If the understanding that mana from basic wastes are colorless, and costs which require the waste type are also strictly colorless mana, then painlands have found an a single instance of relevance where they are better than shocklands. Really, this is quite interesting for build implications when transiting these cards to modern and legacy metas.
Pending that is how <> mana works, it does mean interesting things for the Painlands. More in Standard (pain bases become better for decks looking to run <> cards) than Modern I think. There could be some Modern implications as well, but unless there's cheap, very powerful <> cards, they're probably going to only show up in Tron anyways. (The Filter Lands are the real winners there anyhow, since they already have one advantage over shocks in being able to produce WW off of it + one Island for example)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Moderator Helpdesk
Currently Playing:
Legacy: Something U/W Controlish EDH Cube
Hypercube! A New EDH Deck Every Week(ish)!
It would have implications for EDH too. Painlands and hybrid filters would become more attractive, even to folks who have the full complement of duals/shocks/fetches. Utility lands would even get a boosts. Of course, this assume <> is colorless and that we'll want to run <> cards. But even Mirrorpool is tempting.
Everybody thought it was really unusual how WOTC put the painlands in the past two core sets (Origins and M15) instead of the checklands, but given their design lead time they could have known this was coming and wanted everyone to have fresh copies.
I predict that if <> gets confirmed as the new symbol for colorless mana, the painlands are going to regain their value real quick-like.
And can lead to weird situations. In EDH, if I'm playing mono-White and someone plays Urborg, can I tap a Plains for B which in turn becomes <> ? Hard to speculate; we'll have to wait to see what the rules are.
EDIT: Yeah, it's a replacement ability, so it likely does work, and you are correct. (Assuming the meaning of <> is actually what we're thinking.)
903.9. If mana would be added to a player’s mana pool of a color that isn’t in the color identity of that player’s commander, that amount of colorless mana is added to that player’s mana pool instead.
Is a Swamp you're tapping in your mono-White deck a colorless source? That is NOT obvious in my opinion. It depends on how <> is actually worded. It probably does work (and you are correct), but it might not.
I don't think it's colorless, otherwise we cannot explain the casting cost of Kozilek, the Great Distortion.
Maybe <> it's a specific type of colorless, but 1 is not exchangable with that.
IMHO, it does address the casting cost. Two mana MUST be colorless, the other eight can be anything. =) No different than 8RR, where you specifically need two Red and then the other eight can be anything.
I don't think it's colorless, otherwise we cannot explain the casting cost of Kozilek, the Great Distortion.
Maybe <> it's a specific type of colorless, but 1 is not exchangable with that.
IMHO, it does address the casting cost. Two mana MUST be colorless, the other eight can be anything. =) No different than 8RR, where you specifically need two Red and then the other eight can be anything.
This is exactly as I read it. Mandatory colorless mana, because colorless is different than generic mana.
I spot an issue with the theory that <> mana is just specifically colorless mana (I'll dub it pure colorless) and not "watered down" colored mana (/generic mana).
Why are the new basic land and the Mirrorpool specifically generating <> mana and not just colorless mana?
If pure colorless mana is interchangeable with the <> mana costs, I see no functional reason why the two previous mentioned lands have to produce <> mana. Only reason I can think of is that <> mana is not interchangeable with colorless mana costs and thus only can be used to pay <> costs - which invalidates the entire reason to create the basic land in the first place: A basic land for colorless EDH.
My theory is that they function in an extremely similar way as Snow-mana. <> is a special type of colorless mana in the same way that snow-source colored mana is a special type of colored mana.
I spot an issue with the theory that <> mana is just specifically colorless mana (I'll dub it pure colorless) and not "watered down" colored mana (/generic mana).
Ok, first of all, that's not what the difference between colorless and generic is. The difference is that colorless is a type of mana that cannot pay for colored costs, and generic is a kind of cost that can be paid for with mana of any or no color. You can't make generic mana because there is no such thing, and up until now there have been no costs that specifically require you to pay colorless mana.
If pure colorless mana is interchangeable with the <> mana costs, I see no functional reason why the two previous mentioned lands have to produce <> mana. Only reason I can think of is that <> mana is not interchangeable with colorless mana costs and thus only can be used to pay <> costs - which invalidates the entire reason to create the basic land in the first place: A basic land for colorless EDH.
Colorless mana has never been interchangeable with generic mana costs. 1 can be paid for with W, U, B, R, G, or colorless. Colorless mana can only pay for 1. So why, if they are not equivalent, do they both use the same symbol? The theory is that <> will become the symbol for colorless mana in order to clear up the difference, and to allow cards that specifically cost colorless, without having to put "use only colorless mana to pay for [cardname]" in the text box. Or worse "You must use at least two colorless mana to pay for Kozilek, the Great Distortion."
My theory is that they function in an extremely similar way as Snow-mana. <> is a special type of colorless mana in the same way that snow-source colored mana is a special type of colored mana.
That theory is not implausible, and in my opinion it is the next most likely thing after <> becoming the new symbol for colorless mana. However, it would be very parasitic, which WotC tries to avoid, and it would require more changes to the comprehensive rules than the <> = colorless theory would. The <> = colorless theory would have the added benefits of clearing up the common misunderstanding of the differences between colorless and generic, as well as opening up design space for future cards to require colorless mana in their costs. However, it would also require eratta of any old cards that say to add X to your mana pool, and that might cause some confusion, since the change would be happening in the middle of the block, which is awkward. So there are benefits and drawbacks to both theories.
That about sums up the whole "is <> colorless or a new type of mana?" debate, and we already have like three threads rehashing those same points ad nauseam, so can we please leave it at that and keep discussion in this thread to the possible implications <> could have on pain lands and other colorless-producing duals?
"I am confident that if anyone actually
penetrates our facades, even the most
perceptive would still be fundamentally
unprepared for the truth of House Dimir."
My theory is that Eldrazi Mana, or Void Mana as I like to call it (to give it a reach beyond this block), can only be paid for by <> or [some payment and/or drawback which includes exiling a card].
Whilst I quite like the exclusively colorless mana concept, that seems to make Wastes a bit of... well... a waste since (a) in limited, why not just have a utility land that produces colorless mana and (b) in constructed, you simply would never run this. That would mean they printed it would just for EDH (which is a possibility for sure).
Since it's a basic land, I would assume you'll have access to as many as you need in limited, so you'd use it if you weren't able to draft enough colorless-producing utility lands to support the amount of <> costs in your deck. In constructed, it would see play for the same reason basic lands see play. It dodges nonbasic land hate, it's fetchable with anything that searches for basic lands, and you're not limited to four copies. Probably not enough for it to see much constructed play, but it has its niche.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I am confident that if anyone actually
penetrates our facades, even the most
perceptive would still be fundamentally
unprepared for the truth of House Dimir."
I spot an issue with the theory that <> mana is just specifically colorless mana (I'll dub it pure colorless) and not "watered down" colored mana (/generic mana).
Ok, first of all, that's not what the difference between colorless and generic is. The difference is that colorless is a type of mana that cannot pay for colored costs, and generic is a kind of cost that can be paid for with mana of any or no color. You can't make generic mana because there is no such thing, and up until now there have been no costs that specifically require you to pay colorless mana.
I can't tell if you're just trolling about it or actually mean to sound like a condescending know-it-all. You obviously know what I'm talking about and as you said yourself there's no specific term for colored mana used to pay a generic cost - that's why I cut it down to generic mana (which was actually just to reference a previous comment that used that term).
Why are the new basic land and the Mirrorpool specifically generating <> mana and not just colorless mana?
The theory is, they are just creating colorless mana, and that <> will be to colorless as G is to green from here on out.
Which basically means a wide spread errata session with every card that can produce colorless mana. It is plausible but I wouldn't bet on it. Next question would be: Why make a change at all about colorless mana if the alternative is to roughly write in the rules "<> can be paid with colorless mana but not with colored mana"? No huge change to generic costs and we can go about our day knowing that <> requires strictly colorless mana.
If pure colorless mana is interchangeable with the <> mana costs, I see no functional reason why the two previous mentioned lands have to produce <> mana. Only reason I can think of is that <> mana is not interchangeable with colorless mana costs and thus only can be used to pay <> costs - which invalidates the entire reason to create the basic land in the first place: A basic land for colorless EDH.
Colorless mana has never been interchangeable with generic mana costs. 1 can be paid for with W, U, B, R, G, or colorless. Colorless mana can only pay for 1. So why, if they are not equivalent, do they both use the same symbol? The theory is that <> will become the symbol for colorless mana in order to clear up the difference, and to allow cards that specifically cost colorless, without having to put "use only colorless mana to pay for [cardname]" in the text box. Or worse "You must use at least two colorless mana to pay for Kozilek, the Great Distortion."
Why are you even referencing a mana type that previously didn't have a specific purpose? Nothing functions only with strictly colorless mana.
My theory is that they function in an extremely similar way as Snow-mana. <> is a special type of colorless mana in the same way that snow-source colored mana is a special type of colored mana.
That theory is not implausible, and in my opinion it is the next most likely thing after <> becoming the new symbol for colorless mana. However, it would be very parasitic, which WotC tries to avoid, and it would require more changes to the comprehensive rules than the <> = colorless theory would. The <> = colorless theory would have the added benefits of clearing up the common misunderstanding of the differences between colorless and generic, as well as opening up design space for future cards to require colorless mana in their costs. However, it would also require eratta of any old cards that say to add X to your mana pool, and that might cause some confusion, since the change would be happening in the middle of the block, which is awkward. So there are benefits and drawbacks to both theories.
I'm at the complete opposite side of this view. Changing colorless into <> would mean a really extensive change to the rulebook. Namely every reference to colorless mana in the meaning of generic costs would have to be changed to generic mana or whatever we're to call it.
Either I'm reading too much into this or you oversimplify the changes needed for the theory you support the most.
That about sums up the whole "is <> colorless or a new type of mana?" debate, and we already have like three threads rehashing those same points ad nauseam, so can we please leave it at that and keep discussion in this thread to the possible implications <> could have on pain lands and other colorless-producing duals?
This is a discussion board and if people bring in new views or theories they are welcome.
I agree that merely waddling around in the same pool serves no one.
there is a theory that it's a hybrid of both prevailing theories; <> may be pure colorless, but what if it's not Just that, but a particular shape of colorless mana? it looks like a diamond symbol and could pave the way for additional symbols of some different mana. colorless yes but has a certain quality. this would not effect existing cards. somewhat like snow mana, but it exists in your pool, can pay a generic cost, but only OGW forward cards use and provide it.
not a 7th type, but the 6th type, colorless, gets subdivided as more of these are added. wishful thinking that it's not OGW only.
Painlands, Sol Ring, etc. no changes. but basic fetches get a boost being uber useful depending on if the cards that need <> will be staples in any format.
maybe we're getting our colorless land, but possibly going forward, we're getting several colorless lands. push a little further, 3 of them. symbols diamond, star, crescent moon.
is Wastes the beginning of a whole sector of new ideas in colorless?
not immediately beneficial to colorless commanders, but they could pump out a few really good legends and cards in the "new" colorless going forward.
There is another theoretical spoiler, this time of Mystic Gate with a <> mana symbol for the first ability. If this is in fact a real spoiler it would solidly define the symbol as colorless mana (to differentiate from generic mana) and would make new Kozilek and Mirrorpool require colorless mana in addition to some amount of generic mana. The only remaining question would then be why they would hold this particular change for the second set of the block when it would be such a strong change (flavorfully and mechanically) to add in the first set?
Because no cards in the first set had <> costs. It'd make no sense.
The first set used Devoid as its main colorless matters theme. Think of it this way.
In Rise of the Eldrazi, the three Titans used the mana to create their drones. They were fully colored yet.
By BFZ time, they had adapted to the colored mana, weakening it, so you could use colored mana to create colorless Eldrazi. And now, with OGW, color is gone completely from the Eldrazi-nommed areas giving the rise of <>.
Because no cards in the first set had <> costs. It'd make no sense.
So your reason as to why wizards didn't include a mechanic in a set is that wizards didn't include the mechanic?
The first set used Devoid as its main colorless matters theme. Think of it this way.
In Rise of the Eldrazi, the three Titans used the mana to create their drones. They were fully colored yet.
By BFZ time, they had adapted to the colored mana, weakening it, so you could use colored mana to create colorless Eldrazi. And now, with OGW, color is gone completely from the Eldrazi-nommed areas giving the rise of <>.
Wizards doesn't design usually design in this way. Even if wizards did include Void mana in Oath for purely flavor reasons, I don't think it makes any sense. Oath takes place immediately following Battle. There isn't time for the eldrazi to evolve to a new state of colorless.
My guess is that failing to include Void mana in Battle is simply the latest misstep that resulted from shifting from a 1-block per year to a two block per year paradigm. Battle as a set is full of little mistakes and Void mana is just yet another to add to the list. (I do personally enjoy BFZ though.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
- Manite
That may be true. But until there's a card that requires <> as a cost, it makes no sense to change the mana symbols.
Now such a cost exists and the change can be implemented.
You may have missed my point. Battle should have featured cards with Void costs. The question is why it didn't, not that it didn't. No one is asking why Kozilek's Channeler doesn't produce <><> instead of 2. People are asking why Ulamog, the Ceaseless Hunger Doesn't cost 8<><>.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
- Manite
That may be true. But until there's a card that requires <> as a cost, it makes no sense to change the mana symbols.
Now such a cost exists and the change can be implemented.
You may have missed my point. Battle should have featured cards with Void costs. The question is why it didn't, not that it didn't. No one is asking why Kozilek's Channeler doesn't produce <><> instead of 2. People are asking why Ulamog, the Ceaseless Hunger Doesn't cost 8<><>.
I have two theories:
* Design and/or development realized colorless as a cost (what you call "void costs") had a limited design space, so they couldn't support it on both sets. Only the small set has such a cost because they don't want to have, or couldn't design, more than a handful of cards with colorless costs.
* Initially, back when it was still a three-set block, it was going to be large/small/large, with the "colorless costs" being the third-set-only twist. After it became a two-set block, retrofitting the colorless costs into the first set wasn't viable without changing the whole setup even more than the removal of a set did. They could still introduce the symbol on colorless mana production, but decided it fit better being introduced on the set where it is also a cost.
Painlands have always been relevant in EDH, just so you're aware. The life loss is usually irrelevant, and their only other downside is that they aren't a basic land type. (e.g., they can't be fetched or claimed)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
I am seriously annoyed by this habit of WotC.
Previously, WotC had introduced new features limitedly, eg. eldrazi, in the third set (Worldwake).
Why can't WotC introduced new features (not recycling old abilities) sufficiently, eg. in the entire block, instead of a third/second set?
Is this what players want? Half-executed new features?
Even with this new mana symbol, why cant it be introduced in BFZ?
Now, since it was leaked, players had been speculating on what it is. For me, I cant be bothered with this hype. Referring to history, WotC is going to introduce another 10 - 20 cards and this feature will go into hiatus which may not ever see the light of day again. OMG.. Has anyone wish to have more 'dredge' cards in RTR block?
This hype will leave a bitter taste in my mouth again. For once, please disappoint me WotC.
hahaha Yes! we luv Dredge. but you're right, too much hype about this small change and then we'll probably forget about it after OGW gets released, since recently, wizards isn't going all in to make a big show with new mechanics. just a very few cards and not close to the potential they could have. i.e. devoid, ingest and the processors...
With reference to TCC's video, "Enough with Morph already". Megamorph is such an overkill.
Is MORPH what players want? OMG..
WotC really needs to learn how to bring new features to fruition, instead of focusing on one ability only (eg. morph -> meagmorph), changing keywords for the identical abilities (eg. converge/sunburst) or simply neglect abilities while re-visiting planes (eg. dredge etc).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So, basically you need to wait for the official announcement to confirm.
Currently Playing:
Legacy: Something U/W Controlish
EDH Cube
Hypercube! A New EDH Deck Every Week(ish)!
I predict that if <> gets confirmed as the new symbol for colorless mana, the painlands are going to regain their value real quick-like.
903.9. If mana would be added to a player’s mana pool of a color that isn’t in the color identity of that player’s commander, that amount of colorless mana is added to that player’s mana pool instead.
Is a Swamp you're tapping in your mono-White deck a colorless source? That is NOT obvious in my opinion. It depends on how <> is actually worded. It probably does work (and you are correct), but it might not.IMHO, it does address the casting cost. Two mana MUST be colorless, the other eight can be anything. =) No different than 8RR, where you specifically need two Red and then the other eight can be anything.
This is exactly as I read it. Mandatory colorless mana, because colorless is different than generic mana.
Why are the new basic land and the Mirrorpool specifically generating <> mana and not just colorless mana?
If pure colorless mana is interchangeable with the <> mana costs, I see no functional reason why the two previous mentioned lands have to produce <> mana. Only reason I can think of is that <> mana is not interchangeable with colorless mana costs and thus only can be used to pay <> costs - which invalidates the entire reason to create the basic land in the first place: A basic land for colorless EDH.
My theory is that they function in an extremely similar way as Snow-mana. <> is a special type of colorless mana in the same way that snow-source colored mana is a special type of colored mana.
Ok, first of all, that's not what the difference between colorless and generic is. The difference is that colorless is a type of mana that cannot pay for colored costs, and generic is a kind of cost that can be paid for with mana of any or no color. You can't make generic mana because there is no such thing, and up until now there have been no costs that specifically require you to pay colorless mana.
The theory is, they are just creating colorless mana, and that <> will be to colorless as G is to green from here on out.
Colorless mana has never been interchangeable with generic mana costs. 1 can be paid for with W, U, B, R, G, or colorless. Colorless mana can only pay for 1. So why, if they are not equivalent, do they both use the same symbol? The theory is that <> will become the symbol for colorless mana in order to clear up the difference, and to allow cards that specifically cost colorless, without having to put "use only colorless mana to pay for [cardname]" in the text box. Or worse "You must use at least two colorless mana to pay for Kozilek, the Great Distortion."
That theory is not implausible, and in my opinion it is the next most likely thing after <> becoming the new symbol for colorless mana. However, it would be very parasitic, which WotC tries to avoid, and it would require more changes to the comprehensive rules than the <> = colorless theory would. The <> = colorless theory would have the added benefits of clearing up the common misunderstanding of the differences between colorless and generic, as well as opening up design space for future cards to require colorless mana in their costs. However, it would also require eratta of any old cards that say to add X to your mana pool, and that might cause some confusion, since the change would be happening in the middle of the block, which is awkward. So there are benefits and drawbacks to both theories.
That about sums up the whole "is <> colorless or a new type of mana?" debate, and we already have like three threads rehashing those same points ad nauseam, so can we please leave it at that and keep discussion in this thread to the possible implications <> could have on pain lands and other colorless-producing duals?
"I am confident that if anyone actually
penetrates our facades, even the most
perceptive would still be fundamentally
unprepared for the truth of House Dimir."
Since it's a basic land, I would assume you'll have access to as many as you need in limited, so you'd use it if you weren't able to draft enough colorless-producing utility lands to support the amount of <> costs in your deck. In constructed, it would see play for the same reason basic lands see play. It dodges nonbasic land hate, it's fetchable with anything that searches for basic lands, and you're not limited to four copies. Probably not enough for it to see much constructed play, but it has its niche.
"I am confident that if anyone actually
penetrates our facades, even the most
perceptive would still be fundamentally
unprepared for the truth of House Dimir."
Which basically means a wide spread errata session with every card that can produce colorless mana. It is plausible but I wouldn't bet on it. Next question would be: Why make a change at all about colorless mana if the alternative is to roughly write in the rules "<> can be paid with colorless mana but not with colored mana"? No huge change to generic costs and we can go about our day knowing that <> requires strictly colorless mana.
Why are you even referencing a mana type that previously didn't have a specific purpose? Nothing functions only with strictly colorless mana.
I'm at the complete opposite side of this view. Changing colorless into <> would mean a really extensive change to the rulebook. Namely every reference to colorless mana in the meaning of generic costs would have to be changed to generic mana or whatever we're to call it.
Either I'm reading too much into this or you oversimplify the changes needed for the theory you support the most.
This is a discussion board and if people bring in new views or theories they are welcome.
I agree that merely waddling around in the same pool serves no one.
not a 7th type, but the 6th type, colorless, gets subdivided as more of these are added. wishful thinking that it's not OGW only.
Painlands, Sol Ring, etc. no changes. but basic fetches get a boost being uber useful depending on if the cards that need <> will be staples in any format.
maybe we're getting our colorless land, but possibly going forward, we're getting several colorless lands. push a little further, 3 of them. symbols diamond, star, crescent moon.
is Wastes the beginning of a whole sector of new ideas in colorless?
not immediately beneficial to colorless commanders, but they could pump out a few really good legends and cards in the "new" colorless going forward.
https://twitter.com/LengthyXemit
The first set used Devoid as its main colorless matters theme. Think of it this way.
In Rise of the Eldrazi, the three Titans used the mana to create their drones. They were fully colored yet.
By BFZ time, they had adapted to the colored mana, weakening it, so you could use colored mana to create colorless Eldrazi. And now, with OGW, color is gone completely from the Eldrazi-nommed areas giving the rise of <>.
So your reason as to why wizards didn't include a mechanic in a set is that wizards didn't include the mechanic?
Wizards doesn't design usually design in this way. Even if wizards did include Void mana in Oath for purely flavor reasons, I don't think it makes any sense. Oath takes place immediately following Battle. There isn't time for the eldrazi to evolve to a new state of colorless.
My guess is that failing to include Void mana in Battle is simply the latest misstep that resulted from shifting from a 1-block per year to a two block per year paradigm. Battle as a set is full of little mistakes and Void mana is just yet another to add to the list. (I do personally enjoy BFZ though.)
- Manite
Now such a cost exists and the change can be implemented.
You may have missed my point. Battle should have featured cards with Void costs. The question is why it didn't, not that it didn't. No one is asking why Kozilek's Channeler doesn't produce <><> instead of 2. People are asking why Ulamog, the Ceaseless Hunger Doesn't cost 8<><>.
- Manite
I have two theories:
* Design and/or development realized colorless as a cost (what you call "void costs") had a limited design space, so they couldn't support it on both sets. Only the small set has such a cost because they don't want to have, or couldn't design, more than a handful of cards with colorless costs.
* Initially, back when it was still a three-set block, it was going to be large/small/large, with the "colorless costs" being the third-set-only twist. After it became a two-set block, retrofitting the colorless costs into the first set wasn't viable without changing the whole setup even more than the removal of a set did. They could still introduce the symbol on colorless mana production, but decided it fit better being introduced on the set where it is also a cost.
On phasing:
Previously, WotC had introduced new features limitedly, eg. eldrazi, in the third set (Worldwake).
Why can't WotC introduced new features (not recycling old abilities) sufficiently, eg. in the entire block, instead of a third/second set?
Is this what players want? Half-executed new features?
Even with this new mana symbol, why cant it be introduced in BFZ?
Now, since it was leaked, players had been speculating on what it is. For me, I cant be bothered with this hype. Referring to history, WotC is going to introduce another 10 - 20 cards and this feature will go into hiatus which may not ever see the light of day again. OMG.. Has anyone wish to have more 'dredge' cards in RTR block?
This hype will leave a bitter taste in my mouth again. For once, please disappoint me WotC.
Is MORPH what players want? OMG..
WotC really needs to learn how to bring new features to fruition, instead of focusing on one ability only (eg. morph -> meagmorph), changing keywords for the identical abilities (eg. converge/sunburst) or simply neglect abilities while re-visiting planes (eg. dredge etc).