It's something that's poised to shake the very foundations of a 22 year old game. It bears a little discussion.
Though the fact that we can't come to a consensus about how these should work makes me appreciate why WOTC won't take fan created card ideas. We're all pretty awful at it.
I highly doubt r&d comes to a consensus either. They just have a person in charge, several teams, and playtesters. The difference is that we would need the whole set to test properly instead of arguing based on unknowns.
The old way was either {C} or {chaos}. They didn't just change from C to CHAOS, they changed from 2 different methods to one. And since CHAOS isn't any longer than chaos, your reasoning that it's longer and more cumbersome isn't correct.
This is the most sound argument that I've read in this forum. I am inclined to agree with you on all of this, Medussa.
So, maybe "Kozilek, the Great Distortion" emerges and actually alters the mana on Zendikar thus creating actual colorless mana.
The reason that this thread is so long is due to the Great Distortion caused by Kozilek.
Changing "into play" to "enters the battlefield" happened hand in hand with when they started being more picky about the difference between "playing," "casting," and "adding to the stack". I remember the issues that were to be had with Palinchron. For a time it was "if it was cast from your hand, untap seven lands" to prevent the Recurring Nightmare combo. Phasing used to be even more of a nightmare than it currently is.
The phrase "into play" was very misleading and more advanced players knew that. A Millstone played with someone's library. Animate Dead played with people's graveyards. In fact, the only thing that was really out of playing reach back then were things "removed from the game (now: exiled)". "Battlefield" changed that confusion, because yes: we can play with many things, even the opponent's hand with Hypnotic Specter. We can play with the stack with Counterspell. There is a reason why I am listing cards that have been around since Revised: it needed to be changed since back then.
STill, not so much errata.
The eradication of mana burn is errata.
Oracle wording which supercedes card text is errata.
Damage no longer going on the stack is errata.
Getting rid of the "interrupt" card type is errata.
Narrowing down and changing creature types is errata.
Changing "sideways T" to "ninety-degrees-arrow" was not errata. It was cosmetic.
Hence: If they end up changing 1 to look like <>, it will not be errata, it will just be cosmetic.
Putting <> up in a mana cost? That is adding something new to the game, not fixing something that was wrong. Runeclaw Bear is not grizzly bears with errata, it is just better.
The eradication of mana burn is errata.
Damage no longer going on the stack is errata.
These aren't errata; they're rules changes. Also, what you're referring to is functional errata. Basically everything that changes the text of a card is errata. Of course, as you pointed out, Wizards has only really had a problem with major functional errata. Mass nonfunctional errata, minor functional errata*, and rules changes are fair game.
*By minor functional errata, I mean small changes to card interactions between cards printed years apart. Such as how Goblin War Drums now has a different interaction with Muraganda Petroglyphs.
Errata is changes to a cards text to clarify its function. Usually due to errors, or updates in a later printing. It's actually a publishing term - not an MTG term.
No, this was a functional rules change. Cards, as written, literally functioned differently due to the change. There were not errors in cards that caused the change, though the rules change CAUSED some errata.
No, this was a functional rules change. And it didn't even cause any errata, some cards just ended up being worse because of it (though not because they changed in function).
Getting rid of the "interrupt" card type is errata.
While this caused a LOT of errata, the change in and of itself was a functional rules change. The interrupt (and mana source for the brief time it existed) cards actually had different timing properties than instants, so they actually changed function (if only in a minor way) when they were changed.
Hence: If they end up changing 1 to look like <>, it will not be errata, it will just be cosmetic.
I completely agree with this as well. Though some functional rules changes will need to exist also - it won't technically be errata.
EDIT: The changes in rules would be considered errata only if we were talking about an addendum to a specific printed version of the rules with errors in it. Since rules changes are version updates, they wouldn't be covered under errata with respect to the comprehensive rules as a document.
"Errata" doesn't refer just to changed to card text caused by errors exclusively, it also is the terminology used by wizards for non-functional changes to cards that simply retemplates identical cards in new ways. An example is given here; http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/feature/424a2
The new Reef Shaman template is "{T}: Target land becomes the basic land type of your choice until end of turn." This is purely a template change, not a functional change, and it applies to other subtype-changing effects as well. Cards that are getting errata:
It's possible that Wizards left a small campfire burning in a forest. And now the entire forest is on fire.
I do believe what many are arguing over is merely some gimmick. They won't shatter the very foundations of a 22-year old game. IF they wanted to introduce a sixth color, MaRo has said they would have done it more than a decade ago. The ship has long sailed, people. A sixth color would need to be pushed in such a way that it has to make up for the 22 year gap of card history. If this doesn't makes sense I don't know what else would.
Colorless has existed since alpha. It just that the Eldrazi has come to town and we're celebrating this era of colorlessness. C'mon.
I do believe what many are arguing over is merely some gimmick. They won't shatter the very foundations of a 22-year old game. IF they wanted to introduce a sixth color, MaRo has said they would have done it more than a decade ago. The ship has long sailed, people. A sixth color would need to be pushed in such a way that it has to make up for the 22 year gap of card history. If this doesn't makes sense I don't know what else would.
Firstly, I'd love a citation, or at least a source, of that MaRo statement. I'm sure I've read him talking about how he thinks they may still do a sixth color. Furthermore, this isn't quite that, neither introducing a new color or a new basic land type, two of the most significant problems with introducing a new color.
Furthermore, it doesn't have to be pushed for 22 years. WotC cares very little about most eternal formats, with an exception for Commander. It only has to be pushed with respect to limited and maybe standard. The whole idea of this, from what most of us on the "new mana type" side are arguing, is that it's a one-time, admittedly parasitic but pushed to make up for that set mechanic. It's not shattering the very foundations of magic any more than, say, monstrosity or renown did by introducing a new state for permanents to be in.
Saying it's clearly wrong is ludicrous. I'm by no means saying it's confirmed right, but it's far from off the table as an option.
A sixth color would need to be pushed in such a way that it has to make up for the 22 year gap of card history. If this doesn't makes sense I don't know what else would.
Only if the sixth color is here to stay AND it's supposed to be as important as all other colors.
But time and time again, MaRo said how brilliant the color wheel is as it is.
Having a sixth color (without being a sixth color) for just a set is a good option.
Whatever <> is it's a colorless "color." It exists on a creature that is clearly colorless. This isn't adding a new faction, but creating a design space for more colorless exploration.
I suspect this will work one of two ways:
1- They errata old cards that produce mana to replace (1) with <> (which they can then blanket change colorless sources to produce this mana).
2- They phyrexian mana approach it, where they specify how it can be paid.
Ex. reminder text would be ( <> may only be paid by mana without a color )
Ex2. Something a bit different ( <> may be paid by <> or (2) )
I think this is part of Magic exploring varying up costs, a continuation of the New Phyrexia experiment. These are costs that work within the existing frameworks, which saves needing to create a whole new color space, but also create new ways to pay for cards.
Is this what happened when snow and phyrexian mana was spoiled? Just postulated for months about a total upheaval of the game and how it even worked when a definitive answer was imminent and they barely changed the game at all?
Is this what happened when snow and phyrexian mana was spoiled? Just postulated for months about a total upheaval of the game and how it even worked when a definitive answer was imminent and they barely changed the game at all?
Is this what happened when snow and phyrexian mana was spoiled? Just postulated for months about a total upheaval of the game and how it even worked when a definitive answer was imminent and they barely changed the game at all?
Well, no. Not sure about snow mana, but Phyrexian mana was spoiled (together with the whole set) in the godbook leak, so we had all the cards, including the reminder text, right away and knew what it is and what it does.
Is this what happened when snow and phyrexian mana was spoiled? Just postulated for months about a total upheaval of the game and how it even worked when a definitive answer was imminent and they barely changed the game at all?
Well, no. Not sure about snow mana, but Phyrexian mana was spoiled (together with the whole set) in the godbook leak, so we had all the cards, including the reminder text, right away and knew what it is and what it does.
Yeah. A new basic land without a type is sort of a big deal. If it's colorless (I think it is) then it's something commander players have been asking for for a while now. The fact that it is produced by a basic land makes it hard for me to imagine it being anything other than colorless. However, none of the cards spoiled here have any amount of reminder text. Previous spoilers with a new symbol or mechanic almost always had something with reminder text (or just the whole set like the godbook leak) or were presented officially by Wizards who explained it, so we knew what it meant.
As much as the "debate" in this thread is just going in circles at this point, I imagine it will continue to do so until Wizards gives an official statement. It's pretty much all we have to speculate on, so people are going to speculate on it, even after they've said everything there is to say.
Well, no. Not sure about snow mana, but Phyrexian mana was spoiled (together with the whole set) in the godbook leak, so we had all the cards, including the reminder text, right away and knew what it is and what it does.
Isn't this leak (if true) kind of similar? It is basically spoiling the biggest surprise of the set.
Not really. There's a big difference between three cards without context and a full set.
I'd imagine at the pre-release tournaments, they'd pack in an extra 8-10 Wastes to allow players to actually play their waste spells, otherwise we might be looking at one of the most frustrating prerelease tournaments on record?
Prerelease shouldn§t be problem duo they can put few Wastes into each prerelease box and even each booster of set (they could run special print even for 2 Battle for zendikar booster) can contain Wastes on basic slot.
Or they could allow players to use proxy card as Wastes. Write a Waste on some card.
I'd imagine at the pre-release tournaments, they'd pack in an extra 8-10 Wastes to allow players to actually play their waste spells, otherwise we might be looking at one of the most frustrating prerelease tournaments on record?
This is actually an interesting problem. In order to have enough Wastes in a sealed/draft pool, it seems like the basic land slot in an OGW pack would have to always contain a Wastes. If it's just one of the commons, there could realistically be sealed pools that have no way to generate <>. This is true even if <> is just the new symbol for 1.
On another note, could we get the <> symbol into the mana tags?
I'm willing to bet that Wastes and Colorless Mana Matters is only a part of this set and will not carry over to any other sets for a long time; nor will it become the sixth color of mana like many of you are proposing. Your speculations are ridiculous.
Somehow, the text representation of the chaos symbol was {C} on some cards and {chaos} on others. We just lined them up as {CHAOS}. Why all capital letters? Well, I wanted {c#A0$} but my editor overruled me. Alas."
http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/feature/magic-origins-update-bulletin-oracle-changes-2015-07-16
So, maybe "Kozilek, the Great Distortion" emerges and actually alters the mana on Zendikar thus creating actual colorless mana.
Changing "into play" to "enters the battlefield" happened hand in hand with when they started being more picky about the difference between "playing," "casting," and "adding to the stack". I remember the issues that were to be had with Palinchron. For a time it was "if it was cast from your hand, untap seven lands" to prevent the Recurring Nightmare combo. Phasing used to be even more of a nightmare than it currently is.
The phrase "into play" was very misleading and more advanced players knew that. A Millstone played with someone's library. Animate Dead played with people's graveyards. In fact, the only thing that was really out of playing reach back then were things "removed from the game (now: exiled)". "Battlefield" changed that confusion, because yes: we can play with many things, even the opponent's hand with Hypnotic Specter. We can play with the stack with Counterspell. There is a reason why I am listing cards that have been around since Revised: it needed to be changed since back then.
STill, not so much errata.
The eradication of mana burn is errata.
Oracle wording which supercedes card text is errata.
Damage no longer going on the stack is errata.
Getting rid of the "interrupt" card type is errata.
Narrowing down and changing creature types is errata.
Changing "sideways T" to "ninety-degrees-arrow" was not errata. It was cosmetic.
Hence: If they end up changing 1 to look like <>, it will not be errata, it will just be cosmetic.
Putting <> up in a mana cost? That is adding something new to the game, not fixing something that was wrong. Runeclaw Bear is not grizzly bears with errata, it is just better.
These aren't errata; they're rules changes. Also, what you're referring to is functional errata. Basically everything that changes the text of a card is errata. Of course, as you pointed out, Wizards has only really had a problem with major functional errata. Mass nonfunctional errata, minor functional errata*, and rules changes are fair game.
*By minor functional errata, I mean small changes to card interactions between cards printed years apart. Such as how Goblin War Drums now has a different interaction with Muraganda Petroglyphs.
No, this was a functional rules change. Cards, as written, literally functioned differently due to the change. There were not errors in cards that caused the change, though the rules change CAUSED some errata.
Yes. The oracle version of cards (that differ from their printed versions) IS the definition of errata.
No, this was a functional rules change. And it didn't even cause any errata, some cards just ended up being worse because of it (though not because they changed in function).
While this caused a LOT of errata, the change in and of itself was a functional rules change. The interrupt (and mana source for the brief time it existed) cards actually had different timing properties than instants, so they actually changed function (if only in a minor way) when they were changed.
Yes! Though, again, technically it isn't until its changed on a "printed" card.
Correct, the change in tap symbol wasn't due to an error, and thus wouldn't be considered errata.
I completely agree with this as well. Though some functional rules changes will need to exist also - it won't technically be errata.
EDIT: The changes in rules would be considered errata only if we were talking about an addendum to a specific printed version of the rules with errors in it. Since rules changes are version updates, they wouldn't be covered under errata with respect to the comprehensive rules as a document.
Custom Set
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hu9uNBSUt92PwGhvexYlwFvsh6_SJBlEEIUV3H9_XyU/edit?usp=sharing
http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/feature/424a2
I think you still cant counter morph as its an ability.
I do believe what many are arguing over is merely some gimmick. They won't shatter the very foundations of a 22-year old game. IF they wanted to introduce a sixth color, MaRo has said they would have done it more than a decade ago. The ship has long sailed, people. A sixth color would need to be pushed in such a way that it has to make up for the 22 year gap of card history. If this doesn't makes sense I don't know what else would.
Colorless has existed since alpha. It just that the Eldrazi has come to town and we're celebrating this era of colorlessness. C'mon.
UR Melek, Izzet ParagonUR, B Shirei, Shizo's CaretakerB, R Jaya Ballard, Task MageR,RW Tajic, Blade of the LegionRW, UB Lazav, Dimir MastermindUB, UB Circu, Dimir LobotomistUB, RWU Zedruu the GreatheartedRWU, GUBThe MimeoplasmGUB, UGExperiment Kraj UG, WDarien, King of KjeldorW, BMarrow-GnawerB, WBGKarador, Ghost ChieftainWBG, UTeferi, Temporal ArchmageU, GWUDerevi, Empyrial TacticianGWU, RDaretti, Scrap SavantR, UTalrand, Sky SummonerU, GEzuri, Renegade LeaderG, WUBRGReaper KingWUBRG, RGXenagos, God of RevelsRG, CKozilek, Butcher of TruthC, WUBRGGeneral TazriWUBRG, GTitania, Protector of ArgothG
Furthermore, it doesn't have to be pushed for 22 years. WotC cares very little about most eternal formats, with an exception for Commander. It only has to be pushed with respect to limited and maybe standard. The whole idea of this, from what most of us on the "new mana type" side are arguing, is that it's a one-time, admittedly parasitic but pushed to make up for that set mechanic. It's not shattering the very foundations of magic any more than, say, monstrosity or renown did by introducing a new state for permanents to be in.
Saying it's clearly wrong is ludicrous. I'm by no means saying it's confirmed right, but it's far from off the table as an option.
Only if the sixth color is here to stay AND it's supposed to be as important as all other colors.
But time and time again, MaRo said how brilliant the color wheel is as it is.
Having a sixth color (without being a sixth color) for just a set is a good option.
( 0.0 )
=O ((U/R)) O=
(")(")
I'm an AI making Magic cards.
http://www.staalmedia.nl/nexus/#generate
I suspect this will work one of two ways:
1- They errata old cards that produce mana to replace (1) with <> (which they can then blanket change colorless sources to produce this mana).
2- They phyrexian mana approach it, where they specify how it can be paid.
Ex. reminder text would be ( <> may only be paid by mana without a color )
Ex2. Something a bit different ( <> may be paid by <> or (2) )
I think this is part of Magic exploring varying up costs, a continuation of the New Phyrexia experiment. These are costs that work within the existing frameworks, which saves needing to create a whole new color space, but also create new ways to pay for cards.
counter when you cast face downed..
A new basic land is quite revolutionary.
( 0.0 )
=O ((U/R)) O=
(")(")
I'm an AI making Magic cards.
http://www.staalmedia.nl/nexus/#generate
Well, no. Not sure about snow mana, but Phyrexian mana was spoiled (together with the whole set) in the godbook leak, so we had all the cards, including the reminder text, right away and knew what it is and what it does.
Yeah. A new basic land without a type is sort of a big deal. If it's colorless (I think it is) then it's something commander players have been asking for for a while now. The fact that it is produced by a basic land makes it hard for me to imagine it being anything other than colorless. However, none of the cards spoiled here have any amount of reminder text. Previous spoilers with a new symbol or mechanic almost always had something with reminder text (or just the whole set like the godbook leak) or were presented officially by Wizards who explained it, so we knew what it meant.
As much as the "debate" in this thread is just going in circles at this point, I imagine it will continue to do so until Wizards gives an official statement. It's pretty much all we have to speculate on, so people are going to speculate on it, even after they've said everything there is to say.
RIP Batman guy. I hope somebody picks up the slack now that you are gone. Sick children need their Batman.
OGW prereleases in January 22, so it will be no more than two months, probably just one, before we know for sure.
Not really. There's a big difference between three cards without context and a full set.
Or they could allow players to use proxy card as Wastes. Write a Waste on some card.
This is actually an interesting problem. In order to have enough Wastes in a sealed/draft pool, it seems like the basic land slot in an OGW pack would have to always contain a Wastes. If it's just one of the commons, there could realistically be sealed pools that have no way to generate <>. This is true even if <> is just the new symbol for 1.
On another note, could we get the <> symbol into the mana tags?
Dunes of Zairo
SHANDALAR
Innistrad - The Darkest Night
~THE RAVNICAN CONSORTIUM~
A Community Set
Commander: Allies & Adversaries