Should be pretty obvious that <> means "can only be paid with colorless mana" if this is real. As for why Wastes generates <>, it's because that's much prettier to put on a card than a big fat (1). People speculating otherwise are clearly ignoring the (8) in Kozilek's mana cost, here.
My biggest interest in this is, does this mean that cards that can generate mana of any color now generate colorless mana?
Also, might not be the place for it, but I think we're going to see that the Eldrazi aren't exactly malevolent, or that they had an overall positive effect on Zendikar. We'll see which, I guess.
wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.
First, there is absolutely no reason to have Kozilek's cost be <><> plus 8 generic mana if <> means "can only be paid with colorless mana." That cost would functionally be identical to 10 colorless mana in 99.9% of games. In what game have you ever seen someone have access to ten mana, but all of them colored? That's not a cost restriction, it's just a gimick. Second, your suggestion paired with the templating on mirropool would require errata to every colorless mana producer ever! That's a no go! Never gonna happen! Thran dynamo will not read "T: add <><><> to your mana pool" next time it's printed! And if it did, think of the confusion, especially for new players, unless this is an evergreen mechanic. New players will not learn to match <> with colorless mana costs. Nope. This is snow mana pure and simple. <> in a cost means it has to be paid with a card that generates <>.
Also, in the vast majority of games played by anyone ever in which a player has access to 10+ mana, most of that mana has been colored due simply to the existence of basic lands, not to mention the lack of colorless producers in any given format (unless someone is running Tron or something). So yes, most of the time, people will end up casting Kozilek for more colored mana than colorless mana.
meh I think you're wrong -- certainly for edh and modern, any deck that hits 10 mana will have two colorless mana without blinking, and being mythic this is not a card designed for limited -- but who cares. All that aside, issuing errata for 20 years worth of cards to support one mechanic in one set is laughable. Right?!
I wouldn't be surprised if <> ends up being evergreen and not a new "snow mana". It solves the existing color-pie bending problem with printing artifacts that do cool things, if going forward <> means "must be paid with colorless", they can use that to make better artifacts. Doesn't hurt the color pie much because you'd need to hurt your manabase to gain access to it. You also don't need to errata all prior cards, just make it a rule that <> in a casting cost means must be paid with colorless.
But again, this breaks down when you consider lands are producing <>. Why would a land need to produce <> when thats redundant with just producing 1 under that definition. Whats the point of colorless mana that can only be spent as colorless mana?
Just wild speculation here.... I think <> is actually this: Mana of any color, with a restriction - can only be spent on colorless spells. Ties it into BFZ that way for the block draft format. No new color or errata for Sol Ring etc.
Just wild speculation here.... I think <> is actually this: Mana of any color, with a restriction - can only be spent on colorless spells. Ties it into BFZ that way for the block draft format. No new color or errata for Sol Ring etc.
that's actually really intersting design, but I think lack of reminder text nixes it, unfortunately. I wouldn't object though, certainly a crazy and innovative way to evolve BFZ!
Wastes as a basic land that tap for mana and can't be sacrificed? Karl was in on it all along. He was viral marketing for OGW at the GP. Karl...zilek?
If it's fake, it's a fake they put some forethought into.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
These days, some wizards are finding they have a little too much deck left at the end of their $$$.
MTG finance guy- follow me on Twitter@RichArschmann or RichardArschmann on Reddit
Waste mana will definitely only be payable with wastes or the like not any colorless mana, otherwise it's pointless. It will work just like snow mana. The argument that most mana paid for 10 mana spells is colored is flawed because having to pay 2 with only colorless sources is not a drawback. Wastes have a generic name to be used again if on other planes if the story ever moves and can fit in flavor with any colorless Commander deck and nit be eldrazi specific.
Finally they would never print a set then immediately errata all colorless cards and lands in a set. they design years in advance now, they wouldn't put a sweeping rules change on a second set that is a major theme of the first set. They would print a parasitic design that is meant to be played with a very small amount of design space in a second set.
Should be pretty obvious that <> means "can only be paid with colorless mana" if this is real. As for why Wastes generates <>, it's because that's much prettier to put on a card than a big fat (1). People speculating otherwise are clearly ignoring the (8) in Kozilek's mana cost, here.
My biggest interest in this is, does this mean that cards that can generate mana of any color now generate colorless mana?
Also, might not be the place for it, but I think we're going to see that the Eldrazi aren't exactly malevolent, or that they had an overall positive effect on Zendikar. We'll see which, I guess.
wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.
First, there is absolutely no reason to have Kozilek's cost be <><> plus 8 generic mana if <> means "can only be paid with colorless mana." That cost would functionally be identical to 10 colorless mana in 99.9% of games. In what game have you ever seen someone have access to ten mana, but all of them colored? That's not a cost restriction, it's just a gimick. Second, your suggestion paired with the templating on mirropool would require errata to every colorless mana producer ever! That's a no go! Never gonna happen! Thran dynamo will not read "T: add <><><> to your mana pool" next time it's printed! And if it did, think of the confusion, especially for new players, unless this is an evergreen mechanic. New players will not learn to match <> with colorless mana costs. Nope. This is snow mana pure and simple. <> in a cost means it has to be paid with a card that generates <>.
Also, in the vast majority of games played by anyone ever in which a player has access to 10+ mana, most of that mana has been colored due simply to the existence of basic lands, not to mention the lack of colorless producers in any given format (unless someone is running Tron or something). So yes, most of the time, people will end up casting Kozilek for more colored mana than colorless mana.
meh I think you're wrong -- certainly for edh and modern, any deck that hits 10 mana will have two colorless mana without blinking, and being mythic this is not a card designed for limited -- but who cares. All that aside, issuing errata for 20 years worth of cards to support one mechanic in one set is laughable. Right?!
Right, because EDH and Modern are the only relevant formats, right (and even then, only a small portion of decks in those formats ever have regular access to large amounts of colorless mana btw)? Certainly not the most played format - limited, or the most popular one - standard. When was the last time you or anyone else played a game in THOSE formats and had access to 10 colorless mana? Mirrodin? Urza's Saga?
On a different note, I don't disagree that errata-ing 20 years worth of cards is no small task and will very likely cause a lot of confusion, but if they choose to do that, it won't just be in the support of one mechanic for one block. It will be a permanent change and one that does actually fix some ambiguity around numbered mana symbols. So, if this does result in two decades worth of errata, it will be a long-term investment.
they've done sweeping errata at least twice that I can think of, and for reasons similar to this one. The Great Creature Type Update, and the M10 terminology changes. going back to change {<>} to the colorless symbol and {1} to the generic symbol is definitely something they would do. Honestly, I'm surprised it's taken them so long to do so.
If this is real (and it is a big IF), they would need to distribute a very large number of the new basic lands. After all, basic lands are usually lent by the stores were we play draft and sealed. Anyone drafting Kozilek would want at least 6-8 of these Wastes... which probably will often be stolen by people seeking these basic lands for their own use.
The art seems very legit however...
I think it is more likely that these new lands would not be made free to add to your deck like basic lands and instead you would be required to draft them or open them in your sealed pool like any other common from the set in order to play them in your limited deck. I'm sure they will have other ways to add <> to your mana pool for cards that need it just like they support other mechanics in the set.
I guess it depends how widespread the <> mana requirement is. If it's a heavy theme of the set (I'd imagine it is since they're making basic lands that produce it), having to draft or open them seems like a terrible way to handle it.
It would be much easier if they just put some number in the prerelease kits.
Duals with no drawbacks that also tap for <>? But seriously though.
Tap for <R> or <G>, and you can only spend it to cast the (roughly) 10-20 cards in OGW with that in their casting costs? That would be the biggest troll in WotC history (and therefore incredibly awesome).
No, I mean
Land - Mountain Forest
(tap to add R or G to your mana pool)
and
Tap to add <> to your mana pool.
urzassedatives pointed out the land is fake, we need to move on from the land itself and focus on wastes and kozilek
He has done nothing but point out that it is a cell phone pic of a card image on a computer screen. The card itself could very well still be real.
this
I have little doubt the first two are real, so theres no reason to think the mirrorpool should be fake considering its mechanically and thematically consistent and again, featuring quality new art. Its just a picture of a picture of a card. That doesn't mean the card is fake. Mistakes or inconsistencies like that are neither evidence for nor against fakes. Its got the right set symbol, info box, spacings and art and all that jazz. Someone was just silly enough to take a cell phone pic of their computer screen for whatever reason
Someone quote me on this: The Waste tapping for a diamond colorless provides one of any color to cast a colorless spell. Like snow, but can be used as any color for the new colored colorless cards.
That way it constitutes a part of (magic) physical nature whereupon mana can be drawn, i.e. the space between planes, like outer space is to us in the real world. It also ties in not only colorless magic, as it is the magic of the blind eternities, but also gives a "home land" to the Eldrazi.
Hello Wastes, you look familiar
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
GGo Elf YourselfG
WThat Cat Has A Knife!W
BUGWhip your assBUG
I hope Kozilek is fake, if only because that flavor text is cringe-worthy.
| Omnath | Zada | Alesha | Scion |
| Mazirek | Animar |
Modern
UR Storm RU
UBRG Dredge GRBU
Standard
UR Thermo-Thing RU
meh I think you're wrong -- certainly for edh and modern, any deck that hits 10 mana will have two colorless mana without blinking, and being mythic this is not a card designed for limited -- but who cares. All that aside, issuing errata for 20 years worth of cards to support one mechanic in one set is laughable. Right?!
But again, this breaks down when you consider lands are producing <>. Why would a land need to produce <> when thats redundant with just producing 1 under that definition. Whats the point of colorless mana that can only be spent as colorless mana?
<> can't be paid for with colored mana.
<> isn't a new color.
Just some things I feel should be mentioned in a single post.
In Progress
GBIshkanah, Grafwidow ~ BWGRTymna the Weaver & Tana, the Bloodsower ~ UGRashmi, Eternities Crafter ~ RGAtarka, World Render
that's actually really intersting design, but I think lack of reminder text nixes it, unfortunately. I wouldn't object though, certainly a crazy and innovative way to evolve BFZ!
If it's fake, it's a fake they put some forethought into.
MTG finance guy- follow me on Twitter@RichArschmann or RichardArschmann on Reddit
Finally they would never print a set then immediately errata all colorless cards and lands in a set. they design years in advance now, they wouldn't put a sweeping rules change on a second set that is a major theme of the first set. They would print a parasitic design that is meant to be played with a very small amount of design space in a second set.
Right, because EDH and Modern are the only relevant formats, right (and even then, only a small portion of decks in those formats ever have regular access to large amounts of colorless mana btw)? Certainly not the most played format - limited, or the most popular one - standard. When was the last time you or anyone else played a game in THOSE formats and had access to 10 colorless mana? Mirrodin? Urza's Saga?
On a different note, I don't disagree that errata-ing 20 years worth of cards is no small task and will very likely cause a lot of confusion, but if they choose to do that, it won't just be in the support of one mechanic for one block. It will be a permanent change and one that does actually fix some ambiguity around numbered mana symbols. So, if this does result in two decades worth of errata, it will be a long-term investment.
thread broken
At the very least, Emrakul is out there somewhere, so it's possible to see a slow bleed of Eldrazi mana effects in sets where they spread.
Because it's a... er... waste of a name?
My Stupidly Large Number of Current Decks
PucaTrade with me!
The Multiplayer Power Rankings
Cube: the Gittening (My Multiplayer Cube) - MTGS Cube List | @ CubeTutor
The N00b Cube (Peasant cube for new players) - MTGS Cube List | @ CubeTutor
He has done nothing but point out that it is a cell phone pic of a card image on a computer screen. The card itself could very well still be real.
I guess it depends how widespread the <> mana requirement is. If it's a heavy theme of the set (I'd imagine it is since they're making basic lands that produce it), having to draft or open them seems like a terrible way to handle it.
It would be much easier if they just put some number in the prerelease kits.
UR Blue-Red Control
Modern:
UBR Grixis Control
UWR Jeskai Control
Go back and read my first post.
this
I have little doubt the first two are real, so theres no reason to think the mirrorpool should be fake considering its mechanically and thematically consistent and again, featuring quality new art. Its just a picture of a picture of a card. That doesn't mean the card is fake. Mistakes or inconsistencies like that are neither evidence for nor against fakes. Its got the right set symbol, info box, spacings and art and all that jazz. Someone was just silly enough to take a cell phone pic of their computer screen for whatever reason
EDIT: I'm not saying the art is fake, I'm saying the cards using it are.
Art is life itself.
Hello Wastes, you look familiar