@Yatsufusa: The "sixth color" would not be "true colorless", it would be Eldrazi Flavored Colorless.
In mana abilities, has meant "1 colorless mana" for a long time. It's both a pity (design space) and a blessing (simplicity) that it looks the same as a generic mana cost.
The name doesn't actually affect the questions, though. Why is Colorless mana unable to pay for Eldrazi Flavored Colorless? Simply because there are two types of Colorless now? Flavor can justify anything, so Eldrazi Colorless being "superior" simply means mechanically, one type of colorless is superior to another just for the sake of being superior, without the distinction of a type/color identity like other colors for Commander?
For a "superior" version of Colorless, Eldrazi Flavored Colorless doesn't carry any "benefits" like actual colors, it has no "identity" in the color pie which means it is completely the same as Normal Colorless in that aspect. It's basically a 6th color for the sake of being a 6th color, with the restrictions but none of the "benefits".
For all of you who think <> should be a "6th Color" entirely in function (meaning 1 can't pay for <>), what do we call 1 when it is produced now?
As a cost 1 will always remain as "Generic Mana Cost", because Generic means "can be paid for by any type of mana".
We can't call 1 when produced Generic, because it doesn't hold that meaning (nothing can). We can't call 1 Colorless either, because that belongs to <>.
If instead, we name <> as let's say "True Colorless" and continue calling 1 Colorless, what is the rationale behind Colorless not being able to pay for True Colorless costs, when they're both Colorless? Is "True Colorless" a "sub-type" of Colorless and for what purpose is it for other than restricting costs (which makes the mechanic parasitic)? Mechanically what decides that a Colorless card (or even a colored card) requires a "True Colorless" cost instead of a Generic Mana Cost?
On MTGO, they do kinda address this: when you tap mana, you don't just add generic mana if you tap say a forest and an island. The game shows that you have added one green mana pip and one blue pip to your pool. MTGO also has a colorless mana indicator, so if you use the painless option on Caves of Koilos, then a greyish pip appears in your mana pool. So in effect, Wizards is attempting to use this mindset in paperform. Even though we use the term generic when we play, technically each land is adding one mana of a color it could produce. so the new <> symbol will just be the colorless indicator.
Other than that Tron runs colorless mana, and <> is colorless mana?
Beside the fact that Wastes would be seachable with Evolving Wilds?
Because it's a basic land and thus immune to the plethora of cards that target non-basic lands, like, oh, IDK, Blood Moon? Crumble To Dust? Surgical Extraction and Extirpation to name just a handful?
Well, other than those, I guess I couldn't tell you why Tron would want to run Wastes.
Silly me.
Are you for real? Have you ever played Modern Tron?
Modern tron isn't interested in evolving wilds, and until the <> symbol, there has been no benefit of running colorless mana sources over colored ones. Every land Tron plays already does at least what Wastes does. In the current Tron build, Wastes would have strictly less functionality than literally any other land in the deck. It isn't part of the tron, it doesn't fix for mana, and it currently has zero upside over a basic mountain, forest, or island.
The only way Wastes becomes playable in Tron is if a) it's the best source of <> mana and b) <>-costing spells are actually needed in that deck.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Formerly Angrypossum over at the now-defunct WotC forums.
Just like we know on a Forest that even though it no longer T:add G to you mana pool and just has a big tree on it Wastes just has a <> and all sources that used to have t: add one colorless mana to you mana pool will now just have t: add <> to you mana pool
Just assuming the new symbol isn't pay only with colorless, it would be far more parasitic than snow. They'd both be small set mechanics but snow was the major one in cold snap. It also had 15 sources, 12 of which were colored producing. Half the sources even color fixed and it was still considered too parasitic. This new mana wouldn't have the luxury of being paired with colored most likely since the eldrazi are explicitly colorless and I highly doubt they can devote anywhere near 15 sources considering it's a minor theme in a small set that's bound to continue a big set's themes too. It would be pretty close to wastes or bust unless they drastically warp the set for it.
<> as new element, whether it's just excluding colored mana being used in those costs, or a new look to colorless mana symbol? we'll see.
but is this going to be "from now on" or just in OGW? i think the latter, as it's tied already to Eldrazi and very themed.
As an enduring colorless deck enabler, why should wotc give support to mono-colorless when they they have veered away from monocolor? rdw is the last vestige of strong mono decks. this lends credit to the OGW only theory, just to help push eldrazi and colorless matters
I don't play Tron, no. But I suppose you can explain the discussions I've seen about what lands in Tron to replace with Wastes? Because Blood Moon and others are a thing Tron has to contend with.
It doesn't take a genius to see that Crumble To Dust is a magic bullet aimed directly at Tron.
Other than that Tron runs colorless mana, and <> is colorless mana?
Beside the fact that Wastes would be seachable with Evolving Wilds?
Because it's a basic land and thus immune to the plethora of cards that target non-basic lands, like, oh, IDK, Blood Moon? Crumble To Dust? Surgical Extraction and Extirpation to name just a handful?
Well, other than those, I guess I couldn't tell you why Tron would want to run Wastes.
Silly me.
Apart from producing colourless mana, all those things are also true for a Forest, and a forest can help the deck cast cards like Sylvan Scrying. Wouldn't a forest just be better than a Waste?
Just like we know on a Forest that even though it no longer T:add G to you mana pool and just has a big tree on it Wastes just has a <> and all sources that used to have t: add one colorless mana to you mana pool will now just have t: add <> to you mana pool
This^^^
They made Wastes a basic land; they made it as basic as can be with no type. no other basic land has specific text for specific purposes. No other basic swamp has 'add B to your pool. spend this only for [insert restricton]. If it did have any other text than adding one colorless, it would be considered nonbasic.
<> as new element, whether it's just excluding colored mana being used in those costs, or a new look to colorless mana symbol? we'll see.
but is this going to be "from now on" or just in OGW? i think the latter, as it's tied already to Eldrazi and very themed.
As an enduring colorless deck enabler, why should wotc give support to mono-colorless when they they have veered away from monocolor? rdw is the last vestige of strong mono decks. this lends credit to the OGW only theory, just to help push eldrazi and colorless matters
Except this is not a mechanic developed for OOTGW. It was developed due to a screaming demand from EDH, and Battle for Zendikar block, with the El-drazi that destroy lands, is the best (only?) place for it to be introduced while still making sense story wise.
DudefromDenmark, do not associate the <> symbol solely with El-drazi. Associate it with true colorless mana, as differentiated from the generic mana we have seen in the past.
Haven´t thought about it in that way. I hope this is true
Just like we know on a Forest that even though it no longer T:add G to you mana pool and just has a big tree on it Wastes just has a <> and all sources that used to have t: add one colorless mana to you mana pool will now just have t: add <> to you mana pool
I can see them doing it one of three ways.
1. "T: Add <> to your mana pool" is an inherit ability of the card "Wastes". As far as I know, this would be the first time a card would have an inherit ability based soley on it's name.
2. A basic land with no sub-types has "T: Add <> to your mana pool" by default. Forest, Plains, Island, Swamp, and Mountain do not have this ability because they have a basic land type.
3. The card "Wastes" just has "T: Add <> to your mana pool" as an ability. It isn't tied to the name, or being a basic land. It is just a part of the card.
This is guess though. Either way, some rules will need to be changed to make Wastes do something.
I don't play Tron, no. But I suppose you can explain the discussions I've seen about what lands in Tron to replace with Wastes? Because Blood Moon and others are a thing Tron has to contend with.
It doesn't take a genius to see that Crumble To Dust is a magic bullet aimed directly at Tron.
Tron runs Tron. That's the deck's namesake. Surely you aren't suggesting that it cut the Tron lands in favor of basics? And if it's not cutting back on the Tron-lands, what the hell do you actually thing Wastes does in defending against nonbasic-hate?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Formerly Angrypossum over at the now-defunct WotC forums.
I don't play Tron, no. But I suppose you can explain the discussions I've seen about what lands in Tron to replace with Wastes? Because Blood Moon and others are a thing Tron has to contend with.
It doesn't take a genius to see that Crumble To Dust is a magic bullet aimed directly at Tron.
Makes me wonder when we'll see one aimed at Twin.
wasn't rending volley printed as an answer to twin?
Lol Oath is the supplementary set to BFZ, of course there's an advancement to "Colorless matters". It's a very simple act of progression, like how one moves from addition in math to subtraction, product and division. C'mon loosen up and use some sense people.
Remember Morph in KtK? Then Manifest, and finally Megamorph.
Do not worry Wizards have got your backs with something easy to grok. This is groundbreaking, we know. The fundamentals of Magic is the colors and the mana system will not get some universal shift. It will be exactly as it says.
I think it will have Kozilek's piece of the color pie, which so far looks a lot like Grixis.
As for why it's superior, that would be spoooooky ineffable Eldrazi/Kozilek reasons, but if I had to make a bet, it seems to have something to do with Kozilek's "fractal bismuth" transformation of the land.
Okay, maybe I didn't spell it quite clearly the first time round (in the part you didn't quote) - Flavor can be used to justify anything, which is why it is not a valid justification for a mechanical aspect, definitely not for one as core as introducing a new mana symbol with a basic land accompanying it.
I don't play Tron, no. But I suppose you can explain the discussions I've seen about what lands in Tron to replace with Wastes? Because Blood Moon and others are a thing Tron has to contend with.
It doesn't take a genius to see that Crumble To Dust is a magic bullet aimed directly at Tron.
Makes me wonder when we'll see one aimed at Twin.
wasn't rending volley printed as an answer to twin?
Pretty lame magic bullet. If they want a magic bullet for Twin, they really ought to do something like reprint Propaganda so it is Modern legal. Of course, you could run Leyline of Singularity. That does a pretty bang up job of stopping Twin.
For all of you who think <> should be a "6th Color" entirely in function (meaning 1 can't pay for <>), what do we call 1 when it is produced now?
As a cost 1 will always remain as "Generic Mana Cost", because Generic means "can be paid for by any type of mana".
We can't call 1 when produced Generic, because it doesn't hold that meaning (nothing can). We can't call 1 Colorless either, because that belongs to <>.
If instead, we name <> as let's say "True Colorless" and continue calling 1 Colorless, what is the rationale behind Colorless not being able to pay for True Colorless costs, when they're both Colorless? Is "True Colorless" a "sub-type" of Colorless and for what purpose is it for other than restricting costs (which makes the mechanic parasitic)? Mechanically what decides that a Colorless card (or even a colored card) requires a "True Colorless" cost instead of a Generic Mana Cost?
On MTGO, they do kinda address this: when you tap mana, you don't just add generic mana if you tap say a forest and an island. The game shows that you have added one green mana pip and one blue pip to your pool. MTGO also has a colorless mana indicator, so if you use the painless option on Caves of Koilos, then a greyish pip appears in your mana pool. So in effect, Wizards is attempting to use this mindset in paperform. Even though we use the term generic when we play, technically each land is adding one mana of a color it could produce. so the new <> symbol will just be the colorless indicator.
Generic is only used when referring to costs. When produced by a mana ability, it has always been 1 Colorless Mana, represented by the greyish pip in MTGO and the unfortunate same-symbol-as-Generic 1 on paper. The issue is if <> indicates colorless mana, it essentially is the greyish pip and the new 1 for 1 Colorless mana produced and therefore takes over them. But my questions are directed to those who deem 1 when produced are still a separate form of colorless mana different from <> colorless mana and therefore cannot be used to pay for <> costs.
Suggestion: The Supertype Basic now means that a land has the ability to tap for a mana, and the subtype determines what color that mana will be. No subtype indicates that the basic land will produce colorless mana.
For all of you who think <> should be a "6th Color" entirely in function (meaning 1 can't pay for <>), what do we call 1 when it is produced now?
As a cost 1 will always remain as "Generic Mana Cost", because Generic means "can be paid for by any type of mana".
We can't call 1 when produced Generic, because it doesn't hold that meaning (nothing can). We can't call 1 Colorless either, because that belongs to <>.
If instead, we name <> as let's say "True Colorless" and continue calling 1 Colorless, what is the rationale behind Colorless not being able to pay for True Colorless costs, when they're both Colorless? Is "True Colorless" a "sub-type" of Colorless and for what purpose is it for other than restricting costs (which makes the mechanic parasitic)? Mechanically what decides that a Colorless card (or even a colored card) requires a "True Colorless" cost instead of a Generic Mana Cost?
On MTGO, they do kinda address this: when you tap mana, you don't just add generic mana if you tap say a forest and an island. The game shows that you have added one green mana pip and one blue pip to your pool. MTGO also has a colorless mana indicator, so if you use the painless option on Caves of Koilos, then a greyish pip appears in your mana pool. So in effect, Wizards is attempting to use this mindset in paperform. Even though we use the term generic when we play, technically each land is adding one mana of a color it could produce. so the new <> symbol will just be the colorless indicator.
Generic is only used when referring to costs. When produced by a mana ability, it has always been 1 Colorless Mana, represented by the greyish pip in MTGO and the unfortunate same-symbol-as-Generic 1 on paper. The issue is if <> indicates colorless mana, it essentially is the greyish pip and the new 1 for 1 Colorless mana produced and therefore takes over them. But my questions are directed to those who deem 1 when produced are still a separate form of colorless mana different from <> colorless mana and therefore cannot be used to pay for <> costs.
Ah, I see what you mean now. They would be one the same, assuming <> is just the new symbol with no added text for that mana. So a colorless mana added by a Mind Stone or a Spawning Bed would be the same as one produced by Wastes.
I have seen it mentioned that now requiring colorless as a casting cost would allow for different designs on other colorless cards and artifacts, ex an Artifact costing 3<><> that has some superior abilities than one cost at 5.
I believe it's meant to make "colorless matters" more prominent as we seldom are required to specifically use colorless only.
Something i just noticed..... wastes, in the bottom left corner, indicates by the letter C that it is a commmon. looking at my bfz lands, they indicate with an L that they are lands.
This is a significant difference, because in the common slot, (36 packs per box) you will get 3 - 5 per box, whereas lands, you get 36 packs divided by 5, about 7 of each color land. With 6 lands in the land slot, you'd get 6 Wastes per box.
To joe blow, buying a box, one or 2 wastes makes no difference, but on the world wide scale, a common Wastes means a significant reduction in the number printed and available.
Considering the demand from EDH, this could be important.
or not, if Wizards prints extras to send to card shops for limited drafts.
At any rate, the foils will always have a high demand.
Still inviting people to consider the possibility that <> is not a new mana symbol representing colorless mana as we know it today.
I haven't yet heard an argument yet for why a <> cost cannot represent a cost with reminder text (<> can can be paid with any two mana or with <>). The only thing that's been said is that there's no reminder text on Kozilek or Mirrorpool. Which there isn't a precedent for considering mythic rarity didn't exist last time was printed (in Shadowmoor) and no mythics were printed that had .
A reminder of how this possibility would work:
- <> cost can be paid with any two mana or with <>.
- <> mana can pay for <> cost or 1.
- For example, in this possibility Kozilek, the Great Distortion could be paid with eight white mana and two <>, or with twelve white mana, or with 12.
I believe this is a reasonable possibility for a number of reasons:
- It's elegant in its simplicity.
- It does not cause mass oracle texting of any card that included colorless mana production in the past.
- It provides a solid reason why <> mana and the land that produce it exist--it rewards players for using <> mana by allowing a "reduced" cost.
- In the true spirit of a "colorless" card, this possibility allows all colors to still cast these spells and activate these abilities that have <> costs.
- It allows for <> to be a one-set mechanic, but generic enough that it could be brought back (like , , or ) or even made evergreen.
Ah, I see what you mean now. They would be one the same, assuming <> is just the new symbol with no added text for that mana. So a colorless mana added by a Mind Stone or a Spawning Bed would be the same as one produced by Wastes.
I have seen it mentioned that now requiring colorless as a casting cost would allow for different designs on other colorless cards and artifacts, ex an Artifact costing 3<><> that has some superior abilities than one cost at 5.
I believe it's meant to make "colorless matters" more prominent as we seldom are required to specifically use colorless only.
Yeah. Some people disagree with it because of various reasons, but I personally don't see any of those reasons (which include a power-increase on some dual lands, Wastes effectively being low-powered due to said increases and that massive errata would be needed) could justify the large amount of unnecessary complexity created by a "secondary" type of Colorless for the future of the game.
I've also spent quite the bit (in fact, probably too much) of thought on the subject, so I think this will be my last post here for a while, otherwise I would come up with clumsy posts and those will be no good for discussion/debate on the speculation.
Suggestion: The Supertype Basic now means that a land has the ability to tap for a mana, and the subtype determines what color that mana will be. No subtype indicates that the basic land will produce colorless mana.
Yes, pretty much this! The existence of Wastes as printed basically confirms that the <> symbol is the new symbol for one colorless mana. Wizards wouldn't have printed anything more complicated than this as a textless card that happens to be both brand new and a common in a regular booster pack. The mana ability must be linked directly to the basic supertype and the (in this case: lack of) subtype. And the clearest and simplest explanation is that it is colorless mana when it comes to the subtypeless Wastes.
Also, there are six types of mana, five of which (the five colors) have been produced by associated basic lands since Alpha. Now a sixth basic land is introduced. What is more likely? That it finally produces the sixth type of mana (colorless) or a new and narrow type of Eldrazi mana? Seriously, the former makes a hundred times more sense.
Suggestion: The Supertype Basic now means that a land has the ability to tap for a mana, and the subtype determines what color that mana will be. No subtype indicates that the basic land will produce colorless mana.
Problem: Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth would remove a Wastes' ability to tap for colorless.
Problem 2: The basic land types still need to be associated with the ability to tap for that color of mana so that nonbasic lands with basic land types work.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The name doesn't actually affect the questions, though. Why is Colorless mana unable to pay for Eldrazi Flavored Colorless? Simply because there are two types of Colorless now? Flavor can justify anything, so Eldrazi Colorless being "superior" simply means mechanically, one type of colorless is superior to another just for the sake of being superior, without the distinction of a type/color identity like other colors for Commander?
For a "superior" version of Colorless, Eldrazi Flavored Colorless doesn't carry any "benefits" like actual colors, it has no "identity" in the color pie which means it is completely the same as Normal Colorless in that aspect. It's basically a 6th color for the sake of being a 6th color, with the restrictions but none of the "benefits".
On MTGO, they do kinda address this: when you tap mana, you don't just add generic mana if you tap say a forest and an island. The game shows that you have added one green mana pip and one blue pip to your pool. MTGO also has a colorless mana indicator, so if you use the painless option on Caves of Koilos, then a greyish pip appears in your mana pool. So in effect, Wizards is attempting to use this mindset in paperform. Even though we use the term generic when we play, technically each land is adding one mana of a color it could produce. so the new <> symbol will just be the colorless indicator.
Are you for real? Have you ever played Modern Tron?
Modern tron isn't interested in evolving wilds, and until the <> symbol, there has been no benefit of running colorless mana sources over colored ones. Every land Tron plays already does at least what Wastes does. In the current Tron build, Wastes would have strictly less functionality than literally any other land in the deck. It isn't part of the tron, it doesn't fix for mana, and it currently has zero upside over a basic mountain, forest, or island.
The only way Wastes becomes playable in Tron is if a) it's the best source of <> mana and b) <>-costing spells are actually needed in that deck.
but is this going to be "from now on" or just in OGW? i think the latter, as it's tied already to Eldrazi and very themed.
As an enduring colorless deck enabler, why should wotc give support to mono-colorless when they they have veered away from monocolor? rdw is the last vestige of strong mono decks. this lends credit to the OGW only theory, just to help push eldrazi and colorless matters
It doesn't take a genius to see that Crumble To Dust is a magic bullet aimed directly at Tron.
Makes me wonder when we'll see one aimed at Twin.
Apart from producing colourless mana, all those things are also true for a Forest, and a forest can help the deck cast cards like Sylvan Scrying. Wouldn't a forest just be better than a Waste?
(And what Tron deck runs Evolving Wilds btw.?)
Cubetutor Peasant'ish-Funbox
Project: Khans of Tarkir Cube (cubetutor)
This^^^
They made Wastes a basic land; they made it as basic as can be with no type. no other basic land has specific text for specific purposes. No other basic swamp has 'add B to your pool. spend this only for [insert restricton]. If it did have any other text than adding one colorless, it would be considered nonbasic.
Except this is not a mechanic developed for OOTGW. It was developed due to a screaming demand from EDH, and Battle for Zendikar block, with the El-drazi that destroy lands, is the best (only?) place for it to be introduced while still making sense story wise.
Haven´t thought about it in that way. I hope this is true
I can see them doing it one of three ways.
1. "T: Add <> to your mana pool" is an inherit ability of the card "Wastes". As far as I know, this would be the first time a card would have an inherit ability based soley on it's name.
2. A basic land with no sub-types has "T: Add <> to your mana pool" by default. Forest, Plains, Island, Swamp, and Mountain do not have this ability because they have a basic land type.
3. The card "Wastes" just has "T: Add <> to your mana pool" as an ability. It isn't tied to the name, or being a basic land. It is just a part of the card.
This is guess though. Either way, some rules will need to be changed to make Wastes do something.
PucaTrade Invite. Sign up and enjoy the first 500 points ($5) free!
Crumble to Dust is nothing new; it's a slight upgrade to Sowing Salt.
Tron runs Tron. That's the deck's namesake. Surely you aren't suggesting that it cut the Tron lands in favor of basics? And if it's not cutting back on the Tron-lands, what the hell do you actually thing Wastes does in defending against nonbasic-hate?
wasn't rending volley printed as an answer to twin?
Remember Morph in KtK? Then Manifest, and finally Megamorph.
Do not worry Wizards have got your backs with something easy to grok. This is groundbreaking, we know. The fundamentals of Magic is the colors and the mana system will not get some universal shift. It will be exactly as it says.
Colorless means colorless. DO NOT OVERTHINK.
UR Melek, Izzet ParagonUR, B Shirei, Shizo's CaretakerB, R Jaya Ballard, Task MageR,RW Tajic, Blade of the LegionRW, UB Lazav, Dimir MastermindUB, UB Circu, Dimir LobotomistUB, RWU Zedruu the GreatheartedRWU, GUBThe MimeoplasmGUB, UGExperiment Kraj UG, WDarien, King of KjeldorW, BMarrow-GnawerB, WBGKarador, Ghost ChieftainWBG, UTeferi, Temporal ArchmageU, GWUDerevi, Empyrial TacticianGWU, RDaretti, Scrap SavantR, UTalrand, Sky SummonerU, GEzuri, Renegade LeaderG, WUBRGReaper KingWUBRG, RGXenagos, God of RevelsRG, CKozilek, Butcher of TruthC, WUBRGGeneral TazriWUBRG, GTitania, Protector of ArgothG
Okay, maybe I didn't spell it quite clearly the first time round (in the part you didn't quote) - Flavor can be used to justify anything, which is why it is not a valid justification for a mechanical aspect, definitely not for one as core as introducing a new mana symbol with a basic land accompanying it.
Pretty lame magic bullet. If they want a magic bullet for Twin, they really ought to do something like reprint Propaganda so it is Modern legal. Of course, you could run Leyline of Singularity. That does a pretty bang up job of stopping Twin.
Generic is only used when referring to costs. When produced by a mana ability, it has always been 1 Colorless Mana, represented by the greyish pip in MTGO and the unfortunate same-symbol-as-Generic 1 on paper. The issue is if <> indicates colorless mana, it essentially is the greyish pip and the new 1 for 1 Colorless mana produced and therefore takes over them. But my questions are directed to those who deem 1 when produced are still a separate form of colorless mana different from <> colorless mana and therefore cannot be used to pay for <> costs.
EDIT: Holy wow I haven't been here in ages.
Ah, I see what you mean now. They would be one the same, assuming <> is just the new symbol with no added text for that mana. So a colorless mana added by a Mind Stone or a Spawning Bed would be the same as one produced by Wastes.
I have seen it mentioned that now requiring colorless as a casting cost would allow for different designs on other colorless cards and artifacts, ex an Artifact costing 3<><> that has some superior abilities than one cost at 5.
I believe it's meant to make "colorless matters" more prominent as we seldom are required to specifically use colorless only.
This is a significant difference, because in the common slot, (36 packs per box) you will get 3 - 5 per box, whereas lands, you get 36 packs divided by 5, about 7 of each color land. With 6 lands in the land slot, you'd get 6 Wastes per box.
To joe blow, buying a box, one or 2 wastes makes no difference, but on the world wide scale, a common Wastes means a significant reduction in the number printed and available.
Considering the demand from EDH, this could be important.
or not, if Wizards prints extras to send to card shops for limited drafts.
At any rate, the foils will always have a high demand.
I haven't yet heard an argument yet for why a <> cost cannot represent a cost with reminder text (<> can can be paid with any two mana or with <>). The only thing that's been said is that there's no reminder text on Kozilek or Mirrorpool. Which there isn't a precedent for considering mythic rarity didn't exist last time was printed (in Shadowmoor) and no mythics were printed that had .
A reminder of how this possibility would work:
- <> cost can be paid with any two mana or with <>.
- <> mana can pay for <> cost or 1.
- For example, in this possibility Kozilek, the Great Distortion could be paid with eight white mana and two <>, or with twelve white mana, or with 12.
I believe this is a reasonable possibility for a number of reasons:
- It's elegant in its simplicity.
- It does not cause mass oracle texting of any card that included colorless mana production in the past.
- It provides a solid reason why <> mana and the land that produce it exist--it rewards players for using <> mana by allowing a "reduced" cost.
- In the true spirit of a "colorless" card, this possibility allows all colors to still cast these spells and activate these abilities that have <> costs.
- It allows for <> to be a one-set mechanic, but generic enough that it could be brought back (like , , or ) or even made evergreen.
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
Yeah. Some people disagree with it because of various reasons, but I personally don't see any of those reasons (which include a power-increase on some dual lands, Wastes effectively being low-powered due to said increases and that massive errata would be needed) could justify the large amount of unnecessary complexity created by a "secondary" type of Colorless for the future of the game.
I've also spent quite the bit (in fact, probably too much) of thought on the subject, so I think this will be my last post here for a while, otherwise I would come up with clumsy posts and those will be no good for discussion/debate on the speculation.
Also, there are six types of mana, five of which (the five colors) have been produced by associated basic lands since Alpha. Now a sixth basic land is introduced. What is more likely? That it finally produces the sixth type of mana (colorless) or a new and narrow type of Eldrazi mana? Seriously, the former makes a hundred times more sense.
<> is the new symbol for one colorless mana.
Uril, the Miststalker RGW -- Ulamog, the Infinite Gyre C -- Vhati il-Dal BG -- Jor Kadeen, the Prevailer RW -- Animar, Soul of Elements URG
Kiki-Jiki, Mirror Breaker R -- Maga, Traitor to Mortals B -- Ghave, Guru of Spores BGW -- Sliver Hivelord WUBRG
Problem: Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth would remove a Wastes' ability to tap for colorless.
Problem 2: The basic land types still need to be associated with the ability to tap for that color of mana so that nonbasic lands with basic land types work.