just like you are required to run a green manasource to cast something with G in its cost
same thing
At that rate, it's functionally no different than adding a 6th color, except for the fact that these cards would be called and treated as "colorless" without the ability to use any mana type for them.
For these and other reasons, can we discuss the possibility that "<>" costs could be paid for with "<>" mana OR other mana? It makes way more logistic sense than most of these other explanations.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I play:
Block Tiny Leaders:
Theros Block / Anax & Cymede
Return to Ravnica Block / Vorel of the Hull Clade
Khans of Tarkir Block / Shu Yun, the Silent Tempest
I think it is pretty safe to assume that <> is NOT a new color. Eldrazi are known for being colorless beings. BFZ brought devoid so we could have colorless Eldrazi with colored mana costs. Kozilek, however, does not has devoid, implying that those <> on its costs are still colorless related.
I guess the best explanation is that <> is simply colorless mana. Mana Symbols can create some confusion cause they mean one thing as COSTS, but not the same thing in your MANA POOL.
S means: Pay any one mana produced by a Snow Permanent (G/W) means: Pay either one green mana or one white mana (2/G) means: Pay either one green mana or two mana of any kind
You can't have any of these added to your mana pool, though. Snow mana only tracks what produced the mana, you can't have "one snow mana" on your mana pool, or a hybrid mana.
1 as a cost means "Pay any one mana", so it can be payed with either 1, W, U, B, R or G. However a 1 added to your mana pool means "A mana without color". It can only be used to pay for 1 costs.
This seems pretty obvious for us players, but for a new player it might be a bit confusing why he can use G to pay for 1 but can't use 1 to pay for G.
So having <> be the symbol for colorless mana you hava a way to tell the difference between "A mana without color" and "Any kind of mana".
It's clean, it's simple, it is backward compatible and it kind of implements a 6th color without actually doing a new color and messing with the whole game structure.
If this is what it means, we get simple answers to the questions raised during this thread:
-Interaction with Converge: it cares about the number of colors used to cast the spell. Colorless, as the name implies, is not a color, so it doesn't count towards the Converge count
-Interaction with Domain: it cares about the number of basic land types you control. Waste has no basic land type, so it doesn't count towards the Domain count (sadly)
-Interaction with Commander: <> being the colorless mana symbol does not add any color to the identity of the card, it would work as any other colorless card.
-Interaction between 1 costs and <> mana: 1 would still mean "Pay one mana of any kind", so it could be paid with <> mana. On the other hand, <> would mean "Pay one colorless mana", so it couldn't be paid with colored mana. Cards that add colorless mana to our mana pool would still work the same way, it would only change the symbol for it.
-Interaction with cards that produce any color of mana: Imagine they print a single artifact with the following rules text: "Spend only colorless mana to cast ~this~". You couldn't use Birds of Paradise or City of Brass as those cards only produce colored mana. So they wouldn't work to pay for <> costs.
For those interested, this would basically be the implementation of Johnatan Lockus mechanic from the GDS2. Note that the basic land he designed was actually Barry's Land (with subtype) and it came with lots of problems.
Honestly if these are real, then beyond the prerelease and prize packs, I don't see myself opening up a whole lot of gatewatch packs.
That's a very kneejerk reaction at this stage.
What exactly is so much worse about this than anything they did in BFZ?
You mean besides reworking how colorless mana works?
I still don't get the hate that BFZ gets. Sure, some underpowered cards and, as a red player, no good burn spells, but other than that I think it's a pretty decent set.
if <> is a new symbol for colourless mana it doesn't change how colourless mana works at all. If your understanding of the game rules is incomplete or incorrect then I can see how you might think so but it's nothing more than a cosmetic change to more accurately reflect the rules of the game then the current system.
Except, based on the supposed new Kozilek, cards are now requiring the use of colorless mana, instead of just producing it. Based on the new design, you have to have colorless mana generators in a deck to play it. If your playing mono-color, like I play mono-red, or something like mono-green ramp, that's just going to dilute your mana base, because odds are you weren't playing colorless generators before.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Standard: GR Pummeler
Modern: Mono-Red Control, Lantern Control, Eldrazi Taxes, Skred Infect
Pauper: Affinity
EDH: Gaddock Teeg Kithkin Tribal, Meren
Legacy: 8 Rack, Omnitell (Both in progress)
just like you are required to run a green manasource to cast something with G in its cost
same thing
At that rate, it's functionally no different than adding a 6th color, except for the fact that these cards would be called and treated as "colorless" without the ability to use any mana type for them.
For these and other reasons, can we discuss the possibility that "<>" costs could be paid for with "<>" mana OR other mana? It makes way more logistic sense than most of these other explanations.
What other type of mana is there though? If <> = colorless mana, then all that's left is colored mana. And if <> costs can be paid for with colorless mana or/colored mana, then it is just a generic mana cost.
The only other option I heard that is reasonable is that <> on costs means "pay <> or 2 generic mana".
Apparently, the colourless mana symbol was submitted as a mechanic in a Great Designer Search, and MaRo said it was a clever way of introducing a "pseudo 6th colour".
[quote from="Marquisd »" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/magic-fundamentals/the-rumor-mill/648035-ogw-kozilek-the-great-distortion-and-new-basic?comment=457"]Do we all agree there is a difference between Generic mana and Colourless mana? If you don't again this statement from MaRo should show you otherwise
I don't see this being correct. I agree this is a specific type of colorless, but I don't see it replacing the colorless mana symbol. Plenty of cards tap for 1, this mana is colorless and it's pretty easy to tell. <> is adding another layer of complexity for new players, a lot more so than the simple 1. And it seems like a big, rules-affecting change for the second set in a block, where cards in the first tap for 1, not to mention the 20+ years of old cards that would need to be changed.
Except it's not adding a layer of complexity it's removing it. What does 1 mean in terms of magic? Does it mean colourless mana that is produced by say a blighted fen?
Does it mean it's the generic mana requirement far a card like Jace, Vryn's Prodigy for example? A mana that is colourless and a man that could be any colour are two different things the fact that same symbol is used for both is complex and can be confusing to new players, there have been several examples posted not including my quote from MaRo. Seasoned players don't see the complexity because we're used to it but it's still there, Originally cards like Basalt Monolith spelled out the difference, Wizards in an attempt to save space used 1 as a shortcut, and it looks like they've realised that was a mistake.
What I see the debate as is this; does <> mean colourless mana or does <> mean snow-covered colourless mana. Correct?
The former is open and creates new design space. There is a big difference between 4 and 2<><> I hope you can see that. The latter is small closed and parasitic. There's no support for it outside a small set so it's essentially wasted. If this was in BFZ I could see arguments that it's block specific, but because it's in OGW I feel like it has ramifications beyond this block.
Have there been any? From what I've seen on gatherer, there have been a few red and black restricted X spells, but nothing that could be paid exclusively with colorless mana. Perhaps my googlefu isn't up to snuff, but I think that very very few is actually zero. And honestly, its not that great of a design space anyway
I disagree it opens up a lot of design space, I mentioned above the difference between four Generic Mana and 2 Colourless and 2 Generic, also it can help to give Colourless it's own identity somethings that are unique to it like say exile or caring about casting costs. Having <> moving forward means the potential for pushing artifacts on a steampunk/artifact type plain like Kaladesh. Vryn might also benefit from <> given the mage ring network.
They added a new Basic land this is not a small add. This can't be restricted to just Eldrazi, that's just thinking too small
What other type of mana is there though? If <> = colorless mana, then all that's left is colored mana. And if <> costs can be paid for with colorless mana or/colored mana, then it is just a generic mana cost.
The only other option I heard that is reasonable is that <> on costs means "pay <> or 2 generic mana".
Your missing the point <> can't be paid with Generic Mana it can ONLY be paid with colourless mana, lands like Blighted fen don't tap for generic mana they tap for colourless.
But considering one strong motivation for Barry's Land was to give future colorless commander decks access to a colorless basic land, it is very likely intentionally given a place in commander.
That was not at all a motivation for Barry's land. The only motivation for Barry's Land was to push Domain to 6, and Wastes doesn't do that because it lacks a basic land type.
A 'solution' for a colorless basic land has been found, and this will allow for a colorless Commander preconstructed deck to be created in the future.
That sounds like one part of the motivation for having a new basic land type is to allow colorless commander decks to have an easier mana base.
Lets remember that its 2015, and Domain was printed in 2000. Its been 15 years, and given converge won't even care about this new pseudocolor by either interpretation, its safe to say wizard's goals and motivations for this barryland have changed over the years.
I think based on the limited information we have it may be that the errata and formatting going forward is that (1) will only be in costs for spells and abilities and <> is going to represent specifically colorless mana being generated. While this has some big errata for old cards it's really not that different from when creature types were given errata. As others have said Sol Ring would cost (1) and tap for <> <>. On a similar note Birds of Paradise taps to add one mana of any color so it cannot add <>. If <> is in a cost in cannot be paid for with colored mana. In that sense it is a "6th color," but also not in that old cards that generated what used to be generic mana will now specifically make colorless mana. Seems like the easiest fix that doesn't mess with things like "protection from all colors" on iridescent angel
Edit: This would also explain the lack of a subtype on the land. It is basic and therefore it can be fetched with evolving wilds but there is not a new basic land type so it doesn't step on the toes of Coalition Victory
I think it is pretty safe to assume that <> is NOT a new color. Eldrazi are known for being colorless beings. BFZ brought devoid so we could have colorless Eldrazi with colored mana costs. Kozilek, however, does not has devoid, implying that those <> on its costs are still colorless related.
I guess the best explanation is that <> is simply colorless mana. Mana Symbols can create some confusion cause they mean one thing as COSTS, but not the same thing in your MANA POOL.
S means: Pay any one mana produced by a Snow Permanent (G/W) means: Pay either one green mana or one white mana (2/G) means: Pay either one green mana or two mana of any kind
You can't have any of these added to your mana pool, though. Snow mana only tracks what produced the mana, you can't have "one snow mana" on your mana pool, or a hybrid mana.
1 as a cost means "Pay any one mana", so it can be payed with either 1, W, U, B, R or G. However a 1 added to your mana pool means "A mana without color". It can only be used to pay for 1 costs.
This seems pretty obvious for us players, but for a new player it might be a bit confusing why he can use G to pay for 1 but can't use 1 to pay for G.
So having <> be the symbol for colorless mana you hava a way to tell the difference between "A mana without color" and "Any kind of mana".
It's clean, it's simple, it is backward compatible and it kind of implements a 6th color without actually doing a new color and messing with the whole game structure.
If this is what it means, we get simple answers to the questions raised during this thread:
-Interaction with Converge: it cares about the number of colors used to cast the spell. Colorless, as the name implies, is not a color, so it doesn't count towards the Converge count
-Interaction with Domain: it cares about the number of basic land types you control. Waste has no basic land type, so it doesn't count towards the Domain count (sadly)
-Interaction with Commander: <> being the colorless mana symbol does not add any color to the identity of the card, it would work as any other colorless card.
-Interaction between 1 costs and <> mana: 1 would still mean "Pay one mana of any kind", so it could be paid with <> mana. On the other hand, <> would mean "Pay one colorless mana", so it couldn't be paid with colored mana. Cards that add colorless mana to our mana pool would still work the same way, it would only change the symbol for it.
For those interested, this would basically be the implementation of Johnatan Lockus mechanic from the GDS2. Note that the basic land he designed was actually Barry's Land (with subtype) and it came with lots of problems.
I fully sign on to this as the most likely explanation and rationale for <>. It helps support colorless matters for eldrazi, and it simply, elegantly solves a couple outstanding problems and points of confusion in the game.
We might not see <> very often in casting costs in "normal" sets, but it still makes sense to give colorless mana its own symbol, and to stop using {} for things that produce colorless mana.
just like you are required to run a green manasource to cast something with G in its cost
same thing
At that rate, it's functionally no different than adding a 6th color, except for the fact that these cards would be called and treated as "colorless" without the ability to use any mana type for them.
For these and other reasons, can we discuss the possibility that "<>" costs could be paid for with "<>" mana OR other mana? It makes way more logistic sense than most of these other explanations.
Darksteel Citadel cant add a 6th color. but it can add colorless and thus <>
I'm not sure what your statement is trying to convey, but I'll clarify anyway: It's rather...dumb, for lack of a better word, for WOTC to add "<>" as a mana type IF there are costs that can ONLY be paid for with "<>" mana. The "<>" mana might as well be "purple mana" or some other color, is my point. It would function the same exact way, except that the cards that have that cost are colorless.
My point is that it seems likelier that "<>" costs can still be paid with colored or colorless mana of all types, but can ALSO be paid for with "<>" mana. That way, in the true spirit of a colorless card, you can cast the card with mana of any type...BUT you're encouraged to pay "<>" for it because you receive some benefit, such as in my example. Which as a reminder was that "<>" costs could be paid with one "<>" mana or two of any other type of mana.
In this example, "<>" mana could be used to pay for 1 or "<>" costs, and "<>" costs could be paid for with "<>" or two of any other type of mana. I can't think of a way that this doesn't work mechanically, flavorfully, or would need to cause any errata to any card.
Honestly if these are real, then beyond the prerelease and prize packs, I don't see myself opening up a whole lot of gatewatch packs.
That's a very kneejerk reaction at this stage.
What exactly is so much worse about this than anything they did in BFZ?
You mean besides reworking how colorless mana works?
I still don't get the hate that BFZ gets. Sure, some underpowered cards and, as a red player, no good burn spells, but other than that I think it's a pretty decent set.
if <> is a new symbol for colourless mana it doesn't change how colourless mana works at all. If your understanding of the game rules is incomplete or incorrect then I can see how you might think so but it's nothing more than a cosmetic change to more accurately reflect the rules of the game then the current system.
Except, based on the supposed new Kozilek, cards are now requiring the use of colorless mana, instead of just producing it. Based on the new design, you have to have colorless mana generators in a deck to play it. If your playing mono-color, like I play mono-red, or something like mono-green ramp, that's just going to dilute your mana base, because odds are you weren't playing colorless generators before.
That is a feature, not a bug. If you want to make colorless cards that are powerful, you have color pie issues. Forcing you to dilute your mana base may be an appropriate tradeoff
Which is why this mechanic is not as he described. Any rational explanation for this symbol have to cover both the casting cost and mana production sides, we can't just postulate one side and ignore the other. Since its plainly inconsistent as theres no functional difference on the lands, we can rule out that scenario.
Why does the production side have to be different? They could just be making a distinction now that they haven't made before. Sol Ring now produces <><>, etc. It wouldn't be the first time they've made cosmetic changes that clean up the rules without actually changing them.
Clearly, when it comes to Eldrazi, there's a reason for costs that require colorless mana to cast, but I don't see a reason why that mana would need to be specifically from whatever small handful of lands produce <> in this particular set. Can you imagine how terrible Kozilek would be if the only way to play him would be if you had out multiple Wastes/Mirrorpools? That would just be stunningly bad design.
I would think that Eldrazi/Void Mana would be pretty self explanatory in how it is applied. It can pay for and be paid by colourless mana, but cannot pay nor be paid for coloured mana. Remember that the entities which use this mana are the Eldrazi, and they are inherently colourless. However this mana is definitely different from colourless in that it requires its own symbol. Thusly, one can deduce the above.
It's also interesting to note that many in the Magic Set Editor community have long since discarded the idea of Colourless Mana Symbols (Eldrazi/Void Mana) along with the Multicoloured Mana Symbol because they complicate more things than they give benefits to, defying the principles laid out by New World Order. If a player can't get a mana type the moment they see it, than there is a problem with it, and it must be accurately described in the rules text of that card.
But considering one strong motivation for Barry's Land was to give future colorless commander decks access to a colorless basic land, it is very likely intentionally given a place in commander.
That was not at all a motivation for Barry's land. The only motivation for Barry's Land was to push Domain to 6, and Wastes doesn't do that because it lacks a basic land type.
A 'solution' for a colorless basic land has been found, and this will allow for a colorless Commander preconstructed deck to be created in the future.
That sounds like one part of the motivation for having a new basic land type is to allow colorless commander decks to have an easier mana base.
Lets remember that its 2015, and Domain was printed in 2000. Its been 15 years, and given converge won't even care about this new pseudocolor by either interpretation, its safe to say wizard's goals and motivations for this barryland have changed over the years.
None of that refers to Barry's Land, just a colourless basic. My point was that you were incorrectly using the term "Barry's Land". Barry's Land was specifically created to increase your Domain count to 6.
I guess the best explanation is that <> is simply colorless mana. Mana Symbols can create some confusion cause they mean one thing as COSTS, but not the same thing in your MANA POOL.
S means: Pay any one mana produced by a Snow Permanent (G/W) means: Pay either one green mana or one white mana (2/G) means: Pay either one green mana or two mana of any kind
You can't have any of these added to your mana pool, though. Snow mana only tracks what produced the mana, you can't have "one snow mana" on your mana pool, or a hybrid mana.
It sure would make it easier to use on Magic Online if you could, though.
Which is why this mechanic is not as he described. Any rational explanation for this symbol have to cover both the casting cost and mana production sides, we can't just postulate one side and ignore the other. Since its plainly inconsistent as theres no functional difference on the lands, we can rule out that scenario.
Why does the production side have to be different? They could just be making a distinction now that they haven't made before. Sol Ring now produces <><>, etc. It wouldn't be the first time they've made cosmetic changes that clean up the rules without actually changing them.
Because thats not what he said. Read the post chain:
Has anyone noted that <> could be exclusively colorless? As in ONLY for colorless on both sides? So Kozilek can be cast for 8 generic mana and 2 specifically colorless mana, while Mirrorpool creates mana that can ONLY be used for colorless mana? (perhaps even to the extent of not being able to cast Kalonian Tusker with a Mycosynth Lattice using <> mana.)
This seems like the most reasonable meaning for <>.
That interpretation can't be correct, since there would be no reason for the <> symbol to exist on lands like wastes and mirrorpool when its functionally identical to 1
The interpretation that <> is going to replace all colorless mana production on all lands is a different scenario being discussed by other people.
Both the neo-snow scenario and overhaul-all-colorless-producer scenarios can theoretically be true based on the evidence. This concept of "Only the wastes/mirrorpool produce <> and it can only be spent as colorless" doesn't make any sense and can't be true
It's also interesting to note that many in the Magic Set Editor community have long since discarded the idea of Colourless Mana Symbols (Eldrazi/Void Mana) along with the Multicoloured Mana Symbol because they complicate more things than they give benefits to, defying the principles laid out by New World Order. If a player can't get a mana type the moment they see it, than there is a problem with it, and it must be accurately described in the rules text of that card.
These people in the "magic set editor community" are wrong. The fact that the generic mana symbol pulls double-duty to represent colorless mana is confusing to new players. If we change to clearly show that colorless mana is not generic mana, that reduces complexity, it does not increase it except for old enfranchised players, but NWO is mostly intended for new players.
OK, so independent of the meaning of <>, I'm noticing a rules problem with Wastes.
Suppose we add the rule "Basic lands with no land types have 'T: Add <> to your mana pool.'" What happens if I control a Wastes and an Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth? Can my Wastes still produce <>?
Suppose we give Wastes its mana ability through some other method. The question is, how? It has only two referenceable qualities -- it's a land, and it's basic. How do we make a rule that applies to it that doesn't run into the above problem and also doesn't apply to Forest?
The third option is to give the big <> mana symbol on it rules meaning. But that's...really weird. And might have implications with the other basic lands' big mana symbols.
Which is why this mechanic is not as he described. Any rational explanation for this symbol have to cover both the casting cost and mana production sides, we can't just postulate one side and ignore the other. Since its plainly inconsistent as theres no functional difference on the lands, we can rule out that scenario.
Why does the production side have to be different? They could just be making a distinction now that they haven't made before. Sol Ring now produces <><>, etc. It wouldn't be the first time they've made cosmetic changes that clean up the rules without actually changing them.
Clearly, when it comes to Eldrazi, there's a reason for costs that require colorless mana to cast, but I don't see a reason why that mana would need to be specifically from whatever small handful of lands produce <> in this particular set. Can you imagine how terrible Kozilek would be if the only way to play him would be if you had out multiple Wastes/Mirrorpools? That would just be stunningly bad design.
Agreed. Importantly, Kozilek's Channeler would now produce <><>. Kozilek requires <><>. Coincidence? I think not.
Some people are just nuking this (Navy speak for overthinking)... <> is colorless mana. Nothing more, nothing less. Something taps to produce <>? It's producing colorless mana. Something has <> in its casting cost? It requires colorless mana. Something has, say, 3 in its casting cost? You can pay that with whatever kinds of mana you want.
Makes colorless more functionally similar to a 6th color, sure... but it's not the end of the world. We've had colorless cards since the beginning of Magic, literally the only new thing aside from the aesthetics of having a symbol for colorless is the fact that spells can now require colorless mana to be cast. And really, that could've been done without the aesthetic change but it would've required wordy rules text. So yeah, basically OGW has cards that require colorless mana to be cast. That's the entire revelation. Let's try not to have a meltdown over this.
just like you are required to run a green manasource to cast something with G in its cost
same thing
Had a feeling you'd make that point. But to me, it's not the same. Green and green cards have been a thing since the very start of the game. There was never a time where we got generic "Green" cards and effects like Naturalize, Rampant Growth and Overrun that could be played in any deck, then suddenly Wizards invented G and started stapling it onto cards that could previously be played in any deck, suddenly restricting them to only decks that can produce G mana.
I just don't want Wizards to turn <> into a pseudo-6th color and suddenly start making it a requirement to run cards like Wastes or Shrine of the Forsaken Gods in your deck in order to play artifacts and colorless cards.
OK, so independent of the meaning of <>, I'm noticing a rules problem with Wastes.
Suppose we add the rule "Basic lands with no land types have 'T: Add <> to your mana pool.'" What happens if I control a Wastes and an Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth? Can my Wastes still produce <>?
Suppose we give Wastes its mana ability through some other method. The question is, how? It has only two referenceable qualities -- it's a land, and it's basic. How do we make a rule that applies to it that doesn't run into the above problem and also doesn't apply to Forest?
The third option is to give the big <> mana symbol on it rules meaning. But that's...really weird. And might have implications with the other basic lands' big mana symbols.
Any ideas?
It has a simple and elegant solution. Wastes is simply a land with the basic supertype and the explicit rules test "T: Add <> to your mana pool". Thats implied with the full art zendikar style format, same as how it works for forests or swamps et all, only difference being here the rules text is explicitly given to this card, rather than an implicit property granted by its subtype. Thats no barrier to giving it full art status any more than it was for cryptic command.
Theres no obstacles to this being the explanation, its perfectly consistent with what we've seen
These people in the "magic set editor community" are wrong. The fact that the generic mana symbol pulls double-duty to represent colorless mana is confusing to new players. If we change to clearly show that colorless mana is not generic mana, that reduces complexity, it does not increase it except for old enfranchised players, but NWO is mostly intended for new players.
I'm not sure what you are getting at with "Generic" mana. Do you mean Colourless mana, Coloured mana, or Eldrazi/Void mana?
When I mention Colourless Mana Symbols I mean the very thing I described that Eldrazi/Void Mana to be. Something that can pay for and be paid by colourless mana, and cannot pay for nor be paid by coloured mana. I'm not referring to regular colourless mana having a symbol representing it but rather I'm referring to a derivative of it like Eldrazi/Void mana currently is.
has anyone said that perhaps the mana symbol has to be colored. but it can be any color? it just has to be colored
the eldrazi could always use colored mana, they just don't care what color it is.
however, the land only produces the mana symbol. its colored somehow but like the eldrazi it is far beyond our comprehension. we as the player don't get to decide what color the land produces, it just makes colored mana.
something like that anyway
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
whats next, #colorlesslivesmatter?
really now
At that rate, it's functionally no different than adding a 6th color, except for the fact that these cards would be called and treated as "colorless" without the ability to use any mana type for them.
For these and other reasons, can we discuss the possibility that "<>" costs could be paid for with "<>" mana OR other mana? It makes way more logistic sense than most of these other explanations.
Theros Block / Anax & Cymede
Return to Ravnica Block / Vorel of the Hull Clade
Khans of Tarkir Block / Shu Yun, the Silent Tempest
Peasant:
Kuldotha Red
Commander:
Maga, Traitor to Mortals
I guess the best explanation is that <> is simply colorless mana. Mana Symbols can create some confusion cause they mean one thing as COSTS, but not the same thing in your MANA POOL.
S means: Pay any one mana produced by a Snow Permanent
(G/W) means: Pay either one green mana or one white mana
(2/G) means: Pay either one green mana or two mana of any kind
You can't have any of these added to your mana pool, though. Snow mana only tracks what produced the mana, you can't have "one snow mana" on your mana pool, or a hybrid mana.
1 as a cost means "Pay any one mana", so it can be payed with either 1, W, U, B, R or G. However a 1 added to your mana pool means "A mana without color". It can only be used to pay for 1 costs.
This seems pretty obvious for us players, but for a new player it might be a bit confusing why he can use G to pay for 1 but can't use 1 to pay for G.
So having <> be the symbol for colorless mana you hava a way to tell the difference between "A mana without color" and "Any kind of mana".
It's clean, it's simple, it is backward compatible and it kind of implements a 6th color without actually doing a new color and messing with the whole game structure.
If this is what it means, we get simple answers to the questions raised during this thread:
-Interaction with Converge: it cares about the number of colors used to cast the spell. Colorless, as the name implies, is not a color, so it doesn't count towards the Converge count
-Interaction with Domain: it cares about the number of basic land types you control. Waste has no basic land type, so it doesn't count towards the Domain count (sadly)
-Interaction with Commander: <> being the colorless mana symbol does not add any color to the identity of the card, it would work as any other colorless card.
-Interaction between 1 costs and <> mana: 1 would still mean "Pay one mana of any kind", so it could be paid with <> mana. On the other hand, <> would mean "Pay one colorless mana", so it couldn't be paid with colored mana. Cards that add colorless mana to our mana pool would still work the same way, it would only change the symbol for it.
-Interaction with cards that produce any color of mana: Imagine they print a single artifact with the following rules text: "Spend only colorless mana to cast ~this~". You couldn't use Birds of Paradise or City of Brass as those cards only produce colored mana. So they wouldn't work to pay for <> costs.
For those interested, this would basically be the implementation of Johnatan Lockus mechanic from the GDS2. Note that the basic land he designed was actually Barry's Land (with subtype) and it came with lots of problems.
Commander: WUBRG Superfriends, GW Rhys Tokens, WUBRG Scion of the Ur-Dragon
Kitchen Table (now that's real Magic): WUBRG Domain, GU Biovisionary, UB Korlash Grandeur, UW Merfolk Mill
Except, based on the supposed new Kozilek, cards are now requiring the use of colorless mana, instead of just producing it. Based on the new design, you have to have colorless mana generators in a deck to play it. If your playing mono-color, like I play mono-red, or something like mono-green ramp, that's just going to dilute your mana base, because odds are you weren't playing colorless generators before.
Modern: Mono-Red Control, Lantern Control, Eldrazi Taxes, Skred Infect
Pauper: Affinity
EDH: Gaddock Teeg Kithkin Tribal, Meren
Legacy: 8 Rack, Omnitell (Both in progress)
What other type of mana is there though? If <> = colorless mana, then all that's left is colored mana. And if <> costs can be paid for with colorless mana or/colored mana, then it is just a generic mana cost.
The only other option I heard that is reasonable is that <> on costs means "pay <> or 2 generic mana".
PucaTrade Invite. Sign up and enjoy the first 500 points ($5) free!
https://mobile.twitter.com/misterorange/status/666786187449917440/photo/1
EDIT: Trifas said it while I was typing. And better.
Cubetutor Peasant'ish-Funbox
Project: Khans of Tarkir Cube (cubetutor)
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Spoiler EditorExcept it's not adding a layer of complexity it's removing it. What does 1 mean in terms of magic? Does it mean colourless mana that is produced by say a blighted fen?
Does it mean it's the generic mana requirement far a card like Jace, Vryn's Prodigy for example? A mana that is colourless and a man that could be any colour are two different things the fact that same symbol is used for both is complex and can be confusing to new players, there have been several examples posted not including my quote from MaRo. Seasoned players don't see the complexity because we're used to it but it's still there, Originally cards like Basalt Monolith spelled out the difference, Wizards in an attempt to save space used 1 as a shortcut, and it looks like they've realised that was a mistake.
What I see the debate as is this; does <> mean colourless mana or does <> mean snow-covered colourless mana. Correct?
The former is open and creates new design space. There is a big difference between 4 and 2<><> I hope you can see that. The latter is small closed and parasitic. There's no support for it outside a small set so it's essentially wasted. If this was in BFZ I could see arguments that it's block specific, but because it's in OGW I feel like it has ramifications beyond this block.
I disagree it opens up a lot of design space, I mentioned above the difference between four Generic Mana and 2 Colourless and 2 Generic, also it can help to give Colourless it's own identity somethings that are unique to it like say exile or caring about casting costs. Having <> moving forward means the potential for pushing artifacts on a steampunk/artifact type plain like Kaladesh. Vryn might also benefit from <> given the mage ring network.
They added a new Basic land this is not a small add. This can't be restricted to just Eldrazi, that's just thinking too small
Your missing the point <> can't be paid with Generic Mana it can ONLY be paid with colourless mana, lands like Blighted fen don't tap for generic mana they tap for colourless.
Generic Mana is mana of any colour or colourless.
The source quoted earlier in the thread here;
http://www.gatheringmagic.com/news-11032014-fate-reforged-and-more-at-pax-australia/
That sounds like one part of the motivation for having a new basic land type is to allow colorless commander decks to have an easier mana base.
Lets remember that its 2015, and Domain was printed in 2000. Its been 15 years, and given converge won't even care about this new pseudocolor by either interpretation, its safe to say wizard's goals and motivations for this barryland have changed over the years.
Edit: This would also explain the lack of a subtype on the land. It is basic and therefore it can be fetched with evolving wilds but there is not a new basic land type so it doesn't step on the toes of Coalition Victory
I fully sign on to this as the most likely explanation and rationale for <>. It helps support colorless matters for eldrazi, and it simply, elegantly solves a couple outstanding problems and points of confusion in the game.
We might not see <> very often in casting costs in "normal" sets, but it still makes sense to give colorless mana its own symbol, and to stop using {} for things that produce colorless mana.
I'm not sure what your statement is trying to convey, but I'll clarify anyway: It's rather...dumb, for lack of a better word, for WOTC to add "<>" as a mana type IF there are costs that can ONLY be paid for with "<>" mana. The "<>" mana might as well be "purple mana" or some other color, is my point. It would function the same exact way, except that the cards that have that cost are colorless.
My point is that it seems likelier that "<>" costs can still be paid with colored or colorless mana of all types, but can ALSO be paid for with "<>" mana. That way, in the true spirit of a colorless card, you can cast the card with mana of any type...BUT you're encouraged to pay "<>" for it because you receive some benefit, such as in my example. Which as a reminder was that "<>" costs could be paid with one "<>" mana or two of any other type of mana.
In this example, "<>" mana could be used to pay for 1 or "<>" costs, and "<>" costs could be paid for with "<>" or two of any other type of mana. I can't think of a way that this doesn't work mechanically, flavorfully, or would need to cause any errata to any card.
Theros Block / Anax & Cymede
Return to Ravnica Block / Vorel of the Hull Clade
Khans of Tarkir Block / Shu Yun, the Silent Tempest
Peasant:
Kuldotha Red
Commander:
Maga, Traitor to Mortals
That is a feature, not a bug. If you want to make colorless cards that are powerful, you have color pie issues. Forcing you to dilute your mana base may be an appropriate tradeoff
Why does the production side have to be different? They could just be making a distinction now that they haven't made before. Sol Ring now produces <><>, etc. It wouldn't be the first time they've made cosmetic changes that clean up the rules without actually changing them.
Clearly, when it comes to Eldrazi, there's a reason for costs that require colorless mana to cast, but I don't see a reason why that mana would need to be specifically from whatever small handful of lands produce <> in this particular set. Can you imagine how terrible Kozilek would be if the only way to play him would be if you had out multiple Wastes/Mirrorpools? That would just be stunningly bad design.
It's also interesting to note that many in the Magic Set Editor community have long since discarded the idea of Colourless Mana Symbols (Eldrazi/Void Mana) along with the Multicoloured Mana Symbol because they complicate more things than they give benefits to, defying the principles laid out by New World Order. If a player can't get a mana type the moment they see it, than there is a problem with it, and it must be accurately described in the rules text of that card.
From deviantART perhaps?
Or more likely, from Tappedout.net! That's pretty much where all my decks are stored.
None of that refers to Barry's Land, just a colourless basic. My point was that you were incorrectly using the term "Barry's Land". Barry's Land was specifically created to increase your Domain count to 6.
http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/mm/25
It sure would make it easier to use on Magic Online if you could, though.
Because thats not what he said. Read the post chain:
That interpretation can't be correct, since there would be no reason for the <> symbol to exist on lands like wastes and mirrorpool when its functionally identical to 1
The interpretation that <> is going to replace all colorless mana production on all lands is a different scenario being discussed by other people.
Both the neo-snow scenario and overhaul-all-colorless-producer scenarios can theoretically be true based on the evidence. This concept of "Only the wastes/mirrorpool produce <> and it can only be spent as colorless" doesn't make any sense and can't be true
These people in the "magic set editor community" are wrong. The fact that the generic mana symbol pulls double-duty to represent colorless mana is confusing to new players. If we change to clearly show that colorless mana is not generic mana, that reduces complexity, it does not increase it except for old enfranchised players, but NWO is mostly intended for new players.
Suppose we add the rule "Basic lands with no land types have 'T: Add <> to your mana pool.'" What happens if I control a Wastes and an Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth? Can my Wastes still produce <>?
Suppose we give Wastes its mana ability through some other method. The question is, how? It has only two referenceable qualities -- it's a land, and it's basic. How do we make a rule that applies to it that doesn't run into the above problem and also doesn't apply to Forest?
The third option is to give the big <> mana symbol on it rules meaning. But that's...really weird. And might have implications with the other basic lands' big mana symbols.
Any ideas?
Agreed. Importantly, Kozilek's Channeler would now produce <><>. Kozilek requires <><>. Coincidence? I think not.
Some people are just nuking this (Navy speak for overthinking)... <> is colorless mana. Nothing more, nothing less. Something taps to produce <>? It's producing colorless mana. Something has <> in its casting cost? It requires colorless mana. Something has, say, 3 in its casting cost? You can pay that with whatever kinds of mana you want.
Makes colorless more functionally similar to a 6th color, sure... but it's not the end of the world. We've had colorless cards since the beginning of Magic, literally the only new thing aside from the aesthetics of having a symbol for colorless is the fact that spells can now require colorless mana to be cast. And really, that could've been done without the aesthetic change but it would've required wordy rules text. So yeah, basically OGW has cards that require colorless mana to be cast. That's the entire revelation. Let's try not to have a meltdown over this.
|| UW Jace, Vyn's Prodigy UW || UG Kenessos, Priest of Thassa (feat. Arixmethes) UG ||
Cards I still want to see created:
|| Olantin, Lost City || Pavios and Thanasis || Choryu ||
Had a feeling you'd make that point. But to me, it's not the same. Green and green cards have been a thing since the very start of the game. There was never a time where we got generic "Green" cards and effects like Naturalize, Rampant Growth and Overrun that could be played in any deck, then suddenly Wizards invented G and started stapling it onto cards that could previously be played in any deck, suddenly restricting them to only decks that can produce G mana.
I just don't want Wizards to turn <> into a pseudo-6th color and suddenly start making it a requirement to run cards like Wastes or Shrine of the Forsaken Gods in your deck in order to play artifacts and colorless cards.
Trades
Pucatrade with me!
(Signature courtesy of Argetlam of Hakai Studios
It has a simple and elegant solution. Wastes is simply a land with the basic supertype and the explicit rules test "T: Add <> to your mana pool". Thats implied with the full art zendikar style format, same as how it works for forests or swamps et all, only difference being here the rules text is explicitly given to this card, rather than an implicit property granted by its subtype. Thats no barrier to giving it full art status any more than it was for cryptic command.
Theres no obstacles to this being the explanation, its perfectly consistent with what we've seen
I'm not sure what you are getting at with "Generic" mana. Do you mean Colourless mana, Coloured mana, or Eldrazi/Void mana?
When I mention Colourless Mana Symbols I mean the very thing I described that Eldrazi/Void Mana to be. Something that can pay for and be paid by colourless mana, and cannot pay for nor be paid by coloured mana. I'm not referring to regular colourless mana having a symbol representing it but rather I'm referring to a derivative of it like Eldrazi/Void mana currently is.
From deviantART perhaps?
Or more likely, from Tappedout.net! That's pretty much where all my decks are stored.
the eldrazi could always use colored mana, they just don't care what color it is.
however, the land only produces the mana symbol. its colored somehow but like the eldrazi it is far beyond our comprehension. we as the player don't get to decide what color the land produces, it just makes colored mana.
something like that anyway