MaRo has stated on numeroud occassions that they wantd to add a 6th color but there were too many issues with doing so. By giving colorless mana a symbol, this allows them to circumvent the issues. they would have added a "6th color" without the problem of having 20ish years of just 5 colors. This opens up a ton of design space and allows them to balance artifacts and maybe even spells. with that being said im excited for more spoilers.
The first is parasitic. The second changes the rules of Magic. The third has never been done before. Pick your poison.
I must confess I really wish people would stop
saying this.
Parasitic is an R&D tearm that means the idea
is "too self-contained". That is, players cannot
look at cards and imagine many things they can do
with them.
The problem with overly parasitic design is R&D
is building our decks...
...THIS is not the same as a "new mechanic".
We demonstrate being "too paracitic" if once
you commit to a waste or a Kozi you're forced
to fill you deck with as much of it as possible.
In fact, in some ways, something can be parasitic
but not TOO parasitic, provided there are "common"
and "uncommon" support cards.
...um, we already see a common support card, WASTES.
And, we have, for now, only three cards of nearly 200.
And all three of them have <> (though two are mythic).
Remember, linear cards are not inherently bad!
For a while it seemed we were going to get "new" slivers
every year... (then core sets left us).
There was a time in magic, when the first "multicolored card"
were printed in Legends...
...that didn't mean it was "too parasitic".
A) You didn't say "Oh" I'm running Nicol Bolas so I want
all the elder dragons in my deck...
B) One could imagine it returning (it did).
In this case, running 3 wastes doesn't make it so
your deck is clearly better if it could run 6! (In fact,
unless there are nearly 40% of the set with <> based
cards, it's just not true as each Waste prevents you
from drawing a land that produces colored mana.
Likewise, running two eldrazi or three that have
<>'s in their cost...doesn't make your deck become
"better" by running more.
Finally, there's lot of future design space that
can use <> in the same way that "tapping" as a cost
was found to have other ways to be used after the
change to it from "mono-artifacts" LOL
So for those saying it is "too parasitic" ...can
you explain and explore how so specifically
rather than just repeating the claim?
The first is parasitic. The second changes the rules of Magic. The third has never been done before. Pick your poison.
I must confess I really wish people would stop
saying this.
Parasitic is an R&D tearm that means the idea
is "too self-contained". That is, players cannot
look at cards and imagine many things they can do
with them.
The problem with overly parasitic design is R&D
is building our decks...
...THIS is not the same as a "new mechanic".
We demonstrate being "too paracitic" if once
you commit to a waste or a Kozi you're forced
to fill you deck with as much of it as possible.
In fact, in some ways, something can be parasitic
but not TOO parasitic, provided there are "common"
and "uncommon" support cards.
...um, we already see a common support card, WASTES.
And, we have, for now, only three cards of nearly 200.
And all three of them have <> (though two are mythic).
Remember, linear cards are not inherently bad!
For a while it seemed we were going to get "new" slivers
every year... (then core sets left us).
There was a time in magic, when the first "multicolored card"
were printed in Legends...
...that didn't mean it was "too parasitic".
A) You didn't say "Oh" I'm running Nicol Bolas so I want
all the elder dragons in my deck...
B) One could imagine it returning (it did).
In this case, running 3 wastes doesn't make it so
your deck is clearly better if it could run 6! (In fact,
unless there are nearly 40% of the set with <> based
cards, it's just not true as each Waste prevents you
from drawing a land that produces colored mana.
Likewise, running two eldrazi or three that have
<>'s in their cost...doesn't make your deck become
"better" by running more.
Finally, there's lot of future design space that
can use <> in the same way that "tapping" as a cost
was found to have other ways to be used after the
change to it from "mono-artifacts" LOL
So for those saying it is "too parasitic" ...can
you explain and explore how so specifically
rather than just repeating the claim?
Great post. I only wish that I could have stated this argument as eloquently and concisely as you have. It's a shame that this post will do nothing to quell the abundant fear mongering and lack of imagination that is pervading this discussion.
The real issue that raised all the different opinions (because the official mechanic isn't revealed) is: Can 1 pay for <>?
I think it would be more confusing if (1) could pay for (N), since historically (#) could only ever be used to pay (#)/(X) (X is just an unspecified number). But that could change.
Thinking about this some more, I have some ideas on why they are using a new symbol.
Consider Kozilek. (N) mana is restrictive; so far, it seems like they want you to cast minimum (2) colorless mana to cast Kozilek, with the 8 being anything. Without using a new symbol, it would be hard to express the rules text in a non-confusing way. Kozilek could have just cost (10) with reminder text saying to spend colorless mana to cast him, but how would it be worded? "Spend at least (2) to cast Kozilek"? Sounds like you can cast him for (2), and (2) can usually be paid with anything. "Spend at least two colorless mana to cast Kozilek"? Same problem. "Mana used to cast Kozilek must include two colorless mana/(2)"? Very wordy, and messes with cost-reduction abilities.
By creating a new kind of mana, they can define what it does, and leave it off the cards. So I don't think (N) mana is complex, it's just awkward to express in any other current way.
So my vote is that: (#) can still be paid for with anything, including (N), but (N) can only be paid for with (#) or (N).
Allowing (#) to pay for (N) makes it not a full-on new color, but an in-between.
It's precisely that I think <> was first created in cost which is why I think 1 can pay for <>. I believe <> was created as a cost first with the purpose of "Pay only colorless mana for this cost". Ultimately, regardless of the existence of the Basic Land and <> as a mana produced later on, if <> as a cost does not you to pay for it from the 1 (Colorless) produced by Shivan Reef, then it failed its original purpose. <> being a mana produced and taking over 1 as the Colorless Mana Symbol is a decision made later.
(#) (Which I think you were using for Generic) doesn't exist in a mana ability. It only exists as a cost. The 1 in "1: You gain 1 life" and the 1 in "T: Add 1 to your mana pool" only share the same symbol but stand for different things. The former is Generic Mana, which stands for "This can be paid for by any type of mana" and the latter stands for Colorless Mana, which means "This Mana is colorless".
Compare to let's say R. In Cost, it is "This can only be paid by Red Mana", as a Mana it is "This Mana is Red". Needless to say, it applies to the other 4 colors as well.
Colorless is the only type of mana to never had a cost that specified "This can only be paid by Colorless Mana", which I (along with some others) think what <> is for. By function we think <> should be able to be paid for by 1 since that is its corresponding half, so since <> appeared as a mana produced by a basic land, it therefore takes over the symbol for Colorless Mana as well, leaving 1 (the symbol) clear to represent Generic Costs from now on.
Similarly on the opposite spectrum, that isn't (and can never be) a corresponding end for "This can be paid for any type of mana", because there isn't a land that taps for any type of mana by itself (Note that any color of mana =/= any type of mana, as colorless isn't a color.)
Yes, it won't function as a full-on new color, because colorless has always existed, except it wasn't given the full benefits and frustration of the corresponding system that other colors use for the past 20+ years. The "6th Color" has always existed, but was never given the full functions of the corresponding payment system.
I really don't see how people find this confusing.
I also don't get people logic as to why they think Sol ring will be errated to say <><> instead of 2
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Originally Posted by Massive Marc
You know back in the old days, when there wasn't EDH, these "griefer" cards in decks were the norm. If you played a Winter Orb when you're opponents were tapped out, it was a good play. Now, you get people tell you they wanna punch you ? It's really sad how carebare this format is, to the point that some loser has to rip up your cards.
What I was calling too parasitic is for <> to be a new form of mana. If I can resume the theories as I see them and how I view them:
Eldrazi mana produced exclusively by Wastes. In essence, a new color. Too parasitic for my tastes.
Colorless-only mana cost. Possible, but why put it on the land? T:1 does the same thing mechanically and it keeps it consistent with all other colorless mana sources that have been printed before, including BFZ which will be drafted with Oath. Could be a problem in sealed: if you don't open any Wastes, how will you be able to play your cards? Will stores receive stacks of Wastes for limited formats? Which will be stolen a lot IMHO. (Incidentally, someone just stole all Jaces at my LGS. If they could do that, imagine how easy it will be with lands that are lent by the stores, are in one small set only and that colorless EDH players will want 30-40).
Hybrid mana. Possible, but never seen before (a land that produces hybrid mana). Close to snow, but it allows for an alternate cost. Rewards you for playing Wastes by making cheaper spells, but keep the cards playable in any deck. Does not require you to play Wastes or for stores to lend Wastes during limited events.
Sorry, off topic to the some of the dribble on this page, but throwing this out there. What do we even call this new type of mana? Void mana? I'm sure Death X will like that if it is.
Sorry, off topic to the some of the dribble on this page, but throwing this out there. What do we even call this new type of mana? Void mana? I'm sure Death X will like that if it is.
One of the many questions that will be answered when it's officially spoiled.
The first is parasitic. The second changes the rules of Magic. The third has never been done before. Pick your poison.
I must confess I really wish people would stop
saying this.
Parasitic is an R&D tearm that means the idea
is "too self-contained". That is, players cannot
look at cards and imagine many things they can do
with them.
The problem with overly parasitic design is R&D
is building our decks...
...THIS is not the same as a "new mechanic".
We demonstrate being "too paracitic" if once
you commit to a waste or a Kozi you're forced
to fill you deck with as much of it as possible.
In fact, in some ways, something can be parasitic
but not TOO parasitic, provided there are "common"
and "uncommon" support cards.
...um, we already see a common support card, WASTES.
And, we have, for now, only three cards of nearly 200.
And all three of them have <> (though two are mythic).
Remember, linear cards are not inherently bad!
For a while it seemed we were going to get "new" slivers
every year... (then core sets left us).
There was a time in magic, when the first "multicolored card"
were printed in Legends...
...that didn't mean it was "too parasitic".
A) You didn't say "Oh" I'm running Nicol Bolas so I want
all the elder dragons in my deck...
B) One could imagine it returning (it did).
In this case, running 3 wastes doesn't make it so
your deck is clearly better if it could run 6! (In fact,
unless there are nearly 40% of the set with <> based
cards, it's just not true as each Waste prevents you
from drawing a land that produces colored mana.
Likewise, running two eldrazi or three that have
<>'s in their cost...doesn't make your deck become
"better" by running more.
Finally, there's lot of future design space that
can use <> in the same way that "tapping" as a cost
was found to have other ways to be used after the
change to it from "mono-artifacts" LOL
So for those saying it is "too parasitic" ...can
you explain and explore how so specifically
rather than just repeating the claim?
I may be wrong, but I guess you're mixing two different concepts:
-A linear mechanic is something that encourages you to play more cards with a particular characteristic. Examples of linear mechanics/cards would be any Tribal Lord (encourages you to play lots of creatures with the same type), Constellation (encourages you to play lots of enchantments), Affinity for Artifacts (encourages you to play lots of artifacts)...
-A parasitic mechanic is, as you said, something "too self contained". Splice onto Arcane is the most used example: it is a cool mechanic, but there are simply no Arcanes outside of the Kamigawa block, so it only works with those cards.
Being linear is usually not a bad thing (as long as not every mechanic in the set is linear).
Now, sets eventually need parasitic mechanics from time to time, but being too parasitic may be a problem.
A special Eldrazi mana that can only be paid with mana produced by Wastes, Mirrorpool and whatever card produces it in OGW is EXTREMELY parasitic in a sense that you can't play Kozilek in your deck unless you have those specific cards from OGW.
The Snow supertype had this same problem: snow-matter stuff doesn't make much sense outside of the Ice Age block (and mostly just Coldsnap).
That being said, it is not impossible that we get shuc a parasitic mechanic, but I wouldn't hold my breath for it.
What if they also make waste swamp, waste forest, Ect... Sort of like snow lands in that they're still basic. And that would allow these waste basics to pay <> costs. Sorry if someone already said that.
I really don't see how people find this confusing.
I also don't get people logic as to why they think Sol ring will be errated to say <><> instead of 2
Things that cost 1 can be paid with 1WUBRG
So why, does things that produce 1 can only be used to pay for 1, shouldn't they be able to pay for 1WUBRG?
The corresponding system that works for WUBRG doesn't work for Colorless, because it shares the same symbol as Generic. If <> is an entirely new system by itself, then we end up with "6.5 Colors" instead of 6, since we're technically at "5.5 Colors", with Colorless being an incomplete one with no corresponding symbol for "Things that cost "New Symbol" need to be be paid with 1."
So why, does things that produce 1 can only be used to pay for 1, shouldn't they be able to pay for 1WUBRG?
That's some super autistic reasoning you got there.
I think it's quite obvious why UU can pay for mind stone but 2 can not pay for counterspell wouldn't you?
I do agree that until wizards formally announce how it will work, everything is complete hearsay.
If I had to bet money I would say that 8 forest and a sol ring will not be able to cast this new kozilek.
And yes this is parasitic but luckily theres a new basic land that taps for <>
Also this is a small set. So even if they never have any intention of returning to <> it doesn't really matter. EDH players will still be able to cast there <> kozilek and <>emrakul
Now it is also possible that <> just means colorless matters for this casting cost. That still doesn't really warrant sol ring getting errata. All they really need to do is print a card with remainder text {<> must be paid for by colorless)
Public Mod Note
(Wildfire393):
Infraction for flaming. Please do not use autism as a derogatory term.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Originally Posted by Massive Marc
You know back in the old days, when there wasn't EDH, these "griefer" cards in decks were the norm. If you played a Winter Orb when you're opponents were tapped out, it was a good play. Now, you get people tell you they wanna punch you ? It's really sad how carebare this format is, to the point that some loser has to rip up your cards.
So why, does things that produce 1 can only be used to pay for 1, shouldn't they be able to pay for 1WUBRG?
That's some super autistic reasoning you got there.
I think it's quite obvious why UU can pay for mind stone but 2 can not pay for counterspell wouldn't you?
I do agree that until wizards formally announce how it will work, everything is complete hearsay.
If I had to bet money I would say that 8 forest and a sol ring will not be able to cast this new kozilek.
And yes this is parasitic but luckily theres a new basic land that taps for <>
Also this is a small set. So even if they never have any intention of returning to <> it doesn't really matter. EDH players will still be able to cast there <> kozilek and <>emrakul
Now it is also possible that <> just means colorless matters for this casting cost. That still doesn't really warrant sol ring getting errata. All they really need to do is print a card with remainder text {<> must be paid for by colorless)
Yes, ultimately it depends on the formal announcement, we're just discussing the possible ways the mechanic can work.
UU can pay for Mind Stone because WUBRG can each pay for two types of mana, 1 and their corresponding color (WUBRG).
2 can't pay for a Counterspell because it is the only mana that can only pay for 1 type of mana, and that is 1. Even Snow can pay for 1 or S.
If everything can pay for 1, then 1 as a mana is weak as a concept, because there is nothing that demands 1 as its only payment, like Counterspell demands for UU only. The only reason we run it is because of other benefits like not losing life in some cases.
I'm seeing <> as a potential fix to the "Demand for only 1" problem, as it gives 1 "value".
There's also an issue with what exactly differentates 1 from <> if they're both colorless identity-wise but one (1) cannot pay for the other (<>). I'd rather get rid of the differentiation altogether and have 1 have no property instead of colorless.
I am favoring the 'dedicated colorless mana' theory. I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, but Kozilek's Channeler produces exactly the two dedicated colorless mana needed to cast him. It also makes the channeler a useful card for dedicated colorless mana spells and abilties, which would be a great thematic use of Kozilek cards
Also it makes certain cards much different between the two sets, so it seems that Hedron Archive and Kozilek's Channeler were set up for this sort of eventuality.
If everything can pay for 1, then 1 as a mana is weak as a concept, because there is nothing that demands 1 as its only payment, like Counterspell demands for UU only. The only reason we run it is because of other benefits like not losing life in some cases.
It's supposed to be weak. It's a drawback that allows for some stronger other abilities to be put on the card. Colorless mana being as strong as colored mana closes off a huge amount of design space.
There's also an issue with what exactly differentates 1 from <> if they're both colorless identity-wise but one (1) cannot pay for the other (<>). I'd rather get rid of the differentiation altogether and have 1 have no property instead of colorless.
Colorless mana does have no property. Specifically, it lacks color. 'No property mana' just doesn't roll off the tongue as well. Currently, as far as I know, nothing cares about colorless mana. As in, it is never beneficial to have colorless mana instead of colored mana.
If <> is a type of mana distinct from colorless mana, then it will be attributed a property that is separate from color, which differentiates itself from normal colorless mana. Call it Eldrazi mana, or whatever. That's why people who think they are distinct are comparing it to Snow mana (even if it is mechanically different from Snow mana). A red mana generated from a snow land is still red. However, it has some property that distinguishes itself from regular red mana.
It's supposed to be weak. It's a drawback that allows for some stronger other abilities to be put on the card. Colorless mana being as strong as colored mana closes off a huge amount of design space.
Colorless mana does have no property. Specifically, it lacks color. 'No property mana' just doesn't roll off the tongue as well. Currently, as far as I know, nothing cares about colorless mana. As in, it is never beneficial to have colorless mana instead of colored mana.
If <> is a type of mana distinct from colorless mana, then it will be attributed a property that is separate from color, which differentiates itself from normal colorless mana. Call it Eldrazi mana, or whatever. That's why people who think they are distinct are comparing it to Snow mana (even if it is mechanically different from Snow mana). A red mana generated from a snow land is still red. However, it has some property that distinguishes itself from regular red mana.
Strength comes at a cost. The other colors have their strengths at the cost of "Mana Costs that care about Color". Like you said, nothing cares about Colorless Mana. If something like <> as a cost does, then effectively Colorless Mana has something that puts in on par with the other colors when it comes to cost requirements. It doesn't necessary make Colorless Mana that much stronger, the requirement also weakens other lands such as Dual Lands that can't produce colorless by themselves. Putting two basic land types together no longer makes a land a "stronger choice" by default because one has to consider paying <> requirements.
I'm seeing that by making <> have the meaning of "paid only by Colorless mana" instead of "paid only by <> mana", it strengthens the position of the 1 that appears on lands and opens way more design possibilities and deck-building decisions than it closes.
Yes, we could could call it Eldrazi Colorless Mana instead and have <> function somewhat like snow (even though it's not mechanically the same like you said), but what purpose would serve even if it was granted a superfluous property that is only is name and parasitic in nature (since it only looks out for itself). Actual property-wise, it is no different from regular colorless, the same way Snow Red Mana is not different from Red Mana. Meanwhile the "Normal Colorless" remains as "weak" as it is since nothing has changed for it in the end. In fact, if <> is not a set gimmick, but continuous (since it does have a Basic Land), the value of 1 will diminish further as it now can't pay for 6 types of mana instead of 5.
I suppose it would be fine if it was only a set gimmick (which does have some support in the theory that Wastes is a Common, not a Land, which means may not appear in every set), but I'm more for strengthening 1 than weakening it.
I am favoring the 'dedicated colorless mana' theory. I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, but Kozilek's Channeler produces exactly the two dedicated colorless mana needed to cast him. It also makes the channeler a useful card for dedicated colorless mana spells and abilties, which would be a great thematic use of Kozilek cards
Also it makes certain cards much different between the two sets, so it seems that Hedron Archive and Kozilek's Channeler were set up for this sort of eventuality.
This is one of the strongest arguments for <> meaning "colorless and only colorless mana."
Kozilek's cardface is pretty clearly colorless. That implies that <> does not add color.
One of the identifying factors of Eldrazi cards is their lack of color, hense Devoid. Maro and the rest of WotC have made this very clear.
From these three points I think it is pretty safe to assume that <> in a cost means that the card will require colorless mana, as that plays into the identity of the Eldrazi and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise (so far).
Wastes, a new basic land, has only <> to signify what kind of mana it will produce.
If we follow the same logic that every existing basic land follows, we can assume that the card's text will say "T: add <> to your mana pool."
Mirrorpool, another land, seems to confirm this by having that very text in its text box.
So now we know that there are at least two lands that produce <>, a kind of mana that is used to pay <> costs. Keeping in mind that the <> symbol in costs does not seem to add color to a card like colored mana symbols do, we can still assume that <> is mana with no color.
Now, before we go on, we should note that there is no evidence that 1 ISN'T still something that lands will be able to generate, or if it can be used to pay for <>.
Now we enter the realm of speculation.
We haven't seen a card that adds 1 in the set yet, so let's assume there aren't any. Given all of the hard evidence we have AND the assumptions that no card in the set produces 1, we have nothing that suggests that a card that adds <> will function any differently. <> can pay for <> and for 1, so the only possible difference is that 1 can't pay for <>.
Let's run with this for a moment.
Assuming that 1 can't pay for <>, what reason do they have to print cards that add 1 anymore? Even if <> is in fact a different type of mana than 1, there is no real reason to continue printing cards that produce 1. The vast majority of nonland cards printed in the future will still most likely be colored cards, with the rest being artifacts (and in some cases, nonartifact colorless cards like eldrazi). They can still use generic costs and now they can even use <> costs, but what reason do they have to print cards that produce only 1? Now that there is a subset of cards that can only be cast with <> (something that could very well only be in this set), and now that they have permanently introduced <> as a tool they can use, why would they go back to printing cards that produce 1? It seems like a lot of rules complexity for very little and very short-term gain. If they continue to print cards that produce <>, they lose virtually nothing and continue to support something that at least offers some amount of clarification about what each mana symbol means. And that's without errata of any kind.
So tl;dr, here're the possibilities:
<> is a new type of mana that adds no color to the cards it's on. It can pay for <> and for 1, but 1 can't pay for <>, meaning that existing cards receive no errata. After this set go back to making cards that add1, effectively making this the most parasitic mechanic they've made since Splice onto Arcane. This also makes this a mechanic with a lot potential confusion and rules baggage for the sake of a single small set, very little gain in the long run.
<> is a new type of mana that adds no color to the cards it's on. It can pay for <> and for 1, but 1 can't pay for <>, meaning that existing cards receive no errata. After this set, they continue using <> in lieu of cards that produce generic mana. <> now fills the same role that 1 did. While old cards that added 1 still say the same thing, future cards that would've added 1 now add <>. Functionally, this makes very little difference, and design-wise, this is now a tool that they can use whenever they want on whatever they want at little to no cost.
<> is colorless mana, the same kind of mana that Sol Ring produces. This means changing the oracle text of every card that adds colorless mana to accommodate the <> symbol, but succeeds in differentiating between 1 (generic mana that can be paid with mana of any type) and <> (colorless mana that can ONLY pay for <> and 1) all without functional errata. The biggest cost to this is that cards printed prior to this set now have outdated text (but not functionally different text, the problem they would have if they removed the instant card type and gave sorceries flash instead).
No matter what we conclude, we have to accept that these cards are likely real and that this mana is a thing now. It's either snow mana 2.0, a weird new type of mana that will only be used in one set or will replace every 1 going forward, or it's an oracle update to every existing card. Basically, it'll be a lot of fuss for very little gain, or a whole lot of fuss for a lot of gain. Either way, it's a lot of fuss. I'm inclined to believe that WotC will opt for the option that yields more gain, which leads me to believe that it'll be options 2 or 3. Personally, I hope it's 3, as that will breath new life into older cards (at the cost of a little templating confusion). But that's my opinion.
All I can say with confidence is that this is not mana that can be paid with <> or 2 as we already have 2-brid symbols that mean exactly that. Why would they make a symbol that means for itself what each other symbol has a variant for? It doesn't make sense to me. I also don't think that they will make "Waste Plains" and friends the same way they made Snow-Covered basics. That would make this another parasitic, one-set mechanic and I don't think that's what they want.
I am favoring the 'dedicated colorless mana' theory. I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, but Kozilek's Channeler produces exactly the two dedicated colorless mana needed to cast him. It also makes the channeler a useful card for dedicated colorless mana spells and abilties, which would be a great thematic use of Kozilek cards
Also it makes certain cards much different between the two sets, so it seems that Hedron Archive and Kozilek's Channeler were set up for this sort of eventuality.
This is one of the strongest arguments for <> meaning "colorless and only colorless mana."
which will get just ignored once again^^
After some thought, this seems like a good possibility.
And as Napoleon said above:
"..it is also possible that <> just means colorless matters for this casting cost. That still doesn't really warrant sol ring [or any other colorless mana producing card] getting errata. All they really need to do is print a card with remainder text (<> must be paid for by colorless)."
All I can say with confidence is that this is not mana that can be paid with <> or 2 as we already have 2-brid symbols that mean exactly that. Why would they make a symbol that means for itself what each other symbol has a variant for? It doesn't make sense to me. I also don't think that they will make "Waste Plains" and friends the same way they made Snow-Covered basics. That would make this another parasitic, one-set mechanic and I don't think that's what they want.
My bet is that it's snow manaish. Counts as normal colorless mana, but certain cards like Kozilek require you to use it, and will be a big eldrazi mechanic for the next few story arcs. No waste-plains or anything though.
This will solve budget EDH colorless player's problems now, so that is pretty cool.
I am REALLY excited to see the eldrazi and phyrexians start fighting. Kozilek doesn't seem to be eradicating things into dust like ulamog from these pics, rather converting them into abstract eldraziish landscapes. Thematically the phyrexians are the same so it's nature vs. machines... and we get phyrexian mana + eldrazi mana on the same card would be rad!
I am favoring the 'dedicated colorless mana' theory. I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, but Kozilek's Channeler produces exactly the two dedicated colorless mana needed to cast him. It also makes the channeler a useful card for dedicated colorless mana spells and abilties, which would be a great thematic use of Kozilek cards
Also it makes certain cards much different between the two sets, so it seems that Hedron Archive and Kozilek's Channeler were set up for this sort of eventuality.
This is one of the strongest arguments for <> meaning "colorless and only colorless mana."
which will get just ignored once again^^
If this was true, why wouldn't Kozilek's Channeler be printed with the <><> symbols rather than 2? In other words, why wasn't the symbol introduced in BfZ rather than OGW? A symbol change mid-block is very confusing, especially for the limited environment.
This is the argument that keeps me from being convinced about the "true colorless" theory. I'm sure WotC can come up with a silly flavor reason why this symbol is introduced mid-block ("the returned Kozilek had learned to harvest the full potential of colorless"), but in the end a change like this will look unprofessional and reverse-engineered, I believe.
Assuming the Kozilek is real, is it unreasonable to hope for Inquisition of Kozilek in the set as well?
Edit: Regarding Draco, since it doesn't say anything about the required mana being colorless, I would assume it wouldn't get any errata, as it would still require 16 mana of any color (or no color), before discounts.
I can understand 1 becoming <>, but I don't like it.
As a result, if 2 is errata'ed to <><>, the whole design team should be fired.
And what about 3 and 4? No way they'll do this.
There is no real reason to errata the older cards. The way I see it it's a change in symbols, just like the white mana symbol and the tap symbol. Magic is full of things like that. Sure oracle will have them worded like <> instead of 1. That doesnt mean sol ring will get errata'ed. I mean, I dont think the older versions of the sol ring that read T ever got errata for that.
Changing the wording in oracle is literally what an errata is.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
WBC Eldrazi & Taxes CBW
UR Keep on Cantripin' (UR Phoenix) RU
WU Surprise! It's not UW Control! (UW Midrange) UW
BG The Rock, Straight BG
U Mono-Blue Fish U
RBW Mardu Pyromancer BWR
RG Rabble! Rabble! (GR Blood Moon Aggro) GR
Legacy
W Death & Taxes W
I must confess I really wish people would stop
saying this.
Parasitic is an R&D tearm that means the idea
is "too self-contained". That is, players cannot
look at cards and imagine many things they can do
with them.
The problem with overly parasitic design is R&D
is building our decks...
...THIS is not the same as a "new mechanic".
We demonstrate being "too paracitic" if once
you commit to a waste or a Kozi you're forced
to fill you deck with as much of it as possible.
In fact, in some ways, something can be parasitic
but not TOO parasitic, provided there are "common"
and "uncommon" support cards.
...um, we already see a common support card, WASTES.
And, we have, for now, only three cards of nearly 200.
And all three of them have <> (though two are mythic).
Remember, linear cards are not inherently bad!
For a while it seemed we were going to get "new" slivers
every year... (then core sets left us).
There was a time in magic, when the first "multicolored card"
were printed in Legends...
...that didn't mean it was "too parasitic".
A) You didn't say "Oh" I'm running Nicol Bolas so I want
all the elder dragons in my deck...
B) One could imagine it returning (it did).
In this case, running 3 wastes doesn't make it so
your deck is clearly better if it could run 6! (In fact,
unless there are nearly 40% of the set with <> based
cards, it's just not true as each Waste prevents you
from drawing a land that produces colored mana.
Likewise, running two eldrazi or three that have
<>'s in their cost...doesn't make your deck become
"better" by running more.
Finally, there's lot of future design space that
can use <> in the same way that "tapping" as a cost
was found to have other ways to be used after the
change to it from "mono-artifacts" LOL
So for those saying it is "too parasitic" ...can
you explain and explore how so specifically
rather than just repeating the claim?
Great post. I only wish that I could have stated this argument as eloquently and concisely as you have. It's a shame that this post will do nothing to quell the abundant fear mongering and lack of imagination that is pervading this discussion.
It's precisely that I think <> was first created in cost which is why I think 1 can pay for <>. I believe <> was created as a cost first with the purpose of "Pay only colorless mana for this cost". Ultimately, regardless of the existence of the Basic Land and <> as a mana produced later on, if <> as a cost does not you to pay for it from the 1 (Colorless) produced by Shivan Reef, then it failed its original purpose. <> being a mana produced and taking over 1 as the Colorless Mana Symbol is a decision made later.
(#) (Which I think you were using for Generic) doesn't exist in a mana ability. It only exists as a cost. The 1 in "1: You gain 1 life" and the 1 in "T: Add 1 to your mana pool" only share the same symbol but stand for different things. The former is Generic Mana, which stands for "This can be paid for by any type of mana" and the latter stands for Colorless Mana, which means "This Mana is colorless".
Compare to let's say R. In Cost, it is "This can only be paid by Red Mana", as a Mana it is "This Mana is Red". Needless to say, it applies to the other 4 colors as well.
Colorless is the only type of mana to never had a cost that specified "This can only be paid by Colorless Mana", which I (along with some others) think what <> is for. By function we think <> should be able to be paid for by 1 since that is its corresponding half, so since <> appeared as a mana produced by a basic land, it therefore takes over the symbol for Colorless Mana as well, leaving 1 (the symbol) clear to represent Generic Costs from now on.
Similarly on the opposite spectrum, that isn't (and can never be) a corresponding end for "This can be paid for any type of mana", because there isn't a land that taps for any type of mana by itself (Note that any color of mana =/= any type of mana, as colorless isn't a color.)
Yes, it won't function as a full-on new color, because colorless has always existed, except it wasn't given the full benefits and frustration of the corresponding system that other colors use for the past 20+ years. The "6th Color" has always existed, but was never given the full functions of the corresponding payment system.
Things that cost <> need to be paid for with <>
I really don't see how people find this confusing.
I also don't get people logic as to why they think Sol ring will be errated to say <><> instead of 2
You know back in the old days, when there wasn't EDH, these "griefer" cards in decks were the norm. If you played a Winter Orb when you're opponents were tapped out, it was a good play. Now, you get people tell you they wanna punch you ? It's really sad how carebare this format is, to the point that some loser has to rip up your cards.
WBC Eldrazi & Taxes CBW
UR Keep on Cantripin' (UR Phoenix) RU
WU Surprise! It's not UW Control! (UW Midrange) UW
BG The Rock, Straight BG
U Mono-Blue Fish U
RBW Mardu Pyromancer BWR
RG Rabble! Rabble! (GR Blood Moon Aggro) GR
Legacy
W Death & Taxes W
One of the many questions that will be answered when it's officially spoiled.
WUBRGPauper Battle BoxWUBRG ... and why I am not a fan of Wayne Reynolds' Illustrations.
I may be wrong, but I guess you're mixing two different concepts:
-A linear mechanic is something that encourages you to play more cards with a particular characteristic. Examples of linear mechanics/cards would be any Tribal Lord (encourages you to play lots of creatures with the same type), Constellation (encourages you to play lots of enchantments), Affinity for Artifacts (encourages you to play lots of artifacts)...
-A parasitic mechanic is, as you said, something "too self contained". Splice onto Arcane is the most used example: it is a cool mechanic, but there are simply no Arcanes outside of the Kamigawa block, so it only works with those cards.
(MaRo has a better explanation on this if anyone is interested)
Being linear is usually not a bad thing (as long as not every mechanic in the set is linear).
Now, sets eventually need parasitic mechanics from time to time, but being too parasitic may be a problem.
A special Eldrazi mana that can only be paid with mana produced by Wastes, Mirrorpool and whatever card produces it in OGW is EXTREMELY parasitic in a sense that you can't play Kozilek in your deck unless you have those specific cards from OGW.
The Snow supertype had this same problem: snow-matter stuff doesn't make much sense outside of the Ice Age block (and mostly just Coldsnap).
That being said, it is not impossible that we get shuc a parasitic mechanic, but I wouldn't hold my breath for it.
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
Things that cost 1 can be paid with 1WUBRG
So why, does things that produce 1 can only be used to pay for 1, shouldn't they be able to pay for 1WUBRG?
The corresponding system that works for WUBRG doesn't work for Colorless, because it shares the same symbol as Generic. If <> is an entirely new system by itself, then we end up with "6.5 Colors" instead of 6, since we're technically at "5.5 Colors", with Colorless being an incomplete one with no corresponding symbol for "Things that cost "New Symbol" need to be be paid with 1."
That's some super autistic reasoning you got there.
I think it's quite obvious why UU can pay for mind stone but 2 can not pay for counterspell wouldn't you?
I do agree that until wizards formally announce how it will work, everything is complete hearsay.
If I had to bet money I would say that 8 forest and a sol ring will not be able to cast this new kozilek.
And yes this is parasitic but luckily theres a new basic land that taps for <>
Also this is a small set. So even if they never have any intention of returning to <> it doesn't really matter. EDH players will still be able to cast there <> kozilek and <>emrakul
Now it is also possible that <> just means colorless matters for this casting cost. That still doesn't really warrant sol ring getting errata. All they really need to do is print a card with remainder text {<> must be paid for by colorless)
You know back in the old days, when there wasn't EDH, these "griefer" cards in decks were the norm. If you played a Winter Orb when you're opponents were tapped out, it was a good play. Now, you get people tell you they wanna punch you ? It's really sad how carebare this format is, to the point that some loser has to rip up your cards.
Yes, ultimately it depends on the formal announcement, we're just discussing the possible ways the mechanic can work.
UU can pay for Mind Stone because WUBRG can each pay for two types of mana, 1 and their corresponding color (WUBRG).
2 can't pay for a Counterspell because it is the only mana that can only pay for 1 type of mana, and that is 1. Even Snow can pay for 1 or S.
If everything can pay for 1, then 1 as a mana is weak as a concept, because there is nothing that demands 1 as its only payment, like Counterspell demands for UU only. The only reason we run it is because of other benefits like not losing life in some cases.
I'm seeing <> as a potential fix to the "Demand for only 1" problem, as it gives 1 "value".
There's also an issue with what exactly differentates 1 from <> if they're both colorless identity-wise but one (1) cannot pay for the other (<>). I'd rather get rid of the differentiation altogether and have 1 have no property instead of colorless.
Also it makes certain cards much different between the two sets, so it seems that Hedron Archive and Kozilek's Channeler were set up for this sort of eventuality.
It's supposed to be weak. It's a drawback that allows for some stronger other abilities to be put on the card. Colorless mana being as strong as colored mana closes off a huge amount of design space.
Colorless mana does have no property. Specifically, it lacks color. 'No property mana' just doesn't roll off the tongue as well. Currently, as far as I know, nothing cares about colorless mana. As in, it is never beneficial to have colorless mana instead of colored mana.
If <> is a type of mana distinct from colorless mana, then it will be attributed a property that is separate from color, which differentiates itself from normal colorless mana. Call it Eldrazi mana, or whatever. That's why people who think they are distinct are comparing it to Snow mana (even if it is mechanically different from Snow mana). A red mana generated from a snow land is still red. However, it has some property that distinguishes itself from regular red mana.
Strength comes at a cost. The other colors have their strengths at the cost of "Mana Costs that care about Color". Like you said, nothing cares about Colorless Mana. If something like <> as a cost does, then effectively Colorless Mana has something that puts in on par with the other colors when it comes to cost requirements. It doesn't necessary make Colorless Mana that much stronger, the requirement also weakens other lands such as Dual Lands that can't produce colorless by themselves. Putting two basic land types together no longer makes a land a "stronger choice" by default because one has to consider paying <> requirements.
I'm seeing that by making <> have the meaning of "paid only by Colorless mana" instead of "paid only by <> mana", it strengthens the position of the 1 that appears on lands and opens way more design possibilities and deck-building decisions than it closes.
Yes, we could could call it Eldrazi Colorless Mana instead and have <> function somewhat like snow (even though it's not mechanically the same like you said), but what purpose would serve even if it was granted a superfluous property that is only is name and parasitic in nature (since it only looks out for itself). Actual property-wise, it is no different from regular colorless, the same way Snow Red Mana is not different from Red Mana. Meanwhile the "Normal Colorless" remains as "weak" as it is since nothing has changed for it in the end. In fact, if <> is not a set gimmick, but continuous (since it does have a Basic Land), the value of 1 will diminish further as it now can't pay for 6 types of mana instead of 5.
I suppose it would be fine if it was only a set gimmick (which does have some support in the theory that Wastes is a Common, not a Land, which means may not appear in every set), but I'm more for strengthening 1 than weakening it.
This is one of the strongest arguments for <> meaning "colorless and only colorless mana."
Kozilek costs 8<><>.
Kozilek's cardface is pretty clearly colorless. That implies that <> does not add color.
One of the identifying factors of Eldrazi cards is their lack of color, hense Devoid. Maro and the rest of WotC have made this very clear.
From these three points I think it is pretty safe to assume that <> in a cost means that the card will require colorless mana, as that plays into the identity of the Eldrazi and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise (so far).
Wastes, a new basic land, has only <> to signify what kind of mana it will produce.
If we follow the same logic that every existing basic land follows, we can assume that the card's text will say "T: add <> to your mana pool."
Mirrorpool, another land, seems to confirm this by having that very text in its text box.
So now we know that there are at least two lands that produce <>, a kind of mana that is used to pay <> costs. Keeping in mind that the <> symbol in costs does not seem to add color to a card like colored mana symbols do, we can still assume that <> is mana with no color.
Now, before we go on, we should note that there is no evidence that 1 ISN'T still something that lands will be able to generate, or if it can be used to pay for <>.
Now we enter the realm of speculation.
We haven't seen a card that adds 1 in the set yet, so let's assume there aren't any. Given all of the hard evidence we have AND the assumptions that no card in the set produces 1, we have nothing that suggests that a card that adds <> will function any differently. <> can pay for <> and for 1, so the only possible difference is that 1 can't pay for <>.
Let's run with this for a moment.
Assuming that 1 can't pay for <>, what reason do they have to print cards that add 1 anymore? Even if <> is in fact a different type of mana than 1, there is no real reason to continue printing cards that produce 1. The vast majority of nonland cards printed in the future will still most likely be colored cards, with the rest being artifacts (and in some cases, nonartifact colorless cards like eldrazi). They can still use generic costs and now they can even use <> costs, but what reason do they have to print cards that produce only 1? Now that there is a subset of cards that can only be cast with <> (something that could very well only be in this set), and now that they have permanently introduced <> as a tool they can use, why would they go back to printing cards that produce 1? It seems like a lot of rules complexity for very little and very short-term gain. If they continue to print cards that produce <>, they lose virtually nothing and continue to support something that at least offers some amount of clarification about what each mana symbol means. And that's without errata of any kind.
So tl;dr, here're the possibilities:
No matter what we conclude, we have to accept that these cards are likely real and that this mana is a thing now. It's either snow mana 2.0, a weird new type of mana that will only be used in one set or will replace every 1 going forward, or it's an oracle update to every existing card. Basically, it'll be a lot of fuss for very little gain, or a whole lot of fuss for a lot of gain. Either way, it's a lot of fuss. I'm inclined to believe that WotC will opt for the option that yields more gain, which leads me to believe that it'll be options 2 or 3. Personally, I hope it's 3, as that will breath new life into older cards (at the cost of a little templating confusion). But that's my opinion.
All I can say with confidence is that this is not mana that can be paid with <> or 2 as we already have 2-brid symbols that mean exactly that. Why would they make a symbol that means for itself what each other symbol has a variant for? It doesn't make sense to me. I also don't think that they will make "Waste Plains" and friends the same way they made Snow-Covered basics. That would make this another parasitic, one-set mechanic and I don't think that's what they want.
After some thought, this seems like a good possibility.
And as Napoleon said above:
"..it is also possible that <> just means colorless matters for this casting cost. That still doesn't really warrant sol ring [or any other colorless mana producing card] getting errata. All they really need to do is print a card with remainder text (<> must be paid for by colorless)."
My bet is that it's snow manaish. Counts as normal colorless mana, but certain cards like Kozilek require you to use it, and will be a big eldrazi mechanic for the next few story arcs. No waste-plains or anything though.
This will solve budget EDH colorless player's problems now, so that is pretty cool.
I am REALLY excited to see the eldrazi and phyrexians start fighting. Kozilek doesn't seem to be eradicating things into dust like ulamog from these pics, rather converting them into abstract eldraziish landscapes. Thematically the phyrexians are the same so it's nature vs. machines... and we get phyrexian mana + eldrazi mana on the same card would be rad!
If this was true, why wouldn't Kozilek's Channeler be printed with the <><> symbols rather than 2? In other words, why wasn't the symbol introduced in BfZ rather than OGW? A symbol change mid-block is very confusing, especially for the limited environment.
This is the argument that keeps me from being convinced about the "true colorless" theory. I'm sure WotC can come up with a silly flavor reason why this symbol is introduced mid-block ("the returned Kozilek had learned to harvest the full potential of colorless"), but in the end a change like this will look unprofessional and reverse-engineered, I believe.
Edit: Regarding Draco, since it doesn't say anything about the required mana being colorless, I would assume it wouldn't get any errata, as it would still require 16 mana of any color (or no color), before discounts.