The comprehensive rules provide a context against which you can see that <> mana is totally possible. It would become the symbol for "colorless mana". This is distinctly different from "generic mana". Colorless mana exists in your mana pool, generally produced by colorless lands and by artifacts. Currently it can't be specified in costs, because of its conflicting symbol with "generic mana".
Generic mana is a cost which can be paid by any color (or colorless) mana. Right now these two share a symbol. If <> is indeed real, it would be the new symbol for colorless mana. This would allow it to be specified in costs, and would remove the confusing and unnecessary re-use of the (1) symbol for two different things.
106. Mana
106.1. Mana is the primary resource in the game. Players spend mana to pay costs, usually when casting spells and activating abilities.
106.1a There are five colors of mana: white, blue, black, red, and green.
106.1b There are six types of mana: white, blue, black, red, green, and colorless.
106.2. Mana is represented by mana symbols (see rule 107.4). Mana symbols also represent mana costs (see rule 202).
202. Mana Cost and Color
202.1. A card’s mana cost is indicated by mana symbols near the top of the card. (See rule 107.4.) On most cards, these symbols are printed in the upper right corner.
202.1a The mana cost of an object represents what a player must spend from his or her mana pool to cast that card. Paying that mana cost requires matching the color of any colored mana symbols as well as paying the generic mana indicated in the cost.
107.4b Numeral symbols (such as {1}) and variable symbols (such as {X}) represent generic mana in costs. Generic mana in costs can be paid with any type of mana. For more information about {X}, see rule 107.3.
107.4c Numeral symbols (such as {1}) and variable symbols (such as {X}) can also represent colorless mana if they appear in the effect of a spell or ability that reads “add [mana symbol] to your mana pool” or something similar. (See rule 107.3e.)
I see it as being a way for wizards to avoid card text that says something like, "spend only colorless mana to do X." by having an actual symbol for colorless mana, we now can have a true colorless flavor.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
All your base are belong to us!
RIP Batman guy. I hope somebody picks up the slack now that you are gone. Sick children need their Batman.
Here is what I think will be the relevant rules changes if <> is the new symbol for colorless:
Current:
107.4. The mana symbols are W, U, B, R, G, and X; the numerals 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and so on; the hybrid symbols (W/U), (W/B), (U/B), (U/R), (B/R), (B/G), (R/G), (R/W), (G/W), and (G/U); the monocolored hybrid symbols (2/W), (2/U), (2/B), (2/R), and (2/G); the Phyrexian mana symbols (W/P), (U/P), (B/P), (R/P), and (G/P); and the snow symbol S.
New: (bolded change)
107.4. The mana symbols are W, U, B, R, G, <>, and X; the numerals 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and so on; the hybrid symbols (W/U), (W/B), (U/B), (U/R), (B/R), (B/G), (R/G), (R/W), (G/W), and (G/U); the monocolored hybrid symbols (2/W), (2/U), (2/B), (2/R), and (2/G); the Phyrexian mana symbols (W/P), (U/P), (B/P), (R/P), and (G/P); and the snow symbol S.
Current:
107.4c Numeral symbols (such as {1}) and variable symbols (such as {X}) can also represent colorless mana if they appear in the effect of a spell or ability that reads “add [mana symbol] to your mana pool” or something similar. (See rule 107.3e.)
New: (bolded change)
107.4c The <> symbol is used to represent colorless mana, and also to represent colorless mana in costs. Colorless mana in costs can be paid only with colorless mana. See rule 202, “Mana Cost and Color.”
Current:
202.1a The mana cost of an object represents what a player must spend from his or her mana pool to cast that card. Unless an object’s mana cost includes Phyrexian mana symbols (see rule 107.4f), paying that mana cost requires matching the color of any colored mana symbols as well as paying the generic mana indicated in the cost.
New: (bolded change)
202.1a The mana cost of an object represents what a player must spend from his or her mana pool to cast that card. Unless an object’s mana cost includes Phyrexian mana symbols (see rule 107.4f), paying that mana cost requires matching the colored or colorless mana symbols as well as paying the generic mana indicated in the cost.
New:
305.6a A basic land without a basic land type has the intrinsic ability “T: Add <> to your mana pool,” even if the text box doesn’t actually contain that text or the object has no text box. See rule 107.4c. Also see rule 605, “Mana Abilities.”
Well, that was until WotC answered a question on Facebook which tells me that Wastes basically pulls its "T: Add {C} to your mana pool" ability out of its arse, since apparently it will still be able to tap for {C} even with an Urborg on the field.
but there's some problem that Wastes doesn't have a type. im cool with that, but it's not intuitive and there's going to be other cards that care about a basic land's type. more rulings that go against the grain
Well, that was until WotC answered a question on Facebook which tells me that Wastes basically pulls its "T: Add {C} to your mana pool" ability out of its arse, since apparently it will still be able to tap for {C} even with an Urborg on the field.
The Oracle text of Wastes can just say "T: Add {C} to your mana pool." Doesn't matter what's printed on the card. No reason to have a game rule specifying that basic lands with no types tap for {C}, that brings up even more future weirdness.
Well, that was until WotC answered a question on Facebook which tells me that Wastes basically pulls its "T: Add {C} to your mana pool" ability out of its arse, since apparently it will still be able to tap for {C} even with an Urborg on the field.
The Oracle text of Wastes can just say "T: Add {C} to your mana pool." Doesn't matter what's printed on the card. No reason to have a game rule specifying that basic lands with no types tap for {C}, that brings up even more future weirdness.
It's also possible they'll add a rule saying "basic lands name Wastes have T: add <> to your mana pool".
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 think it would be better off saying ANY lands named Wastes have that ability because that opens you up to a Spreading Seas type of effect, but otherwise that's pretty elegant.
That's a good point. I like yours better.
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'm worried about commander. Things get wierd since you can only cast spells that share a mana symbol with your general. If <> is amtrue mana symbol, how does that work with commander rules
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
This aint your girlfriends meta! This is a man's meta! TURBO META.
I'm worried about commander. Things get wierd since you can only cast spells that share a mana symbol with your general. If <> is amtrue mana symbol, how does that work with commander rules
That isn't quite accurate. You can only cast spells if you can produce the requisite color of mana and you can only have cards in your deck that have the same color identity (not color) as your general. For example, Memnarch has no mana symbols, but you can still cast blue spells because his color identity is blue.
Regarding the question, the new Kozilek is colorless which means it has no color identity. You can run him in any deck.
I'm worried about commander. Things get wierd since you can only cast spells that share a mana symbol with your general. If <> is amtrue mana symbol, how does that work with commander rules
That isn't quite accurate. You can only cast spells if you can produce the requisite color of mana and you can only have cards in your deck that have the same color identity (not color) as your general. For example, Memnarch has no mana symbols, but you can still cast blue spells because his color identity is blue.
Regarding the question, the new Kozilek is colorless which means it has no color identity. You can run him in any deck.
I guess the question is, does "colorless" count as a color. Much like how white is technically NOT a color (its the absence of color)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
This aint your girlfriends meta! This is a man's meta! TURBO META.
I'm worried about commander. Things get wierd since you can only cast spells that share a mana symbol with your general. If <> is amtrue mana symbol, how does that work with commander rules
That isn't quite accurate. You can only cast spells if you can produce the requisite color of mana and you can only have cards in your deck that have the same color identity (not color) as your general. For example, Memnarch has no mana symbols, but you can still cast blue spells because his color identity is blue.
Regarding the question, the new Kozilek is colorless which means it has no color identity. You can run him in any deck.
I guess the question is, does "colorless" count as a color. Much like how white is technically NOT a color (its the absence of color)
In Magic there are 5 colors (regardless of what the "colors" actually are in real life). Colorless is the absence of color. Something cannot have a color and be colorless in Magic. The new symbol is not a 6th color of Magic. It is a new way of requiring colorless mana in a cost. Kozilek is colorless and colorless is not a color (by definition).
I'm worried about commander. Things get wierd since you can only cast spells that share a mana symbol with your general. If <> is amtrue mana symbol, how does that work with commander rules
That isn't quite accurate. You can only cast spells if you can produce the requisite color of mana and you can only have cards in your deck that have the same color identity (not color) as your general. For example, Memnarch has no mana symbols, but you can still cast blue spells because his color identity is blue.
Regarding the question, the new Kozilek is colorless which means it has no color identity. You can run him in any deck.
I guess the question is, does "colorless" count as a color. Much like how white is technically NOT a color (its the absence of color)
In Magic there are 5 colors (regardless of what the "colors" actually are in real life). Colorless is the absence of color. Something cannot have a color and be colorless in Magic. The new symbol is not a 6th color of Magic. It is a new way of requiring colorless mana in a cost. Kozilek is colorless and colorless is not a color (by definition).
Works by me lol
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
This aint your girlfriends meta! This is a man's meta! TURBO META.
I'm worried about commander. Things get wierd since you can only cast spells that share a mana symbol with your general. If <> is amtrue mana symbol, how does that work with commander rules
That isn't quite accurate. You can only cast spells if you can produce the requisite color of mana and you can only have cards in your deck that have the same color identity (not color) as your general. For example, Memnarch has no mana symbols, but you can still cast blue spells because his color identity is blue.
Regarding the question, the new Kozilek is colorless which means it has no color identity. You can run him in any deck.
I guess the question is, does "colorless" count as a color. Much like how white is technically NOT a color (its the absence of color)
That's actually incorrect. White is ALL colors. Black is the abscence of color. White reflects every part of the spectrum while black reflects nothing.
So technically, a white commander lets you use any color you want
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Generic mana is a cost which can be paid by any color (or colorless) mana. Right now these two share a symbol. If <> is indeed real, it would be the new symbol for colorless mana. This would allow it to be specified in costs, and would remove the confusing and unnecessary re-use of the (1) symbol for two different things.
Check out Odds//Ends - My articles on Quirky Cards and Oddball Builds
Long-time PucaTrade member and sometime author. Send me cards!
Currently playing Knight of the Reliquary - Retreat to Coralhelm Combo
RIP Batman guy. I hope somebody picks up the slack now that you are gone. Sick children need their Batman.
Here is what I think will be the relevant rules changes if <> is the new symbol for colorless:
Well, that was until WotC answered a question on Facebook which tells me that Wastes basically pulls its "T: Add {C} to your mana pool" ability out of its arse, since apparently it will still be able to tap for {C} even with an Urborg on the field.
The Oracle text of Wastes can just say "T: Add {C} to your mana pool." Doesn't matter what's printed on the card. No reason to have a game rule specifying that basic lands with no types tap for {C}, that brings up even more future weirdness.
It's also possible they'll add a rule saying "basic lands name Wastes have T: add <> to your mana pool".
"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."
That's a good point. I like yours better.
"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."
There is no special rules related to Wastes. It'll explicitly say {T}: Add {C} to your mana pool as Oracle text.
Which means that in the future, they can make other colorless basic lands named something else as appropriate.
This aint your girlfriends meta! This is a man's meta! TURBO META.
Regarding the question, the new Kozilek is colorless which means it has no color identity. You can run him in any deck.
I guess the question is, does "colorless" count as a color. Much like how white is technically NOT a color (its the absence of color)
This aint your girlfriends meta! This is a man's meta! TURBO META.
Works by me lol
This aint your girlfriends meta! This is a man's meta! TURBO META.
That's actually incorrect. White is ALL colors. Black is the abscence of color. White reflects every part of the spectrum while black reflects nothing.
So technically, a white commander lets you use any color you want