MTG Salvation

Will this actually count towards "color"? If so, converge could get fun.

I'm glad they didn't give this a type. Having to add colorless mana to my domain-themed deck? No thanks.

So im guessing this is going the way of snow lands?

I'm very curious to know if these are going to get the snow-land treatment.

Eldrazi change the land they cross as to what happens to the mana that land produces who knows. Maybe this land taps for any color which isn't a bad thing. Im sure we'll know in about a month.

I apologize, I should rephrase.
My assumption would be that a card such as ghostfire would end up costing 2<>, instead of 2R. Going forward, this would make the cards we currently call devoid just be truly colorless, requiring colorless mana "<>" to be spent on it, rather than a color.

devoid makes the spell colorless just requires a color to play though.

I think its going to be colorless. It would make sense since its with eldrazi. I heard speculation that it could be the devoid "color"

devoid couldnt work in edh regardless.
you couldnt produce the mana if your commander isnt in the colors
and if you would try to, like with fellwar stone, then it becomes colorless

@robmoore675 In terms of command tower it would wholly depend on exactly what you said, "wastes cannot be added to a deck without the waste symbol in the mana cost, as this is color identity". If they decide that <> IS a "color identity", then in my mind they are stating that <> counts as a color. The ramifications on this would be massive, and would cause a ton of cards, notwithstanding the converge cards, to be completely altered. It was the issue with barry's land and coalition victory. Think about radiant flames in atarka red. With <> having a color, that card becomes much more powerful in that instance.
I honestly believe that <> will just be a requirement to cast certain colorless spells, much like snow land was required for activation costs (This is clearly on a much bigger level though, and has many more questions that need to be answered). Cards like command tower will not be able to add <> to your mana pool, but they would be able to still make generic colorless mana. The biggest difference they will have to establish is what generic mana is and what colorless mana is.

@amurphcs Right, right, I completely forgot that you can't tap for mana that isn't in your commander's color identity.

In that case, I don't even think you will need a card such as you described. A simple 4 colored legendary eldrazi would do just fine, as it would synergize well, but still allow you to play all those colored devoid cards.

However, they could possibly say "yes, wastes cannot be added to a deck without the waste symbol in the mana cost, as this is color identity" but I doubt it.

In essence, we must keep in mind that eldrazi only have 4 colors, they cannot be white. Wastes possibly would act as that fifth color in the new set, without it being an actual color. So, at least, I would like to see a four color eldrazi that requires the "waste" symbol in it.

I'm also curious how cards like "command tower" will interact with commanders that have the waste symbol int heir summoning cost. Can it tap for that too?

@robmoore675 - I think that if you say that the current devoid cards can be used in a colorless commander deck, mana bases would have to include colored mana to cast them. I agree that devoid spells would be much more versatile overall if they could be used in a colorless commander deck. In my mind this is the only way they could make it work:
They make a commander/legendary creature that is specifically devoid, and a casting cost of something like (<>/W) (<>/U) (<>/B) (<>/R) (<>/G) which would allow the color identity to be everything, but would have the stipulation along the lines of "As long as *blank* is in your command zone you may only cast colorless spells" as one of the restrictions. There could also be "As long as *blank* is in your command zone/in play, you may only cast colorless spells and <> may be used as mana of any color"
I think that would be fair, and wouldn't really cause too many rules issues. The only issue would be that whatever card that is would be the only card that you could run as your commander, since the color identity restriction would stop you from using a kozilek or emrakul as a commander.
Just my thoughts. Let me know what you think.

@amurphcs Yes, I agree completely. The biggest reason I see people NOT playing colorless commanders is due to the cost of the mana base. Wastes will make colorless decks some of the cheapest by far (equivalent in cost to mono colored).

My thought is, do you think they should make "devoid" count towards color identity as well for EDH? I feel like the current Devoid cards are weak due to their dependence on color, but if devoid applied to commander, it would make them more useful.

I'm not sure if it will be eldrazi specific. It could just be what they use for devoid cards now, or cards like artisan of kozilek and scion of ugin etc. This has more implications for commanders, since now you have a colorless land that isn't restricted by the 4-of rule.

http://mtgsalvation.gamepedia.com/Blind_Eternities

lamest card i've ever seen, as if colorless doesn't already have 0 flavor or soul

It feels like there are so many other cards that add colorless mana and have abilities, that this will only help new players.

I am a bit confused, it specifically states that you can have as many of the as you want, "1/22/2016 Because Wastes is a basic land, you can include as many of them as you like in your Constructed decks." I try and make a deck on here and it limits the amount to four. Is it unlimited like the ruling says or is it limited to only four (like a non-basic land card)?