<> is thicker than B. One uses two characters the other one
Edit: Retract that I'm an idiot. My point still stands. Until wizards says one way or the other EVERYTHING in this thread is complete and utter hearsay
lol you should have deleted it
I could have but my inferiority complex isn't high enough that I care if mouth breathers make fun of me on the internet.
Public Mod Note
(LouCypher):
Flame warning -LouCypher
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Originally Posted by Massive Marc
You know back in the old days, when there wasn't EDH, these "griefer" cards in decks were the norm. If you played a Winter Orb when you're opponents were tapped out, it was a good play. Now, you get people tell you they wanna punch you ? It's really sad how carebare this format is, to the point that some loser has to rip up your cards.
But why do we have a land that explicitly says it taps for <>? If they're not made up of monkeys, why would that have lands that tap for 1 and for <> in the same draft format if they mean the same thing? I agree they're not made up of monkeys which is why I find this to be the much less likely solution.
It's highly likely that the change in templating didn't make it in time for BFZ, or even more likely, it was meant to be in the 3rd set of BFZ block, or M17, but it was then reworked to be a 2 set block, and no more core sets, so they had to shoehorn it into OGW.
No, that's highly unlikely. They are working 2-3 years in advance. Yes, sometimes there are last minute changes, but those come from development and are related to power level. It is extraordinarily unlikely that they would make a change of this magnitude as a last minute thing that wasn't prepared before BFZ went to print. Like, staggeringly unlikely. This is amost certainly a core mechanic of OGW, and that is not the sort of thing that gets thrown in at the last second. This idea should have been on the table before they were even designing individual cards for BFZ.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Wizards could put $100 bills in packs and people would complain about how they were folded. http://www.twitter.com/Dr_Jeebus - Follow me on Twitter!
Check out www.mtgbrodeals.com for daily content from the brothers of Mu Tau Gamma!
No, that's highly unlikely. They are working 2-3 years in advance. Yes, sometimes there are last minute changes, but those come from development and are related to power level. It is extraordinarily unlikely that they would make a change of this magnitude as a last minute thing that wasn't prepared before BFZ went to print. Like, staggeringly unlikely. This is amost certainly a core mechanic of OGW, and that is not the sort of thing that gets thrown in at the last second. This idea should have been on the table before they were even designing individual cards for BFZ.
Except that the change in block structure was decided last year, and it changed the development for the next two blocks. We're in uncharted territory for changes. And BASIC land, that means it's going to be permanent. A Basic land that produces colorless.
Was Snow Mana that much popular that there's so much people trying to believe this new colorless mana symbol is actually Snow 2.0??
Last time I checked, snow mana was just a cheap excuse to spend in a set of overpriced basic lands.
People getting so flustered about the "huge errata on thousands of cards", go and look for the "Great Creature Type Update", now THAT, was a massive errata, with hundreds of cards getting new functionality.
There's only like 500 cards that'd need to be updated if <> became the colorless-generator symbol.
It's more like 300ish, and they would get cosmetic changes, not functional. That has happened multiple times already without the game imploding. There is precedent.
Just because they made a new basic land doesn't mean it's permanent.
Again until wizards formally says what is going on everything is hearsay and baseless speculation. Both camps are wrong because both camps are saying " this is what <> means"
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Originally Posted by Massive Marc
You know back in the old days, when there wasn't EDH, these "griefer" cards in decks were the norm. If you played a Winter Orb when you're opponents were tapped out, it was a good play. Now, you get people tell you they wanna punch you ? It's really sad how carebare this format is, to the point that some loser has to rip up your cards.
Just because they made a new basic land doesn't mean it's permanent.
Again until wizards formally says what is going on everything is hearsay and baseless speculation. Both camps are wrong because both camps are saying " this is what <> means"
Everyone knows it's speculation--that's the entire purpose of this subforum. And since everyone knows this, there's no real need to preface everything by saying it's speculation. So people are going to be making statements of fact with the implicit understanding that yes, we don't know any of this for certain.
Was Snow Mana that much popular that there's so much people trying to believe this new colorless mana symbol is actually Snow 2.0??
I'm not sure how relevant the popularity of Snow Mana* is to the argument. Sure, WotC is more likely to reuse a popular mechanic, but it's not really hard evidence either way. I don't think people should choose their side based on wanting something like snow mana or not (though I'm sure it's the basis of their choice for a lot of people).
*Yes, I know that the Eldrazi mana theory is not mechanically identical to snow, because snow looks at the super type of the source that generates the mana instead of being a property of the mana itself, but it is functionally similar to snow mana because it doesn't function along the color axis. I have vowed to staple this to any post of mine referencing snow, so sorry if it seems out of context.
Everyone knows it's speculation--that's the entire purpose of this subforum. And since everyone knows this, there's no real need to preface everything by saying it's speculation. So people are going to be making statements of fact with the implicit understanding that yes, we don't know any of this for certain.
I'm not sure everyone does know, after all this isn't the speculation subforum. Only confirmed things are allowed here, really. I see a lot of people who haven't read the discussion ask things and get answers from both sides saying 'it is this way.' Which can be very misleading. It is better, in my opinion to phrase things as 'it could be this way' or 'it would be this way, assuming theory X' which is how I try to phrase my posts when I don't forget.
Does this answer from MaRo lend support to the snow faction?
No, it sadly doesn't support "any" of the camps.
First, the game was just that...it's wasn't admissions.
It was like a special case of the "storm scale".
Second, the question was "poorly formed" which means
the answer cannot be percisely relied upon.
Snow isn't a type of mana...but the question asks
about "new mana" specifically... So to ask about
"new mana (like snow)" is a malformed question.
He might as well have asked what does Pink
sound like under water?
To make it worse, MARO isn't a "rules guy"...so
his answer is even more unreliable...as if he
thinks "snow" is a mana type...then there's
no telling what he's answer...
Fine, let's do this:
(1) = one colorless mana
if (<>) = (1) then (8)(<>)(<>) = (8)(1)(1)
(8)(1)(1) = (10)
therefore
(<>) =/= (1)
therefore(<>) would functionally be a new type of mana that is strictly colorless, not the same thing as (1).
meaning (<>) can be (1), but (1) is not (<>).
which, btw, is exactly the same as
Your syllogism is missing a premise.
I. If you tap a forest, GREEN MANA enters you pool.
It can pay costs with G or x
II. If you tap a waste, <> enters you pool.
There are CURRENTLY 6 types of mana. All
have a unique symbol except colorless.
In fact, colorless used to not be symbolized
at all...but currently the same grey circle
used in costs that can be paid by any mana
source...is shared by colorless mana in a pool.
III. IF <> in a cost means STRICTLY colorless.
Strictly means it cannot be paid "generically".
That is, you must pay it with a mana source that
generated "Colorless Mana".
IV. In that case the Converted Mana Cost of
Kozi is 10 (just as the CMC of Progenitus is 10)
However, Kozi cannot be paid for by tapping
2 plains, 2 islands, 2 swamps, 2 mountains,
and 2 forests...but Progenitus could be.
Kozi could not be played by 10 forests and
neither could progenitus. Why not? Because
10 forests tap for 10 green mana which can
only be spend on G and 10
neither of which is the cost of either card.
Kozi is 8<><>. The 10 forests can be spent
only to pay the 8 with GG left
in the mana pool.
Thus 8<><> only "equal" 10 to
the degree that WWUUBBRRGG does.
Finally, why do we reject your first premis
that <> = 1... well, because of the Mirror land
...
Finally, why do we reject your first premis
that <> = 1... well, because of the Mirror land
it taps for <> ...it doesn't T: add 1
But then, do you have proof that colorless mana when being produced is still going to be represented by the number within a grey circle? No, because so far, the most logical and intuitive answer is that <> is a symbol to specifically represent colorless mana, which was introduced in OGW because this is the first set where cards have costs that ask specifically for colorless mana.
In the Mirrorpool example, the circled number in costs means generic mana, or "this can be paid with this amount of mana of any combination of colors", the land has the same frame as those lands that produce only colorless mana, and behaves exactly as a colorless mana producing land.
I know, I know, snow was uh, cool and maybe popular, I guess, but it was more parasitic and isolated as a mechanic than Arcane and Infect, as it required that even your lands were snow to work, but even then, Snow mana wasn't a "new type of mana", it was just a condition that your mana producers had to have to make the relatively undercosted snow activated cards work; snow mana is a sub-set of generic mana, as while generic mana can be paid with any mana, snow had to be paid with any mana from a snow permanent.
Maybe the idea of colorless mana specific costs could be dropped by the next block like it happened with enchantment creatures after Theros, but the new colorless mana symbol is something that will stand.
Having (<>) in a casting cost would mean you would have to now play more lands to play cards that are colorless, defeating the purpose of colorless.
Also, you could argue that these are even worse than Snow-lands. At least those tapped for a color or a snow mana, while these only tap for colorless (if that is how they work). And no cards had snow-mana in their casting cost. I really don't want cards that are worse than cards that were too bad to reprint ever again.
I'm feeling a tad big frustrated with you at the moment.
There seems to be this inflexibility and rigidity that
rubs me the wrong way.
First, it's hard for me to understand your premise.
You say this "Having (<>) in a casting cost would mean you would have to now play more lands to play cards that are colorless, defeating the purpose of colorless."
Are you really trying to say that the purpose of
colorless cards is to be played with "fewer lands"?
I think you're trying to say something like...a
benefit of colorless cards is they could be splashed
into any deck without altering that deck's mana
base.
Is that what you were trying to say?
Second, if your premise were fair/true...it's too late. Benthic Infiltrator is colorless
and you must pay U to cast it.
This means if you want to cast it, you will
need sources (most likely lands) that tap for U
Consequently, it's much more likely that your
claim/premise is untrue.
That is, "the purpose of colorless" must not only
be or must not be universally that it can be
splashed into any deck without changing it's mana
base.
Third, even if I accepted you premise that having
sum but not all colorless card have a restriction
that make them a little harder to splash or play
without changes to the mana base...
...it would stand to reason that either...
a. that if it's not worth it the cards won't
see play, or
b. the card will have enough upside as to
see changes to the mana base.
If it's worth it, then that's why it has a
specific mana requirement. That mana must
be colorless because the card is colorless.
IF it were colored mana required it would
either be a colored card or have Devoid
(along with reminder text).
Regarding you second point...
First, snowlands did NOT tap for "snow
mana" ...there is no "snow mana" just as
there is no "generic mana".
Snow lands have the "snow" quality and
that means "mana that came from a snow
permanent.
Second, the reason there were no spells
with "snow" costs is simple...
There may be as few as 8 snow permanents
that produce mana (without other cards
to help them).
Even the five basic lands at the point
didn't appear in any pack. That is to
say ... it would be VERY HARD to cast
any of those cards in limited.
So, is this "worse" as you say?
No... Right now, for the pre-release.
WIthout seeing any more of the Oath
cards...there are already 26 cards
that would produced <> in Battle.
And 8 of those are at common! And,
of the cards we've seen for Oath,
2 of the 3 tap for <> LOL.
Next, of all the cards in BfZ that
only 17 of those cards couldn't be
cast with the aid of <> (wastes).
Further, I'm actually glad you made
this point because you've helped me
answer a question that never bothered
me really...
...but I can now say why it makes
perfect sense (without crying out to
flavor) to do this in the other set
of the block rather than start it in
Battle.
Here's why...it's the "surprise"
extension of what was brought to
colorless in the first set (DEVOID)
Devoid tells us that colorless
cards can have "mana requirements"
to be cast.
That is, despite being colorless
...you cannot cast Blisterpod
(ironically one of the 17 cards
that cannot be assisted in casting
by a waste)...with only colorless
mana.
So, the extension of that which
is new...is a colorless card
that requires colorless mana
specifically to cast it...
...that is, cannot be cast in
whole or in part with white,
blue, black, red, or green mana.
This also "closes" an asymetry.
(and not just in a box checking
way).
3U meant to cast
this (typically) you need 1 blue
mana and 3 mana from any source.
But there were never anything like
in order to cast this you need
1 colorless mana and 3 mana from
any source.
...
Finally, why do we reject your first premis
that <> = 1... well, because of the Mirror land
it taps for <> ...it doesn't T: add 1
But then, do you have proof that colorless mana when being produced is still going to be represented by the number within a grey circle?
I don't think Revolutionary arguing against the New Symbol Theory, you're both on the same side there. In fact, both theories state that <> =/= 1.
New Symbol Theory states that <> =/= 1 because 1 will no longer represent colorless mana at all, and the symbol will only exist as a cost.
New Mana Theory states that <> =/= 1 because they will be two distinct types of mana that both happen to have no color.
New Symbol Theory does state that new <> = old 1 as a type of mana, which I think is causing the confusion, but that's not what is being discussed.
This is honestly the most disgusted I've ever felt reading a thread on this forum, and that includes the discussions that lead to Uncharted Realms (I) being locked.
Everyone is just stating their opinions as fact, restating their same arguments over and over again (or worse, being like "It's already been said, dummy" and not ever linking to or mentioning where said thing was said) and not budging an inch.
We KNOW things. Things we can use to extrapolate to the point we are now at, where two ideas dominate.
We know this mana can be added to your mana pool, which either means restructuring colorless mana (lets call this argument A) or a new colorless 'color' of mana (the snow mana argument, argument B).
We know argument A implies a sweeping, permanent change. {<>} would be here to stay, either evergreen or deciduous. Generic costs are now distinct from colorless mana, causing less confusion with players. However, there are evident downsides to this. Block limited has two different symbols, one of which looks like generic mana costs, but is actually {<>}. There are other criticisms of this argument, but this is the main one as far as I can see.
Argument B, on the other hand, is self contained. I gives the colorless basics for the purposes of commander, but leaves them in one set, ensuring that the cost of said lands will rise over time until they release another set that has them. It's also a parasitic mechanic in the set, not interacting with any other sets as anything but colorless mana. The main argument against this is precisely that it is too parasitic.
While it's possible there is another solution, one not yet thought up, or one we've overlooked, it seems extremely unlikely at this point.
So, here's the thing. So far we've been looking at this from a gameplay perspective. But what if we looked at it another way. The same way we look at full art basics, or expeditions. What if this is all about business? We know that these basics are sorely wanted by commander players, and so we're getting them. But having them be a rare thing, something more along the lines of argument B, falls more in line with how Wizards seems to like to do this sort of thing. Keep demand high. Make us buy packs just to get these basics that will be worth lots to sell in a few years time.
This is just a hypothesis, of course, and I admit I'm biased towards argument B already, but I feel like it's a move Wizards would make...
And to the guy asking before about "Does anyone believe one, while want the other?", I think I'm about as close as you'll get. I think {<>} replacing colorless is the worse of the two realities, but I don't really want either.
EDIT: Another point that is notable, {<>} looks Zendikari in shape, appearing similar to the Rise of the Eldrazi set symbol. This adds weight to the idea that it is temporary, as it would probably have a more generic appearance if it was something permanent.
Also each year they can just print 6 commander decks and have one be colorless with 30-35 wastes.
How cheap is a commander sol ring? Well imagine instead of getting 5 each time it got reprinted you got 30-35 each year.
Edit: Also regarding the whole Ire shamana +m16 menance thing. Yes those were two sets side by side but that could very well just have been a printing issue. I highly doubt they sent BFZ to the printers before they imagineered <>. They clearly have a problem with 13 year old boys being confused at prereleases, do you really think they expect the same kids to realize hedron archive taps for <><>?
Originally Posted by Massive Marc
You know back in the old days, when there wasn't EDH, these "griefer" cards in decks were the norm. If you played a Winter Orb when you're opponents were tapped out, it was a good play. Now, you get people tell you they wanna punch you ? It's really sad how carebare this format is, to the point that some loser has to rip up your cards.
I think that the "Waste" land is nothing but a purely colorless land. If I wanted to cast new kozilek I would have to have 8 mana from any source and 2 of the waste lands to cast him. I am not all certain if you had ten waste lands if you could cast him. Or can one even have more than 4 waste lands in a deck? I would assume so. But anyway until wizards clarifies the whole waste land deal we wont know until then. Anyway neat concept
People are forgetting how the development process works here. The mechanics are set in stone a long time before names and art become a thing. The whole "look at Kozilek's Channeler" arguement is moot because it would have just been a generic 5 mana Eldrazi that taps for 2 when they knew of the Oath mana mechanic. The name came and flavour came much later.
I don't see the problem with having a few Eldrazi cards only castable by <> mana. A <> producing land can still pay for 1 so it solves the Commander problem while adding a new basic land without needing to change Converge or similar mechanics. We already see many mechanics that are locked to certain sets, but look at the potential upside - cards that cost <> can be more powerful (and we might actually see some good land destruction again as a Wizards safety valve in this set or Shadows).
Alright, enough is enough. Final warning for everyone in here: BE CIVIL or this thread gets locked. Anyone going over the line from this point on can expect a warning regardless of previous records. And stop reporting stuff that is merely disagreeing with your opinion as well.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Commander decks:
Chandra, Torch of Defiance - Oops! All Chandras.
Prime Speaker Zegana - Draw for Power.
Pir & Toothy - Counterpalooza.
Arcades, the Strategist - Another Brick in the Wall.
Zacama, Primal Calamity - Calamity of Double Mana.
Edgar Markov - Vampires Don't Die.
Child of Alara - Dreamcrusher.
I talked about it abit with the MTG guy at my LGS. I told him that, if <> is a new color, or even means colorless mana only, the store would have to lend out Wastes during limited events. Basic lands that will only be printed in a small set. Basic lands that, unlike snow mana, are found in a card's mana cost. Basic lands that will be full-art and which colorless EDH players will want 30-40. Lands that will be worth 3+$ in a couple of years. Lands that will be stolen left and right.
You should have seen the look of horror on his face!
I talked about it abit with the MTG guy at my LGS. I told him that, if <> is a new color, or even means colorless mana only, the store would have to lend out Wastes during limited events. Basic lands that will only be printed in a small set. Basic lands that, unlike snow mana, are found in a card's mana cost. Basic lands that will be full-art and which colorless EDH players will want 30-40. Lands that will be worth 3+$ in a couple of years. Lands that will be stolen left and right.
You should have seen the look of horror on his face!
to be fair, its not much differant than snow lands. those had to be drafted as well and were needed to pay for snow costs. forall we know there could be a duel deck, intro deck or whatever which fills all the supply of wastes needed. plus in C16 there will most likely be a colorless precon with lots of wastes in them as well. who knows, maybe the OGW Fatpack will contain a landpack with 80 wastes
Would it possibly occupy the land AND a common slot in a pack?
I talked about it abit with the MTG guy at my LGS. I told him that, if <> is a new color, or even means colorless mana only, the store would have to lend out Wastes during limited events. Basic lands that will only be printed in a small set. Basic lands that, unlike snow mana, are found in a card's mana cost. Basic lands that will be full-art and which colorless EDH players will want 30-40. Lands that will be worth 3+$ in a couple of years. Lands that will be stolen left and right.
You should have seen the look of horror on his face!
to be fair, its not much differant than snow lands. those had to be drafted as well and were needed to pay for snow costs. forall we know there could be a duel deck, intro deck or whatever which fills all the supply of wastes needed. plus in C16 there will most likely be a colorless precon with lots of wastes in them as well. who knows, maybe the OGW Fatpack will contain a landpack with 80 wastes
The big difference is that Snow-mana was never in a card's mana cost. If Wastes are not lent by the tournament organizer, you can have cards that are unplayable in a draft or sealed pool. If you had cards with snow mana, they simply would not be as good.
Would it possibly occupy the land AND a common slot in a pack?
There's precedent for making the land slot matter in the draft before (FRF), so maybe? I can't think of a strong reason why it couldn't be. Another suggestion that I've read is that Wastes could take up more than one common slot, perhaps with different art.
I do think that one common slot for Wastes is unlikely to be enough to support it in draft, assuming that all sources of <> must be drafted. Though it depends on many other factors, such as the number and rarity of other sources of <> in the set and whether New Symbol Theory or New Mana Theory proves to be true. Under New Symbol Theory, you can get sources of <> from BFZ such as Kozilek's Channeler, so they won't have to bend over backwards as much to support it in Oath.
I talked about it abit with the MTG guy at my LGS. I told him that, if <> is a new color, or even means colorless mana only, the store would have to lend out Wastes during limited events. Basic lands that will only be printed in a small set. Basic lands that, unlike snow mana, are found in a card's mana cost. Basic lands that will be full-art and which colorless EDH players will want 30-40. Lands that will be worth 3+$ in a couple of years. Lands that will be stolen left and right.
You should have seen the look of horror on his face!
to be fair, its not much differant than snow lands. those had to be drafted as well and were needed to pay for snow costs. forall we know there could be a duel deck, intro deck or whatever which fills all the supply of wastes needed. plus in C16 there will most likely be a colorless precon with lots of wastes in them as well. who knows, maybe the OGW Fatpack will contain a landpack with 80 wastes
The big difference is that Snow-mana was never in a card's mana cost. If Wastes are not lent by the tournament organizer, you can have cards that are unplayable in a draft or sealed pool. If you had cards with snow mana, they simply would not be as good.
or you just use of of the other nonbasic lands that will produce <> the blighted lands for example. or Kozileks Channeler
Which leaves it to luck. In a sealed pool, how many blighted lands do you have? 1-2 most probably, maybe less since we will have only two BFZ packs. Enough to play your 4-5 <> spells?
I could have but my inferiority complex isn't high enough that I care if mouth breathers make fun of me on the internet.
You know back in the old days, when there wasn't EDH, these "griefer" cards in decks were the norm. If you played a Winter Orb when you're opponents were tapped out, it was a good play. Now, you get people tell you they wanna punch you ? It's really sad how carebare this format is, to the point that some loser has to rip up your cards.
No, that's highly unlikely. They are working 2-3 years in advance. Yes, sometimes there are last minute changes, but those come from development and are related to power level. It is extraordinarily unlikely that they would make a change of this magnitude as a last minute thing that wasn't prepared before BFZ went to print. Like, staggeringly unlikely. This is amost certainly a core mechanic of OGW, and that is not the sort of thing that gets thrown in at the last second. This idea should have been on the table before they were even designing individual cards for BFZ.
Wizards could put $100 bills in packs and people would complain about how they were folded.
http://www.twitter.com/Dr_Jeebus - Follow me on Twitter!
Check out www.mtgbrodeals.com for daily content from the brothers of Mu Tau Gamma!
Except that the change in block structure was decided last year, and it changed the development for the next two blocks. We're in uncharted territory for changes. And BASIC land, that means it's going to be permanent. A Basic land that produces colorless.
Last time I checked, snow mana was just a cheap excuse to spend in a set of overpriced basic lands.
People getting so flustered about the "huge errata on thousands of cards", go and look for the "Great Creature Type Update", now THAT, was a massive errata, with hundreds of cards getting new functionality.
Fan of Both old and new Slivers (But the new ones are still better anyway)
C Call of Emrakul - G vs R DD: Elves vs. Goblins - W vs B DD: Divine vs. Demonic - WUB Esper Artifice - RGW Aura Dancers
WUBRG Wrath of the Reaper King - WB Men of Faith - B Mercenaries - UB Phyrexian Assault 2.0 - WU Artifacts of Empires
BR Skeleton Warriors - RG Night of The Howlpack - B Bog Murderers - BR Eldrazi Assault - BGU Ulamog's Swarm
It's more like 300ish, and they would get cosmetic changes, not functional. That has happened multiple times already without the game imploding. There is precedent.
Again until wizards formally says what is going on everything is hearsay and baseless speculation. Both camps are wrong because both camps are saying " this is what <> means"
You know back in the old days, when there wasn't EDH, these "griefer" cards in decks were the norm. If you played a Winter Orb when you're opponents were tapped out, it was a good play. Now, you get people tell you they wanna punch you ? It's really sad how carebare this format is, to the point that some loser has to rip up your cards.
Everyone knows it's speculation--that's the entire purpose of this subforum. And since everyone knows this, there's no real need to preface everything by saying it's speculation. So people are going to be making statements of fact with the implicit understanding that yes, we don't know any of this for certain.
I'm not sure how relevant the popularity of Snow Mana* is to the argument. Sure, WotC is more likely to reuse a popular mechanic, but it's not really hard evidence either way. I don't think people should choose their side based on wanting something like snow mana or not (though I'm sure it's the basis of their choice for a lot of people).
*Yes, I know that the Eldrazi mana theory is not mechanically identical to snow, because snow looks at the super type of the source that generates the mana instead of being a property of the mana itself, but it is functionally similar to snow mana because it doesn't function along the color axis. I have vowed to staple this to any post of mine referencing snow, so sorry if it seems out of context.
I'm not sure everyone does know, after all this isn't the speculation subforum. Only confirmed things are allowed here, really. I see a lot of people who haven't read the discussion ask things and get answers from both sides saying 'it is this way.' Which can be very misleading. It is better, in my opinion to phrase things as 'it could be this way' or 'it would be this way, assuming theory X' which is how I try to phrase my posts when I don't forget.
No, it sadly doesn't support "any" of the camps.
First, the game was just that...it's wasn't admissions.
It was like a special case of the "storm scale".
Second, the question was "poorly formed" which means
the answer cannot be percisely relied upon.
Snow isn't a type of mana...but the question asks
about "new mana" specifically... So to ask about
"new mana (like snow)" is a malformed question.
He might as well have asked what does Pink
sound like under water?
To make it worse, MARO isn't a "rules guy"...so
his answer is even more unreliable...as if he
thinks "snow" is a mana type...then there's
no telling what he's answer...
Your syllogism is missing a premise.
I. If you tap a forest, GREEN MANA enters you pool.
It can pay costs with G or x
II. If you tap a waste, <> enters you pool.
There are CURRENTLY 6 types of mana. All
have a unique symbol except colorless.
In fact, colorless used to not be symbolized
at all...but currently the same grey circle
used in costs that can be paid by any mana
source...is shared by colorless mana in a pool.
III. IF <> in a cost means STRICTLY colorless.
Strictly means it cannot be paid "generically".
That is, you must pay it with a mana source that
generated "Colorless Mana".
IV. In that case the Converted Mana Cost of
Kozi is 10 (just as the CMC of Progenitus is 10)
However, Kozi cannot be paid for by tapping
2 plains, 2 islands, 2 swamps, 2 mountains,
and 2 forests...but Progenitus could be.
Kozi could not be played by 10 forests and
neither could progenitus. Why not? Because
10 forests tap for 10 green mana which can
only be spend on G and 10
neither of which is the cost of either card.
Kozi is 8<><>. The 10 forests can be spent
only to pay the 8 with GG left
in the mana pool.
Thus 8<><> only "equal" 10 to
the degree that WWUUBBRRGG does.
Finally, why do we reject your first premis
that <> = 1... well, because of the Mirror land
it taps for <> ...it doesn't T: add 1
But then, do you have proof that colorless mana when being produced is still going to be represented by the number within a grey circle? No, because so far, the most logical and intuitive answer is that <> is a symbol to specifically represent colorless mana, which was introduced in OGW because this is the first set where cards have costs that ask specifically for colorless mana.
In the Mirrorpool example, the circled number in costs means generic mana, or "this can be paid with this amount of mana of any combination of colors", the land has the same frame as those lands that produce only colorless mana, and behaves exactly as a colorless mana producing land.
I know, I know, snow was uh, cool and maybe popular, I guess, but it was more parasitic and isolated as a mechanic than Arcane and Infect, as it required that even your lands were snow to work, but even then, Snow mana wasn't a "new type of mana", it was just a condition that your mana producers had to have to make the relatively undercosted snow activated cards work; snow mana is a sub-set of generic mana, as while generic mana can be paid with any mana, snow had to be paid with any mana from a snow permanent.
Maybe the idea of colorless mana specific costs could be dropped by the next block like it happened with enchantment creatures after Theros, but the new colorless mana symbol is something that will stand.
Fan of Both old and new Slivers (But the new ones are still better anyway)
C Call of Emrakul - G vs R DD: Elves vs. Goblins - W vs B DD: Divine vs. Demonic - WUB Esper Artifice - RGW Aura Dancers
WUBRG Wrath of the Reaper King - WB Men of Faith - B Mercenaries - UB Phyrexian Assault 2.0 - WU Artifacts of Empires
BR Skeleton Warriors - RG Night of The Howlpack - B Bog Murderers - BR Eldrazi Assault - BGU Ulamog's Swarm
I'm feeling a tad big frustrated with you at the moment.
There seems to be this inflexibility and rigidity that
rubs me the wrong way.
First, it's hard for me to understand your premise.
You say this "Having (<>) in a casting cost would mean you would have to now play more lands to play cards that are colorless, defeating the purpose of colorless."
Are you really trying to say that the purpose of
colorless cards is to be played with "fewer lands"?
I think you're trying to say something like...a
benefit of colorless cards is they could be splashed
into any deck without altering that deck's mana
base.
Is that what you were trying to say?
Second, if your premise were fair/true...it's too late.
Benthic Infiltrator is colorless
and you must pay U to cast it.
This means if you want to cast it, you will
need sources (most likely lands) that tap for
U
Consequently, it's much more likely that your
claim/premise is untrue.
That is, "the purpose of colorless" must not only
be or must not be universally that it can be
splashed into any deck without changing it's mana
base.
Third, even if I accepted you premise that having
sum but not all colorless card have a restriction
that make them a little harder to splash or play
without changes to the mana base...
...it would stand to reason that either...
a. that if it's not worth it the cards won't
see play, or
b. the card will have enough upside as to
see changes to the mana base.
If it's worth it, then that's why it has a
specific mana requirement. That mana must
be colorless because the card is colorless.
IF it were colored mana required it would
either be a colored card or have Devoid
(along with reminder text).
Regarding you second point...
First, snowlands did NOT tap for "snow
mana" ...there is no "snow mana" just as
there is no "generic mana".
Snow lands have the "snow" quality and
that means "mana that came from a snow
permanent.
Second, the reason there were no spells
with "snow" costs is simple...
There may be as few as 8 snow permanents
that produce mana (without other cards
to help them).
Even the five basic lands at the point
didn't appear in any pack. That is to
say ... it would be VERY HARD to cast
any of those cards in limited.
So, is this "worse" as you say?
No... Right now, for the pre-release.
WIthout seeing any more of the Oath
cards...there are already 26 cards
that would produced <> in Battle.
And 8 of those are at common! And,
of the cards we've seen for Oath,
2 of the 3 tap for <> LOL.
Next, of all the cards in BfZ that
only 17 of those cards couldn't be
cast with the aid of <> (wastes).
Further, I'm actually glad you made
this point because you've helped me
answer a question that never bothered
me really...
...but I can now say why it makes
perfect sense (without crying out to
flavor) to do this in the other set
of the block rather than start it in
Battle.
Here's why...it's the "surprise"
extension of what was brought to
colorless in the first set (DEVOID)
Devoid tells us that colorless
cards can have "mana requirements"
to be cast.
That is, despite being colorless
...you cannot cast Blisterpod
(ironically one of the 17 cards
that cannot be assisted in casting
by a waste)...with only colorless
mana.
So, the extension of that which
is new...is a colorless card
that requires colorless mana
specifically to cast it...
...that is, cannot be cast in
whole or in part with white,
blue, black, red, or green mana.
This also "closes" an asymetry.
(and not just in a box checking
way).
3U meant to cast
this (typically) you need 1 blue
mana and 3 mana from any source.
But there were never anything like
in order to cast this you need
1 colorless mana and 3 mana from
any source.
But, with 3<> we have that!
I don't think Revolutionary arguing against the New Symbol Theory, you're both on the same side there. In fact, both theories state that <> =/= 1.
New Symbol Theory states that <> =/= 1 because 1 will no longer represent colorless mana at all, and the symbol will only exist as a cost.
New Mana Theory states that <> =/= 1 because they will be two distinct types of mana that both happen to have no color.
New Symbol Theory does state that new <> = old 1 as a type of mana, which I think is causing the confusion, but that's not what is being discussed.
And, Destructor, I did address that
specifically point in a previous missive
(and maybe on another thread?).
I said, if we see a card in Oath
that has T: 1 I would see
that as at strong evidence that <>
is not the symbol for colorless mana
in activations...
...and, until I see that, I think it is
I think colorless mana has come into it's own.
I could even imagine "story reasons" we would
have <> going forward and 'wastes' on other
worlds.
Everyone is just stating their opinions as fact, restating their same arguments over and over again (or worse, being like "It's already been said, dummy" and not ever linking to or mentioning where said thing was said) and not budging an inch.
We KNOW things. Things we can use to extrapolate to the point we are now at, where two ideas dominate.
We know this mana can be added to your mana pool, which either means restructuring colorless mana (lets call this argument A) or a new colorless 'color' of mana (the snow mana argument, argument B).
We know argument A implies a sweeping, permanent change. {<>} would be here to stay, either evergreen or deciduous. Generic costs are now distinct from colorless mana, causing less confusion with players. However, there are evident downsides to this. Block limited has two different symbols, one of which looks like generic mana costs, but is actually {<>}. There are other criticisms of this argument, but this is the main one as far as I can see.
Argument B, on the other hand, is self contained. I gives the colorless basics for the purposes of commander, but leaves them in one set, ensuring that the cost of said lands will rise over time until they release another set that has them. It's also a parasitic mechanic in the set, not interacting with any other sets as anything but colorless mana. The main argument against this is precisely that it is too parasitic.
While it's possible there is another solution, one not yet thought up, or one we've overlooked, it seems extremely unlikely at this point.
So, here's the thing. So far we've been looking at this from a gameplay perspective. But what if we looked at it another way. The same way we look at full art basics, or expeditions. What if this is all about business? We know that these basics are sorely wanted by commander players, and so we're getting them. But having them be a rare thing, something more along the lines of argument B, falls more in line with how Wizards seems to like to do this sort of thing. Keep demand high. Make us buy packs just to get these basics that will be worth lots to sell in a few years time.
This is just a hypothesis, of course, and I admit I'm biased towards argument B already, but I feel like it's a move Wizards would make...
And to the guy asking before about "Does anyone believe one, while want the other?", I think I'm about as close as you'll get. I think {<>} replacing colorless is the worse of the two realities, but I don't really want either.
EDIT: Another point that is notable, {<>} looks Zendikari in shape, appearing similar to the Rise of the Eldrazi set symbol. This adds weight to the idea that it is temporary, as it would probably have a more generic appearance if it was something permanent.
How cheap is a commander sol ring? Well imagine instead of getting 5 each time it got reprinted you got 30-35 each year.
Edit: Also regarding the whole Ire shamana +m16 menance thing. Yes those were two sets side by side but that could very well just have been a printing issue. I highly doubt they sent BFZ to the printers before they imagineered <>. They clearly have a problem with 13 year old boys being confused at prereleases, do you really think they expect the same kids to realize hedron archive taps for <><>?
You know back in the old days, when there wasn't EDH, these "griefer" cards in decks were the norm. If you played a Winter Orb when you're opponents were tapped out, it was a good play. Now, you get people tell you they wanna punch you ? It's really sad how carebare this format is, to the point that some loser has to rip up your cards.
I don't see the problem with having a few Eldrazi cards only castable by <> mana. A <> producing land can still pay for 1 so it solves the Commander problem while adding a new basic land without needing to change Converge or similar mechanics. We already see many mechanics that are locked to certain sets, but look at the potential upside - cards that cost <> can be more powerful (and we might actually see some good land destruction again as a Wizards safety valve in this set or Shadows).
Chandra, Torch of Defiance - Oops! All Chandras.
Prime Speaker Zegana - Draw for Power.
Pir & Toothy - Counterpalooza.
Arcades, the Strategist - Another Brick in the Wall.
Zacama, Primal Calamity - Calamity of Double Mana.
Edgar Markov - Vampires Don't Die.
Child of Alara - Dreamcrusher.
You should have seen the look of horror on his face!
WBC Eldrazi & Taxes CBW
UR Keep on Cantripin' (UR Phoenix) RU
WU Surprise! It's not UW Control! (UW Midrange) UW
BG The Rock, Straight BG
U Mono-Blue Fish U
RBW Mardu Pyromancer BWR
RG Rabble! Rabble! (GR Blood Moon Aggro) GR
Legacy
W Death & Taxes W
Would it possibly occupy the land AND a common slot in a pack?
The big difference is that Snow-mana was never in a card's mana cost. If Wastes are not lent by the tournament organizer, you can have cards that are unplayable in a draft or sealed pool. If you had cards with snow mana, they simply would not be as good.
WBC Eldrazi & Taxes CBW
UR Keep on Cantripin' (UR Phoenix) RU
WU Surprise! It's not UW Control! (UW Midrange) UW
BG The Rock, Straight BG
U Mono-Blue Fish U
RBW Mardu Pyromancer BWR
RG Rabble! Rabble! (GR Blood Moon Aggro) GR
Legacy
W Death & Taxes W
I think that's likely. It's logistically more feasible, and would create a more interesting draft environment, so at least I hope that's the case.
There's precedent for making the land slot matter in the draft before (FRF), so maybe? I can't think of a strong reason why it couldn't be. Another suggestion that I've read is that Wastes could take up more than one common slot, perhaps with different art.
I do think that one common slot for Wastes is unlikely to be enough to support it in draft, assuming that all sources of <> must be drafted. Though it depends on many other factors, such as the number and rarity of other sources of <> in the set and whether New Symbol Theory or New Mana Theory proves to be true. Under New Symbol Theory, you can get sources of <> from BFZ such as Kozilek's Channeler, so they won't have to bend over backwards as much to support it in Oath.
Which leaves it to luck. In a sealed pool, how many blighted lands do you have? 1-2 most probably, maybe less since we will have only two BFZ packs. Enough to play your 4-5 <> spells?
WBC Eldrazi & Taxes CBW
UR Keep on Cantripin' (UR Phoenix) RU
WU Surprise! It's not UW Control! (UW Midrange) UW
BG The Rock, Straight BG
U Mono-Blue Fish U
RBW Mardu Pyromancer BWR
RG Rabble! Rabble! (GR Blood Moon Aggro) GR
Legacy
W Death & Taxes W