You're missing the mechanic that most closely fits this: Phyrexian mana. It was introduced in a small set, right at the end of the block and was a new mana cost. I like the idea of mana that can't be paid with colored mana. I think wastes and waste mana will not be evergreen or even deciduous.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Petition to stop WotC from making M:tG cards that do not fit my specific likes! Join the revolution! If not you, then who?
Ah, women. They make the highs higher and the lows more frequent.-Friedrich Nietzsche
Sometimes I feel like the word "interactivity" around here is akin to the word "electrolytes" in sports drinks. The public doesn't really know what it means, but they figure it's a good thing to have.
We talked about phyrexian mana in our pre-discussion, but ultimately didn't feel it was a close enough comparison (snow mana felt more mechanically relevant).
There's a sharp difference between Phyrexian Mana and this possible mechanic (as we are interpreting it, which is still speculation). If it works the way we think it does, the difference is that this mana changes the way colorless mana would be presented on OTHER cards. Phyrexian mana and hybrid mana don't mess with what tapping to produce mana looks like on a land. If the diamond symbol means 1 then we have cards saying the same thing in two different ways within the same limited format. Slightly awkward.
If the diamond symbol means 1 then we have cards saying the same thing in two different ways within the same limited format. Slightly awkward.
Which is one reason why I think that Wastes produce a completely new type of mana - "Eldrazi" mana or w/e - that can be spent to pay for <> or 1. I do not think that the <> mana cost symbol means "colorless only". I think it means "<> only" so that you must have a Waste or other source of <> mana to pay for <> mana costs. So basically it functions just like colored mana and is in essence purple mana.
In a way, it takes Eldrazi Temple's second ability to the next level.
I'll refer to colorless mana and generic costs. I believe that cards like Kozilek's Channeler indicate that colorless mana is synonymous with <> mana and will be errata'ed/explained to be the same thing. The "coincidence" between having Kozilek's legendary card have two <> mana symbols in the cost and Kozilek's Channeler producing two colorless mana seems very intentional. Since we haven't seen <> costs before, and the cards show generic costs paired with <> costs on the same card, there must be a distinction between the two.
I'll refer to colorless mana and generic costs. I believe that cards like Kozilek's Channeler indicate that colorless mana is synonymous with <> mana and will be errata'ed/explained to be the same thing. The "coincidence" between having Kozilek's legendary card have two <> mana symbols in the cost and Kozilek's Channeler producing two colorless mana seems very intentional. Since we haven't seen <> costs before, and the cards show generic costs paired with <> costs on the same card, there must be a distinction between the two.
If you're right, Stairc's "slightly awkward" upgrades to "extremely awkward".
If Wastes produce colorless mana and <> = 1, then why not just have Wastes produce colorless mana?
piaco asked: Rules-wise, is there a practical difference between colorless mana and generic mana, or is "generic mana" just a slang for "mana of any kind"?
Colorless mana is mana that has no color. It is a type of mana.
Generic mana is a cost which can be paid for using any mana including both colorless mana and colored mana. It is a type of cost.
The two get confused because we use a number in a mana circle to represent both.
Take the Sol Ring that’s been printed in Commander decks. The 1 in the mana circle in the upper right corner is the mana cost of the card and it is a generic mana cost in that you can spend any color or colorless to pay for it.
The 2 in the mana circle in the rules text is a type of mana it produces which happens to be two colorless mana.
I think the biggest point leading towards it being backwards compatible is Kozilek's Channeler.
Wouldn't this mean that <> is "Kozilek mana" rather than "Eldrazi mana"? I think Eldrazi Temple's second ability is more telling of what <> is for - Eldrazi only.
<> mana should be backwards compatible. It would of course be asinine for it to not function like colored mana. But <> costs don't need to be backwards compatible (not even with colorless mana) because, like colored mana, they have a corresponding draftable basic land to support them.
DIRECT DOWNLOAD
Podcast archive link
RSS feed
iTunes Channel
MTGcast page
Check out the Remaking Magic blog and ask us questions
In this episode:
We discuss the new unofficial Oath of the Gatewatch spoilers including:
- Kozilek, The Great Distortion
- The Wastes basic land
- You can find the Mirrorpool card which we don't discuss in detail
We discuss generic vs colorless mana and what we believe the new mana isCard Renders:
Contact details:
remakingmagic.tumblr.com
Reuben Covington
Twitter: @reubencovington
Email: reubencovington@gmail.com
MTGsalvation Account: Doombringer
Dan Felder
Twitter: @DesignerDanF NEW!
Email: minimallyexceptional@gmail.com
MTGsalvation Account: Stairc
Are you designing commons? Check out my primer on NWO.
Interested in making a custom set? Check out my Set skeleton and archetype primer.
I also write articles about getting started with custom card creation.
Go and PLAYTEST your designs, you will learn more in a single playtests than a dozen discussions.
My custom sets:
Dreamscape
Coins of Mercalis [COMPLETE]
Exodus of Zendikar - ON HOLD
Banner ala Lymons
There's a sharp difference between Phyrexian Mana and this possible mechanic (as we are interpreting it, which is still speculation). If it works the way we think it does, the difference is that this mana changes the way colorless mana would be presented on OTHER cards. Phyrexian mana and hybrid mana don't mess with what tapping to produce mana looks like on a land. If the diamond symbol means 1 then we have cards saying the same thing in two different ways within the same limited format. Slightly awkward.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
Which is one reason why I think that Wastes produce a completely new type of mana - "Eldrazi" mana or w/e - that can be spent to pay for <> or 1. I do not think that the <> mana cost symbol means "colorless only". I think it means "<> only" so that you must have a Waste or other source of <> mana to pay for <> mana costs. So basically it functions just like colored mana and is in essence purple mana.
In a way, it takes Eldrazi Temple's second ability to the next level.
There's <> mana and <> costs. To which do you refer?
If you're right, Stairc's "slightly awkward" upgrades to "extremely awkward".
If Wastes produce colorless mana and <> = 1, then why not just have Wastes produce colorless mana?
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
Wouldn't this mean that <> is "Kozilek mana" rather than "Eldrazi mana"? I think Eldrazi Temple's second ability is more telling of what <> is for - Eldrazi only.
<> mana should be backwards compatible. It would of course be asinine for it to not function like colored mana. But <> costs don't need to be backwards compatible (not even with colorless mana) because, like colored mana, they have a corresponding draftable basic land to support them.
Are you designing commons? Check out my primer on NWO.
Interested in making a custom set? Check out my Set skeleton and archetype primer.
I also write articles about getting started with custom card creation.
Go and PLAYTEST your designs, you will learn more in a single playtests than a dozen discussions.
My custom sets:
Dreamscape
Coins of Mercalis [COMPLETE]
Exodus of Zendikar - ON HOLD