I kinda wish these wern't real but i'm leaning towards them being so. It's very unlikely that you can only for Kozilek with two sources of "Eldrazi Mana" but instead the forced colorless train of thought makes so much sense. There are a ton of logistical issues with creating a sixth color, even if it's colorless, than cannot be addressed in a small set. It's just too hard to get around the issue.
<> does NOT mean colourless and only colourless. Otherwise, we would not see land specifically tapping for <> rather than just 1. The lands tapping for that would serve literally no purpose and cause extra confusion with no benefit.
<> is not replacing normal colourless symbols, otherwise we would not see costs like 8<><>.
Like many others in these threads, you have just proven the point of introducing <> as a new symbol for colorless mana. You seem to think that if <> stood for colorless mana, then 8<><> and 10 would be identical. However, the 8 in Kozileks cost doesn't stand for colorless, it stands for generic mana. The generic mana symbols stay the same (numbers in a grey circle), while colorless mana finally gets its own symbol.
No, you're wrong. This is the opposite of what I'm saying. First of all, "generic mana" hasn't existed in years because it was a stupid term. Second of all, no land would tap for <> if it was simply "colourless and only colourless", it would just tap for 1 and you could use it to pay <>. I don't know why this is so ******* hard to understand.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Wizards could put $100 bills in packs and people would complain about how they were folded. http://www.twitter.com/Dr_Jeebus - Follow me on Twitter!
Check out www.mtgbrodeals.com for daily content from the brothers of Mu Tau Gamma!
<> does NOT mean colourless and only colourless. Otherwise, we would not see land specifically tapping for <> rather than just 1. The lands tapping for that would serve literally no purpose and cause extra confusion with no benefit.
<> is not replacing normal colourless symbols, otherwise we would not see costs like 8<><>.
Like many others in these threads, you have just proven the point of introducing <> as a new symbol for colorless mana. You seem to think that if <> stood for colorless mana, then 8<><> and 10 would be identical. However, the 8 in Kozileks cost doesn't stand for colorless, it stands for generic mana. The generic mana symbols stay the same (numbers in a grey circle), while colorless mana finally gets its own symbol.
...And like many others in these threads, you find proof where none exists. Refer to my last post. Half right =/= completely right.
<> does NOT mean colourless and only colourless. Otherwise, we would not see land specifically tapping for <> rather than just 1. The lands tapping for that would serve literally no purpose and cause extra confusion with no benefit.
<> is not replacing normal colourless symbols, otherwise we would not see costs like 8<><>.
Like many others in these threads, you have just proven the point of introducing <> as a new symbol for colorless mana. You seem to think that if <> stood for colorless mana, then 8<><> and 10 would be identical. However, the 8 in Kozileks cost doesn't stand for colorless, it stands for generic mana. The generic mana symbols stay the same (numbers in a grey circle), while colorless mana finally gets its own symbol.
No, you're wrong. This is the opposite of what I'm saying. First of all, "generic mana" hasn't existed in years because it was a stupid term. Second of all, no land would tap for <> if it was simply "colourless and only colourless", it would just tap for 1 and you could use it to pay <>. I don't know why this is so ******* hard to understand.
Generic mana definitely still exists. Generic mana exists in costs and means 'this can be paid with any type of mana'. Colorless mana is a type of mana that you can add to your mana pool. They are different things but use the same symbol, hence why people think that it is making the distinction between generic and colorless.
I kinda wish these wern't real but i'm leaning towards them being so. It's very unlikely that you can only for Kozilek with two sources of "Eldrazi Mana" but instead the forced colorless train of thought makes so much sense. There are a ton of logistical issues with creating a sixth color, even if it's colorless, than cannot be addressed in a small set. It's just too hard to get around the issue.
There are large issues with adding in a sixth color or sixth basic land type, and thats why Barry's land hasn't seen print until now
But this design cleverly avoids any of those problems. It is neither a sixth color nor sixth basic land type, its simply a subtypeless basic land that has the explicit rules text "T: Add <> to your mana pool". This is slightly different from the other basic lands, where their mana tap abilities are implicit due to their land types, but theres nothing in the rules that prevents a card from having the basic supertype and still having rules text.
Theres no more complication from a new mana symbol being produced by Wastes and Mirrorpool than snow mana being produced by snow lands. If anything, its much simpler, as it adds a symbol directly rather than caring about the supertypes of the permanent that produced the mana.
It seems a particularly elegant solution to letting wizards print something they've wanted to do for a long time, instead of taking a hacksaw to their game with errata
Lol. So much raging going on in this thread. Relax people. You're arguing about what a card that may not even be real means to a card game. We're not trying to make peace in the middle east. Dial it back.
So the Internet will spend the next 2 months arguing on how to pronounce <>, right? Or shall we stick to saying "mana diamond" like they initially planned instead of the spawns?
<> does NOT mean colourless and only colourless. Otherwise, we would not see land specifically tapping for <> rather than just 1. The lands tapping for that would serve literally no purpose and cause extra confusion with no benefit.
<> is not replacing normal colourless symbols, otherwise we would not see costs like 8<><>.
Like many others in these threads, you have just proven the point of introducing <> as a new symbol for colorless mana. You seem to think that if <> stood for colorless mana, then 8<><> and 10 would be identical. However, the 8 in Kozileks cost doesn't stand for colorless, it stands for generic mana. The generic mana symbols stay the same (numbers in a grey circle), while colorless mana finally gets its own symbol.
No, you're wrong. This is the opposite of what I'm saying. First of all, "generic mana" hasn't existed in years because it was a stupid term. Second of all, no land would tap for <> if it was simply "colourless and only colourless", it would just tap for 1 and you could use it to pay <>. I don't know why this is so ******* hard to understand.
It is true that if <> was simply colorless and only colorless, the land could just tap for 1. However, what is begins suggested is that this is may be an indication of a permanent change of terminology. That is, from this point forward, adding 1 to your mana pool will now be referred to as adding <> to your mana pool. This would finally draw the distinction between the 1 on Blighted Cataract, which represents specifically one colorless mana, and the 1 on Undergrowth Champion, which represents one of any kind of mana.
There are large issues with adding in a sixth color or sixth basic land type, and thats why Barry's land hasn't seen print until now
But this design cleverly avoids any of those problems. It is neither a sixth color nor sixth basic land type, its simply a subtypeless basic land that has the explicit rules text "T: Add <> to your mana pool". This is slightly different from the other basic lands, where their mana tap abilities are implicit due to their land types, but theres nothing in the rules that prevents a card from having the basic supertype and still having rules text.
Theres no more complication from a new mana symbol being produced by Wastes and Mirrorpool than snow mana being produced by snow lands. If anything, its much simpler, as it adds a symbol directly rather than caring about the supertypes of the permanent that produced the mana.
It seems a particularly elegant solution to letting wizards print something they've wanted to do for a long time, instead of taking a hacksaw to their game with errata
But there are still apparent potential complications in the way that mana will be produced and spent (hence all the debate here) and to hear the specific rulings will do a lot to sway me one way or another on this mechanic. Youre absolutely right though the framework is there for this go smoothly. I just don't believe a ton of cards that require Wastes to be cast will reflect as a great set in hindsight. We shall see.
1. <> Mana costs can only be paid by lands and abilities that specifically produce <>.
2. <> Can pay for any generic mana cost spell, not for colored mana.
It's that simple, and it's the only way it makes sense. Something costing <> <> <> will need 3 Wastes. Something costing 3 <> Will need 3 lands and a Wastes. Neo Kozilek here will need two Wastes and 8 other mana sources.
I wouldn't be surprised to see a mana dork producing <>, or an artifact doing the same. They might end up using this mana for artifacts later down the line, who knows.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Commander decks:
Chandra, Torch of Defiance - Oops! All Chandras.
Prime Speaker Zegana - Draw for Power.
Pir & Toothy - Counterpalooza.
Arcades, the Strategist - Another Brick in the Wall.
Zacama, Primal Calamity - Calamity of Double Mana.
Edgar Markov - Vampires Don't Die.
Child of Alara - Dreamcrusher.
1. <> Mana costs can only be paid by lands and abilities that specifically produce <>.
2. <> Can pay for any generic mana cost spell, not for colored mana.
It's that simple, and it's the only way it makes sense. Something costing <> <> <> will need 3 Wastes. Something costing 3 <> Will need 3 lands and a Wastes. Neo Kozilek here will need two Wastes and 8 other mana sources.
I wouldn't be surprised to see a mana dork producing <>, or an artifact doing the same. They might end up using this mana for artifacts later down the line, who knows.
I think everyone agrees with you. The point the other side is arguing is all lands that would have or did add 1 will add <> instead now.
Just like with politics, there are two contrasting views, and the people bickering rarely seem to even grasp the viewpoint of the other side. Generic mana and colorless mana are NOT the same thing. This new symbol is either a specific colorless mana or it's the new symbol for colorless mana. Both provide evidence for the existence of 8<><>. There is not enough evidence to point us in either direction, so there's no point arguing over it.
We can't say conclusively which way something is going when two separate valid conclusions can be reached. We can, however, use deductive skills and evidence before us to reach a reasonable conclusion about which is more likely. And theres a large amount of precedent and thematic evidence to suggest this is a new snow, "eldrazi mana", whereas the scenario of colorless-mana-overhaul, while theoretically possible, has a large number of inconsistencies and unnecessary complexities that require leaps of faith.
We're on a rumor mill, discussing spoiled cards without official confirmation. At any time, we are only as good as the most logical theories we can support. We can't even know for certainty that cards aren't just elaborate fakes. Its up to the talents of rational analysis of what we see to determine if a card is fake or not in the same capacity as understanding how a new mechanic works on only partially spoiled data. We can figure these cards are most likely not fakes because of the great detail and fitting thematics and lack of inconsistencies. We can figure the mechanic is likely snow 2.0 because of the fitting thematics and inconsistencies with the competing theories.
For the record, I have a feeling this is the way it'll go, but I don't think logic makes either more likely. I'm pretty sure emotion is driving both you and I and everyone else here.
My theory is that Wastes can satisfy any one color requirement of cards with colored mana symbols in their mana casts and have the ability devoid, and spells with Waste symbols in their mana costs require Wastes to fulfill that mana. That's it.
I'm pretty sure these (at least, Wastes and Kozilek) are real for a lot of the reasons other people are giving (and one more reason, more on that in a second).
I'm also basically 100% sure that the interpretation that <> is a new permanent way to refer to colorless mana and disambiguate it from generic mana is correct. Nothing else makes sense.
In fact, I would happily lay 10:1 odds (I'll bet $100 against your $10) that, if these cards are real, <> just means colorless and all previous sources of colorless mana will produce <> (whether that requires eratta or not), while <> in a cost means that it must be paid with colorless mana (and that it means nothing more or less).
Finally, one reason that I think these are so likely to be real is exactly the fact that we are arguing over what <> means. If someone had made these cards expressly to leak as fake spoilers, I am certain they would have put reminder text on Kozilek to ensure that we understood what <> meant. If they're real, on the other hand, WotC has many other avenues to communicate the new rules when the set is officially spoiled.
In order to try to figure out what <> could mean, I think it's key that there are as few rules changes as possible. So, I took a look at the rules. Here are a few things jump out at me.
106.1a There are five colors of mana: white, blue, black, red, and green.
106.1b There are six types of mana: white, blue, black, red, green, and colorless.
107.4. The mana symbols are {W}, {U}, {B}, {R}, {G}, and {X}; the numerals {0}, {1}, {2}, {3}, {4}, and so on; the hybrid symbols {W/U}, {W/B}, {U/B}, {U/R}, {B/R}, {B/G}, {R/G}, {R/W}, {G/W}, and {G/U}; the monocolored hybrid symbols {2/W}, {2/U}, {2/B}, {2/R}, and {2/G}; the Phyrexian mana symbols {W/P}, {U/P}, {B/P}, {R/P}, and {G/P}; and the snow symbol {S}.
107.4a There are five primary colored mana symbols: {W} is white, {U} blue, {B} black, {R} red, and {G} green. These symbols are used to represent colored mana, and also to represent colored mana in costs. Colored mana in costs can be paid only with the appropriate color of mana. See rule 202, “Mana Cost and Color.”
107.4b Numeral symbols (such as {1}) and variable symbols (such as {X}) represent generic mana in costs. Generic mana in costs can be paid with any type of mana. For more information about {X}, see rule 107.3.
107.4c Numeral symbols (such as {1}) and variable symbols (such as {X}) can also represent colorless mana if they appear in the effect of a spell or ability that reads “add [mana symbol] to your mana pool” or something similar. (See rule 107.3e.)
107.4h The snow mana symbol {S} represents one generic mana in a cost. This generic mana can be paid with one mana of any type produced by a snow permanent (see rule 205.4f). Effects that reduce the amount of generic mana you pay don’t affect {S} costs. (There is no such thing as “snow mana”; “snow” is not a type of mana.)
202.1a The mana cost of an object represents what a player must spend from his or her mana pool to cast that card. Unless an object’s mana cost includes Phyrexian mana symbols (see rule 107.4f), paying that mana cost requires matching the color of any colored mana symbols as well as paying the generic mana indicated in the cost.
305.6. The basic land types are Plains, Island, Swamp, Mountain, and Forest. If an object uses the words “basic land type,” it’s referring to one of these subtypes. A land with a basic land type has the intrinsic ability “{T}: Add [mana symbol] to your mana pool,” even if the text box doesn’t actually contain that text or the object has no text box. For Plains, [mana symbol] is {W}; for Islands, {U}; for Swamps, {B}; for Mountains, {R}; and for Forests, {G}. See rule 107.4a. Also see rule 605, “Mana Abilities.”
So, what do I think all that means? The same as several others here. <> is one mana of type: colorless. Per rule 107.4c, things which produced 1 previously already do produce colorless mana. That means there won't be a need for a massive errata. There are still 5 colors and 6 types of mana. 107.4 will get a new symbol for <>. There will be a new rule (107.4i or so) which explains the Colorless mana symbol. In costs, it is 1 colorless mana (as distinct from colored mana used generically). In producing, it is the same as 1.
If I'm correct about this, the new symbol will be fully backwards compatible with all of magic, because we've always had colorless mana. Now it finally matters. And we've had cards which have particular restrictions on their cost. There have also been distinctions between "mana of any color" and "mana of any type". Now, those are meaningful. Why now? As someone earlier did say, there's not really a terrific time to do major updates like this anymore. I'm still surprised they didn't at least do it for the BFZ. Will <> be the new 1 moving forward? I rather hope not, because seeing cards like Thran Dynamo tap to produce <><><> instead of 3 seems a lot less elegant.
<> does NOT mean colourless and only colourless. Otherwise, we would not see land specifically tapping for <> rather than just 1. The lands tapping for that would serve literally no purpose and cause extra confusion with no benefit.
<> is not replacing normal colourless symbols, otherwise we would not see costs like 8<><>.
Like many others in these threads, you have just proven the point of introducing <> as a new symbol for colorless mana. You seem to think that if <> stood for colorless mana, then 8<><> and 10 would be identical. However, the 8 in Kozileks cost doesn't stand for colorless, it stands for generic mana. The generic mana symbols stay the same (numbers in a grey circle), while colorless mana finally gets its own symbol.
No, you're wrong. This is the opposite of what I'm saying. First of all, "generic mana" hasn't existed in years because it was a stupid term. Second of all, no land would tap for <> if it was simply "colourless and only colourless", it would just tap for 1 and you could use it to pay <>. I don't know why this is so ******* hard to understand.
You both are actually arguing the same thing.
a) Colorless is not a color.
b) Having to pay colorless is a cost requisite and although it follows the same logic as paying-a-color-type it proves that color-type is a property of 'mana cost' but not it's defining aspect, and by extension color isn't the defining aspect of mana.
Something to consider regarding leaks:
Wizard's Careers Page currently lists them as seeking a Senior Security Analyst. Perhaps it's to help stop leaks like this? Or am I just praying way to hard for these to be real?
On topic: I REALLY WANT THESE TO BE REAL (hype intensifies).
I'm pretty sure these (at least, Wastes and Kozilek) are real for a lot of the reasons other people are giving (and one more reason, more on that in a second).
I'm also basically 100% sure that the interpretation that <> is a new permanent way to refer to colorless mana and disambiguate it from generic mana is correct. Nothing else makes sense.
In fact, I would happily lay 10:1 odds (I'll bet $100 against your $10) that, if these cards are real, <> just means colorless and all previous sources of colorless mana will be erattaed to produce <> instead, while <> in a cost means that it must be paid with colorless mana (and that it means nothing more or less).
Finally, one reason that I think these are so likely to be real is exactly the fact that we are arguing over what <> means. If someone had made these cards expressly to leak as fake spoilers, I am certain they would have put reminder text on Kozilek to ensure that we understood what <> meant. If they're real, on the other hand, WotC has many other avenues to communicate the new rules when the set is officially spoiled.
clan_iraq was just saying that the opposite point of view is far more logically sound. You guys gotta try and be objective. It's painful to watch.
clan_iraq was just saying that the opposite point of view is far more logically sound. You guys gotta try and be objective. It's painful to watch.
Yeah, I want it to be that <> will just mean colorless mana, and I think there's a reasonable chance that is the truth, but there's no way I'm close to certain at all. People pretending that it's blindingly obvious one way or the other are just being willfully blind.
<> does NOT mean colourless and only colourless. Otherwise, we would not see land specifically tapping for <> rather than just 1. The lands tapping for that would serve literally no purpose and cause extra confusion with no benefit.
<> is not replacing normal colourless symbols, otherwise we would not see costs like 8<><>.
Like many others in these threads, you have just proven the point of introducing <> as a new symbol for colorless mana. You seem to think that if <> stood for colorless mana, then 8<><> and 10 would be identical. However, the 8 in Kozileks cost doesn't stand for colorless, it stands for generic mana. The generic mana symbols stay the same (numbers in a grey circle), while colorless mana finally gets its own symbol.
No, you're wrong. This is the opposite of what I'm saying. First of all, "generic mana" hasn't existed in years because it was a stupid term. Second of all, no land would tap for <> if it was simply "colourless and only colourless", it would just tap for 1 and you could use it to pay <>. I don't know why this is so ******* hard to understand.
Firstly, generic mana is still and has always been a part of Magic. Take a look into the Comprehensive Rulebook:
104.3b Numeral symbols (such as {1}) are generic mana costs and represent an amount of mana that can be paid with any color of, or colorless, mana.
Secondly, a land would tap for <> if they finally replaced the ambiguous 1 with a clear colorless symbol. It is pretty simpel, actually. And a new and unique symbol becomes necessary due to the use of purely colorless mana in costs, like Kozilek and Mirrorpool.
clan_iraq was just saying that the opposite point of view is far more logically sound. You guys gotta try and be objective. It's painful to watch.
Yeah, I want it to be that <> will just mean colorless mana, and I think there's a reasonable chance that is the truth, but there's no way I'm close to certain at all. People pretending that it's blindingly obvious one way or the other are just being willfully blind.
Totally. I want (I hate it when people create cards, but I promise I'm trying to illustrate a point):
: Add 1 to your mana pool.
: Add W or <> to your mana pool. ~ deals 1 damage to you.
There's so much potential design space for having both. I see very little good coming from an errata and elimination of one or the other, but it is there. I'm not going to claim it's not, or that it's irrelevant because I want something else more.
1. <> mana costs can only be paid with colorless mana
2. Lands that tap for <> produce colorless mana can only be used to pay for colorless spells
Please don't be no. 2
The biggest reason I don't think it's number 2, from BFZ.
Why would they just have made this card if they were going to introduce a new symbol for that very ability.
Theres a few aspects of this conversation. Some people harp on what should be done, whether there is a need for a distinction between colorless mana and generic mana given they use the same symbol right now. Some people harp on what can be done, within the confines of the rules. The rules could certainly be adapted to fit a new colorless-only mana cost and new colorless producing symbol. It would have problems with some cards like elemental resonance, but it could be made workable with serious errata. But what I harp on about is what the evidence points as what has been done. Theres too many inconsistencies with this being a colorless symbol as its not flavor neutral, it comes after a set of colorless cards that would be rendered obsolete and need errata instead of presaging it like wizards loves to do, its rendered unnecessary complicated by including a colorless cost symbol at the same time, simultaneously developed commander products didn't have this template, and for such an involved change, it wouldn't even be the sets mechanic as it would be evergreen, yet we see it so thematically represented on the flagship mythic of the set.
I'm neutral on what should or could be done, but the evidence seems clear on what this actually is. I think a mechanic like this is parasitic and risks making this set very unappealing to a lot of people, but when theres two conclusions, one which is simple, elegant and consistent, the other messy, complicated, huge and wouldn't even work at all on some cards without nasty errata, I don't think the conclusion is hard to make.
Wishcraft and favored opinions shouldn't color anyones objective view of reality. Don't see what you want to see
2. Lands that tap for <> produce colorless mana can only be used to pay for colorless spells
I think that makes them too parasitic and useless for limited. Look at it this way you're drafting OOB pack one you get Kozilek great you want to try and run him so you pick him and you draft a couple of wastes as well as other colourless sources of mana such as things that produce scions. Unless you get kozilek and or any other <> spells those wates cards are completely useless.
I think from now on you're going to see X meaning mana of any colour and <> meaning colourless mana and you can use <> to pay X costs
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
No, you're wrong. This is the opposite of what I'm saying. First of all, "generic mana" hasn't existed in years because it was a stupid term. Second of all, no land would tap for <> if it was simply "colourless and only colourless", it would just tap for 1 and you could use it to pay <>. I don't know why this is so ******* hard to understand.
Wizards could put $100 bills in packs and people would complain about how they were folded.
http://www.twitter.com/Dr_Jeebus - Follow me on Twitter!
Check out www.mtgbrodeals.com for daily content from the brothers of Mu Tau Gamma!
There are large issues with adding in a sixth color or sixth basic land type, and thats why Barry's land hasn't seen print until now
But this design cleverly avoids any of those problems. It is neither a sixth color nor sixth basic land type, its simply a subtypeless basic land that has the explicit rules text "T: Add <> to your mana pool". This is slightly different from the other basic lands, where their mana tap abilities are implicit due to their land types, but theres nothing in the rules that prevents a card from having the basic supertype and still having rules text.
Theres no more complication from a new mana symbol being produced by Wastes and Mirrorpool than snow mana being produced by snow lands. If anything, its much simpler, as it adds a symbol directly rather than caring about the supertypes of the permanent that produced the mana.
It seems a particularly elegant solution to letting wizards print something they've wanted to do for a long time, instead of taking a hacksaw to their game with errata
375 unpowered cube - https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/601ac624832cdf1039947588
And here's a post from MaRo about that exact distinction.
It is true that if <> was simply colorless and only colorless, the land could just tap for 1. However, what is begins suggested is that this is may be an indication of a permanent change of terminology. That is, from this point forward, adding 1 to your mana pool will now be referred to as adding <> to your mana pool. This would finally draw the distinction between the 1 on Blighted Cataract, which represents specifically one colorless mana, and the 1 on Undergrowth Champion, which represents one of any kind of mana.
But there are still apparent potential complications in the way that mana will be produced and spent (hence all the debate here) and to hear the specific rulings will do a lot to sway me one way or another on this mechanic. Youre absolutely right though the framework is there for this go smoothly. I just don't believe a ton of cards that require Wastes to be cast will reflect as a great set in hindsight. We shall see.
2. <> Can pay for any generic mana cost spell, not for colored mana.
It's that simple, and it's the only way it makes sense. Something costing <> <> <> will need 3 Wastes. Something costing 3 <> Will need 3 lands and a Wastes. Neo Kozilek here will need two Wastes and 8 other mana sources.
I wouldn't be surprised to see a mana dork producing <>, or an artifact doing the same. They might end up using this mana for artifacts later down the line, who knows.
Chandra, Torch of Defiance - Oops! All Chandras.
Prime Speaker Zegana - Draw for Power.
Pir & Toothy - Counterpalooza.
Arcades, the Strategist - Another Brick in the Wall.
Zacama, Primal Calamity - Calamity of Double Mana.
Edgar Markov - Vampires Don't Die.
Child of Alara - Dreamcrusher.
I'm also basically 100% sure that the interpretation that <> is a new permanent way to refer to colorless mana and disambiguate it from generic mana is correct. Nothing else makes sense.
In fact, I would happily lay 10:1 odds (I'll bet $100 against your $10) that, if these cards are real, <> just means colorless and all previous sources of colorless mana will produce <> (whether that requires eratta or not), while <> in a cost means that it must be paid with colorless mana (and that it means nothing more or less).
Finally, one reason that I think these are so likely to be real is exactly the fact that we are arguing over what <> means. If someone had made these cards expressly to leak as fake spoilers, I am certain they would have put reminder text on Kozilek to ensure that we understood what <> meant. If they're real, on the other hand, WotC has many other avenues to communicate the new rules when the set is officially spoiled.
106.1a There are five colors of mana: white, blue, black, red, and green.
106.1b There are six types of mana: white, blue, black, red, green, and colorless.
107.4. The mana symbols are {W}, {U}, {B}, {R}, {G}, and {X}; the numerals {0}, {1}, {2}, {3}, {4}, and so on; the hybrid symbols {W/U}, {W/B}, {U/B}, {U/R}, {B/R}, {B/G}, {R/G}, {R/W}, {G/W}, and {G/U}; the monocolored hybrid symbols {2/W}, {2/U}, {2/B}, {2/R}, and {2/G}; the Phyrexian mana symbols {W/P}, {U/P}, {B/P}, {R/P}, and {G/P}; and the snow symbol {S}.
107.4a There are five primary colored mana symbols: {W} is white, {U} blue, {B} black, {R} red, and {G} green. These symbols are used to represent colored mana, and also to represent colored mana in costs. Colored mana in costs can be paid only with the appropriate color of mana. See rule 202, “Mana Cost and Color.”
107.4b Numeral symbols (such as {1}) and variable symbols (such as {X}) represent generic mana in costs. Generic mana in costs can be paid with any type of mana. For more information about {X}, see rule 107.3.
107.4c Numeral symbols (such as {1}) and variable symbols (such as {X}) can also represent colorless mana if they appear in the effect of a spell or ability that reads “add [mana symbol] to your mana pool” or something similar. (See rule 107.3e.)
107.4h The snow mana symbol {S} represents one generic mana in a cost. This generic mana can be paid with one mana of any type produced by a snow permanent (see rule 205.4f). Effects that reduce the amount of generic mana you pay don’t affect {S} costs. (There is no such thing as “snow mana”; “snow” is not a type of mana.)
202.1a The mana cost of an object represents what a player must spend from his or her mana pool to cast that card. Unless an object’s mana cost includes Phyrexian mana symbols (see rule 107.4f), paying that mana cost requires matching the color of any colored mana symbols as well as paying the generic mana indicated in the cost.
305.6. The basic land types are Plains, Island, Swamp, Mountain, and Forest. If an object uses the words “basic land type,” it’s referring to one of these subtypes. A land with a basic land type has the intrinsic ability “{T}: Add [mana symbol] to your mana pool,” even if the text box doesn’t actually contain that text or the object has no text box. For Plains, [mana symbol] is {W}; for Islands, {U}; for Swamps, {B}; for Mountains, {R}; and for Forests, {G}. See rule 107.4a. Also see rule 605, “Mana Abilities.”
So, what do I think all that means? The same as several others here. <> is one mana of type: colorless. Per rule 107.4c, things which produced 1 previously already do produce colorless mana. That means there won't be a need for a massive errata. There are still 5 colors and 6 types of mana. 107.4 will get a new symbol for <>. There will be a new rule (107.4i or so) which explains the Colorless mana symbol. In costs, it is 1 colorless mana (as distinct from colored mana used generically). In producing, it is the same as 1.
If I'm correct about this, the new symbol will be fully backwards compatible with all of magic, because we've always had colorless mana. Now it finally matters. And we've had cards which have particular restrictions on their cost. There have also been distinctions between "mana of any color" and "mana of any type". Now, those are meaningful. Why now? As someone earlier did say, there's not really a terrific time to do major updates like this anymore. I'm still surprised they didn't at least do it for the BFZ. Will <> be the new 1 moving forward? I rather hope not, because seeing cards like Thran Dynamo tap to produce <><><> instead of 3 seems a lot less elegant.
You both are actually arguing the same thing.
a) Colorless is not a color.
b) Having to pay colorless is a cost requisite and although it follows the same logic as paying-a-color-type it proves that color-type is a property of 'mana cost' but not it's defining aspect, and by extension color isn't the defining aspect of mana.
Please don't be no. 2
375 unpowered cube - https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/601ac624832cdf1039947588
Wizard's Careers Page currently lists them as seeking a Senior Security Analyst. Perhaps it's to help stop leaks like this? Or am I just praying way to hard for these to be real?
On topic: I REALLY WANT THESE TO BE REAL (hype intensifies).
Yeah, I want it to be that <> will just mean colorless mana, and I think there's a reasonable chance that is the truth, but there's no way I'm close to certain at all. People pretending that it's blindingly obvious one way or the other are just being willfully blind.
375 unpowered cube - https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/601ac624832cdf1039947588
Secondly, a land would tap for <> if they finally replaced the ambiguous 1 with a clear colorless symbol. It is pretty simpel, actually. And a new and unique symbol becomes necessary due to the use of purely colorless mana in costs, like Kozilek and Mirrorpool.
Here is some clarification from Mark Rosewater himself on the topic of generic and colorless mana. Maybe that helps a bit.
Uril, the Miststalker RGW -- Ulamog, the Infinite Gyre C -- Vhati il-Dal BG -- Jor Kadeen, the Prevailer RW -- Animar, Soul of Elements URG
Kiki-Jiki, Mirror Breaker R -- Maga, Traitor to Mortals B -- Ghave, Guru of Spores BGW -- Sliver Hivelord WUBRG
: Add 1 to your mana pool.
: Add W or <> to your mana pool. ~ deals 1 damage to you.
There's so much potential design space for having both. I see very little good coming from an errata and elimination of one or the other, but it is there. I'm not going to claim it's not, or that it's irrelevant because I want something else more.
The biggest reason I don't think it's number 2, from BFZ.
Why would they just have made this card if they were going to introduce a new symbol for that very ability.
I'm neutral on what should or could be done, but the evidence seems clear on what this actually is. I think a mechanic like this is parasitic and risks making this set very unappealing to a lot of people, but when theres two conclusions, one which is simple, elegant and consistent, the other messy, complicated, huge and wouldn't even work at all on some cards without nasty errata, I don't think the conclusion is hard to make.
Wishcraft and favored opinions shouldn't color anyones objective view of reality. Don't see what you want to see
I think that makes them too parasitic and useless for limited. Look at it this way you're drafting OOB pack one you get Kozilek great you want to try and run him so you pick him and you draft a couple of wastes as well as other colourless sources of mana such as things that produce scions. Unless you get kozilek and or any other <> spells those wates cards are completely useless.
I think from now on you're going to see X meaning mana of any colour and <> meaning colourless mana and you can use <> to pay X costs