Mirrorpool is interesting. Why does it add <> and not just {1}?
This is an important question. <> in the mana cost makes sense if we assume it to be Exclusively Colorless. But adding <> vs adding (1) to your mana pool??? I see no reason for that unless <> must be paid with exactly <>. If that's the case, I'm much less excited about this.
Another option i see is that <> is "exclusively colored", which is rainbow mana that cannot be used to pay colorless cost, and that <> in mana costs may be payed with either any color or <>, but not colorless. I don't like that option either, tbh.
What I find stange is that they print the colorless basics in oath rather than bfz.
I hear that, from a flavor stand point. But none of the big themes in BFZ benefited from these basics. THAT SAID - I wish this would've been developed over two sets rather than one, but if it works out well enough, we'll be salivating for more Zendikar and the re-emergence of colorless basics.
Mirrorpool is interesting. Why does it add <> and not just {1}?
This is an important question. <> in the mana cost makes sense if we assume it to be Exclusively Colorless. But adding <> vs adding (1) to your mana pool??? I see no reason for that unless <> must be paid with exactly <>. If that's the case, I'm much less excited about this.
Another option i see is that <> is "exclusively colored", which is rainbow mana that cannot be used to pay colorless cost, and that <> in mana costs may be payed with either any color or <>, but not colorless. I don't like that option either, tbh.
Could just be to highlight it as a new mechanic. It is still an unresolved issue, but I doubt they'd completely abandon "colorless matters" for a parasitic sixth color.
Worth noting that this probably makes the colorless lands of BFZ go up in draft value, since they're basically just Wastes with upside.
It seems very unusual that they would save such a major thing for the second set of a block, and not support it at all in the first 250 cards. However, that could be an inconvenient casualty of the shift to two sets.
I'm inclined to believe it's not real because of the lack of reminder text.
I'm guessing that the <> symbol means that:
- In a cost, you must pay using colorless. Other sources of colorless mana will work, but colored mana won't.
- When produced, you may spend it only on colorless costs. You can use it to cast colored cards, but not for colored costs.
For example, you can play Dark Confidant by paying <>B. Similarly, you could play Kozilek using 10. But you can't cast Kozilek using BBBBBBBBBB.
Worth noting that this probably makes the colorless lands of BFZ go up in draft value, since they're basically just Wastes with upside.
I can't see Mirrorpool explicitly tapping to add eldrazi mana instead of colorless if that was the case. Why restrict it? Theres so little reason to have it add "worse colorless" mana when colorless is already a sufficient drawback.Its much more likely that barrys land produces an exclusive 6th mana type, handled the same way snow mana was, than to assume that <> can only be paid in colorless and things that add <> can only be used to pay colorless. Thats needless rules complication and wouldn't require symbols in the first place. That makes it a "better colorless", like snow mana.
The net result is that the colorless lands of BFZ arent wastes with upsides, since they wouldn't produce eldrazi mana
It seems very unusual that they would save such a major thing for the second set of a block, and not support it at all in the first 250 cards. However, that could be an inconvenient casualty of the shift to two sets.
I'm inclined to believe it's not real because of the lack of reminder text.
If I thought it might be a ***** mechanic that might not go over well that is EXACTLY where I'd put it.
Wonder of because Kozilek emerges, the other basics get eaten and there's new art for then
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ravarshi Kashaku, Ancient Dragon of the Darkened Realms;
The Merciless Lord of Torture, Permanently Bound To: ">[THE PACK] 11/5/63 - 11/25/09 Goodbye mom, i'll always love you...
It seems very unusual that they would save such a major thing for the second set of a block, and not support it at all in the first 250 cards. However, that could be an inconvenient casualty of the shift to two sets.
I'm inclined to believe it's not real because of the lack of reminder text.
If I thought it might be a ***** mechanic that might not go over well that is EXACTLY where I'd put it.
Well, we haven't seen any other spoilers yet... Maybe Oath is ALL waste-color cards? They've done all gold, why not the opposite?
If we look at this from a story perspective, them not putting the colorless basic in BFZ kind of suggests that Zendikar loses in OGW. Or at the very least comes out of this whole thing in really bad shape.
By either interpretation, no. This would still be colorless mana, and wouldn't help converge at all. There would still be only 5 colors and only 5 basic land types
The only thing that I don't like in this idea is the fact that is probably not going to be explored enough being in just one set. That said, I think people here are thinking a little bit too small: assume this is a new 'color', i.e. spells with <> in the cost can only be cast with this mana, exclusively. Does that mean that we have a new member in the color pie? If so, what are going to be its exclusive characteristics? Will it be able to do something that no color can do so far?
Before people start comparing this to snow-land: it is not the same thing. If it is a new color, it has to be unique in the color pie, snow colors were still associated with magic 5 colors and therefore did not need to be unique.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
.
Would you like to read Commander stories? Check my latest stories, coming from Lorwyn and Innistrad: Ghoulcaller Gisa and Doran, The Siege Tower! If you like my writing, ask me to write something for your commander as well!
I think the diamond is going to be only used only on colerless spells. So the diamond can't be used on 2R spell (unless it is devoid) but can be used on a 5 spell.
Thoughts?
The only thing that I don't like in this idea is the fact that is probably not going to be explored enough being in just one set. That said, I think people here are thinking a little bit too small: assume this is a new 'color', i.e. spells with <> in the cost can only be cast with this mana, exclusively. Does that mean that we have a new member in the color pie? If so, what are going to be its exclusive characteristics? Will it be able to do something that no color can do so far?
Before people start comparing this to snow-land: it is not the same thing. If it is a new color, it has to be unique in the color pie, snow colors were still associated with magic 5 colors and therefore did not need to be unique.
Well theres a problem to expanding the color pie- the color pie only exists because wizards diviied up their existing mechanics; they explored the mechanics first, then sorted them into colors. They try to come up with all the neat interesting new abilities they can, could they really add a whole new slice of pie with a new niche when they've already covered so much ground in 5 colors?
I imagine this eldrazi mana will have themes to it, but it won't be anywhere as fully developed as red/blue/black/green/white
Worth noting that this probably makes the colorless lands of BFZ go up in draft value, since they're basically just Wastes with upside.
I can't see Mirrorpool explicitly tapping to add eldrazi mana instead of colorless if that was the case. Why restrict it? Theres so little reason to have it add "worse colorless" mana when colorless is already a sufficient drawback.Its much more likely that barrys land produces an exclusive 6th mana type, handled the same way snow mana was, than to assume that <> can only be paid in colorless and things that add <> can only be used to pay colorless. Thats needless rules complication and wouldn't require symbols in the first place. That makes it a "better colorless", like snow mana.
The net result is that the colorless lands of BFZ arent wastes with upsides, since they wouldn't produce eldrazi mana
There are a few differences though. Snow mana was a supertype imposed onto a special cycle of basic lands, while Eldrazi mana has its own specific land. People have been clamoring for "Barry's Land" forever, so tying a sixth color to something that flavorfully embodies colorlessness defeats the purpose. Also, snow mana had a whole set dedicated to it, while BFZ has been pushing "colorless matters" as the central Eldrazi mechanic. Can't just abandon that wholesale in the last set.
My assumption is that <> costs can only be paid for with colorless mana. That means Island, Tundra, etc can't produce <>, but Adarkar Wastes can. It's an odd dynamic since Tundra has been strictly better than Adarkar Wastes for forever, but there's no technical reason why they can't do this in the rules. As to why Mirrorpool explicitly produces <>, I would assume to promote it as a new mechanic and because it explicitly requires <> to activate anyway, so the design of the card comes off as more elegant.
It would have been so much easier if they had just released a card with reminder text!
a few years ago, wizards cleared up a lot of ambiguity with their wordings. "play" became "cast" for spells, and "in play" became "on the battlefield" being the most important.
one that they didn't fix then, though, was {1}. adding {1} to your mana pool is much different than paying {1} as a cost. The first is adding colorless mana, the second is paying generic mana. I think this is wizards' attempt to fix that. {1} is now always going to mean generic mana, and {<>} will always mean colorless mana. While this is a flavorful plane to make this change, it is not Eldrazi dependant, and will persist into all Magic sets.
assuming, of course, that any of these pictures are even real in the first place.
I think the diamond is going to be only used only on colerless spells. So the diamond can't be used on 2R spell (unless it is devoid) but can be used on a 5 spell.
Thoughts?
I'd suggest the Diamond Mana symbol acts exactly like a normal mana symbol in the sense that it denotes a mandate.
Just like 2R can be paid as RRR, 1RR, or 2R (but it has to have at least R in it)
I doubt there will be any other restrictions such as you described.
There are a few tweaks to the rules that probably need to be made, but this seems to be fairly intuitive once you know what the diamond stands for.
a few years ago, wizards cleared up a lot of ambiguity with their wordings. "play" became "cast" for spells, and "in play" became "on the battlefield" being the most important.
one that they didn't fix then, though, was {1}. adding {1} to your mana pool is much different than paying {1} as a cost. The first is adding colorless mana, the second is paying generic mana. I think this is wizards' attempt to fix that. {1} is now always going to mean generic mana, and {<>} will always mean colorless mana. While this is a flavorful plane to make this change, it is not Eldrazi dependant, and will persist into all Magic sets.
assuming, of course, that any of these pictures are even real in the first place.
Wow, that actually sounds plausible, and explains Mirrorpool tapping for <>... the first ability actually is tapping for colorless mana.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Agreed. It could still be "colorless only for colorless spells", like Shrine of the Forsaken Gods
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
I hear that, from a flavor stand point. But none of the big themes in BFZ benefited from these basics. THAT SAID - I wish this would've been developed over two sets rather than one, but if it works out well enough, we'll be salivating for more Zendikar and the re-emergence of colorless basics.
Could just be to highlight it as a new mechanic. It is still an unresolved issue, but I doubt they'd completely abandon "colorless matters" for a parasitic sixth color.
Worth noting that this probably makes the colorless lands of BFZ go up in draft value, since they're basically just Wastes with upside.
Cubetutor Link
WUBR Breya, Thopter Sculptor
WBR Kaalia, Harbinger of the Apocalypse
WBR Edgar Markov, Bloodline Progenitor
BGW Karador, Reanimator King
GWU Jenara, Asuran Enchantress
URG Riku, Omniscient Wizard
UBG Tasigur, Mind Grinder
UB Grimgrin, Combo-Stitched
GW Rhys, Gilt-Leaf Warrior
B Drana, Defiant Bloodchief
U Baral, Lord of Counterspells
G Azusa, Seeking the Horizon
W Kemba, Kha of the White Sun
C Ulamog, the Mana Glutton
I'm inclined to believe it's not real because of the lack of reminder text.
- In a cost, you must pay using colorless. Other sources of colorless mana will work, but colored mana won't.
- When produced, you may spend it only on colorless costs. You can use it to cast colored cards, but not for colored costs.
For example, you can play Dark Confidant by paying <>B. Similarly, you could play Kozilek using 10. But you can't cast Kozilek using BBBBBBBBBB.
I can't see Mirrorpool explicitly tapping to add eldrazi mana instead of colorless if that was the case. Why restrict it? Theres so little reason to have it add "worse colorless" mana when colorless is already a sufficient drawback.Its much more likely that barrys land produces an exclusive 6th mana type, handled the same way snow mana was, than to assume that <> can only be paid in colorless and things that add <> can only be used to pay colorless. Thats needless rules complication and wouldn't require symbols in the first place. That makes it a "better colorless", like snow mana.
The net result is that the colorless lands of BFZ arent wastes with upsides, since they wouldn't produce eldrazi mana
If I thought it might be a ***** mechanic that might not go over well that is EXACTLY where I'd put it.
WUBRGPauper Battle BoxWUBRG ... and why I am not a fan of Wayne Reynolds' Illustrations.
The Merciless Lord of Torture, Permanently Bound To: ">[THE PACK] 11/5/63 - 11/25/09 Goodbye mom, i'll always love you...
Tibalt & His Devils vs. Avacyn's Inquisitors
My EDH decklists
By either interpretation, no. This would still be colorless mana, and wouldn't help converge at all. There would still be only 5 colors and only 5 basic land types
Before people start comparing this to snow-land: it is not the same thing. If it is a new color, it has to be unique in the color pie, snow colors were still associated with magic 5 colors and therefore did not need to be unique.
Read my other stories as well (some ongoing):
Reaper King (a horror story), Kaalia of the Vast (an origin story), Sequels for Innistrad (Alternative sequels for Inn), Grey Areas (Odric's fanfic), Royal Succession (goblins),The Tracker's Message (eldrazi on Innistrad) and Ugin and his Eye (the end of OGW).
Thoughts?
Are you designing commons? Check out my primer on NWO.
Interested in making a custom set? Check out my Set skeleton and archetype primer.
I also write articles about getting started with custom card creation.
Go and PLAYTEST your designs, you will learn more in a single playtests than a dozen discussions.
My custom sets:
Dreamscape
Coins of Mercalis [COMPLETE]
Exodus of Zendikar - ON HOLD
Well theres a problem to expanding the color pie- the color pie only exists because wizards diviied up their existing mechanics; they explored the mechanics first, then sorted them into colors. They try to come up with all the neat interesting new abilities they can, could they really add a whole new slice of pie with a new niche when they've already covered so much ground in 5 colors?
I imagine this eldrazi mana will have themes to it, but it won't be anywhere as fully developed as red/blue/black/green/white
There are a few differences though. Snow mana was a supertype imposed onto a special cycle of basic lands, while Eldrazi mana has its own specific land. People have been clamoring for "Barry's Land" forever, so tying a sixth color to something that flavorfully embodies colorlessness defeats the purpose. Also, snow mana had a whole set dedicated to it, while BFZ has been pushing "colorless matters" as the central Eldrazi mechanic. Can't just abandon that wholesale in the last set.
My assumption is that <> costs can only be paid for with colorless mana. That means Island, Tundra, etc can't produce <>, but Adarkar Wastes can. It's an odd dynamic since Tundra has been strictly better than Adarkar Wastes for forever, but there's no technical reason why they can't do this in the rules. As to why Mirrorpool explicitly produces <>, I would assume to promote it as a new mechanic and because it explicitly requires <> to activate anyway, so the design of the card comes off as more elegant.
It would have been so much easier if they had just released a card with reminder text!
Cubetutor Link
one that they didn't fix then, though, was {1}. adding {1} to your mana pool is much different than paying {1} as a cost. The first is adding colorless mana, the second is paying generic mana. I think this is wizards' attempt to fix that. {1} is now always going to mean generic mana, and {<>} will always mean colorless mana. While this is a flavorful plane to make this change, it is not Eldrazi dependant, and will persist into all Magic sets.
assuming, of course, that any of these pictures are even real in the first place.
I'd suggest the Diamond Mana symbol acts exactly like a normal mana symbol in the sense that it denotes a mandate.
Just like 2R can be paid as RRR, 1RR, or 2R (but it has to have at least R in it)
I doubt there will be any other restrictions such as you described.
There are a few tweaks to the rules that probably need to be made, but this seems to be fairly intuitive once you know what the diamond stands for.
Wow, that actually sounds plausible, and explains Mirrorpool tapping for <>... the first ability actually is tapping for colorless mana.