I think "colorless" makes sense. "Devoid" in the context of mana can also work, I suppose. The only confusing bit would be costs such as 1CG, because right now cards are specified to be "Devoid" (no color) and I am not sure it makes sense to have cards be Devoid-Green the way RG can be Red-Green. I am not into "glass" as a term for this; it feels too non sequitur.
Honestly, it feels like anything but generic, colorless, r, g, w, u, b would be problematic. If it's not locked into meaning strictly devoid of color, "colorless" will remain an ambiguous term.
Yeah, I've been using the term diamond for their color. Diamonds are typically thought of as colorless and clear, so it works for a description. If I'm playing a UG deck with diamonds, I'm splashing diamonds. Diamonds easily makes you think of the mana symbol where as colorless will always mean cards that don't necessarily REQUIRE colorless mana to be spent to cast them but certainly could mean that too.
On a side note, if diamonds is what the community decides to call it in the end, us magic guys with magic girlfriends can always give our girls diamonds and save a ton of money on real diamonds that we can then spend on other cards for her. I mean, what magic girl would want a silly rock when she can get a tropical island instead?
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.
The Lrr-people called it "glass", which seems playable.
I like "glass". It implies that the cards are even more clear/colorless than normal colorless while also being quick to say. "diamond" sucks. Too many syllables and it already refers to a popular cycle of cards.
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
I don't understand why 'Colorless' isn't a valid option. No need to confuse the issue any further. Also... why bother with nicknames that take just as long to say? How do you talk about costs as is? If I was talking about General Tazri, I would say it costs a white and four (or four and a white). If I'm talking about Endbringer, I would just say "Five and a colorless".
If you really need something - meaning two extra syllables is too much, just say "gray". "I'm splashing gray" works fine, and no one needs to mention that they're splashing 'generic', so it's not like it'll cause any confusion. I'm honestly confused at how gray hasn't come up already. White, Blue, Green, Red, Black... Gray. Pale, Diamond, Glass, Eldrazi, etc. just don't fit. I still prefer just saying colorless, though.
In all seriousness though, it should just be "colorless". The big issue that's been mentioned by several already, is what to call the old "colorless" costs. Generic just seems so... Generic.
I really like calling cards with C costs Diamond cards. And I think every player who has seen the symbol will understand what I mean when I'll say "I'll splash a few Diamond cards".
However when talking about C mana, it should be properely called "Colorless mana" (or just "C") and nothing else makes sense here.
So "I need to add more colorless mana sources to my deck if I want to splash a few more diamond cards" is how I'd say it.
So, a friend of mine said he was building a mono black Eldrazi deck. I pointed out that it was technically not mono-colored, even though it was mono-"colored", because it has a pseudo second color. The term "mono green" or "green splashing blue" reference not only the distribution of colors within a deck, but also the mana requirements around which the deck is built. We would be surprised to find a non-utility land that doesn't produce green in a mono green deck (for example, an Swamp) because it would serve no purpose. Yet with colorless, even though the statement "mono green" implies the word "colored," it is no longer a true statement even though it is also a true statement (since colorless is not a color). It also begs the question if one day factions will be created, much like Orzhov and Izzet and wedge/shard combinations. Will the back of the magic cards make room for a sixth orb that represents colorless? How warping will this be?
Honestly, it would behoove Wizards to bestow us with this distinction, much like they have named the factions, because then it has an official designator rather than an ambiguity that plagues the community. Sure, we vote on colloquial ways of naming things (e.g. Battle Lands vs. Tango Lands), but the factions have names because Wizards gave them names.
FWIW, my vote is for "colorless." Cards that lack color but do not require colorless mana are not to be defined as colorless but rather as having no color. To use the examples from before, Battered Golem has no color, a Mountain has no color, but Thought-Knot Seer is colorless. This is also consistent with Wizards use of the reminder text for Devoid, where creatures with a color identity in the casting cost have no color (but are not called colorless). E.g. World Breaker.
But battered golem and mountain are very much 'colorless', it has an explicit rules definition, whereas 'no color' does not. For example, ancient stirrings or gruesome slaughter care if something is colorless
I don't understand why 'Colorless' isn't a valid option. No need to confuse the issue any further. Also... why bother with nicknames that take just as long to say? How do you talk about costs as is? If I was talking about General Tazri, I would say it costs a white and four (or four and a white). If I'm talking about Endbringer, I would just say "Five and a colorless".
If you really need something - meaning two extra syllables is too much, just say "gray". "I'm splashing gray" works fine, and no one needs to mention that they're splashing 'generic', so it's not like it'll cause any confusion. I'm honestly confused at how gray hasn't come up already. White, Blue, Green, Red, Black... Gray. Pale, Diamond, Glass, Eldrazi, etc. just don't fit. I still prefer just saying colorless, though.
You guys are focusing just on saying the cost, in which case "colorless" would work fine. But you don't need the "diamond" mana symbol for a card to be colorless. "Cards that require colorless mana to cast" are subset of "colorless" cards. (And theoretically that doesn't need to be the case... you could have a colored card with the colorless mana symbol in its cost, in which case the card could most certainly not be referred to as "colorless")
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If the Vikings were around today, they would probably be amazed at how much glow-in-the-dark stuff we have, and how we take it for granted.
I don't understand why 'Colorless' isn't a valid option. No need to confuse the issue any further. Also... why bother with nicknames that take just as long to say? How do you talk about costs as is? If I was talking about General Tazri, I would say it costs a white and four (or four and a white). If I'm talking about Endbringer, I would just say "Five and a colorless".
If you really need something - meaning two extra syllables is too much, just say "gray". "I'm splashing gray" works fine, and no one needs to mention that they're splashing 'generic', so it's not like it'll cause any confusion. I'm honestly confused at how gray hasn't come up already. White, Blue, Green, Red, Black... Gray. Pale, Diamond, Glass, Eldrazi, etc. just don't fit. I still prefer just saying colorless, though.
Actually Gray sounds good to me. Even outside of magic gray is considered drab & definition less.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOut of the ground,I rise to grace...W BAfter the lights go out on you, after your worthless life is through. I will remember how you scream...B
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Thanks to DarkNightCavalier from Heroes of the Plane Studios for this sick Signature.
Honestly, it feels like anything but generic, colorless, r, g, w, u, b would be problematic. If it's not locked into meaning strictly devoid of color, "colorless" will remain an ambiguous term.
On a side note, if diamonds is what the community decides to call it in the end, us magic guys with magic girlfriends can always give our girls diamonds and save a ton of money on real diamonds that we can then spend on other cards for her. I mean, what magic girl would want a silly rock when she can get a tropical island instead?
RIP Batman guy. I hope somebody picks up the slack now that you are gone. Sick children need their Batman.
"My mana-base is wasted to the point where I have 15 colourless sources."
"I'm playing my Wasted-Orzhov brew this week."
"He needs to waste his manabase so he can cast his Reality Smasher."
"I'm going to feel a lot better about casting this Blinding Drone once it's wasted."
"Man, I'm too wasted right now. I need to draw a white mana-source so I can be productive this game."
etc. etc. etc.
I'm having too much fun with it
I like "glass". It implies that the cards are even more clear/colorless than normal colorless while also being quick to say. "diamond" sucks. Too many syllables and it already refers to a popular cycle of cards.
- Manite
If you really need something - meaning two extra syllables is too much, just say "gray". "I'm splashing gray" works fine, and no one needs to mention that they're splashing 'generic', so it's not like it'll cause any confusion. I'm honestly confused at how gray hasn't come up already. White, Blue, Green, Red, Black... Gray. Pale, Diamond, Glass, Eldrazi, etc. just don't fit. I still prefer just saying colorless, though.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
In all seriousness though, it should just be "colorless". The big issue that's been mentioned by several already, is what to call the old "colorless" costs. Generic just seems so... Generic.
"Banana mana" loooool
Seems pretty straightforward to me.
However when talking about C mana, it should be properely called "Colorless mana" (or just "C") and nothing else makes sense here.
So "I need to add more colorless mana sources to my deck if I want to splash a few more diamond cards" is how I'd say it.
Honestly, it would behoove Wizards to bestow us with this distinction, much like they have named the factions, because then it has an official designator rather than an ambiguity that plagues the community. Sure, we vote on colloquial ways of naming things (e.g. Battle Lands vs. Tango Lands), but the factions have names because Wizards gave them names.
FWIW, my vote is for "colorless." Cards that lack color but do not require colorless mana are not to be defined as colorless but rather as having no color. To use the examples from before, Battered Golem has no color, a Mountain has no color, but Thought-Knot Seer is colorless. This is also consistent with Wizards use of the reminder text for Devoid, where creatures with a color identity in the casting cost have no color (but are not called colorless). E.g. World Breaker.
You guys are focusing just on saying the cost, in which case "colorless" would work fine. But you don't need the "diamond" mana symbol for a card to be colorless. "Cards that require colorless mana to cast" are subset of "colorless" cards. (And theoretically that doesn't need to be the case... you could have a colored card with the colorless mana symbol in its cost, in which case the card could most certainly not be referred to as "colorless")
Actually Gray sounds good to me. Even outside of magic gray is considered drab & definition less.
BAfter the lights go out on you, after your worthless life is through. I will remember how you scream...B