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.
Or, now this may sound crazy, you could run things like Llanowar Wastes or Blighted Woodland because they can produce colorless.
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 <>?
Thats not a problem. Urborg will just add a 2nd option to tap for black mana.
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.
The whole point of devoid cards having a colored mana cost is to limit the decks you can put that card in.
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?
I guess Wastes will have the rules text "T: Add <> to your mana pool". It is not tied to its subtype, as it doesn't have one. Having a Uborg on the battlefield would make it a Basic Land - Swamp, it would still have the ability to add <> to your mana pool, as it is in its rules text
As far as I understand with the current rules, when making mana, there is no such thing as a "Generic" mana. "Generic" mana is only a term used for casting costs. So, it's impossible to create a Generic mana. That would imply you could use that mana to pay any color, or colorless cost.
Now then, as a few others have stated, colorless mana has never shown up as a casting cost before, and the symbol on Wastes would explain this. If you don't make a new symbol to separate "Generic" mana cost, and Colorless cost, the rules would be too muddled and confusing for people to understand.
Now, one thing I have to criticize about, is WHY WotC would introduce this on a Full Art land with no Reminder Text is beyond me. But oh well, Look at the back of a magic card. How many colors are represented in the MTG LoGo? 5 colors. I highly doubt they would introduce a brand new color out of nowhere. It's just a new casting cost mechanic for colorless mana.
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.
Colorless mana has always existed. They made the bad, confusing decision to use the generic mana cost symbol to also represent colorless mana. Now that they ran into a set where they probably want colorless mana to matter, they likely decided to give colorless its own symbol. It might not be used in casting costs very often outside of eldrazi sets, but they still needed it.
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.
well, factually wrong as explained earlier
<> isn't replacing the colorless mana symbol. Which part am I wrong about?
The part about this not being a 6th color for converge? Colorless is not a color.
The part about this being a rules change affecting 20+ years of cards if it replaces the colorless mana symbol? So now Boreal Druid and Strip Mine produce <>? Not likely
The part about cards producing 1 in BFZ? Hello Ally Encampment, now you produce <> too?
The part about it being more complex to new players? New players would never realize you could cast Kozilek from Strip Mines, Boreal Druids, and Ally Encampments.
Looking at all the theories, the one that <> is payable by <> or 2 seems to make the most sense flavor-wise. Eldrazi are monstrous brutes and I can see them costing more when not running their preferred lands, but, as colorless creatures, are still able to be cast using any type of mana. Not sure though about the last point, as devoid already made it so colorless creatures can't be be fitted in just any deck.
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.
This is what "generic mana" means:
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.
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.
Yeah I think we can rule that bizarre scenario out completely, just based off the new kozilek's mana cost.
8<><>.
Nothing's replacing colourless mana because it's right there, doing its job.
The new mana is clearly just "eldrazi mana" and intended to cast spells of a specific style, much like snow mana in the past was used to cast snow spells or activate snow abilities.
I don't see how you made the leap to where colourless mana is being replaced? Doesn't make any sense really.
And are people really still arguing about how it's going to work... Isn't it obvious?
'Diamond' mana can be produced to pay for any spells with a diamond in their cost. It can also be used (like any mana) to pay for colourless costs. How is this any more difficult than that?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: G Tron, Vannifar, Jund, Druid/Vizier combo, Humans, Eldrazi Stompy (Serum Powder), Amulet, Grishoalbrand, Breach Titan, Turns, Eternal Command, As Foretold Living End, Elves, Cheerios, RUG Scapeshift
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.
well, factually wrong as explained earlier
<> isn't replacing the colorless mana symbol. Which part am I wrong about?
The part about this not being a 6th color for converge? Colorless is not a color.
The part about this being a rules change affecting 20+ years of cards if it replaces the colorless mana symbol? So now Boreal Druid and Strip Mine produce <>? Not likely
The part about cards producing 1 in BFZ? Hello Ally Encampment, now you produce <> too?
The part about it being more complex to new players? New players would never realize you could cast Kozilek from Strip Mines, Boreal Druids, and Ally Encampments.
Looking at all the theories, the one that <> is payable by <> or 2 seems to make the most sense flavor-wise. Eldrazi are monstrous brutes and I can see them costing more when not running their preferred lands, but, as colorless creatures, are still able to be cast using any type of mana. Not sure though about the last point, as devoid already made it so colorless creatures can't be be fitted in just any deck.
This is what I'm attempting to convey. That "<>" costs can be paid two ways, similar to how phyrexian or hybrid mana could be paid two ways. And that "<>" mana can pay two costs: 1 or "<>"
To use new Kozilek, the Great Distortion as an example, I'm suggesting that his cost could be paid with 8<><> OR 12 of any color mana OR 12 non-<> colorless mana.
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?
I guess Wastes will have the rules text "T: Add <> to your mana pool". It is not tied to its subtype, as it doesn't have one. Having a Uborg on the battlefield would make it a Basic Land - Swamp, it would still have the ability to add <> to your mana pool, as it is in its rules text
That does work, but it feels weird to me to have one of the basics work differently from the others. The current basics can get away with having the giant mana symbol because they actually have no text, but then this land would be hiding an actual text box behind a giant mana symbol. I'm currently unable to think of a way this could cause functional differences, but the subtleties of card interactions can do weird things.
On the other hand, it would also be the only basic with no type, so maybe it being a little weird would be fine. I guess we'll just have to see.
But more importantly, when do we get Snow-Covered Wastes?
<> isn't replacing the colorless mana symbol. Which part am I wrong about?
There is no colorless mana symbol. The generic mana cost symbol is currently being awkwardly used to represent colorless mana as well, which is confusing.
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.
No drawbacks are need tbh, they can be fetched just by one color of the fetch and offer just the ability to tap for colorless, nothing particularly op.
They changed the colors mana at one point, transitioning form "add x colorless mana to your mana pool" to the current worfing "add X to your mana pool" and now they are changing it again to "add {<>} to your mana pool" it doesn't seam absurd or outlandish and clears up the problem of new players getting confused between generic and colorless. Withe the new symbol new design space opened and they could put a colorless requirement on a spell, all in all not a bad choice at all, and much more reasonable to use something like the snow which was just bad, and not practical.
You are forgetting Kozilek's casting cost.
What does it say?
It says 8<><>
This clearly separates Eldrazi/Void mana from Colourless mana.
A lot of people just seem to dislike the fact that this makes colorless function as a pseudo-6th color, disrupting their mana base which will now require sources that produce colorless.
To that, I say get over it. This will probably be moderately used in OGW, then go to being a fairly rare occurrence... like artifacts that have colored mana in their casting costs. I don't imagine that they're gonna be stapling this <> casting cost onto every single colorless card. So chill out.
Oh, and never mind the fact that we haven't seen all the cards in OGW that presumably support this new requirement. Maybe a cycle of dual lands that can tap for a specific color, or for colorless instead?
They won't change the colourless symbol in the middle of a block, that doesn't make any sense. If they wanted to do that, they would have done it in BFZ.
The ◊ is essentially a sixth colour of mana, except its colour identity is still colourless.
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.
No drawbacks are need tbh, they can be fetched just by one color of the fetch and offer just the ability to tap for colorless, nothing particularly op.
They changed the colors mana at one point, transitioning form "add x colorless mana to your mana pool" to the current worfing "add X to your mana pool" and now they are changing it again to "add {<>} to your mana pool" it doesn't seam absurd or outlandish and clears up the problem of new players getting confused between generic and colorless. Withe the new symbol new design space opened and they could put a colorless requirement on a spell, all in all not a bad choice at all, and much more reasonable to use something like the snow which was just bad, and not practical.
You are forgetting Kozilek's casting cost.
What does it say?
It says 8<><>
This clearly separates Eldrazi/Void mana from Colourless mana.
No, it clearly separates Colorless mana from generic mana.
It's ludicrous to think <> is JUST colorless mana. They would never have cards that produce 1 in the same block as cards that produce <>, if they were the same thing. For the people saying 1 is not colorless but "generic", you're wrong.
OGW was made after BFZ. They may not have thought about the idea until BFZ was deep into development.
Even if it was, it still makes sense to hold something interesting back to sell the winter set. This also solves a few long-standing issues. We're more likely to be completely correct on this than wrong.
A lot of people just seem to dislike the fact that this makes colorless function as a pseudo-6th color, disrupting their mana base which will now require sources that produce colorless.
To that, I say get over it. This will probably be moderately used in OGW, then go to being a fairly rare occurrence... like artifacts that have colored mana in their casting costs. I don't imagine that they're gonna be stapling this <> casting cost onto every single colorless card. So chill out.
Oh, and never mind the fact that we haven't seen all the cards in OGW that presumably support this new requirement. Maybe a cycle of dual lands that can tap for a specific color, or for colorless instead?
Yeah, I can see this being used for casting costs maybe once or twice a block for powerful artifacts. More if there is heavy colorless land support, and maybe zero if its a gold block.
So to compare the shortcomings of the two theories:
"Eldrazi mana is pseudosnow, Eldrazi costs payable only by eldrazi mana producers":
Means this set will be highly parasitic
"Errata will replace all 1 producers with <>, and <> in costs can only be paid with colorless mana"
Can't explain why Wastes should exist at all, if they're strictly worse than normal colorless lands like blasted landscape beyond the basic supertype
Doesn't make sense for Wizards to use a hedron / kozilek flavored symbol for an evergreen mechanic instead of a neutral symbol
Would mean this set needs far more rules complexity introduced since these wouldn't count towards its set mechanics, being evergreen instead, ie 4-5 new mechanics instead of 2-3
Wouldn't make sense for wizards to print obsolete cards that immediately need errata in BFZ and commander knowing this was coming. Changing it mid-block is nonsensical.
Would likely make the game harder for new players to understand than simpler, when <> appears to be a sixth color of mana
Would be less of a transitional shock if they only did <> in production at first, letting players adapt to the new functionally identical but visually different template before introducing the new functionally novel mechanic of <> in costs.
I agree that a parasitic set isn't the best thing in the world, but we just got off BFZ, it should come as no surprise.
They won't change the colourless symbol in the middle of a block, that doesn't make any sense. If they wanted to do that, they would have done it in BFZ.
The ◊ is essentially a sixth colour of mana, except its colour identity is still colourless.
well, they cant change what doesnt exist
since there is no colorless manasymbol right now, its not chaning anything when they add <> as colorless mana symbol
Please stop with the semantics, this is not what this is about.
They would never have made cards that say "Add 1 to your mana pool" or "Add 2 to your mana pool" in the same block where they plan to scrap that.
This clearly separates Eldrazi/Void mana from Colourless mana.
How so? If <> means one colourless mana, then it takes two mana which must be colourless, and 8 generic mana, which can be a combination of colourless and/or coloured.
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.
well, factually wrong as explained earlier
<> isn't replacing the colorless mana symbol. Which part am I wrong about?
The part about this not being a 6th color for converge? Colorless is not a color.
The part about this being a rules change affecting 20+ years of cards if it replaces the colorless mana symbol? So now Boreal Druid and Strip Mine produce <>? Not likely
The part about cards producing 1 in BFZ? Hello Ally Encampment, now you produce <> too?
The part about it being more complex to new players? New players would never realize you could cast Kozilek from Strip Mines, Boreal Druids, and Ally Encampments.
Looking at all the theories, the one that <> is payable by <> or 2 seems to make the most sense flavor-wise. Eldrazi are monstrous brutes and I can see them costing more when not running their preferred lands, but, as colorless creatures, are still able to be cast using any type of mana. Not sure though about the last point, as devoid already made it so colorless creatures can't be be fitted in just any deck.
but one of the most confusing elements for new players is understanding how (1) in a mana cost can mean 1 of any color mana, and when something produces (1) like strip mine, it can't be used to pay for colored costs. this clarifies it greatly.
Also, it kind of goes without saying, that all the confusion and argument over how this will work and people making arguments while mixing up colorless and generic mana is exactly why this change is being made.
makes perfect sense. otherwise this would have been spoiled in BFZ already
Changing the templates for cards mid-block makes no sense and is unprecedented. Its illogical considering this would be a significant errata with new templates. It would be like if they printed a dozen Lord creatures in Lorywn and then pushed back the grand creature type update to shadowmoor and said "just kidding guys!". It would be extremely illogical. If <> was going to replace colorless mana symbols on mana producers, kozilek's channeler would have "T: Add <><> to your mana pool".
Thats not a problem. Urborg will just add a 2nd option to tap for black mana.
I guess Wastes will have the rules text "T: Add <> to your mana pool". It is not tied to its subtype, as it doesn't have one. Having a Uborg on the battlefield would make it a Basic Land - Swamp, it would still have the ability to add <> to your mana pool, as it is in its rules text
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
Now then, as a few others have stated, colorless mana has never shown up as a casting cost before, and the symbol on Wastes would explain this. If you don't make a new symbol to separate "Generic" mana cost, and Colorless cost, the rules would be too muddled and confusing for people to understand.
Now, one thing I have to criticize about, is WHY WotC would introduce this on a Full Art land with no Reminder Text is beyond me. But oh well, Look at the back of a magic card. How many colors are represented in the MTG LoGo? 5 colors. I highly doubt they would introduce a brand new color out of nowhere. It's just a new casting cost mechanic for colorless mana.
Colorless mana has always existed. They made the bad, confusing decision to use the generic mana cost symbol to also represent colorless mana. Now that they ran into a set where they probably want colorless mana to matter, they likely decided to give colorless its own symbol. It might not be used in casting costs very often outside of eldrazi sets, but they still needed it.
<> isn't replacing the colorless mana symbol. Which part am I wrong about?
The part about this not being a 6th color for converge? Colorless is not a color.
The part about this being a rules change affecting 20+ years of cards if it replaces the colorless mana symbol? So now Boreal Druid and Strip Mine produce <>? Not likely
The part about cards producing 1 in BFZ? Hello Ally Encampment, now you produce <> too?
The part about it being more complex to new players? New players would never realize you could cast Kozilek from Strip Mines, Boreal Druids, and Ally Encampments.
Looking at all the theories, the one that <> is payable by <> or 2 seems to make the most sense flavor-wise. Eldrazi are monstrous brutes and I can see them costing more when not running their preferred lands, but, as colorless creatures, are still able to be cast using any type of mana. Not sure though about the last point, as devoid already made it so colorless creatures can't be be fitted in just any deck.
This is what "generic mana" means:
Yeah I think we can rule that bizarre scenario out completely, just based off the new kozilek's mana cost.
8<><>.
Nothing's replacing colourless mana because it's right there, doing its job.
The new mana is clearly just "eldrazi mana" and intended to cast spells of a specific style, much like snow mana in the past was used to cast snow spells or activate snow abilities.
I don't see how you made the leap to where colourless mana is being replaced? Doesn't make any sense really.
And are people really still arguing about how it's going to work... Isn't it obvious?
'Diamond' mana can be produced to pay for any spells with a diamond in their cost. It can also be used (like any mana) to pay for colourless costs. How is this any more difficult than that?
This is what I'm attempting to convey. That "<>" costs can be paid two ways, similar to how phyrexian or hybrid mana could be paid two ways. And that "<>" mana can pay two costs: 1 or "<>"
To use new Kozilek, the Great Distortion as an example, I'm suggesting that his cost could be paid with 8<><> OR 12 of any color mana OR 12 non-<> colorless mana.
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 does work, but it feels weird to me to have one of the basics work differently from the others. The current basics can get away with having the giant mana symbol because they actually have no text, but then this land would be hiding an actual text box behind a giant mana symbol. I'm currently unable to think of a way this could cause functional differences, but the subtleties of card interactions can do weird things.
On the other hand, it would also be the only basic with no type, so maybe it being a little weird would be fine. I guess we'll just have to see.
But more importantly, when do we get Snow-Covered Wastes?
There is no colorless mana symbol. The generic mana cost symbol is currently being awkwardly used to represent colorless mana as well, which is confusing.
You are forgetting Kozilek's casting cost.
What does it say?
It says 8<><>
This clearly separates Eldrazi/Void mana from Colourless mana.
From deviantART perhaps?
Or more likely, from Tappedout.net! That's pretty much where all my decks are stored.
To that, I say get over it. This will probably be moderately used in OGW, then go to being a fairly rare occurrence... like artifacts that have colored mana in their casting costs. I don't imagine that they're gonna be stapling this <> casting cost onto every single colorless card. So chill out.
Oh, and never mind the fact that we haven't seen all the cards in OGW that presumably support this new requirement. Maybe a cycle of dual lands that can tap for a specific color, or for colorless instead?
The 8 is not colorless mana. It is a generic mana cost.
The ◊ is essentially a sixth colour of mana, except its colour identity is still colourless.
No, it clearly separates Colorless mana from generic mana.
OGW was made after BFZ. They may not have thought about the idea until BFZ was deep into development.
Even if it was, it still makes sense to hold something interesting back to sell the winter set. This also solves a few long-standing issues. We're more likely to be completely correct on this than wrong.
Yeah, I can see this being used for casting costs maybe once or twice a block for powerful artifacts. More if there is heavy colorless land support, and maybe zero if its a gold block.
"Eldrazi mana is pseudosnow, Eldrazi costs payable only by eldrazi mana producers":
"Errata will replace all 1 producers with <>, and <> in costs can only be paid with colorless mana"
I agree that a parasitic set isn't the best thing in the world, but we just got off BFZ, it should come as no surprise.
They would never have made cards that say "Add 1 to your mana pool" or "Add 2 to your mana pool" in the same block where they plan to scrap that.
Which is why IMO the third "<> as a cost is payable multiple ways" and "<> as mana is spendable multiple ways" theory is more viable.
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
How so? If <> means one colourless mana, then it takes two mana which must be colourless, and 8 generic mana, which can be a combination of colourless and/or coloured.
but one of the most confusing elements for new players is understanding how (1) in a mana cost can mean 1 of any color mana, and when something produces (1) like strip mine, it can't be used to pay for colored costs. this clarifies it greatly.
Also, it kind of goes without saying, that all the confusion and argument over how this will work and people making arguments while mixing up colorless and generic mana is exactly why this change is being made.
Changing the templates for cards mid-block makes no sense and is unprecedented. Its illogical considering this would be a significant errata with new templates. It would be like if they printed a dozen Lord creatures in Lorywn and then pushed back the grand creature type update to shadowmoor and said "just kidding guys!". It would be extremely illogical. If <> was going to replace colorless mana symbols on mana producers, kozilek's channeler would have "T: Add <><> to your mana pool".
This is the new symbol:
This is a hedron:
This is an illuminati conspiracy: