Haven't the goobers at Wizards been saying for years that the idea of a sixth color has been talked about but also dismissed? So, by printing cards that require a "new" kind of mana and by also printing basic lands that produce that type of mana, aren't they just cheating their way into making a sixth color? Does this feel like another gimmick in the long line of gimmicks they've been trowing around for the last 5+ years to anyone other than me?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The artist formerly known as Dimir Impersonator.
Follow me on Twitter @VapidPodcast and listen to my podcast "Vapid Existentialism" on iTunes!
No, it's just you. It's not a new kind of mana and it's not really anything new. It's a purely cosmetic change that clears up a common point of confusion for new players while also opening up the option of printing more powerful artifacts at a lower cmc
Well, sure, you can look at it that way if you want to.
But the thing is they didn't really 'create' any new thing here. They just tightened up the game vocabulary/nomenclature to differentiate between 'Generic' or '..of any color' mana and 'Colorless' mana or 'mana without ANY color'. All of us (players and R&D alike) have been using imprecise language and this change tightens it up (corrects it, is more precise).
They took existing muddy space within the game, analyzed it, and cleaned it up. Just give it some time..
I find it hard not to see this as a new color. The only real reasons not to call it "new" is just nitpicking the idea. Sure, colorless has been around for years but now it has a symbol that separates it from generic mana and now uses that symbol to cast cards and activate costs. How is this different from a new color? Non-subtype basic lands? There are already plenty of <> producing lands in print? People already know what it is?
To be fair, I do not think this is something of a gimmick created by Wizards, moreso just a good idea, regardless of how they view this new/old mana. It is truly only a matter of opinion because it doesn't complicate rulings, etc.
We spent a lot of time talking about what effects colorless mana should be able to get you, and finally decided that as it functions a lot like a sixth color (you need lands/other permanents that produce specifically it), we could define a color pie for colorless mana. Also, its use lessened your ability to access other colors, making it harder to bleed effects in other colors.
We came up with lots of interesting ideas that felt appropriate to Kozilek's physics-warping nature, but none of them were deep enough to put on many cards and have those cards still feel distinct from each other. I decided that we could simply use all of them, and tie them together with the "C" mana symbol. Kozilek wouldn't have a keyword mechanic; he would have a slice of the "color" pie.
The color system functions to restrict which cards can reasonably be played together by requiring you to play a certain number of mana sources of the appropriate kind to reliably cast all those cards (creating a tradeoff between the spells-to-lands ratio and the consistency with which you can cast your spells). Any mechanic that does the same thing is functionally a color.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I am so stupid that I cannot understand philosophy; the antithesis of this is that philosophy is so clever that it cannot comprehend my stupidity. These antitheses are mediated in a higher unity; in our common stupidity."
~ Søren Aabye Kierkegaard
We came up with lots of interesting ideas that felt appropriate to Kozilek's physics-warping nature, but none of them were deep enough to put on many cards and have those cards still feel distinct from each other. I decided that we could simply use all of them, and tie them together with the "C" mana symbol. Kozilek wouldn't have a keyword mechanic; he would have a slice of the "color" pie.
The color system functions to restrict which cards can reasonably be played together by requiring you to play a certain number of mana sources of the appropriate kind to reliably cast all those cards (creating a tradeoff between the spells-to-lands ratio and the consistency with which you can cast your spells). Any mechanic that does the same thing is functionally a color.
Absolutely true, but it's interesting how WOTC has squared the circle here through the use of colorless and not a new sixth color.
By linking it to colorless, they have enabled the spells to be cast, abilities to be activated through all of the existing lands, dorks, and rocks that produce colorless mana.
By limiting it to only colorless, and insisting that colorless isn't a color, they've kept it separate from all of the lands, dorks, and rocks that produce "one mana of any color."
Quick glance, "one mana of any color" has around seven Standard legal cards right now, but obviously a much wider pool to draw from in deeper formats. Colorless has a lot more, especially with the Eldrazi Scion token producing cards. Thirty-six, which including the painlands is pretty key. I think it sets up a situation where they can make a major splash in Standard, simply because so many cards are being pushed to support colorless. But it remains to be seen the broader impact based on the power level of cards. It does give the colorless-only cards future support whenever future "colorless matters" or "produces colorless" cards are made, something that a true sixth color may not always benefit from.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
----- "I cannot tune a harp or play a lyre, but I know how to make a small city great." - Themistocles
It is a sixth "color", since some cards require a sixth type of mana (not WUBRG, but <>). The ingenious thing is that the way it is implemented it is backwards compatible (there already exist hundreds of cards producing colorless mana). The strange thing to me is that WotC chose to introduce it mid-block..?
To put it positively, I see this move as giving the "Colorless Type" the recognition it deserves for being around the game since the beginning.
Colorless has never had the "benefits" that other "types (the 5 Colors) of mana" have gotten that came at the price of "Pay with only this color/type of mana". Sure, Colorless could get pretty much any effect at a higher cost, but that doesn't really grant it any identity. Just because Colorless has no Color doesn't mean it shouldn't have an "Identity". I see the C costs as a step towards this recognition of identity, although I would think the actual shaping of it would take some time to manifest.
"Functionally" it feels like "a new type of mana" because of all the restriction in costs when this is applied in gameplay.
No, it's just you. It's not a new kind of mana and it's not really anything new. It's a purely cosmetic change that clears up a common point of confusion for new players while also opening up the option of printing more powerful artifacts at a lower cmc
Actually it is a new color, especially when we have cards that now demand colorless mana instead of anytype of mana can feed colorless; the <> symbol is going to be interesting.
To prove the point: The Walker of the Wastes demands a colorless mana, you cannot put the card inside a solid red deck or a solid blue deck. It won't work because the card demands a <> symbol. So you need lands that produce the <> mana to play the card.
I'd never thought wizards was going to make a 6th color but they did find a way to add a new color to the game without adding a new color to the card backs. Yeah its a way to cheat in a 6th color... I think it's also cool they did that too because players are now forced to add <> mana to their decks.
There has always been colorless mana, they didn't add a new color or a new type of mana. the fact that they had never printed cards that required it before doesn't make it a new type of mana.
We have been using <> to pay for generic costs for years but now you think it's a new color. You could never use any color to pay for colorless, you used it to pay for generic. There were no cards that required colorless until now.
Getting a clearer symbol doesn't make it a new thing. Mana confluence couldn't make <> before and it still can't now.
There has always been colorless mana, they didn't add a new color or a new type of mana. the fact that they had never printed cards that required it before doesn't make it a new type of mana.
We have been using <> to pay for generic costs for years but now you think it's a new color. You could never use any color to pay for colorless, you used it to pay for generic. There were no cards that required colorless until now.
Getting a clearer symbol doesn't make it a new thing. Mana confluence couldn't make <> before and it still can't now.
If they took out the colors in magic you still need tree mana to play for tree mana things, rain drop to pay for rain drop things, fireball to pay for fireball things. The point is that you need <> to play some cards. if you have a spell that cost R<> you cannot play that card by tapping RR.
No, it's just you. It's not a new kind of mana and it's not really anything new. It's a purely cosmetic change that clears up a common point of confusion for new players while also opening up the option of printing more powerful artifacts at a lower cmc
This isn't true at all. Because there are cards that require colorless mana to be cast then they are a new color. Because I can't tap a mountain to cast a <> cost it's not colorless in the traditional sense of the word. Especially because the cost on all cards isn't being retconned to say all colorless costs are colorless. Tarmogoyf still has a cost of 1 green and any color not 1 green and one <>. However, the new colorless cost specifically asks for colorless mana not one of any color. That is, in effect, a sixth color.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The artist formerly known as Dimir Impersonator.
Follow me on Twitter @VapidPodcast and listen to my podcast "Vapid Existentialism" on iTunes!
No, it's just you. It's not a new kind of mana and it's not really anything new. It's a purely cosmetic change that clears up a common point of confusion for new players while also opening up the option of printing more powerful artifacts at a lower cmc
This isn't true at all. Because there are cards that require colorless mana to be cast then they are a new color. Because I can't tap a mountain to cast a <> cost it's not colorless in the traditional sense of the word. Especially because the cost on all cards isn't being retconned to say all colorless costs are colorless. Tarmogoyf still has a cost of 1 green and any color not 1 green and one <>. However, the new colorless cost specifically asks for colorless mana not one of any color. That is, in effect, a sixth color.
See that's the problem right there. You don't understand the difference between colorless and generic. They had the same symbol and that made it confusing for people. That's why this change is happening like I said in my first post. Goyf does not cost green and a colorless, he costs green and a generic. Colorless is a kind of mana, generic is a kind of cost. I don't understand why you keep mixing them up...
We came up with lots of interesting ideas that felt appropriate to Kozilek's physics-warping nature, but none of them were deep enough to put on many cards and have those cards still feel distinct from each other. I decided that we could simply use all of them, and tie them together with the "C" mana symbol. Kozilek wouldn't have a keyword mechanic; he would have a slice of the "color" pie.
The color system functions to restrict which cards can reasonably be played together by requiring you to play a certain number of mana sources of the appropriate kind to reliably cast all those cards (creating a tradeoff between the spells-to-lands ratio and the consistency with which you can cast your spells). Any mechanic that does the same thing is functionally a color.
Absolutely true, but it's interesting how WOTC has squared the circle here through the use of colorless and not a new sixth color.
By linking it to colorless, they have enabled the spells to be cast, abilities to be activated through all of the existing lands, dorks, and rocks that produce colorless mana.
By limiting it to only colorless, and insisting that colorless isn't a color, they've kept it separate from all of the lands, dorks, and rocks that produce "one mana of any color."
Quick glance, "one mana of any color" has around seven Standard legal cards right now, but obviously a much wider pool to draw from in deeper formats. Colorless has a lot more, especially with the Eldrazi Scion token producing cards. Thirty-six, which including the painlands is pretty key. I think it sets up a situation where they can make a major splash in Standard, simply because so many cards are being pushed to support colorless. But it remains to be seen the broader impact based on the power level of cards. It does give the colorless-only cards future support whenever future "colorless matters" or "produces colorless" cards are made, something that a true sixth color may not always benefit from.
They used colorles instead of a 6th color for two reasons. One that they have mentionned before and the other that I think they alluded to wikthout being specific.
1. A 6th color would take most of the space reserved for new stuff in a set, and would need to be introduced in the first set( since we don't have 3 sets anymore, they'd have no choice but to put it in both). The first time they considered it, it was going to be in planar chaos (2nd set) and continue from there. While Zendikar is the perfect plane to introduce a new color with its emphasis on land. Players wanted, and expected Eldrazi focus. There isn't room for both, and they have to meet expectations. Colorless allowed them to introduce a "new" color without sacrificing as much space in the set. Since most of what it uses is already in the game.
2. They have made it clear that they'd have a 6th color borrow some stuff from other colors(no idea why. There's no shortage of evergreenable abilities that belong to no color). Players wouldn't have liked that, because it wouldn't have felt new. (That's why they do things like cohort for example. They find an existing mechanic that does what they need for the set, and give it a keyword. Because if they don't, players complain they've seen it before. Though I personally find cohort to be the laziest keyword in a long time, though constellation is close) Colorless gets to borrow everything without it looking like it's borrowing anything, and no one minds. So it still feels new, even though 80% of it isn't. (Which isn't a bad thing mind you)
No, it's just you. It's not a new kind of mana and it's not really anything new. It's a purely cosmetic change that clears up a common point of confusion for new players while also opening up the option of printing more powerful artifacts at a lower cmc
This isn't true at all. Because there are cards that require colorless mana to be cast then they are a new color. Because I can't tap a mountain to cast a <> cost it's not colorless in the traditional sense of the word. Especially because the cost on all cards isn't being retconned to say all colorless costs are colorless. Tarmogoyf still has a cost of 1 green and any color not 1 green and one <>. However, the new colorless cost specifically asks for colorless mana not one of any color. That is, in effect, a sixth color.
See that's the problem right there. You don't understand the difference between colorless and generic. They had the same symbol and that made it confusing for people. That's why this change is happening like I said in my first post. Goyf does not cost green and a colorless, he costs green and a generic. Colorless is a kind of mana, generic is a kind of cost. I don't understand why you keep mixing them up...
Come now. He mixes them up for the same reason anyone else does. Because the game never made the distinction (It never needed to before. So for all intents and purposes, there was none)
Although, colorless mana really is a 6th color to me. It required the printing of its own lands. Which have a basic type. And it cannot be used unles you have access to its mana, which did not exist before. You said it yourself. We had mana of any color before. But we never had colorless mana until now. So by your own definition, it IS new.
There are a number of issues in making a "new color"
Existing land cycles do not contain lands for the new color.
Most decent mechanic concepts have been adapted by existing colors so what would you have the "new color" do?
Thematically how would you introduce a new color?
What is nice about the colorless mana addition is that it sort of gives more identity to something that already exists. A new color would have had the same issues with land cycles so why not just build it out of the colorless we already have. Kozilek is the great distorter so he is distorting what we knew to already be which as far as the plot and concept of how its getting more identity its really flavorful. Its also really nice because the usual fetchlands / shocks / ABU land sort of concepts are sort of just thrown out the window if you look at colorless mana moving forward. Its possible that we see more of a reason not to run what used to always be considered the best land configuration options in the game which would be because you need access to colorless mana. The idea that a lesser land cycle like say who knows pain lands might become more feasible in some formats assuming they continue to evolve and adjust the identity of colorless.
So, is this a new color? Yes and no. They are more manipulating kind of a gray area of magic which lots of people considered to be a dull space which was the colorless (aka the stuff that usually generalizes all colors) and make it something that breaks from traditional magic into its own thing potentially. It might be a new way of adding a new color but its hard to really say until and unless we see them maintain this strategy moving forward and explore it more. If this turns out to be a one set thing it wont go anywhere really but if they continue to explore and expand it it has a TON of possibilities.
TLDR: Maybe, but it entirely depends on what wizards does next. If they bail on it then the answer is no. If they continue it the answer is very much yes. Its more of a situation where they gave an existing area a better and more interesting niche though if you ask me.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I have officially moved to MTGNexus. I just wanted to let people know as my response time to salvation decks being bumped is very hit or miss.
So, is this a new color? Yes and no. They are more manipulating kind of a gray area of magic which lots of people considered to be a dull space which was the colorless (aka the stuff that usually generalizes all colors) and make it something that breaks from traditional magic into its own thing potentially. It might be a new way of adding a new color but its hard to really say until and unless we see them maintain this strategy moving forward and explore it more. If this turns out to be a one set thing it wont go anywhere really but if they continue to explore and expand it it has a TON of possibilities.
According to Maro, it'll be less frequent than hybrid, and since it's tied flavorwise to Kozilek and the Eldrazi, it probably won't show up very frequently at all. Even in the Eldrazi block, it only appeared in one set. Making colorless costs a prominent part of the game is a development nightmare because making a land only produce colorless mana is a balancing tool; making that into a useful property rather than a drawback restricts how good/diverse the payoff cards can be as well as how good lands can be in general.
Its more of a situation where they gave an existing area a better and more interesting niche though if you ask me.
It's more like they used existing tools to create a new space. Colorless mana sources now have a fundamentally different use than before: you need to play them in order to play cards like Spatial Contortion, whereas before they were only good if their other abilities or the amount of mana they generated made up for that mana being unable to cast colored spells without help from other mana sources.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I am so stupid that I cannot understand philosophy; the antithesis of this is that philosophy is so clever that it cannot comprehend my stupidity. These antitheses are mediated in a higher unity; in our common stupidity."
~ Søren Aabye Kierkegaard
There have always been six types of mana: five that were called "colors" and one that was called "colorless". Until now, there had been no cards or abilities that required the sixth type in their cost. This made the distinction between it and the other types of mana quite clear and intuitive: if a type of mana appeared in costs, it was a color. If it didn't appear in costs, it wasn't. Now that they've added colorless mana in costs, that line has been blurred. Colorless mana now functions just like the other five types of mana do, but is still not defined by the rules as a color (which matters for cards that produce mana "of any color" and other color matters mechanics). So, yes, it could accurately be described as "like cheating a sixth color into magic". The "like" part is key though, because this "color" is not a color and it isn't being added to the game, it's actually been there, unused, all along. To me personally, this makes all the difference. A genuine 6th color would be adding something to the game that it was not designed to account for (I have similar feelings about the Planeswalker card type). But what they have done instead is utilized design space that has been in the game since its creation but has been untapped so far.
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."
There have always been six types of mana: five that were called "colors" and one that was called "colorless". Until now, there had been no cards or abilities that required the sixth type in their cost. This made the distinction between it and the other types of mana quite clear and intuitive: if a type of mana appeared in costs, it was a color. If it didn't appear in costs, it wasn't. Now that they've added colorless mana in costs, that line has been blurred. Colorless mana now functions just like the other five types of mana do, but is still not defined by the rules as a color (which matters for cards that produce mana "of any color" and other color matters mechanics). So, yes, it could accurately be described as "like cheating a sixth color into magic". The "like" part is key though, because this "color" is not a color and it isn't being added to the game, it's actually been there, unused, all along. To me personally, this makes all the difference. A genuine 6th color would be adding something to the game that it was not designed to account for (I have similar feelings about the Planeswalker card type). But what they have done instead is utilized design space that has been in the game since its creation but has been untapped so far.
This is the argument about Colorless as a thing that makes me crazy. You say it's always existed but that's simply not true. Yes, we always had artifacts and later cards that had no color requirement, but this is completely different because it requires colorless specifically. Just because the lands that used to provide this have been retroactively changed doesn't mean this has always been a part of the game. It's literally never been a part of the game. Colorless has never, ever been a requirement until now. It's not something that lied dormant and "unused", it's a fundamental change to what this, , means on a land.
Why is this new? They could very well have written the new Kozilek as costing 12 generic and having text stating 'You must spend at least two colorless mana to pay for Kozilek's mana cost.' (See: Drain Life.) It's simply that the new symbol makes phrasing that and putting it in costs much easier.
Also, no lands have been functionally changed in the errata sense, though their values in deckbuilding may have shifted. Sol Ring functions in precisely the same manner as before with 'T: Add <> <> to your mana pool'.
Yes, it's true that colorless has never been a requirement. However, it's not something totally new in that it would have been impossible; it was, in fact, something that could have been done and wasn't.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes... Three generations of imbeciles are enough."
--Buck v Bell, 1927. This case, regarding the compulsory sterilization of inmates at mental institutions, has -- somehow -- never been overturned. Just a wee PSA for ya.
Color is more than costs. It defines a card, in a way that colorlessness does not.
Cards that interact with a creature's color or colors will generally not interact with colorless. You cannot cast Ultimate Price on Kozilek, the Great Distortion, because colorless is not a color. You cannot choose colorless with Iona, Shield of Emeria, because colorless is not a color. Emrakul, the Aeons Torn and Etched Champion do not have protection from Spatial Contortion, because colorless is not a color. Transguild Courier is not white, blue, black, red, green, and colorless, because colorless is not a color. Birds of Paradise cannot add colorless to your mana pool, because colorless is not a color. Coalition Victory does not require an Endbringer to win you the game, because colorless is not a color. A card can be red and black, but a card cannot be red and colorless, because colorless is not a color. Your commander does not require colorless as part of their mana identity in order to run Walker of the Wastes, because colorless is not a color.
Mana costs are only one function that colors provide to Magic, and colors are not even the only tool that has historically been used to define mana costs. Snow appeared in costs, and had its own mana symbol, yet was not a color. The Phyrexian mana symbol appeared in costs, but was not a color. Mana symbols can define things other than colors.
It is simply not correct to describe the new colorless symbol as a new color. It only fills a small portion of that much vaster role.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
*Insert giant block of annoying garbage that no one cares about but you have to scroll past anyway here*
There have always been six types of mana: five that were called "colors" and one that was called "colorless". Until now, there had been no cards or abilities that required the sixth type in their cost. This made the distinction between it and the other types of mana quite clear and intuitive: if a type of mana appeared in costs, it was a color. If it didn't appear in costs, it wasn't. Now that they've added colorless mana in costs, that line has been blurred. Colorless mana now functions just like the other five types of mana do, but is still not defined by the rules as a color (which matters for cards that produce mana "of any color" and other color matters mechanics). So, yes, it could accurately be described as "like cheating a sixth color into magic". The "like" part is key though, because this "color" is not a color and it isn't being added to the game, it's actually been there, unused, all along. To me personally, this makes all the difference. A genuine 6th color would be adding something to the game that it was not designed to account for (I have similar feelings about the Planeswalker card type). But what they have done instead is utilized design space that has been in the game since its creation but has been untapped so far.
This is the argument about Colorless as a thing that makes me crazy. You say it's always existed but that's simply not true. Yes, we always had artifacts and later cards that had no color requirement, but this is completely different because it requires colorless specifically. Just because the lands that used to provide this have been retroactively changed doesn't mean this has always been a part of the game. It's literally never been a part of the game. Colorless has never, ever been a requirement until now. It's not something that lied dormant and "unused", it's a fundamental change to what this, , means on a land.
You might want to re-read the comprehensive rules. Pay particular attention to rule 106.1b.
Colorless mana has never appeared in costs until now, but it did exist. Just look at a Beta Sol Ring.
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."
See that's the problem right there. You don't understand the difference between colorless and generic. They had the same symbol and that made it confusing for people. That's why this change is happening like I said in my first post. Goyf does not cost green and a colorless, he costs green and a generic. Colorless is a kind of mana, generic is a kind of cost. I don't understand why you keep mixing them up...
Yeah that's true that Goyf cost one green and one generic mana. But Generic mana could be spent on any mana type (no rule change) but if Goyf cost one green and one <> then it changes the whole concept on deck construction because you need green and <> to play Goyf.
They didn't make it confusing, what they wanted was cards that have a casting cost, ability cost, etc that requires colorless mana to play. Like I said, you cannot play a spell with R <> by spending RR. The fact that you NEED colorless mana to play a spell/ability makes it a 6th color.
I don't think the concept is bad, I've always like it when Wizards do something like this (it adds fresh life to the game)
Right, so like I said, they didn't add anything to the game, they started using design space that existed (nothing was stopping them from requiring colorless costs) but hadn't yet been utilized. In doing so, they did blur the line between the five types of mana that are considered colors and the one type that isn't. In that way, it is very much like adding a sixth color, except that the "new color" is technically neither a color, nor is it new.
So, to answer your original question, yes I think it's similar to adding a 6th color but no I don't have a problem with that because they are exploring existing but unused design space, and doesn't functionally change any color-matters cards whereas actually adding a 6th color would be kludging a space into the game to design in and would functionally change color-matters cards. YMMV and that's fine.
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."
Right, so like I said, they didn't add anything to the game, they started using design space that existed (nothing was stopping them from requiring colorless costs) but hadn't yet been utilized. In doing so, they did blur the line between the five types of mana that are considered colors and the one type that isn't. In that way, it is very much like adding a sixth color, except that the "new color" is technically neither a color, nor is it new.
So, to answer your original question, yes I think it's similar to adding a 6th color but no I don't have a problem with that because they are exploring existing but unused design space, and doesn't functionally change any color-matters cards whereas actually adding a 6th color would be kludging a space into the game to design in and would functionally change color-matters cards. YMMV and that's fine.
I never said I had a problem with it as a mechanic or as a function of the game. I do, however, think it's lazy and pointless design. There's no real reason to make colorless its own thing. Why fix what ain't broken?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The artist formerly known as Dimir Impersonator.
Follow me on Twitter @VapidPodcast and listen to my podcast "Vapid Existentialism" on iTunes!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Follow me on Twitter @VapidPodcast and listen to my podcast "Vapid Existentialism" on iTunes!
Modern: WURG Twin
Standard: Mardu Planeswalkers
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/standard-type-2/deck-creation-standard/661834-mardu-planeswalker?comment=1
Monthly Proxy Legacy
Charlotte/Greensboro area, NC
Pm me for details
Instead, these changes are a new design space for colorless mana.
The world is on fire
and you are here to stay and burn with me.
But the thing is they didn't really 'create' any new thing here. They just tightened up the game vocabulary/nomenclature to differentiate between 'Generic' or '..of any color' mana and 'Colorless' mana or 'mana without ANY color'. All of us (players and R&D alike) have been using imprecise language and this change tightens it up (corrects it, is more precise).
They took existing muddy space within the game, analyzed it, and cleaned it up. Just give it some time..
Fully-powered 600-Card "Dream Cube" https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/dreamcube
450-Card "Artificer's Cube" https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/artificer
Cubing in Indianapolis...send me a PM!!
To be fair, I do not think this is something of a gimmick created by Wizards, moreso just a good idea, regardless of how they view this new/old mana. It is truly only a matter of opinion because it doesn't complicate rulings, etc.
~ Søren Aabye Kierkegaard
Absolutely true, but it's interesting how WOTC has squared the circle here through the use of colorless and not a new sixth color.
By linking it to colorless, they have enabled the spells to be cast, abilities to be activated through all of the existing lands, dorks, and rocks that produce colorless mana.
By limiting it to only colorless, and insisting that colorless isn't a color, they've kept it separate from all of the lands, dorks, and rocks that produce "one mana of any color."
Quick glance, "one mana of any color" has around seven Standard legal cards right now, but obviously a much wider pool to draw from in deeper formats. Colorless has a lot more, especially with the Eldrazi Scion token producing cards. Thirty-six, which including the painlands is pretty key. I think it sets up a situation where they can make a major splash in Standard, simply because so many cards are being pushed to support colorless. But it remains to be seen the broader impact based on the power level of cards. It does give the colorless-only cards future support whenever future "colorless matters" or "produces colorless" cards are made, something that a true sixth color may not always benefit from.
"I cannot tune a harp or play a lyre, but I know how to make a small city great." - Themistocles
Colorless has never had the "benefits" that other "types (the 5 Colors) of mana" have gotten that came at the price of "Pay with only this color/type of mana". Sure, Colorless could get pretty much any effect at a higher cost, but that doesn't really grant it any identity. Just because Colorless has no Color doesn't mean it shouldn't have an "Identity". I see the C costs as a step towards this recognition of identity, although I would think the actual shaping of it would take some time to manifest.
"Functionally" it feels like "a new type of mana" because of all the restriction in costs when this is applied in gameplay.
Actually it is a new color, especially when we have cards that now demand colorless mana instead of anytype of mana can feed colorless; the <> symbol is going to be interesting.
To prove the point: The Walker of the Wastes demands a colorless mana, you cannot put the card inside a solid red deck or a solid blue deck. It won't work because the card demands a <> symbol. So you need lands that produce the <> mana to play the card.
I'd never thought wizards was going to make a 6th color but they did find a way to add a new color to the game without adding a new color to the card backs. Yeah its a way to cheat in a 6th color... I think it's also cool they did that too because players are now forced to add <> mana to their decks.
In his Second 100 days - Yawgmoth's Bargain is unrestricted in Vintage.
What is going to happen in the Next 100 days!!!
We have been using <> to pay for generic costs for years but now you think it's a new color. You could never use any color to pay for colorless, you used it to pay for generic. There were no cards that required colorless until now.
Getting a clearer symbol doesn't make it a new thing. Mana confluence couldn't make <> before and it still can't now.
Modern: WURG Twin
Standard: Mardu Planeswalkers
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/standard-type-2/deck-creation-standard/661834-mardu-planeswalker?comment=1
Monthly Proxy Legacy
Charlotte/Greensboro area, NC
Pm me for details
If they took out the colors in magic you still need tree mana to play for tree mana things, rain drop to pay for rain drop things, fireball to pay for fireball things. The point is that you need <> to play some cards. if you have a spell that cost R<> you cannot play that card by tapping RR.
This is a new twist on colorless and a new color.
In his Second 100 days - Yawgmoth's Bargain is unrestricted in Vintage.
What is going to happen in the Next 100 days!!!
This isn't true at all. Because there are cards that require colorless mana to be cast then they are a new color. Because I can't tap a mountain to cast a <> cost it's not colorless in the traditional sense of the word. Especially because the cost on all cards isn't being retconned to say all colorless costs are colorless. Tarmogoyf still has a cost of 1 green and any color not 1 green and one <>. However, the new colorless cost specifically asks for colorless mana not one of any color. That is, in effect, a sixth color.
Follow me on Twitter @VapidPodcast and listen to my podcast "Vapid Existentialism" on iTunes!
See that's the problem right there. You don't understand the difference between colorless and generic. They had the same symbol and that made it confusing for people. That's why this change is happening like I said in my first post. Goyf does not cost green and a colorless, he costs green and a generic. Colorless is a kind of mana, generic is a kind of cost. I don't understand why you keep mixing them up...
Modern: WURG Twin
Standard: Mardu Planeswalkers
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/standard-type-2/deck-creation-standard/661834-mardu-planeswalker?comment=1
Monthly Proxy Legacy
Charlotte/Greensboro area, NC
Pm me for details
They used colorles instead of a 6th color for two reasons. One that they have mentionned before and the other that I think they alluded to wikthout being specific.
1. A 6th color would take most of the space reserved for new stuff in a set, and would need to be introduced in the first set( since we don't have 3 sets anymore, they'd have no choice but to put it in both). The first time they considered it, it was going to be in planar chaos (2nd set) and continue from there. While Zendikar is the perfect plane to introduce a new color with its emphasis on land. Players wanted, and expected Eldrazi focus. There isn't room for both, and they have to meet expectations. Colorless allowed them to introduce a "new" color without sacrificing as much space in the set. Since most of what it uses is already in the game.
2. They have made it clear that they'd have a 6th color borrow some stuff from other colors(no idea why. There's no shortage of evergreenable abilities that belong to no color). Players wouldn't have liked that, because it wouldn't have felt new. (That's why they do things like cohort for example. They find an existing mechanic that does what they need for the set, and give it a keyword. Because if they don't, players complain they've seen it before. Though I personally find cohort to be the laziest keyword in a long time, though constellation is close) Colorless gets to borrow everything without it looking like it's borrowing anything, and no one minds. So it still feels new, even though 80% of it isn't. (Which isn't a bad thing mind you)
Come now. He mixes them up for the same reason anyone else does. Because the game never made the distinction (It never needed to before. So for all intents and purposes, there was none)
Although, colorless mana really is a 6th color to me. It required the printing of its own lands. Which have a basic type. And it cannot be used unles you have access to its mana, which did not exist before. You said it yourself. We had mana of any color before. But we never had colorless mana until now. So by your own definition, it IS new.
What is nice about the colorless mana addition is that it sort of gives more identity to something that already exists. A new color would have had the same issues with land cycles so why not just build it out of the colorless we already have. Kozilek is the great distorter so he is distorting what we knew to already be which as far as the plot and concept of how its getting more identity its really flavorful. Its also really nice because the usual fetchlands / shocks / ABU land sort of concepts are sort of just thrown out the window if you look at colorless mana moving forward. Its possible that we see more of a reason not to run what used to always be considered the best land configuration options in the game which would be because you need access to colorless mana. The idea that a lesser land cycle like say who knows pain lands might become more feasible in some formats assuming they continue to evolve and adjust the identity of colorless.
So, is this a new color? Yes and no. They are more manipulating kind of a gray area of magic which lots of people considered to be a dull space which was the colorless (aka the stuff that usually generalizes all colors) and make it something that breaks from traditional magic into its own thing potentially. It might be a new way of adding a new color but its hard to really say until and unless we see them maintain this strategy moving forward and explore it more. If this turns out to be a one set thing it wont go anywhere really but if they continue to explore and expand it it has a TON of possibilities.
TLDR: Maybe, but it entirely depends on what wizards does next. If they bail on it then the answer is no. If they continue it the answer is very much yes. Its more of a situation where they gave an existing area a better and more interesting niche though if you ask me.
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics by Xen
[Modern] Allies
~ Søren Aabye Kierkegaard
"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."
Why is this new? They could very well have written the new Kozilek as costing 12 generic and having text stating 'You must spend at least two colorless mana to pay for Kozilek's mana cost.' (See: Drain Life.) It's simply that the new symbol makes phrasing that and putting it in costs much easier.
Also, no lands have been functionally changed in the errata sense, though their values in deckbuilding may have shifted. Sol Ring functions in precisely the same manner as before with 'T: Add <> <> to your mana pool'.
Yes, it's true that colorless has never been a requirement. However, it's not something totally new in that it would have been impossible; it was, in fact, something that could have been done and wasn't.
--Buck v Bell, 1927. This case, regarding the compulsory sterilization of inmates at mental institutions, has -- somehow -- never been overturned. Just a wee PSA for ya.
Cards that interact with a creature's color or colors will generally not interact with colorless. You cannot cast Ultimate Price on Kozilek, the Great Distortion, because colorless is not a color. You cannot choose colorless with Iona, Shield of Emeria, because colorless is not a color. Emrakul, the Aeons Torn and Etched Champion do not have protection from Spatial Contortion, because colorless is not a color. Transguild Courier is not white, blue, black, red, green, and colorless, because colorless is not a color. Birds of Paradise cannot add colorless to your mana pool, because colorless is not a color. Coalition Victory does not require an Endbringer to win you the game, because colorless is not a color. A card can be red and black, but a card cannot be red and colorless, because colorless is not a color. Your commander does not require colorless as part of their mana identity in order to run Walker of the Wastes, because colorless is not a color.
Mana costs are only one function that colors provide to Magic, and colors are not even the only tool that has historically been used to define mana costs. Snow appeared in costs, and had its own mana symbol, yet was not a color. The Phyrexian mana symbol appeared in costs, but was not a color. Mana symbols can define things other than colors.
It is simply not correct to describe the new colorless symbol as a new color. It only fills a small portion of that much vaster role.
You might want to re-read the comprehensive rules. Pay particular attention to rule 106.1b.
Colorless mana has never appeared in costs until now, but it did exist. Just look at a Beta Sol Ring.
"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."
Yeah that's true that Goyf cost one green and one generic mana. But Generic mana could be spent on any mana type (no rule change) but if Goyf cost one green and one <> then it changes the whole concept on deck construction because you need green and <> to play Goyf.
They didn't make it confusing, what they wanted was cards that have a casting cost, ability cost, etc that requires colorless mana to play. Like I said, you cannot play a spell with R <> by spending R R. The fact that you NEED colorless mana to play a spell/ability makes it a 6th color.
I don't think the concept is bad, I've always like it when Wizards do something like this (it adds fresh life to the game)
In his Second 100 days - Yawgmoth's Bargain is unrestricted in Vintage.
What is going to happen in the Next 100 days!!!
So, to answer your original question, yes I think it's similar to adding a 6th color but no I don't have a problem with that because they are exploring existing but unused design space, and doesn't functionally change any color-matters cards whereas actually adding a 6th color would be kludging a space into the game to design in and would functionally change color-matters cards. YMMV and that's fine.
"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 never said I had a problem with it as a mechanic or as a function of the game. I do, however, think it's lazy and pointless design. There's no real reason to make colorless its own thing. Why fix what ain't broken?
Follow me on Twitter @VapidPodcast and listen to my podcast "Vapid Existentialism" on iTunes!