of here
>>44609500
In what way?
Explain further. /tg/ is for plebs after all.
>>44609500
Will it stop them?
>>44609518
All I can think of is wastes being usable with some of the fancier land fetching cards. And maybe boosting the few cards out that who's effect is altered by how many basic land types are in play.
>>44609518
I've always liked "monocolorless" as a gimmick and a novelty. Over the years, colorless has become strongly associated with a certain set of aesthetics and mechanics, as if it really were part of the color pie. Now, it's legit. I can't help but feel the desire to push Gray as the new sixth color.
>>44610071
>Gray
>colourless
They should be invisible.
>>44609535
Wizards had the idea for a sixth basic land since Invasion in 1998, so yeah, it has stopped them so far.
>>44610093
It used to be Brown before they had an aesthetic shift that made it Gray.
...They should bring back Pink mana.
>>44610124
They're just using colorless as a surrogate for all of the themes they wanted to use for the sixth color. Colorless already has an identity of adaptability and neutrality, so while their original ideas failed to feel unique enough mechanically to justify trying to shoehorn in another color, they suddenly fit in perfectly well with colorless.
It's a pretty clever move, in my opinion.
>>44609390
>>44609522
You remember all of those cards that state "every land type among lands you control"? Yeah, well they're not one larger than they're supposed to be. Remember all those "counts as any basic land" things? They now count as one more.
Plus, not being defined is a fine flavour choice.
(Yes, I said flavour. I'm Canadian, sue me.)
