In an effort to give you a benefit of the doubt,
I'm going to assume you mean, "Wastes" is not a
"basic land TYPE".
He meant that the gates were non-basic, while Wastes is not non-basic (ie. basic)
There's really not much to get from comparing Wastes to the guild gates. Yeah, there's precedent for them to appear in the land slot even though they're rarity C. But MaRo has gone on record saying that the BFZ full art lands will be in the set, presumably in that slot. So it's unlikely.
Either way, it doesn't really make a difference to the main discussion. Appearing in the land slot or not doesn't mean anything definitive in terms of whether something will be a recurring thing. It's mostly just a printing/drafting issue.
So, 7th Edition Sissay's Ring in your mind is connected to Hedrons and Eldrazi?
Ironically, this was "exactly" the artifact one of the 'haters' of the <>=1
camp use to say specifically. "What does Sisay's Ring have to do with Kozi..."
In fact, those diamonds are WAY more Zendikari than are the ninja star shapes
of wastes.
Lol, that was me! And no, I don't get an eldrazi vibe from Sisay's ring. When I said 'diamond object' I meant more of the diamond shape you see on the playing card suit of 'diamonds'. Sisay's ring does have these shapes, but they are not really on their own like the hedrons floating around Zendikar, rather they are part of a specific pattern on the ring.
Anyway, it's just how I perceive the art of the hedrons. You are welcome to your own interpretation.
I don't get this new trend of saying the symbol is a flavor fail if it does represent "specifically colorless." How does the diamond shape make Sisay's Ring make less flavor sense than the numeral "2"? Were people out there thinking "Sweet, I have my two mana now! If only I had a three source so I could play my Sword of Feast and Famine."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MTGSalvation; Where the whining is a time honored tradition, and enjoying the game is trolling.
I don't get this new trend of saying the symbol is a flavor fail if it does represent "specifically colorless." How does the diamond shape make Sisay's Ring make less flavor sense than the numeral "2"? Were people out there thinking "Sweet, I have my two mana now! If only I had a three source so I could play my Sword of Feast and Famine."
It depends on how you perceive the new mana symbol. To me, I see a hedron, so the wastes produces hedron/eldrazi mana. If you see that, then there is no way that Sisay's ring from Dominaria should ever produce 2 eldrazi mana. 2 colorless mana, however, could be produced on any plane.
Wizards retcon'd hedrons from being an ancient eldrazi race thing, see dreamstone hedron, to eldrazi prison cubes, see Aligned Hedron Network. Vorthos' were pissed and it makes speculating really wonky because you need to look at RoE with a grain of salt.
Actually, the hedrons were always double edged swords, capable of being used both by and against the Eldrazi. Flavor articles at the time made it clear that their original intent was to stop the Eldrazi:
The lithomancer constructed a massive network of stone diamonds called hedrons, whose power would form the bars of a planewide prison, forever preventing the Eldrazi from leaving.
So, no, vorthoses aren't pissed. It's actually kinda nice that the cards in BfZ show hedrons being used for their intended purpose. It was weird that the cards in RoE almost exclusively showed them being manipulated by the Eldrazi.
I don't get this new trend of saying the symbol is a flavor fail if it does represent "specifically colorless." How does the diamond shape make Sisay's Ring make less flavor sense than the numeral "2"? Were people out there thinking "Sweet, I have my two mana now! If only I had a three source so I could play my Sword of Feast and Famine."
It depends on how you perceive the new mana symbol. To me, I see a hedron, so the wastes produces hedron/eldrazi mana. If you see that, then there is no way that Sisay's ring from Dominaria should ever produce 2 eldrazi mana. 2 colorless mana, however, could be produced on any plane.
You keep insisting that diamonds look like hedrons to you, but considering how few others in this thread there are saying the same, compared to how many are quick to say that diamonds are flavor neutral, I don't think your opinion is the norm.
I correct people locally (as in, I say "Red and 2 other" and if someone says "Red and 2 colorless" I correct them) but I'm too lazy to do so online.
And it hasn't been ignored since the inception of the game. There was a dramatic difference between colorless mana being generated in ABUR and generic mana costs.
That difference was removed. Saying the confusion has been there since the beginning is simply incorrect.
See above.
You mean
The fact that WotC started by spelling out the difference between colorless and generic mana and then went to combining the two under the umbrella of one easy-to-grasp symbol after the development process of the game had matured is not an argument that works in your favor.
?
First, that's not "since inception" and second they changed that not for an "easy-to-grasp" symbol, but because they were cutting words out across the board and needed a symbol. They went with what they had. That doesn't mean it was the right idea.
I was wrong in saying "since the inception", I'll admit. But it wasn't the right idea? Really? I think the fact that it's stuck for over a decade heavily implies it was.
Quote from rigeld2 »
What's the inherent meaning of a tree? Or a swirly ball of fire?
Trees are green and fire burns red. What color is a geometric shape?
It isn't. ohsnap you mean it's colorless?
No, I mean it's nonsense to talk about geometric shapes in terms of color. Way to miss the point. If I draw a circle with a red pen, is it a fact that circles are red? If I draw a triangle in blue ink, are triangles blue? If I trace an invisible square in the air, are squares colorless? Not even close.
Quote from rigeld2 »
And those aren't the inherent meanings of a tree or a swirly ball of fire.
What about a sun? The sun is fire too... And skulls are white.
They are associated with those colors and highly reminiscent of them. I don't know what your hang-up is on inherent meaning, nor do I care because it doesn't extend to the game at large. Skull = Macabre = Dark = Black (only a little stretch). As for "the sun is fire", sure, it's that and a lot of other things, but sun = fire doesn't mean sun = red. Try going outside and staring at it... 60 seconds should be plenty of time.
On a side note, don't mince your posts if you can't figure out how quote tags work. It's a ***** and a half going back to try and insert the correct quote tags so my post doesn't look like dog*****.
Actually, I wasn't defending anything, I was just postulating a theory and I stated this as speculation about 3x. I admit that I am ignorant of Wizards policies to never change functionality of older cards. Wasn't time vault errated like 3x?
Don't make me quote you where you said the '<> replaces 1' idea is equally as far-fetched as your "theory" (not how a theory works). They're not, by a long shot. I guess the deal is off.
So, 7th Edition Sissay's Ring in your mind is connected to Hedrons and Eldrazi?
Ironically, this was "exactly" the artifact one of the 'haters' of the <>=1
camp use to say specifically. "What does Sisay's Ring have to do with Kozi..."
In fact, those diamonds are WAY more Zendikari than are the ninja star shapes
of wastes.
Dude... I don't know your dome measurements, but I know that tinfoil hat is way too big for your head.
I was wrong in saying "since the inception", I'll admit. But it wasn't the right idea? Really? I think the fact that it's stuck for over a decade heavily implies it was.
This seems like a logic confusion of your major
and minor premises. All that can be concluded by
the "long time standing" answer is that it's BETTER
than the long string of words.
Which I think almost no one would disagree with.
It's worth pointing out that "this change" was
actually inspired, literally, by a mistake.
That is to say a card was printed that didn't
work within the rules. It was a man dork that
tapped for 1G.
Now that it was inspired by a mistake doesn't
make it a mistake.
But that it was the Version 2.0 doesn't mean
it's the RIGHT version (there will never be
a version 3.0).
Better =/= "right" (or best).
No, I mean it's nonsense to talk about geometric shapes in terms of color. Way to miss the point. If I draw a circle with a red pen, is it a fact that circles are red? If I draw a triangle in blue ink, are triangles blue? If I trace an invisible square in the air, are squares colorless? Not even close.
You're making all kind of semantic, ontological,
and epistemological mistakes in your posts.
Squares "aren't" ...they don't exist at all.
They're concepts and concepts take on ontological
meaning though complex processes. Almost never
(perhaps with the singular exception of pure maths)
does something have an "intrinsic" meaning.
You may have noticed there are several languages.
You may have noticed some of them have very different
words for the same thing...when they have similar words
you will find they had a common origin. Words are just
one type of symbol. Images, are another.
Finally, I think you're grossly suffering from status-quo
bias. You show that in the rest of your post about
skulls.
Skulls are not Grim in Norse/Viking symbol systems.
The Skull in the age of Piracy had a different meaning.
The skill in to Freemasons is a symbol of reflection
both that one is mortal, but more speculatively, that
one must "die to ones lower self" to be one's better self.
That you can come up with a "flavor" reason that you
associate a sun with "white" is fine, it just means
the symbols aren't a flavor fail.
But we already know that Wizards tried to make a
symbol for "devoid" ... how much do you want to
bet one of the was <> ...
So, 7th Edition Sissay's Ring in your mind is connected to Hedrons and Eldrazi?
Ironically, this was "exactly" the artifact one of the 'haters' of the <>=1
camp use to say specifically. "What does Sisay's Ring have to do with Kozi..."
In fact, those diamonds are WAY more Zendikari than are the ninja star shapes
of wastes.
Dude... I don't know your dome measurements, but I know that tinfoil hat is way too big for your head.
Please don't call me "dude". I find this message rude.
If you don't think there is substance to my post, don't
reply. But if you reply, consider including substance
rather than personal attack.
In the spirit of the "tin-foil-hat" wearers.
The evolution of () to <> is attached with my 0 art skills.
I was wrong in saying "since the inception", I'll admit. But it wasn't the right idea? Really? I think the fact that it's stuck for over a decade heavily implies it was.
This seems like a logic confusion of your major
and minor premises. All that can be concluded by
the "long time standing" answer is that it's BETTER
than the long string of words.
Now that it was inspired by a mistake doesn't
make it a mistake.
But that it was the Version 2.0 doesn't mean
it's the RIGHT version (there will never be
a version 3.0).
Better =/= "right" (or best).
This amounts to semantics for me. I think I make it pretty clear when I'm presenting a precise logical statement ("sun=fire =/= sun=red") as opposed to when I'm freeballing it, but let me know if I'm failing at that.
No, I mean it's nonsense to talk about geometric shapes in terms of color. Way to miss the point. If I draw a circle with a red pen, is it a fact that circles are red? If I draw a triangle in blue ink, are triangles blue? If I trace an invisible square in the air, are squares colorless? Not even close.
You're making all kind of semantic, ontological,
and epistemological mistakes in your posts.
Squares "aren't" ...they don't exist at all.
They're concepts and concepts take on ontological
meaning though complex processes. Almost never
(perhaps with the singular exception of pure maths)
does something have an "intrinsic" meaning.
You may have noticed there are several languages.
You may have noticed some of them have very different
words for the same thing...when they have similar words
you will find they had a common origin. Words are just
one type of symbol. Images, are another.
I don't... did you... does this bring us any closer to associating squares with colorlessness?
Finally, I think you're grossly suffering from status-quo
bias. You show that in the rest of your post about
skulls.
Skulls are not Grim in Norse/Viking symbol systems.
The Skull in the age of Piracy had a different meaning.
The skill in to Freemasons is a symbol of reflection
both that one is mortal, but more speculatively, that
one must "die to ones lower self" to be one's better self.
Except we're not pirates, or vikings, or Freemasons (probably), we're people living in a time in which technological advancements make our lives very easy and the majority of us are ignorant to the historical significance of iconic images. Ergo, skulls are gross and spooky.
So, 7th Edition Sissay's Ring in your mind is connected to Hedrons and Eldrazi?
Ironically, this was "exactly" the artifact one of the 'haters' of the <>=1
camp use to say specifically. "What does Sisay's Ring have to do with Kozi..."
In fact, those diamonds are WAY more Zendikari than are the ninja star shapes
of wastes.
Dude... I don't know your dome measurements, but I know that tinfoil hat is [i]way[/i] too big for your head.
Please don't call me "dude". I find this message rude.
If you don't think there is substance to my post, don't
reply. But if you reply, consider including substance
rather than personal attack.
It's called an attempt at humor. It was targeted humor; it may have offended you, and I won't apologize for it. But if it makes you feel better, I was calling myself 'dude'. As in, "Dude... [I can't believe what I'm reading]."
Also--since I guess I have to spell it out--I call dibs on replying to any post I feel like.
How do you know it's not really an issue? How do you know that the issue regarding newer players learning that 1 in costs denotes a generic mana cost is as small of an issue as you claim it to be?
I don't really understand why you so quickly dismiss the confusion that newer players may have when learning the two different meanings of 1. Yes, newer players quickly need to learn the difference, and yes, they don't really speak up because their constant questioning of game rules doesn't allow them to progress with playing the game, but that doesn't mean the confusion automatically becomes a non-issue.
Once again, the answer to your question is in the block of text you quoted:
Quote from Benalicious Hero »
What about them? Yes, they are included in "everyone", and they aren't given much mind because the issue isn't given much mind because it's not really an issue. Knowing the difference between generic mana and colorless mana has rarely (see: never) been important to gameplay because "strictly colorless" has never before been explored as a design space.
See, I don't tend to blindly state something without providing supporting facts. But if you aren't bothering to analyze what I'm saying, I don't know why you would bother replying at all.
That strictly-colorless ideas have never been explored in design space isn't an answer as to why newer players' confusion between generic and colorless mana isn't an issue.
I'm asking why newer players confusing generic and colorless mana is a non-issue. Your reply is that strictly-colorless ideas have never been implemented.
Your reply addresses newer players' eventual need to distinguish between generic and colorless mana. This differentiation requirement is certainly a non-issue, because players will eventually learn how to distinguish the two similar concepts, regardless of their background.
My question doesn't involve this eventual differentiation requirement. My question involves the initial confusion that players get from seeing "1" in two different places. A player confused about the two concepts is required to learn how to differentiate the two, but that doesn't mean the confusion leading up to that differentiation should be required.
If a player is able to understand the difference between generic mana and colorless mana without being initially confused by an identical representation for the two concepts, presumably by having some form of design change implemented, then that design change is good.
Quote from Thought Criminal »
Your assertion was merely that both theories of {<>} would open up design space, to which I agree.
But how much design space would each theory open up? How much of a future set would each theory's new design space need to occupy for that theory to be feasible?
Wrong. My assertion was that the design space made available by the change would be the same in either case. See Locke's and lueg's posts.
Very well. It wasn't exactly clear what your assertion was when I first responded. Knowing your assertion, I'm not necessarily of the opinion that the two approaches open up different amounts of design space. But we may differ in how much of each method's design space would be able to be represented in a set.
Can. You. Provide. A. Counter. Example? Can you prove otherwise? With a hypothetical card design or anything else?
Having said what I've said, I'm not even sure what I'm supposed to be countering here. I'm asking for your thoughts on how much design space that each approach opens up would be feasibly used in a set.
My question isn't clear enough, perhaps. I'll lay it out hopefully with more clarity.
Suppose that a conventional set that has been released so far is represented by 36 cards of each of the five colors, and 16 colorless. Clearly, this imbalance shows that there isn't enough representation for whatever group we're trying to add. Two things can be done to increase the amount of representation the new group gets. The first is just plainly adding more cards to make the representation about equal. The second is to remove cards from the other colors and adding them to the new group to make the representation about equal.
In the first approach, the "new group" is just the 16 colorless cards that are already included in the hypothetical set. How many cards would be explicitly added, and how many cards would be taken from each of the colors, to create enough representation for the colorless cards?
In the second approach, the "new group" isn't the 16 colorless cards, but rather a new group of cards. This would lead to seven "groups" -- white, blue, black, red, green, colorless, and {<>}. How many cards would be explicitly added, and how many cards would be taken from each of these six groups, to create enough representation for the {<>} cards?
Hopefully that makes my question more clear.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How to use card tags (please use them for everybody's sanity)
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format Minimum deck size: 60 Maximum number of identical cards: 4 Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
That strictly-colorless ideas have never been explored in design space isn't an answer as to why newer players' confusion between generic and colorless mana isn't an issue.
I'm asking why newer players confusing generic and colorless mana is a non-issue. Your reply is that strictly-colorless ideas have never been implemented.
No, my reply was that the difference between colorless and generic mana has yet to matter on a practical level of gameplay. "Strictly colorless" design space would be something that would change that, but there are ways around it, and it definitely wasn't the meat of my reply.
Your reply addresses newer players' eventual need to distinguish between generic and colorless mana. This differentiation requirement is certainly a non-issue, because players will eventually learn how to distinguish the two similar concepts, regardless of their background.
My question doesn't involve this eventual differentiation requirement. My question involves the initial confusion that players get from seeing "1" in two different places. A player confused about the two concepts is required to learn how to differentiate the two, but that doesn't mean the confusion leading up to that differentiation should be required.
Can you provide a specific example of this confusion you keep citing, and the scope of how far it extends? I imagine a conversation like this:
"Hey, there's a 1 there and a 1 there... does that mean I have to pay 1 for 1?"
"Actually, the 1 in the cost can be paid by any mana, it's a generic symbol. But the 1 produced by that card is colorless; it can be used to pay for 1, but not for a specific color of mana (not coincidentally)."
"Oh I get it. So what's the difference between generic and colorless mana?"
"Practically nothing."
If a player is able to understand the difference between generic mana and colorless mana without being initially confused by an identical representation for the two concepts, presumably by having some form of design change implemented, then that design change is good.
And I've already explained why I feel an arbitrary symbol doesn't necessarily accomplish that.
Quote from Thought Criminal »
Your assertion was merely that both theories of {<>} would open up design space, to which I agree.
But how much design space would each theory open up? How much of a future set would each theory's new design space need to occupy for that theory to be feasible?
Wrong. My assertion was that the design space made available by the change would be the same in either case. See Locke's and lueg's posts.
Very well. It wasn't exactly clear what your assertion was when I first responded. Knowing your assertion, I'm not necessarily of the opinion that the two approaches open up different amounts of design space. But we may differ in how much of each method's design space would be able to be represented in a set.
Can. You. Provide. A. Counter. Example? Can you prove otherwise? With a hypothetical card design or anything else?
Having said what I've said, I'm not even sure what I'm supposed to be countering here. I'm asking for your thoughts on how much design space that each approach opens up would be feasibly used in a set.
Did you forget? You disagreed with my statement that "<> = 1" and "<> is strictly colorless, but not equal to 1" would open up the same design space. I'm asking why, or how?
Suppose that a conventional set that has been released so far is represented by 36 cards of each of the five colors, and 16 colorless. Clearly, this imbalance shows that there isn't enough representation for whatever group we're trying to add. Two things can be done to increase the amount of representation the new group gets. The first is just plainly adding more cards to make the representation about equal. The second is to remove cards from the other colors and adding them to the new group to make the representation about equal.
In the first approach, the "new group" is just the 16 colorless cards that are already included in the hypothetical set. How many cards would be explicitly added, and how many cards would be taken from each of the colors, to create enough representation for the colorless cards?
In the second approach, the "new group" isn't the 16 colorless cards, but rather a new group of cards. This would lead to seven "groups" -- white, blue, black, red, green, colorless, and {<>}. How many cards would be explicitly added, and how many cards would be taken from each of these six groups, to create enough representation for the {<>} cards?
Hopefully that makes my question more clear.
Emphasis mine, and Not. At. All. I'm not saying there's no validity in that mess of text, but I really can't make much sense of what you're getting at, or what it has to do with hypothetical design space.
And, as far as the gates (or even the Fetch lands in Khans Block)
the could appear in the LAND SLOT
]Gatherer thinks otherwise. For the only nonbasics to ever be of land-rarity are the UrzaTron, and that is only for MTGO. Everything else with a land-rarity is a basic land. Land-rarity existed in the Tarkir expansion (just mouse over the symbol that pops up numerous times for any of the nonsnow-basics from that link), which means all of the slow-dual-lands and even the tri-lands were not put in as land rarity, but rather as commons.
You know what, I'm going to tangent for a little bit here. Urza's Mine, Urza's Power Plant, and Urza's Tower were printed as land-rarity...if it wasn't just for MTGO (because forget everything, we are rereleasing Tempest online only, but middle fingers to all you physically-tangible-card players!), I'd be way more excited than I currently am about this; as I'd really like to see a return to Dominaria as a 25th anniversary bit. Tangent complete.
I just feel like if <>=something-frequently-appearing-in-sets-even-after-BFZ-is-out-of-standards, it would have a land-rarity rather than being a common.
Except that small sets don't have a 'land-rarity' sheet.
Thank you, I don't understand why this was just ignored by the poster.
As far as the "Gatherer disagrees" that link doesn't work...so I don't
know what the person means.
The land is a basic land, it says so. Why is this even a debate?
It's like someone is saying, "I don't think it's actually a Waste card"
Because we've never had that name before...
I can't believe so many STILL think <> is colorless/generic mana.
There's no possible way they would print a BASIC land which has funny looking mana producing full art staring you in the face and then go and retroactively change all generic/colorless mana producing cards to "<>". NOT ONLY does that still effectively add another mana symbol (aka purple mana), but that complicates it even more than just having a 6th color (purple mana).
At this point, it seems like many are trying too hard to be smart instead of looking at the plausible explanation staring you in the face. It's more likely that there is a 3rd option (something we can't speculate on because of incomplete information) than a complicated option involving retroactively changing cards yet still having a conditional cost as explained above.
Kozilek is super pushed (& the new rare land) too if you hard cast it for 10 so it stands to reason that it would require a specific type of mana of which isn't 8colorless + 2 "strickly colorless" (that's so much of a mouthful... no way WotC is going to do that) instead of just 8colorless + 2 new types of mana.
It's an instant speed 5/5 trampler for 4. Wtf do you people want seriously? It has applications in populate/ above the curve beats decks, or in Bant control/ flash. I seriously think anyone mad at this card for any reason other than losing an attacker to instant speed wurm, should go home and make their own awesome card game and leave the rest of us alone.
OK, it looks like we aren't on the same page. Let's see if we can clarify things a bit.
The definition of design space that I use (and I assume most other posters such as Benalicious as well) basically refers to the range of cards that could possibly be created. The design space that opens up for both theories is essentially the same: cards that cost <>, whatever set of abilities they choose to associate with it. <> as a new type of mana gives an additional mana production ability, so there are technically more possible card designs, but those designs aren't very exciting because that type of mana is strictly worse than the other types. Point is, although it's arguable how much of the design space is likely to be used under the two theories, the fact is that the actual space made available if it's a new mana type is at least as large as the space made available if <> is just a new symbol for colorless mana.
Alright that's my (our?) position. Let me see if I understand yours. What I think you're referring to is card slots, the 'space' within a set. Your argument is that the overall representation of each color/faction will be lower if it is a new mana type than just a new symbol.
The thing is, that isn't necessarily true. Given your breakdown, there is actually no difference in representation between the two theories. Under New Mana Theory, there are 7 groups of spells - the five colors, colorless, and Eldrazi. Under New Symbol Theory, there are also 7 groups of spells - the five colors, colorless spells that don't cost <>, and colorless spells that do cost <>. It would completely arbitrary to lump the two types of colorless spells into one faction in the second case. The same constraints are true for the two colorless factions under both scenarios. You can play cards that cost <> only in decks that have enough sources of <>, and you can play cards that only cost generic mana in any deck.
Now, what could be different is the amount of space dedicated to sources of <>. If <> is a new symbol for colorless, then it is indeed true that there are more existing sources of <> with which to build on, so they may need to spend more comparatively card slots in OGW if <> is a new type of mana. However, I don't think this is an issue for a couple of reasons. The first is the presence of a basic land that produces <>. Technically, they could introduce this new type of mana with only Wastes as a source of <>, because you can put as many Wastes into your deck as you want. Obviously they haven't done so, as we know of Mirrorpool already, but they don't necessarily need to put in many more sources either way.
The second is that this is Zendikar, a land matters plane. They have more leeway to fit in many mana sources because there are so many slots devoted to lands. There are cycles of lands at common, uncommon, and rare in BFZ, and on top of that there is still evolving wilds and the new enemy manlands. Yes, most of those had color associations, but losing those associations has a much smaller impact than losing representation in spells.
I can't believe so many STILL think <> is colorless/generic mana.
...
At this point, it seems like many are trying too hard to be smart instead of looking at the plausible explanation staring you in the face. It's more likely that there is a 3rd option (something we can't speculate on because of incomplete information) than a complicated option involving retroactively changing cards yet still having a conditional cost as explained above.
...
First, "no one" who understand Magic thinks
it "generic mana" ... "Generic mana" isn't a
"thing" that "exists" in the game. It's a
phrase that describes a COST you may pay with
mana...incidentally mana of any type...not
"specifically" with something called "generic mana".
More crucial: This post doesn't contribute
very much. You've either made a very banal
statement about probability without stating
your assumptions, or you ignored you own post
by being internally inconsistent.
(Yes, given that there are a WHOLE lot of
ideas or options Wizards could take, limiting
ourselves to two is a probabilistic risk).
But, it's also not the case that all ideas
have equal probability.
While, this could be "practically anything",
to think that the debate isn't over two of
the more likely because of aspects that extend
beyond the "card name" and "symbol" itself,
seems ... dismissive.
What really is flawed in you post is that
you're saying that there is a plausible
explanation 'staring us in the face'....
...really? And what theory is that?
And why would "that" theory, over which I
readily admit to having a scotoma, manage
to 'bypass' the very probability argument
you made?
I think the absolute greatest irony in your
post is it exhibits the arrogance of saying
one of the proposed outcomes is totally off
the table while trying to advocate for some
kind of "intellectual" humility.
The land is a basic land, it says so. Why is this even a debate? ???
I don't think anyone is saying it's not a basic land. Some people are noting that it has common instead of land rarity, which is obviously true because it's written on the card, plus small sets don't have land rarities usually anyway as mentioned. Others are noting that it is likely not in the land slot, which is also probably true, because we were told that the BFZ full art lands go in that slot.
The conclusions from these two facts are tenuous at best, but so are most of the conclusions in this thread.
I can't believe so many STILL think <> is colorless/generic mana.
There's no possible way they would print a BASIC land which has funny looking mana producing full art staring you in the face and then go and retroactively change all generic/colorless mana producing cards to "<>". NOT ONLY does that still effectively add another mana symbol (aka purple mana), but that complicates it even more than just having a 6th color (purple mana).
At this point, it seems like many are trying too hard to be smart instead of looking at the plausible explanation staring you in the face. It's more likely that there is a 3rd option (something we can't speculate on because of incomplete information) than a complicated option involving retroactively changing cards yet still having a conditional cost as explained above.
Kozilek is super pushed (& the new rare land) too if you hard cast it for 10 so it stands to reason that it would require a specific type of mana of which isn't 8colorless + 2 "strickly colorless" (that's so much of a mouthful... no way WotC is going to do that) instead of just 8colorless + 2 new types of mana.
Wow. Troll much?
I really could apply the same arguments you have to the people who don't believe that "<> is the new symbol for colorless mana". Have you even read the arguments that side has posted? Because they are all pretty damn credible. They have simple rules changes. They have cosmetic errata only. You say it complicates things, when it clears up confusion between colorless and generic mana (which from the first line in your post, you obviously are confused on yourself). It expands design space without being complex.
One thing I have to explain since you obviously don't get it. And this is unrelated to <>.
Colorless Mana and Generic Mana Costs are not the same.
Let me say that again. COLORLESS MANA AND GENERIC MANA COSTS ARE NOT THE SAME
Colorless mana is mana that has no color. It can be produced by lands, by artifacts, by creatures, by sorceries (via other effects), and by instants (like Mana Drain).
Generic mana CANNOT EXIST in a mana pool, because nothing generates it.
As it stands currently, Colorless Mana does not exist as a mana cost. Generic Mana Costs do exist, and can be paid with any type of mana.
It may sound like I'm being pedantic, but the rules of the game clearly delineate the two concepts. So you can't lump them together.
The rules state that there are 5 colors of mana and 6 types of mana. White, Blue, Black, Red, Green, and Colorless are the only mana types that exist. The theory that <> is the new colorless symbol doesn't change that. All it does is change the defined symbol of Colorless mana from 1 to <>. It allows for cards to REQUIRE colorless mana in the cost, without spelling it out on the card in the text box. Under this theory, Kozilek's casting cost is not "8colorless + 2 "strickly colorless" like you say (which is incorrect by the way no matter what the symbol is, it's 2 <> and 8 of ANY type), the casting cost is 2 colorless and 8 of any type. Much like Cryptic Command is 3 blue and 1 of any type.
For clarification:
Mana that can exist in your mana pool
White, Blue, Black, Red, Green, Colorless
This mana can have riders attached to it, like Snow or "must be used on", but those indicate source or restriction, not type.
After OGW releases, we find out if the first stays the same, but we know that the second will change to include <>. Those of us that think that "<>=new colorless symbol" think that the first will not change, the second will change to add 'colorless' which is represented by <>.
Is this difference between "colorless mana" and "generic mana cost" really relevant? Can someone give me an example please?
I mean, is it really that complicated to just say: "colored mana can be used to pay for 1"? have you ever been confronted with problems or confusions, that go beyond not being clarified with this simple sentence?
Does the postulated problem really exist or is it just a "sophistic" discussion that never occurs while playing?
Many posts in the thread showed that people do seem to have a problem with it.
Another problem i have:
What's the point in making a basic land that produces "colorless"? There are hundreds of lands that are strictly better - even in BFZ there are, i think, 9 at the moment.
So is it just a limited thing and for the possibility to fetch a colorless-producing-land with Evolving wilds and the like?
Wouldn't it be strange to make a new Basic (!) land - which is pretty rare - and they wouldn't get played outside of limited?
I don't get this new trend of saying the symbol is a flavor fail if it does represent "specifically colorless." How does the diamond shape make Sisay's Ring make less flavor sense than the numeral "2"? Were people out there thinking "Sweet, I have my two mana now! If only I had a three source so I could play my Sword of Feast and Famine."
It depends on how you perceive the new mana symbol. To me, I see a hedron, so the wastes produces hedron/eldrazi mana. If you see that, then there is no way that Sisay's ring from Dominaria should ever produce 2 eldrazi mana. 2 colorless mana, however, could be produced on any plane.
So you're saying you see a roughly diamond like symbol, and it is automatically Hedron mana, but 2 doesn't come off as Math mana? Do plains make Sun mana?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MTGSalvation; Where the whining is a time honored tradition, and enjoying the game is trolling.
Is this difference between "colorless mana" and "generic mana cost" really relevant? Can someone give me an example please?
I mean, is it really that complicated to just say: "colored mana can be used to pay for 1"? have you ever been confronted with problems or confusions, that go beyond not being clarified with this simple sentence?
Does the postulated problem really exist or is it just a "sophistic" discussion that never occurs while playing?
Another problem i have:
What's the point in making a basic land that produces "colorless"? There are hundreds of lands that are strictly better - even in BFZ there are, i think, 9 at the moment.
So is it just a limited thing and for the possibility to fetch a colorless-producing-land with Evolving wilds and the like?
Wouldn't it be strange to make a new Basic (!) land - which is pretty rare - and they wouldn't get played outside of limited?
Currenty there are no reason it matters, because there are no cards that require colorless mana. If they wanted to make cards that do so, the difference between a generic mana cost and a colorless cost would be important.
The point of a colorless basic is multitude. They can be ramped into more easily, making it easier to splash some "colorless mana matters" cards into your deck. They are also something that EDH players have been asking for for a long time.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MTGSalvation; Where the whining is a time honored tradition, and enjoying the game is trolling.
Another problem i have:
What's the point in making a basic land that produces "colorless"? There are hundreds of lands that are strictly better - even in BFZ there are, i think, 9 at the moment.
So is it just a limited thing and for the possibility to fetch a colorless-producing-land with Evolving wilds and the like?
Wouldn't it be strange to make a new Basic (!) land - which is pretty rare - and they wouldn't get played outside of limited?
It a consequence of progress. They can't change the lands made prior to Wastes to be worse than it so that it adheres to the rule of nonbasics not being better than basics.
Its not just for limited. Its something they can print from now on in each large set regardless if the set has a colorless theme or not.
The new basic is currently a common due to small sets not having basic land sheets. That's obviously not rare at all. Your going to see it in enough boosters that getting a decent amount won't be a problem at all. And Modern,Legacy and Commander aren't limited formats. Colorless decks can be made without having to rely on mostly nonbasic land bases and having to get completely get blown out by nonbasic hate.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOut of the ground,I rise to grace...W BAfter the lights go out on you, after your worthless life is through. I will remember how you scream...B
I don't get this new trend of saying the symbol is a flavor fail if it does represent "specifically colorless." How does the diamond shape make Sisay's Ring make less flavor sense than the numeral "2"? Were people out there thinking "Sweet, I have my two mana now! If only I had a three source so I could play my Sword of Feast and Famine."
It depends on how you perceive the new mana symbol. To me, I see a hedron, so the wastes produces hedron/eldrazi mana. If you see that, then there is no way that Sisay's ring from Dominaria should ever produce 2 eldrazi mana. 2 colorless mana, however, could be produced on any plane.
So you're saying you see a roughly diamond like symbol, and it is automatically Hedron mana, but 2 doesn't come off as Math mana? Do plains make Sun mana?
Aside from 'math mana' which I don't know what you mean, I agree with everything you said. Plains do invoke 'sun mana' to me. Just as trees invoke 'growth mana', islands 'water mana' etc. Every plane has those 5 basic elements and that is the tie that binds them together. <> is the outlier and doesn't really fit outside of Zendikar, unless the Eldrazi head to a new plane. Do it wizards! Send them to Lorwyn! Eat the elves and ugly Kithkin! God I hate that place.
I don't get this new trend of saying the symbol is a flavor fail if it does represent "specifically colorless." How does the diamond shape make Sisay's Ring make less flavor sense than the numeral "2"? Were people out there thinking "Sweet, I have my two mana now! If only I had a three source so I could play my Sword of Feast and Famine."
It depends on how you perceive the new mana symbol. To me, I see a hedron, so the wastes produces hedron/eldrazi mana. If you see that, then there is no way that Sisay's ring from Dominaria should ever produce 2 eldrazi mana. 2 colorless mana, however, could be produced on any plane.
So you're saying you see a roughly diamond like symbol, and it is automatically Hedron mana, but 2 doesn't come off as Math mana? Do plains make Sun mana?
Aside from 'math mana' which I don't know what you mean, I agree with everything you said. Plains do invoke 'sun mana' to me. Just as trees invoke 'growth mana', islands 'water mana' etc. Every plane has those 5 basic elements and that is the tie that binds them together. <> is the outlier and doesn't really fit outside of Zendikar, unless the Eldrazi head to a new plane. Do it wizards! Send them to Lorwyn! Eat the elves and ugly Kithkin! God I hate that place.
I believe that the "math mana" refers to the number in the mana circle of generic costs and colorless mana(2 or 7). Just as "sun mana" refers to the sun in the mana circle of white mana (W).
He meant that the gates were non-basic, while Wastes is not non-basic (ie. basic)
There's really not much to get from comparing Wastes to the guild gates. Yeah, there's precedent for them to appear in the land slot even though they're rarity C. But MaRo has gone on record saying that the BFZ full art lands will be in the set, presumably in that slot. So it's unlikely.
Either way, it doesn't really make a difference to the main discussion. Appearing in the land slot or not doesn't mean anything definitive in terms of whether something will be a recurring thing. It's mostly just a printing/drafting issue.
Lol, that was me! And no, I don't get an eldrazi vibe from Sisay's ring. When I said 'diamond object' I meant more of the diamond shape you see on the playing card suit of 'diamonds'. Sisay's ring does have these shapes, but they are not really on their own like the hedrons floating around Zendikar, rather they are part of a specific pattern on the ring.
Anyway, it's just how I perceive the art of the hedrons. You are welcome to your own interpretation.
It depends on how you perceive the new mana symbol. To me, I see a hedron, so the wastes produces hedron/eldrazi mana. If you see that, then there is no way that Sisay's ring from Dominaria should ever produce 2 eldrazi mana. 2 colorless mana, however, could be produced on any plane.
Actually, the hedrons were always double edged swords, capable of being used both by and against the Eldrazi. Flavor articles at the time made it clear that their original intent was to stop the Eldrazi:
So, no, vorthoses aren't pissed. It's actually kinda nice that the cards in BfZ show hedrons being used for their intended purpose. It was weird that the cards in RoE almost exclusively showed them being manipulated by the Eldrazi.
You keep insisting that diamonds look like hedrons to you, but considering how few others in this thread there are saying the same, compared to how many are quick to say that diamonds are flavor neutral, I don't think your opinion is the norm.
I was wrong in saying "since the inception", I'll admit. But it wasn't the right idea? Really? I think the fact that it's stuck for over a decade heavily implies it was.
No, I mean it's nonsense to talk about geometric shapes in terms of color. Way to miss the point. If I draw a circle with a red pen, is it a fact that circles are red? If I draw a triangle in blue ink, are triangles blue? If I trace an invisible square in the air, are squares colorless? Not even close.
They are associated with those colors and highly reminiscent of them. I don't know what your hang-up is on inherent meaning, nor do I care because it doesn't extend to the game at large. Skull = Macabre = Dark = Black (only a little stretch). As for "the sun is fire", sure, it's that and a lot of other things, but sun = fire doesn't mean sun = red. Try going outside and staring at it... 60 seconds should be plenty of time.
On a side note, don't mince your posts if you can't figure out how quote tags work. It's a ***** and a half going back to try and insert the correct quote tags so my post doesn't look like dog*****.
Don't make me quote you where you said the '<> replaces 1' idea is equally as far-fetched as your "theory" (not how a theory works). They're not, by a long shot. I guess the deal is off.
Dude... I don't know your dome measurements, but I know that tinfoil hat is way too big for your head.
This seems like a logic confusion of your major
and minor premises. All that can be concluded by
the "long time standing" answer is that it's BETTER
than the long string of words.
Which I think almost no one would disagree with.
It's worth pointing out that "this change" was
actually inspired, literally, by a mistake.
That is to say a card was printed that didn't
work within the rules. It was a man dork that
tapped for 1G.
Now that it was inspired by a mistake doesn't
make it a mistake.
But that it was the Version 2.0 doesn't mean
it's the RIGHT version (there will never be
a version 3.0).
Better =/= "right" (or best).
You're making all kind of semantic, ontological,
and epistemological mistakes in your posts.
Squares "aren't" ...they don't exist at all.
They're concepts and concepts take on ontological
meaning though complex processes. Almost never
(perhaps with the singular exception of pure maths)
does something have an "intrinsic" meaning.
You may have noticed there are several languages.
You may have noticed some of them have very different
words for the same thing...when they have similar words
you will find they had a common origin. Words are just
one type of symbol. Images, are another.
Finally, I think you're grossly suffering from status-quo
bias. You show that in the rest of your post about
skulls.
Skulls are not Grim in Norse/Viking symbol systems.
The Skull in the age of Piracy had a different meaning.
The skill in to Freemasons is a symbol of reflection
both that one is mortal, but more speculatively, that
one must "die to ones lower self" to be one's better self.
That you can come up with a "flavor" reason that you
associate a sun with "white" is fine, it just means
the symbols aren't a flavor fail.
But we already know that Wizards tried to make a
symbol for "devoid" ... how much do you want to
bet one of the was <> ...
Please don't call me "dude". I find this message rude.
If you don't think there is substance to my post, don't
reply. But if you reply, consider including substance
rather than personal attack.
In the spirit of the "tin-foil-hat" wearers.
The evolution of () to <> is attached with my
0 art skills.
Considering that's what I said, cool.
Very cool. I'd actually be interested to know more about this. Also, LOL @ man dork.
This amounts to semantics for me. I think I make it pretty clear when I'm presenting a precise logical statement ("sun=fire =/= sun=red") as opposed to when I'm freeballing it, but let me know if I'm failing at that.
I don't... did you... does this bring us any closer to associating squares with colorlessness?
Except we're not pirates, or vikings, or Freemasons (probably), we're people living in a time in which technological advancements make our lives very easy and the majority of us are ignorant to the historical significance of iconic images. Ergo, skulls are gross and spooky.
It's called an attempt at humor. It was targeted humor; it may have offended you, and I won't apologize for it. But if it makes you feel better, I was calling myself 'dude'. As in, "Dude... [I can't believe what I'm reading]."
Also--since I guess I have to spell it out--I call dibs on replying to any post I feel like.
That strictly-colorless ideas have never been explored in design space isn't an answer as to why newer players' confusion between generic and colorless mana isn't an issue.
I'm asking why newer players confusing generic and colorless mana is a non-issue. Your reply is that strictly-colorless ideas have never been implemented.
Your reply addresses newer players' eventual need to distinguish between generic and colorless mana. This differentiation requirement is certainly a non-issue, because players will eventually learn how to distinguish the two similar concepts, regardless of their background.
My question doesn't involve this eventual differentiation requirement. My question involves the initial confusion that players get from seeing "1" in two different places. A player confused about the two concepts is required to learn how to differentiate the two, but that doesn't mean the confusion leading up to that differentiation should be required.
If a player is able to understand the difference between generic mana and colorless mana without being initially confused by an identical representation for the two concepts, presumably by having some form of design change implemented, then that design change is good.
Very well. It wasn't exactly clear what your assertion was when I first responded. Knowing your assertion, I'm not necessarily of the opinion that the two approaches open up different amounts of design space. But we may differ in how much of each method's design space would be able to be represented in a set.
Having said what I've said, I'm not even sure what I'm supposed to be countering here. I'm asking for your thoughts on how much design space that each approach opens up would be feasibly used in a set.
My question isn't clear enough, perhaps. I'll lay it out hopefully with more clarity.
Suppose that a conventional set that has been released so far is represented by 36 cards of each of the five colors, and 16 colorless. Clearly, this imbalance shows that there isn't enough representation for whatever group we're trying to add. Two things can be done to increase the amount of representation the new group gets. The first is just plainly adding more cards to make the representation about equal. The second is to remove cards from the other colors and adding them to the new group to make the representation about equal.
In the first approach, the "new group" is just the 16 colorless cards that are already included in the hypothetical set. How many cards would be explicitly added, and how many cards would be taken from each of the colors, to create enough representation for the colorless cards?
In the second approach, the "new group" isn't the 16 colorless cards, but rather a new group of cards. This would lead to seven "groups" -- white, blue, black, red, green, colorless, and {<>}. How many cards would be explicitly added, and how many cards would be taken from each of these six groups, to create enough representation for the {<>} cards?
Hopefully that makes my question more clear.
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format
Minimum deck size: 60
Maximum number of identical cards: 4
Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
No, my reply was that the difference between colorless and generic mana has yet to matter on a practical level of gameplay. "Strictly colorless" design space would be something that would change that, but there are ways around it, and it definitely wasn't the meat of my reply.
Can you provide a specific example of this confusion you keep citing, and the scope of how far it extends? I imagine a conversation like this:
"Hey, there's a 1 there and a 1 there... does that mean I have to pay 1 for 1?"
"Actually, the 1 in the cost can be paid by any mana, it's a generic symbol. But the 1 produced by that card is colorless; it can be used to pay for 1, but not for a specific color of mana (not coincidentally)."
"Oh I get it. So what's the difference between generic and colorless mana?"
"Practically nothing."
And I've already explained why I feel an arbitrary symbol doesn't necessarily accomplish that.
Did you forget? You disagreed with my statement that "<> = 1" and "<> is strictly colorless, but not equal to 1" would open up the same design space. I'm asking why, or how?
That's a funny choice of words considering what comes next.
Emphasis mine, and Not. At. All. I'm not saying there's no validity in that mess of text, but I really can't make much sense of what you're getting at, or what it has to do with hypothetical design space.
]Gatherer thinks otherwise. For the only nonbasics to ever be of land-rarity are the UrzaTron, and that is only for MTGO. Everything else with a land-rarity is a basic land. Land-rarity existed in the Tarkir expansion (just mouse over the symbol that pops up numerous times for any of the nonsnow-basics from that link), which means all of the slow-dual-lands and even the tri-lands were not put in as land rarity, but rather as commons.
You know what, I'm going to tangent for a little bit here. Urza's Mine, Urza's Power Plant, and Urza's Tower were printed as land-rarity...if it wasn't just for MTGO (because forget everything, we are rereleasing Tempest online only, but middle fingers to all you physically-tangible-card players!), I'd be way more excited than I currently am about this; as I'd really like to see a return to Dominaria as a 25th anniversary bit. Tangent complete.
I just feel like if <>=something-frequently-appearing-in-sets-even-after-BFZ-is-out-of-standards, it would have a land-rarity rather than being a common.
Thank you, I don't understand why this was just ignored by the poster.
As far as the "Gatherer disagrees" that link doesn't work...so I don't
know what the person means.
The land is a basic land, it says so. Why is this even a debate?
It's like someone is saying, "I don't think it's actually a Waste card"
Because we've never had that name before...
???
There's no possible way they would print a BASIC land which has funny looking mana producing full art staring you in the face and then go and retroactively change all generic/colorless mana producing cards to "<>". NOT ONLY does that still effectively add another mana symbol (aka purple mana), but that complicates it even more than just having a 6th color (purple mana).
At this point, it seems like many are trying too hard to be smart instead of looking at the plausible explanation staring you in the face. It's more likely that there is a 3rd option (something we can't speculate on because of incomplete information) than a complicated option involving retroactively changing cards yet still having a conditional cost as explained above.
Kozilek is super pushed (& the new rare land) too if you hard cast it for 10 so it stands to reason that it would require a specific type of mana of which isn't 8colorless + 2 "strickly colorless" (that's so much of a mouthful... no way WotC is going to do that) instead of just 8colorless + 2 new types of mana.
OK, it looks like we aren't on the same page. Let's see if we can clarify things a bit.
The definition of design space that I use (and I assume most other posters such as Benalicious as well) basically refers to the range of cards that could possibly be created. The design space that opens up for both theories is essentially the same: cards that cost <>, whatever set of abilities they choose to associate with it. <> as a new type of mana gives an additional mana production ability, so there are technically more possible card designs, but those designs aren't very exciting because that type of mana is strictly worse than the other types. Point is, although it's arguable how much of the design space is likely to be used under the two theories, the fact is that the actual space made available if it's a new mana type is at least as large as the space made available if <> is just a new symbol for colorless mana.
Alright that's my (our?) position. Let me see if I understand yours. What I think you're referring to is card slots, the 'space' within a set. Your argument is that the overall representation of each color/faction will be lower if it is a new mana type than just a new symbol.
The thing is, that isn't necessarily true. Given your breakdown, there is actually no difference in representation between the two theories. Under New Mana Theory, there are 7 groups of spells - the five colors, colorless, and Eldrazi. Under New Symbol Theory, there are also 7 groups of spells - the five colors, colorless spells that don't cost <>, and colorless spells that do cost <>. It would completely arbitrary to lump the two types of colorless spells into one faction in the second case. The same constraints are true for the two colorless factions under both scenarios. You can play cards that cost <> only in decks that have enough sources of <>, and you can play cards that only cost generic mana in any deck.
Now, what could be different is the amount of space dedicated to sources of <>. If <> is a new symbol for colorless, then it is indeed true that there are more existing sources of <> with which to build on, so they may need to spend more comparatively card slots in OGW if <> is a new type of mana. However, I don't think this is an issue for a couple of reasons. The first is the presence of a basic land that produces <>. Technically, they could introduce this new type of mana with only Wastes as a source of <>, because you can put as many Wastes into your deck as you want. Obviously they haven't done so, as we know of Mirrorpool already, but they don't necessarily need to put in many more sources either way.
The second is that this is Zendikar, a land matters plane. They have more leeway to fit in many mana sources because there are so many slots devoted to lands. There are cycles of lands at common, uncommon, and rare in BFZ, and on top of that there is still evolving wilds and the new enemy manlands. Yes, most of those had color associations, but losing those associations has a much smaller impact than losing representation in spells.
First, "no one" who understand Magic thinks
it "generic mana" ... "Generic mana" isn't a
"thing" that "exists" in the game. It's a
phrase that describes a COST you may pay with
mana...incidentally mana of any type...not
"specifically" with something called "generic mana".
More crucial: This post doesn't contribute
very much. You've either made a very banal
statement about probability without stating
your assumptions, or you ignored you own post
by being internally inconsistent.
(Yes, given that there are a WHOLE lot of
ideas or options Wizards could take, limiting
ourselves to two is a probabilistic risk).
But, it's also not the case that all ideas
have equal probability.
While, this could be "practically anything",
to think that the debate isn't over two of
the more likely because of aspects that extend
beyond the "card name" and "symbol" itself,
seems ... dismissive.
What really is flawed in you post is that
you're saying that there is a plausible
explanation 'staring us in the face'....
...really? And what theory is that?
And why would "that" theory, over which I
readily admit to having a scotoma, manage
to 'bypass' the very probability argument
you made?
I think the absolute greatest irony in your
post is it exhibits the arrogance of saying
one of the proposed outcomes is totally off
the table while trying to advocate for some
kind of "intellectual" humility.
I don't think anyone is saying it's not a basic land. Some people are noting that it has common instead of land rarity, which is obviously true because it's written on the card, plus small sets don't have land rarities usually anyway as mentioned. Others are noting that it is likely not in the land slot, which is also probably true, because we were told that the BFZ full art lands go in that slot.
The conclusions from these two facts are tenuous at best, but so are most of the conclusions in this thread.
Wow. Troll much?
I really could apply the same arguments you have to the people who don't believe that "<> is the new symbol for colorless mana". Have you even read the arguments that side has posted? Because they are all pretty damn credible. They have simple rules changes. They have cosmetic errata only. You say it complicates things, when it clears up confusion between colorless and generic mana (which from the first line in your post, you obviously are confused on yourself). It expands design space without being complex.
One thing I have to explain since you obviously don't get it. And this is unrelated to <>.
Colorless Mana and Generic Mana Costs are not the same.
Let me say that again.
COLORLESS MANA AND GENERIC MANA COSTS ARE NOT THE SAME
Colorless mana is mana that has no color. It can be produced by lands, by artifacts, by creatures, by sorceries (via other effects), and by instants (like Mana Drain).
Generic mana CANNOT EXIST in a mana pool, because nothing generates it.
As it stands currently, Colorless Mana does not exist as a mana cost. Generic Mana Costs do exist, and can be paid with any type of mana.
It may sound like I'm being pedantic, but the rules of the game clearly delineate the two concepts. So you can't lump them together.
The rules state that there are 5 colors of mana and 6 types of mana. White, Blue, Black, Red, Green, and Colorless are the only mana types that exist. The theory that <> is the new colorless symbol doesn't change that. All it does is change the defined symbol of Colorless mana from 1 to <>. It allows for cards to REQUIRE colorless mana in the cost, without spelling it out on the card in the text box. Under this theory, Kozilek's casting cost is not "8colorless + 2 "strickly colorless" like you say (which is incorrect by the way no matter what the symbol is, it's 2 <> and 8 of ANY type), the casting cost is 2 colorless and 8 of any type. Much like Cryptic Command is 3 blue and 1 of any type.
For clarification:
Mana that can exist in your mana pool
This mana can have riders attached to it, like Snow or "must be used on", but those indicate source or restriction, not type.
Mana costs that can exist on cards:
After OGW releases, we find out if the first stays the same, but we know that the second will change to include <>. Those of us that think that "<>=new colorless symbol" think that the first will not change, the second will change to add 'colorless' which is represented by <>.
Many posts in the thread showed that people do seem to have a problem with it.
No, it wouldn't.
So you're saying you see a roughly diamond like symbol, and it is automatically Hedron mana, but 2 doesn't come off as Math mana? Do plains make Sun mana?
Currenty there are no reason it matters, because there are no cards that require colorless mana. If they wanted to make cards that do so, the difference between a generic mana cost and a colorless cost would be important.
The point of a colorless basic is multitude. They can be ramped into more easily, making it easier to splash some "colorless mana matters" cards into your deck. They are also something that EDH players have been asking for for a long time.
It a consequence of progress. They can't change the lands made prior to Wastes to be worse than it so that it adheres to the rule of nonbasics not being better than basics.
Its not just for limited. Its something they can print from now on in each large set regardless if the set has a colorless theme or not.
The new basic is currently a common due to small sets not having basic land sheets. That's obviously not rare at all. Your going to see it in enough boosters that getting a decent amount won't be a problem at all. And Modern,Legacy and Commander aren't limited formats. Colorless decks can be made without having to rely on mostly nonbasic land bases and having to get completely get blown out by nonbasic hate.
BAfter the lights go out on you, after your worthless life is through. I will remember how you scream...B
Aside from 'math mana' which I don't know what you mean, I agree with everything you said. Plains do invoke 'sun mana' to me. Just as trees invoke 'growth mana', islands 'water mana' etc. Every plane has those 5 basic elements and that is the tie that binds them together. <> is the outlier and doesn't really fit outside of Zendikar, unless the Eldrazi head to a new plane. Do it wizards! Send them to Lorwyn! Eat the elves and ugly Kithkin! God I hate that place.
I believe that the "math mana" refers to the number in the mana circle of generic costs and colorless mana(2 or 7). Just as "sun mana" refers to the sun in the mana circle of white mana (W).
The Deep Ones
Cyborg Huey's Bosh, Iron Golem Deck
Cyborg Huey's Rosheen Meander Deck
BUGThe Dunwich Horror and Other Lovecraftian TalesBUG