"BAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWW YOU'RE DUMBING DOWN THE GAME!!!"
Actually they are making a more confusing idea now. They aren't dumbing down the idea they are just now making it harder to cast spells. Imagine with me for a moment if they decided that all artifacts in the future must now have this new symbol in their mana cost and the only way you can cast artifacts is if you control a wasteland. No longer would artifacts be easy to cast in all colours. Surely such a change doesn't make sense since colourless artifacts were originally designed to be used by any colour and not restricted to any specific land type.
Ok, I imagined. Scary. But that's not going to happen. <> will probably be used sparingly in casting cost. The new basic land maybe makes it seem like it's going to be used a lot, but aside from OGW where it might be used to a moderate degree, the new basic land's existence is probably mostly just to throw Commander players a bone.
"BAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWW YOU'RE DUMBING DOWN THE GAME!!!"
Actually they are making a more confusing idea now. They aren't dumbing down the idea they are just now making it harder to cast spells. Imagine with me for a moment if they decided that all artifacts in the future must now have this new symbol in their mana cost and the only way you can cast artifacts is if you control a wasteland. No longer would artifacts be easy to cast in all colours. Surely such a change doesn't make sense since colourless artifacts were originally designed to be used by any colour and not restricted to any specific land type.
I don't see how your hypothetical situation is relevant to the hypothetical situation that <> is replacing {1} on things that generate colorless mana and a <> mana symbol in a cost must be paid for with colorless mana.
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.
Why? They issued errata on all modal spells ever when Khans of Tarkir was released, errataed a ton of cards to have Menace when Origins came out, and so on. Not to mention the fact that Dragons of Tarkir slipped in a new type of morph that was retroactively affected by all things that affected morph.
Khans of Tarkir was the first set of a new block, Magic Origins was the last core set. The major overhauls we've had were always tied to the start of a block or new years core set, because sets in a block are developed side by side to work with each other. We're not saying it would be illogical for wizards to obsolete the cards from Khans or Magic Origins when the new template is introduced in BFZ, but its illogical for them to introduce it in OGW rather than BFZ, because that means they knowingly printed the first set of the block to be inconsistent with the new rules introduced in the second set of the block.
Thats the timing issue thats inconsistent with the theory. Why would they delay this change to halfway through a block? What purpose would that serve? BFZ is supposed to be a colorless matters set, and had tons of colorless mana producers. Then suddenly it would be rendered obsolete and there would be no new printings of the BFZ cards that need to be updated with the new template? The oracle text for them would all change? Wizards have no reason to do that
Contrast the scenario where this is a neo-snow mechanic. While thematically its sad it couldn't be printed on a card like kozilek's channeler, it makes perfect sense mechanically- this new mana symbol would be an exclusive set mechanic of OGW, like snow was in coldsnap / ice age. It couldn't be printed in BFZ without carrying over the rules baggage.
*gasp* You mean Wizards isn't allowed to do unprecedented things and has to stick to patterns? How shocking!
The word "coincidence" exists for a reason. I'm not saying it definitely isn't a hedron, but you have no proof that it is a hedron either.
Nobody here has proof one way or the other. All I have is evidence and logic. And I've made a point of exploring what is consistent and what is inconsistent with the competing theories. I have no personal subjective care either way, if anything, I'd be predisposed to be biased against parasitic mechanics, but thats irrelevant to my analysis of what this is. We have to explore what evidence we have for whether this is a new snow style mechanic, or a grand overhaul of colorless mana. The former is consistent and elegant, the latter is messy and has all sorts of troubles in terms of its flavor, its timing and errata and the necessity to do it in the first place.
Theres a whole bunch of good reasons to doubt this is widescale errata, but I haven't heard any good reasons to imagine its not snow 2.0
Well, I must have missed the "evidence and logic" you provided that concludes that the symbol is a hedron. All I saw was you posting two pictures of things that look slightly similar. Not to mention that I and others have provided "evidence and logic" that this is not snow 2.0, which you seem to just ignore. Are you sure you don't have feelings one way or the other? Because it really seems that you do.
So, as a new basic land that produces only clorless mana, it was clearly stated by, I believe, Aaron Forsythe, that they had figured out how to do a colorless basic land, but it would take the right circumstance to put it into the game. Plenty of people, including on these very forums, debated about it being released in a colorless Commander pre-con vs. a normal release. Not only does this symbol now give them the basic land that has been desired in Commander for awhile (Evolving Wilds, Terramorphic Expanse, et al now being usable in colorless Commander decks), it also provides a deep mechanical depth to explore (cards requiring non-color mana). This makes complete and total sense to me and I absolutely 'got it' the second I saw the 3 spoilers.
<> in costs is going to mean "Pay only with one colorless mana".
<> in mana producers is going to mean "One colorless mana"
Tap: add 1 is not going to be phased out. Tap: add <> will only be used in this set, and future sets with <> in costs, as an aesthetic indication that those cards can pay for <> costs. It means the same thing as Tap: add 1, but clarifies for newer players that those cards can pay for <> in costs.
There's no reason to assume a massive change to the entire game when a simple aesthetic decision that effects a single set is just as likely.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
*Insert giant block of annoying garbage that no one cares about but you have to scroll past anyway here*
Well, if we're looking for precedent there is always the classic example of "can block as though it has flying" becoming "reach" mid block....
Thornweald Archer was a future-shifted card, showing off possible future mechanics. It was fully implemented the next set. The errata and rules weren't changed during Future Sight, just as Orbs of Warding doesn't currently give you Absorb 1.
Well, I must have missed the "evidence and logic" you provided that concludes that the symbol is a hedron. All I saw was you posting two pictures of things that look slightly similar.
Seeing isn't seeing?
Not to mention that I and others have provided "evidence and logic" that this is not snow 2.0, which you seem to just ignore. Are you sure you don't have feelings one way or the other? Because it really seems that you do.
I'm all open ears to arguments of why snow 2.0 wouldn't be consistent with whats been spoiled so far. The only criticism I've seen leveled at it so far is "Its parasitic", which would be perfectly true. I pointed that out myself, so I don't get how you think I'm ignoring evidence against it. Theres numerous ways the colorless overhaul theory aren't easy to reconcile, as I elaborated here.
I'm quite indifferent to which one turns out to be true. I'm perfectly aware by some stroke of miracle my conclusion could be wrong, but my analysis is just a rational conclusion of the weight of evidence, which clearly favors one theory over the other. I'm going to bet on the pocket aces, not the two-seven off-suit.
I certainly have feelings to express to people who don't base their conclusions on logic and evidence but muh feels instead, however. The raspberry kind
It's not an errata, it's a templating change, like changing "can block as though it had flying" to "Reach"
Changing the templating is a form of errata. It means that if kozilek's channeler was printed with the same wording and symbols in OGW as it was in BFZ, then it would be erroneous and have invalid and meaningless rules text under the imagined changed. Prior cards like channeler there would have to be updated to the new "Add <><>" template, their oracle text and symbols would change to reflect this.
Its like printing Lords in Lorwyn and pushing the creature type update to Shadowmoor, it would make no sense, you'd be errataing cards you just printed in the same block with new oracle text.
It's not going to be used on all artifacts or anything crazy. It might be used evergreen, though, to make extra powerful colorless cards. Its just an extra tool to play with.
As for kozi, I doubt he's as good for reanimated as Iona.
Still do exactly what is written on the card no matter if reach is keyworded or not, which is not the case if they replace 1 with <>.
wat, just wat. <> and 1 would be exactly the same thing as far as mana producing is concerned, and that's what being argued.
One of the arguments I keep hearing in favour of ◊ becoming the colourless symbol is that 1 means something different if it is in the casting cost (generic mana) or if it is added to the mana pool (colourless mana). To say that after ◊ becomes the colourless mana symbol, that "Add ◊ to your mana pool." and "Add 1 to your mana pool." mean the same thing is saying that this change is essentially useless.
Making ◊ the new colourless symbol must mean something, because unlike a keyword like reach or scry, it doesn't save any text space (it's actually longer in certain cases, such as replacing 2 with ◊◊). And if that change is meaningful, that means that the BFZ cards using 1 or 2 for colourless symbols do not function properly anymore.
Actually they are making a more confusing idea now. They aren't dumbing down the idea they are just now making it harder to cast spells. Imagine with me for a moment if they decided that all artifacts in the future must now have this new symbol in their mana cost and the only way you can cast artifacts is if you control a wasteland. No longer would artifacts be easy to cast in all colours. Surely such a change doesn't make sense since colourless artifacts were originally designed to be used by any colour and not restricted to any specific land type.
And here you gave a perfect example of issue, that will be solved by new mana symbol. It will remove inconsistency of 1 - currently it means either production of 1 colorless mana by mana abilities, or cost of 1 any mana in costs. So, introducing <> will not change functionality of any already existing card, but will allow WoTC to create cards with colorless-only mana costs.
I've never met any new player dumb enough to not understand how colorless mana works. Is this really an issue? Brave new world.
I second this. Most players who don't get that are fundamentally unable to understand MTG in the first place. I'll be honest, I've been saying it's probably fake because I'm hoping that it is. This game seems to be getting worse and worse. BFZ was borderline unplayable for me because of all the parasitic mechanics, and now they introduce this pseudo-sixth color gimmick, as well as possibly continuing to pander to the lowest common denominator with this <> stuff being used for colorless mana. If this is real, I might skip this set or take a break from the game entirely.
"Hey guys, we're introducing a different symbol that has zero changes on the gameplay but will make some things easier for newer players to understand."
"BAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWW YOU'RE DUMBING DOWN THE GAME!!!"
They've been dumbing the game down since Lorwyn, but it has only reached levels of nearly unbearable around roughly Theros. This <> symbol is more of a hint of what is to come and historically has happened, which is dull, uninspired standard formats. Make a strawman comment if you want, all it does is make you sound rediculous.
I seriously think people are overestimating how much of an issue seeing both together will be. I do agree, they should have done this in BfZ. But they didn't, hopefully for good reasons.
Well, I must have missed the "evidence and logic" you provided that concludes that the symbol is a hedron. All I saw was you posting two pictures of things that look slightly similar.
Seeing isn't seeing?
Alright, let's go with that. I see an 8-sided four-point star, and a 4-sided square rotated 45 degrees. If you squint and fuzz your eyes, they kinda look similar. But does that make the symbol definitively a hedron? Please provide your logic and evidence in concluding this is likely a hedron and not just two shapes that are slightly similar if you don't look too closely.
It is good to point that despite the fact that a huge number of cards would be affected by the change from "add 1" to "add <>", it wouldn't be a FUNCTIONAL change. It is a mere aesthethic change. A Sol Ring that adds <><> instead of 2 would still work the exactly same way it has always worked.
Why make such an important change on the second set instead of the first one? Well, surely it would help to spread the change if it was on the first set, but there are other factors to take in account, such as flavor. This land indicates a possible tip on the scale in the favor of the Eldrazi, so they thought it would be more flavorful to include it on the second set.
<> will most likely become evergreen (what doesn't mean every set will have cards with <> costs)
I think tap for 1 to you mana pool has to be phased out. Otherwise you're making a 7th type of mana that is not colored or colorless. It's just mana or some sort. The change of just making colorless mana have a symbol doesn't do that. It just makes cards that require colorless mana to be cast or have abilities activated
I agree. And those changes weren't made in the middle of a block where cards are drafted with the old wording.
I keep seeing this brought up a lot, but don't forget that the change to 2-set blocks meant they had to vastly change the design of the set. If the block was originally to be 3 sets, the third set could very well have been a large set, introducing the new colorless mana template. But with the change to the block setup, they had to do it now.
Well, I must have missed the "evidence and logic" you provided that concludes that the symbol is a hedron. All I saw was you posting two pictures of things that look slightly similar.
Seeing isn't seeing?
Alright, let's go with that. I see an 8-sided four-point star, and a 4-sided square rotated 45 degrees. If you squint and fuzz your eyes, they kinda look similar. But does that make the symbol definitively a hedron? Please provide your logic and evidence in concluding this is likely a hedron and not just two shapes that are slightly similar if you don't look too closely.
Okay, they have nearly identical silhouettes, wizards has established that the hedrons are diagonally shaped symmetric structures (a diamond is a square rotated 45 degrees and sometimes skewed), the diamond has been used as the basis for every set symbol on the zendikar plane, because it references the hedrons, the hedrons are inherently connected flavorwise with the eldrazi, the kozilek brood is defined by its stark angular symmetric protrusions, which as per artisan of kozilek, kozilek's channeler, broodwarden, dread drone, it that betrays, generally take a diamond (or half diamond) shape. Stylizing this into a slightly curved fourfold symmetry on the mana symbol is hardly a stretch, considering set symbol is a stylized variation on kozilek's lineage.
Now I believe you had some examples of how the snow 2.0 theory was inconsistent with the evidence to present?
I will post a video of me burning a MM15 Mox Opal if this ◊ ends up becoming the new colourless symbol and old cards like Sol Ring get new oracle text using it.
I will post a video of me burning a MM15 Mox Opal if this ends up becoming the new colourless symbol and old cards like Sol Ring get new oracle text using it.
if you are that intent on punishing yourself for being wrong, how about you just sell it and donate the money to a good charity? Or, you know, don't. This isn't that big of a deal either way.
C'mon. Do you really think it's more likely that they made "Eldrazi mana" so that every card that uses it will be utterly unplayable outside the context of this one set?
Ok, I imagined. Scary. But that's not going to happen. <> will probably be used sparingly in casting cost. The new basic land maybe makes it seem like it's going to be used a lot, but aside from OGW where it might be used to a moderate degree, the new basic land's existence is probably mostly just to throw Commander players a bone.
I don't see how your hypothetical situation is relevant to the hypothetical situation that <> is replacing {1} on things that generate colorless mana and a <> mana symbol in a cost must be paid for with colorless mana.
*gasp* You mean Wizards isn't allowed to do unprecedented things and has to stick to patterns? How shocking!
Well, I must have missed the "evidence and logic" you provided that concludes that the symbol is a hedron. All I saw was you posting two pictures of things that look slightly similar. Not to mention that I and others have provided "evidence and logic" that this is not snow 2.0, which you seem to just ignore. Are you sure you don't have feelings one way or the other? Because it really seems that you do.
<> in costs is going to mean "Pay only with one colorless mana".
<> in mana producers is going to mean "One colorless mana"
Tap: add 1 is not going to be phased out. Tap: add <> will only be used in this set, and future sets with <> in costs, as an aesthetic indication that those cards can pay for <> costs. It means the same thing as Tap: add 1, but clarifies for newer players that those cards can pay for <> in costs.
There's no reason to assume a massive change to the entire game when a simple aesthetic decision that effects a single set is just as likely.
Thornweald Archer was a future-shifted card, showing off possible future mechanics. It was fully implemented the next set. The errata and rules weren't changed during Future Sight, just as Orbs of Warding doesn't currently give you Absorb 1.
Seeing isn't seeing?
I'm all open ears to arguments of why snow 2.0 wouldn't be consistent with whats been spoiled so far. The only criticism I've seen leveled at it so far is "Its parasitic", which would be perfectly true. I pointed that out myself, so I don't get how you think I'm ignoring evidence against it. Theres numerous ways the colorless overhaul theory aren't easy to reconcile, as I elaborated here.
I'm quite indifferent to which one turns out to be true. I'm perfectly aware by some stroke of miracle my conclusion could be wrong, but my analysis is just a rational conclusion of the weight of evidence, which clearly favors one theory over the other. I'm going to bet on the pocket aces, not the two-seven off-suit.
I certainly have feelings to express to people who don't base their conclusions on logic and evidence but muh feels instead, however. The raspberry kind
Changing the templating is a form of errata. It means that if kozilek's channeler was printed with the same wording and symbols in OGW as it was in BFZ, then it would be erroneous and have invalid and meaningless rules text under the imagined changed. Prior cards like channeler there would have to be updated to the new "Add <><>" template, their oracle text and symbols would change to reflect this.
Its like printing Lords in Lorwyn and pushing the creature type update to Shadowmoor, it would make no sense, you'd be errataing cards you just printed in the same block with new oracle text.
As for kozi, I doubt he's as good for reanimated as Iona.
Making ◊ the new colourless symbol must mean something, because unlike a keyword like reach or scry, it doesn't save any text space (it's actually longer in certain cases, such as replacing 2 with ◊◊). And if that change is meaningful, that means that the BFZ cards using 1 or 2 for colourless symbols do not function properly anymore.
And here you gave a perfect example of issue, that will be solved by new mana symbol. It will remove inconsistency of 1 - currently it means either production of 1 colorless mana by mana abilities, or cost of 1 any mana in costs. So, introducing <> will not change functionality of any already existing card, but will allow WoTC to create cards with colorless-only mana costs.
it makes the same sense that changing the four different uses of "play" to four different words made. it's clearing up ambiguity.
Alright, let's go with that. I see an 8-sided four-point star, and a 4-sided square rotated 45 degrees. If you squint and fuzz your eyes, they kinda look similar. But does that make the symbol definitively a hedron? Please provide your logic and evidence in concluding this is likely a hedron and not just two shapes that are slightly similar if you don't look too closely.
Why make such an important change on the second set instead of the first one? Well, surely it would help to spread the change if it was on the first set, but there are other factors to take in account, such as flavor. This land indicates a possible tip on the scale in the favor of the Eldrazi, so they thought it would be more flavorful to include it on the second set.
<> will most likely become evergreen (what doesn't mean every set will have cards with <> costs)
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 keep seeing this brought up a lot, but don't forget that the change to 2-set blocks meant they had to vastly change the design of the set. If the block was originally to be 3 sets, the third set could very well have been a large set, introducing the new colorless mana template. But with the change to the block setup, they had to do it now.
Okay, they have nearly identical silhouettes, wizards has established that the hedrons are diagonally shaped symmetric structures (a diamond is a square rotated 45 degrees and sometimes skewed), the diamond has been used as the basis for every set symbol on the zendikar plane, because it references the hedrons, the hedrons are inherently connected flavorwise with the eldrazi, the kozilek brood is defined by its stark angular symmetric protrusions, which as per artisan of kozilek, kozilek's channeler, broodwarden, dread drone, it that betrays, generally take a diamond (or half diamond) shape. Stylizing this into a slightly curved fourfold symmetry on the mana symbol is hardly a stretch, considering set symbol is a stylized variation on kozilek's lineage.
Now I believe you had some examples of how the snow 2.0 theory was inconsistent with the evidence to present?
I will post a video of me burning a MM15 Mox Opal if this ◊ ends up becoming the new colourless symbol and old cards like Sol Ring get new oracle text using it.
if you are that intent on punishing yourself for being wrong, how about you just sell it and donate the money to a good charity? Or, you know, don't. This isn't that big of a deal either way.
It had "T: Add diamond to your mana pool."
It also had "2, T:" for each of its activated abilities.
This effectively confirms diamond is going to act like Snow Mana but done right.