Mod Edit: We have a reliable source who has provided several cards in the past who confirms these to be true. - Wildfire393
Here's an image of the card Pretty interesting if real and may confirm the other spoilers from today (Kozilek and Wastes). Seems like a fun tool for Riku decks, also.
So if the <> symbol meant this may only be paid with colorless mana as people have speculated on Kozilek, then there would be no need to put it on a land, because add 1 to your mana pool would already satisfy that, yes? The only other option is that it's a sixth color.
So if the <> symbol meant this may only be paid with colorless mana as people have speculated on Kozilek, then there would be no need to put it on a land, because add 1 to your mana pool would already satisfy that, yes? The only other option is that it's a sixth color.
Nope. Hop into the other thread and look at Wastes.
It will mean this may only be paid with mana from a Wastes basic land (in the same manner than can only be paid with mana from a snow-covered basic land).
What is Mirrorpool exactly? Is it Eldrazi corruption, or is it a unique biome on Zendikar that isn't destroyed by Eldrazi? Hopefully the latter. It looks like a neat crystalline field that amplifies magic. I'd hate if it's just more blighted crap though. Art is gorgeous.
Thematicwise, its pretty easy to spot that both the wastes and mirrorpool and presumably all other <> mana sources are eldrazi corruption, since the bismuth patterns have been a visual theme running for some times. That puts this set in line with NPH for "bad guys win and remake the plane" setting, but we can't tell to what degree this set will take that, whether its full blown 100% nothing but eldrazi or if its an ongoing battleground
So if the <> symbol meant this may only be paid with colorless mana as people have speculated on Kozilek, then there would be no need to put it on a land, because add 1 to your mana pool would already satisfy that, yes? The only other option is that it's a sixth color.
Nope. Hop into the other thread and look at Wastes.
It will mean this may only be paid with mana from a Wastes basic land (in the same manner than can only be paid with mana from a snow-covered basic land).
Snow mana was provided by the snow supertype. Wastes has no such thing. Snow lands also tapped for mana of their land type, so could be used as regular mana of the same color. If there is a mana symbol that can be only paid for with mana from Wastes and mana from Wastes can't be used on anything except <> and colorless, that is a sixth color of mana, isn't it?
So if the <> symbol meant this may only be paid with colorless mana as people have speculated on Kozilek, then there would be no need to put it on a land, because add 1 to your mana pool would already satisfy that, yes? The only other option is that it's a sixth color.
Nope. Hop into the other thread and look at Wastes.
It will mean this may only be paid with mana from a Wastes basic land (in the same manner than can only be paid with mana from a snow-covered basic land).
Snow mana was provided by the snow supertype. Wastes has no such thing. Snow lands also tapped for mana of their land type, so could be used as regular mana of the same color. If there is a mana symbol that can be only paid for with mana from Wastes and mana from Wastes can't be used on anything except <> and colorless, that is a sixth color of mana, isn't it?
I think It is just semantics... the answer to your question is practically yes, but technically no.
There still is 5 colors and colorless. WUBRG can Only be paid with WUBRG and <> cannot be paid with WUBRG. When it come to the generic mana, 1, it can be paid with either WUBRG or <>.
Im assuming all lands that produce 1 or 2 and so forth, will be errated to produce <> or <><>. But that really is not necessary... though that would make cards that require <> mana a bit parasitic.
So if the <> symbol meant this may only be paid with colorless mana as people have speculated on Kozilek, then there would be no need to put it on a land, because add 1 to your mana pool would already satisfy that, yes? The only other option is that it's a sixth color.
Nope. Hop into the other thread and look at Wastes.
It will mean this may only be paid with mana from a Wastes basic land (in the same manner than can only be paid with mana from a snow-covered basic land).
Snow mana was provided by the snow supertype. Wastes has no such thing. Snow lands also tapped for mana of their land type, so could be used as regular mana of the same color. If there is a mana symbol that can be only paid for with mana from Wastes and mana from Wastes can't be used on anything except <> and colorless, that is a sixth color of mana, isn't it?
Oh, because the land is missing a supertype? Makes sense, but I tend to think that Kozi 2.0 might be a bit broken if you can just drop him for 10 colourless.
Would that make Wastes like a sixth colour of mana? Sure. That was the idea behind Barry's Land.
But the fact that it's not carrying a basic land type means it won't break Domain. I tend to think it will be easier for them to wangle their way around how Kozi can only be cast using mana from a Wastes than it will be to define how something can be played only using colourless mana. And even then, why not just have Mirrorpool tap to add 1, rather than <>? It would achieve the same thing.
Don't think we'll truly know the answer until the WotC rules lawyers weigh in, but having it play like colourless Snow mana makes a lot more sense in my mind.
Im assuming all lands that produce 1 or 2 and so forth, will be errated to produce <> or <><>. But that really is not necessary... though that would make cards that require <> mana a bit parasitic.
That's a large errata. The parasitic part is what I'm afraid of, but at this point what I expect.
And even then, why not just have Mirrorpool tap to add 1, rather than <>? It would achieve the same thing.
Don't think we'll truly know the answer until the WotC rules lawyers weigh in, but having it play like colourless Snow mana makes a lot more sense in my mind.
The fact that Mirrorpool doesn't just add 1 is what makes me sad.
Im assuming all lands that produce 1 or 2 and so forth, will be errated to produce <> or <><>. But that really is not necessary... though that would make cards that require <> mana a bit parasitic.
That's a large errata. The parasitic part is what I'm afraid of, but at this point what I expect.
And even then, why not just have Mirrorpool tap to add 1, rather than <>? It would achieve the same thing.
Don't think we'll truly know the answer until the WotC rules lawyers weigh in, but having it play like colourless Snow mana makes a lot more sense in my mind.
The fact that Mirrorpool doesn't just add 1 is what makes me sad.
The thing is that it's possible it does just add 1, and that mana abilities that produce colorless mana are going to be templated as such from now on.
While I doubt this will ever go in a deck casting Nissas Renewal with this for 14 life and net 5 lands seems fun or for two turns and two 6/6 haste creatures with part the waterveil. Most creatures I would want to copy ate legendary or cast effects.
(edit) on second thought can you copy an awakened land or does it die as a 0/0 creature land token?
Snow mana was provided by the snow supertype. Wastes has no such thing. Snow lands also tapped for mana of their land type, so could be used as regular mana of the same color. If there is a mana symbol that can be only paid for with mana from Wastes and mana from Wastes can't be used on anything except <> and colorless, that is a sixth color of mana, isn't it?
Wastes doesn't need a snow subtype, its rules text is "T: Add {1 Eldrazi Mana} to your mana pool"
The semi-full art basic lands all follow the same template, simply showing an icon of the color of mana they produce
While the land subtypes of island/forest/plains/mountain/swamp carries an additional implicit mana producing ability of respective types (like stomping ground), theres nothing saying a card can't be a basic land and have explicit mana producing rules text.
Just because this mechanic works somewhat similarly to snow mana doesn't mean it works exactly like snow mana. As we saw with phyrexian mana, wizards are no strangers to playing around with new symbols with unique rules baggage on the mana cost line of cards. Phyrexian mana did something new, working with a symbol like snow mana had, except to a much different purpose. This is closer to snow, but still different
Urzasseddatives pointed out the MOUSE CURSOR in the image of this card.
FAKE is fake
And you had to stick the same post in two separate threads to convince us?
Just because it's a photo of a screen doesn't mean it's necessarily fake. We've had stuff spoilt this way before, IIRC.
I'm going to assume that this card is fake, even if the other two are real.
For this card to be real, it means that the mana symbols on Kozilek can only be paid by Wastes and this land rather than any colorless mana sources, which greatly reduces the backwards compatibility of the mana symbol and just feels wrong. I want the painlands to be essentially trilands for this symbol.
If I assume that this card is fake, it makes the lack of a symbol circle around the image feel more sensible.
If wastes is real, it pretty plainly produces <> mana, not 1. Take a look at the zendikar full art lands. A forest produces G, it simply has the G symbol on it to indicate that.
Flavorwise it seems to make sense tho that the Eldrazi now have consumed the land thus making its own form of mana. Problem is that we already have colorless mana so it seems really awkward
or there simply is no eldrazi mana and "add <>" is just the new form of "add 1"
I am hoping for this because otherwise this is going to be a closed set with no support.
As of right now, if it were a specialty mana, the only cards that would be able to use this land are other special sources from within the set.
Since this is the last set of the block, it is unlikely that new sources of <> mana would show up any time soon.
So it could be a snow-like effect where you can only get mana from these few sources, but that would make these cards super narrow since you would either need a ton of cards all from the same set, a whole lot of wastes (and therefore a mostly colorless deck), or a lot of evolving wilds just to support them.
I think it will be a rewrite in the rules such that <> means can be paid for by colorless only and they decided that <> is the new symbol for colorless mana production.
The specialty mana idea does support why Kozilek, the Great Distortion only costs 10 though, so cannot be too sure.
Flavorwise it seems to make sense tho that the Eldrazi now have consumed the land thus making its own form of mana. Problem is that we already have colorless mana so it seems really awkward
Maybe its a mana that can pay for any mana when casting collorless spells?
or there simply is no eldrazi mana and "add <>" is just the new form of "add 1"
I really doubt that, because it would just unnecessarily complicate things for new players and how would you explain the mana cost for the "new" Kozilek then? He has both, the new <> symbol as well as the regular way of depicting colorless. And not <> 10x in a row...
It would imply that Kozi's cost can be paid with 2GGGGGGGG, but not GGGGGGGGGG. The <> would have to be paid with colourless mana, rather than generic mana. <> ten times would be playable with Cloudpost and friends, but not if you contribute a single G or B, for example.
I see, but I don't really understand how it differs from a sixth color then?
It can be produced by existing colourless-producing lands like Wasteland and Temple of the False God whereas a sixth colour could not be, and would need dedicated mana sources outside the likes of City of Brass. Secondly, it's unlikely to appear often in cards' actual mana costs beyond this set. This all assumes that we've guessed correctly how it works, and that the cards are real, of course.
I see, but I don't really understand how it differs from a sixth color then?
It can be produced by existing colourless-producing lands like Wasteland and Temple of the False God whereas a sixth colour could not be, and would need dedicated mana sources outside the likes of City of Brass. Secondly, it's unlikely to appear often in cards' actual mana costs beyond this set. This all assumes that we've guessed correctly how it works, and that the cards are real, of course.
If you assume that only <> can pay for <> costs, it acts like an additonal color in the way that it can get down-used as colorless, but it would not need to actually be defined as a color. Basically, it would act like colored mana as far as paying for things, but would not get affected by things that look for number of colors like checking a spell's color identity or casting a Suntouched Myr.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Here's an image of the card Pretty interesting if real and may confirm the other spoilers from today (Kozilek and Wastes). Seems like a fun tool for Riku decks, also.
Nope. Hop into the other thread and look at Wastes.
It will mean this may only be paid with mana from a Wastes basic land (in the same manner than can only be paid with mana from a snow-covered basic land).
My Stupidly Large Number of Current Decks
PucaTrade with me!
The Multiplayer Power Rankings
Cube: the Gittening (My Multiplayer Cube) - MTGS Cube List | @ CubeTutor
The N00b Cube (Peasant cube for new players) - MTGS Cube List | @ CubeTutor
|| UW Jace, Vyn's Prodigy UW || UG Kenessos, Priest of Thassa (feat. Arixmethes) UG ||
Cards I still want to see created:
|| Olantin, Lost City || Pavios and Thanasis || Choryu ||
Snow mana was provided by the snow supertype. Wastes has no such thing. Snow lands also tapped for mana of their land type, so could be used as regular mana of the same color. If there is a mana symbol that can be only paid for with mana from Wastes and mana from Wastes can't be used on anything except <> and colorless, that is a sixth color of mana, isn't it?
I think It is just semantics... the answer to your question is practically yes, but technically no.
There still is 5 colors and colorless. WUBRG can Only be paid with WUBRG and <> cannot be paid with WUBRG. When it come to the generic mana, 1, it can be paid with either WUBRG or <>.
Im assuming all lands that produce 1 or 2 and so forth, will be errated to produce <> or <><>. But that really is not necessary... though that would make cards that require <> mana a bit parasitic.
Oh, because the land is missing a supertype? Makes sense, but I tend to think that Kozi 2.0 might be a bit broken if you can just drop him for 10 colourless.
Would that make Wastes like a sixth colour of mana? Sure. That was the idea behind Barry's Land.
But the fact that it's not carrying a basic land type means it won't break Domain. I tend to think it will be easier for them to wangle their way around how Kozi can only be cast using mana from a Wastes than it will be to define how something can be played only using colourless mana. And even then, why not just have Mirrorpool tap to add 1, rather than <>? It would achieve the same thing.
Don't think we'll truly know the answer until the WotC rules lawyers weigh in, but having it play like colourless Snow mana makes a lot more sense in my mind.
My Stupidly Large Number of Current Decks
PucaTrade with me!
The Multiplayer Power Rankings
Cube: the Gittening (My Multiplayer Cube) - MTGS Cube List | @ CubeTutor
The N00b Cube (Peasant cube for new players) - MTGS Cube List | @ CubeTutor
I'm pretty sure the goal here is create a way to differentiate between colorless mana and generic mana.
That's a large errata. The parasitic part is what I'm afraid of, but at this point what I expect.
The fact that Mirrorpool doesn't just add 1 is what makes me sad.
FAKE is fake
Right, and if I showed you this six months ago, would you say the same thing?
The thing is that it's possible it does just add 1, and that mana abilities that produce colorless mana are going to be templated as such from now on.
(edit) on second thought can you copy an awakened land or does it die as a 0/0 creature land token?
Wastes doesn't need a snow subtype, its rules text is "T: Add {1 Eldrazi Mana} to your mana pool"
The semi-full art basic lands all follow the same template, simply showing an icon of the color of mana they produce
While the land subtypes of island/forest/plains/mountain/swamp carries an additional implicit mana producing ability of respective types (like stomping ground), theres nothing saying a card can't be a basic land and have explicit mana producing rules text.
Just because this mechanic works somewhat similarly to snow mana doesn't mean it works exactly like snow mana. As we saw with phyrexian mana, wizards are no strangers to playing around with new symbols with unique rules baggage on the mana cost line of cards. Phyrexian mana did something new, working with a symbol like snow mana had, except to a much different purpose. This is closer to snow, but still different
And you had to stick the same post in two separate threads to convince us?
Just because it's a photo of a screen doesn't mean it's necessarily fake. We've had stuff spoilt this way before, IIRC.
My Stupidly Large Number of Current Decks
PucaTrade with me!
The Multiplayer Power Rankings
Cube: the Gittening (My Multiplayer Cube) - MTGS Cube List | @ CubeTutor
The N00b Cube (Peasant cube for new players) - MTGS Cube List | @ CubeTutor
Because no one has ever taken a picture of a computer monitor with a smart phone before. Ever.
For this card to be real, it means that the mana symbols on Kozilek can only be paid by Wastes and this land rather than any colorless mana sources, which greatly reduces the backwards compatibility of the mana symbol and just feels wrong. I want the painlands to be essentially trilands for this symbol.
If I assume that this card is fake, it makes the lack of a symbol circle around the image feel more sensible.
Older Magic as a Board Game: Panglacial Wurm , Mill
I am hoping for this because otherwise this is going to be a closed set with no support.
As of right now, if it were a specialty mana, the only cards that would be able to use this land are other special sources from within the set.
Since this is the last set of the block, it is unlikely that new sources of <> mana would show up any time soon.
So it could be a snow-like effect where you can only get mana from these few sources, but that would make these cards super narrow since you would either need a ton of cards all from the same set, a whole lot of wastes (and therefore a mostly colorless deck), or a lot of evolving wilds just to support them.
I think it will be a rewrite in the rules such that <> means can be paid for by colorless only and they decided that <> is the new symbol for colorless mana production.
The specialty mana idea does support why Kozilek, the Great Distortion only costs 10 though, so cannot be too sure.
Maybe its a mana that can pay for any mana when casting collorless spells?
It would imply that Kozi's cost can be paid with 2GGGGGGGG, but not GGGGGGGGGG. The <> would have to be paid with colourless mana, rather than generic mana. <> ten times would be playable with Cloudpost and friends, but not if you contribute a single G or B, for example.
On spoiled card wishlisting and 'should-have-had'-isms:
It can be produced by existing colourless-producing lands like Wasteland and Temple of the False God whereas a sixth colour could not be, and would need dedicated mana sources outside the likes of City of Brass. Secondly, it's unlikely to appear often in cards' actual mana costs beyond this set. This all assumes that we've guessed correctly how it works, and that the cards are real, of course.
On spoiled card wishlisting and 'should-have-had'-isms:
If you assume that only <> can pay for <> costs, it acts like an additonal color in the way that it can get down-used as colorless, but it would not need to actually be defined as a color. Basically, it would act like colored mana as far as paying for things, but would not get affected by things that look for number of colors like checking a spell's color identity or casting a Suntouched Myr.