Modern: UUUBlue Man Group
Legacy: UWBMiracles
Edh: UUUThassa Control WWWHokori Stax GGGJolrael, Empress of Land Stompy BBBGriselbrand French List RBGShattergang(Super Villians) RWGHazezon Flicker UBRMarchesa Aggro URGMaelstom Wanderer (Maelstorm)
I don't think it would require reminder text. There's no reminder text on Lightning Bolt that says "R has to be paid for with R". I think Command has it right: {1} is generic mana and can be paid for with WUBRG or {1}, diamond is colorless and cannot pay for WUBRG but can pay for diamond or {1}. It's basically a 6th color that has no color. It will certainly require a new rule to define what diamond is, though. It will be interesting to see whether they mass-errata colorless lands to diamond (and then use it in the future) or whether diamond is a parasitic concept that exists only in Oath.
I saw something pointing out that a few months ago WOTC changed their tag for Chaos from {C} to {CHAOS}, which suggests that the tag for diamond is {C} (ie. colorless).
All I'm saying is if <> is treated the same way is then there would likely be reminder text on the cards like Scrying Sheets has. If <> means it requires colourless mana then why don't Wastes simply produce 1? Why the new symbol? I think <> will be treated more like a 6th colour rather then a colourless requirement meaning we might not be able to play them in Marchesa. They likely will be considered colourless just like snow mana is but there is a chance it will be considered a new colour as well.
I don't think it would require reminder text. There's no reminder text on Lightning Bolt that says "R has to be paid for with R". I think Command has it right: {1} is generic mana and can be paid for with WUBRG or {1}, diamond is colorless and cannot pay for WUBRG but can pay for diamond or {1}. It's basically a 6th color that has no color. It will certainly require a new rule to define what diamond is, though. It will be interesting to see whether they mass-errata colorless lands to diamond (and then use it in the future) or whether diamond is a parasitic concept that exists only in Oath.
I saw something pointing out that a few months ago WOTC changed their tag for Chaos from {C} to {CHAOS}, which suggests that the tag for diamond is {C} (ie. colorless).
All I'm saying is if <> is treated the same way is then there would likely be reminder text on the cards like Scrying Sheets has. If <> means it requires colourless mana then why doesn't Waiste simply produce 1? Why the new symbol? I think it will be treated more like a 6th colour then a colourless requirement.
The new symbol is because there's a difference between {1} and {colorless}. Damnation costs 2BB, which means you need 2 black and 2 of anything, WUBRG or colorless would work, because the 2 doesn't mean colorless but rather "generic".
The new symbol is because they are distinguishing between the color "colorless" and "generic" mana. It allows them to explore a space where you have to make an effort at being colorless in your manabase in order to play the new Kozilek, or any other card that requires colorless mana, because the mana cost isn't just generic and therefore playable via using any color you like. There's no reminder text that R has to be paid for with R, so there is no reason to require reminder text that says diamond requires diamond, there would instead be a new rule stating what diamond means. It's likely that diamond means "1 mana with the color colorless". It absolutely looks like a 6th color that has no color.
Up to BFZ, nothing has cared to distinguish between generic mana (mana of any color) and colorless mana (mana with no color). It looks like we're about to get a set that does care to distinguish between them. It won't necessarily be a new color identity(if it is, Sol Ring and every other colorless rock can only be played in a colorless deck), but it does mean that it requires colorless producing mana sources to support diamond mana costs.
I don't think it would require reminder text. There's no reminder text on Lightning Bolt that says "R has to be paid for with R". I think Command has it right: {1} is generic mana and can be paid for with WUBRG or {1}, diamond is colorless and cannot pay for WUBRG but can pay for diamond or {1}. It's basically a 6th color that has no color. It will certainly require a new rule to define what diamond is, though. It will be interesting to see whether they mass-errata colorless lands to diamond (and then use it in the future) or whether diamond is a parasitic concept that exists only in Oath.
I saw something pointing out that a few months ago WOTC changed their tag for Chaos from {C} to {CHAOS}, which suggests that the tag for diamond is {C} (ie. colorless).
All I'm saying is if <> is treated the same way is then there would likely be reminder text on the cards like Scrying Sheets has. If <> means it requires colourless mana then why doesn't Waiste simply produce 1? Why the new symbol? I think it will be treated more like a 6th colour then a colourless requirement.
The new symbol is because there's a difference between {1} and {colorless}. Damnation costs 2BB, which means you need 2 black and 2 of anything, WUBRG or colorless would work, because the 2 doesn't mean colorless but rather "generic".
The new symbol is because they are distinguishing between the color "colorless" and "generic" mana. It allows them to explore a space where you have to make an effort at being colorless in your manabase in order to play the new Kozilek, or any other card that requires colorless mana, because the mana cost isn't just generic and therefore playable via using any color you like. There's no reminder text that R has to be paid for with R, so there is no reason to require reminder text that says diamond requires diamond, there would instead be a new rule stating what diamond means. It's likely that diamond means "1 mana with the color colorless". It absolutely looks like a 6th color that has no color.
<> makes perfect sense as a casting cost but there is 0 reason for wastes to not simply make 1. It would simply be for flavor which seems unlikely to me considering the ammount of confusion its caused.
There's no reminder text that R has to be paid for with R, so there is no reason to require reminder text that says diamond requires diamond, there would instead be a new rule stating what diamond means.
This is why I think <> costs will require <> specific mana and not just 1
I don't think it would require reminder text. There's no reminder text on Lightning Bolt that says "R has to be paid for with R". I think Command has it right: {1} is generic mana and can be paid for with WUBRG or {1}, diamond is colorless and cannot pay for WUBRG but can pay for diamond or {1}. It's basically a 6th color that has no color. It will certainly require a new rule to define what diamond is, though. It will be interesting to see whether they mass-errata colorless lands to diamond (and then use it in the future) or whether diamond is a parasitic concept that exists only in Oath.
I saw something pointing out that a few months ago WOTC changed their tag for Chaos from {C} to {CHAOS}, which suggests that the tag for diamond is {C} (ie. colorless).
All I'm saying is if <> is treated the same way is then there would likely be reminder text on the cards like Scrying Sheets has. If <> means it requires colourless mana then why doesn't Waiste simply produce 1? Why the new symbol? I think it will be treated more like a 6th colour then a colourless requirement.
The new symbol is because there's a difference between {1} and {colorless}. Damnation costs 2BB, which means you need 2 black and 2 of anything, WUBRG or colorless would work, because the 2 doesn't mean colorless but rather "generic".
The new symbol is because they are distinguishing between the color "colorless" and "generic" mana. It allows them to explore a space where you have to make an effort at being colorless in your manabase in order to play the new Kozilek, or any other card that requires colorless mana, because the mana cost isn't just generic and therefore playable via using any color you like. There's no reminder text that R has to be paid for with R, so there is no reason to require reminder text that says diamond requires diamond, there would instead be a new rule stating what diamond means. It's likely that diamond means "1 mana with the color colorless". It absolutely looks like a 6th color that has no color.
<> makes perfect sense as a casting cost but there is 0 reason for wastes to not simply make 1. It would simply be for flavor which seems unlikely to me.
It makes sense if Sol Ring is about to receive errata that says "T: Add diamond diamond to your mana pool", though that is a huge amount of errata to do. It makes sense to make Wastes tap for diamond if they're going to distinguish between colorless mana and generic mana, which is what it looks like they're going to do. If that's the case, {1} means generic, and diamond means colorless. It is also unnecessarily clunky to put "diamond must be paid for with colorless producing mana sources" on every diamond cost card.
A reddit post pointed out that they recently changed their tag for the Chaos symbol in gatherer(I assume gatherer) from {C} to {CHAOS}. It therefore looks like Wastes has the oracle text "T: Add {C} to your mana pool" just like Mountain says "T: Add {R} to your mana pool".
I don't think it would require reminder text. There's no reminder text on Lightning Bolt that says "R has to be paid for with R". I think Command has it right: {1} is generic mana and can be paid for with WUBRG or {1}, diamond is colorless and cannot pay for WUBRG but can pay for diamond or {1}. It's basically a 6th color that has no color. It will certainly require a new rule to define what diamond is, though. It will be interesting to see whether they mass-errata colorless lands to diamond (and then use it in the future) or whether diamond is a parasitic concept that exists only in Oath.
I saw something pointing out that a few months ago WOTC changed their tag for Chaos from {C} to {CHAOS}, which suggests that the tag for diamond is {C} (ie. colorless).
All I'm saying is if <> is treated the same way is then there would likely be reminder text on the cards like Scrying Sheets has. If <> means it requires colourless mana then why don't Wastes simply produce 1? Why the new symbol? I think <> will be treated more like a 6th colour rather then a colourless requirement meaning we may not be able to play them in Marchesa.
It kind of sounds like you're arguing but from my perspective you guys are actually agreeing
Idk how it will shake out but if it is a sort of 6th color I do think Mirrorpool and Kozilek, the Great Distortion are sound arguments against the mass errata. If 1 = <>, then why does new Kozi have 8 and <><> in its cost? Isn't that just 10? And why are mirrorpool's activated abilities costed like that?
How about an alternative idea? <> is actually any color, as in the eldrazi indiscriminately feast on mana and resources and do not care which particular type. Therefore <> can be paid with WUBRG<> but not 1 and <> can pay for <> or 1. Thus essentially making <> all colors without actually being any color. That would keep it from being a parasitic concept and not break how fundamental concepts like "generic mana is worse than colored mana".
I don't think it would require reminder text. There's no reminder text on Lightning Bolt that says "R has to be paid for with R". I think Command has it right: {1} is generic mana and can be paid for with WUBRG or {1}, diamond is colorless and cannot pay for WUBRG but can pay for diamond or {1}. It's basically a 6th color that has no color. It will certainly require a new rule to define what diamond is, though. It will be interesting to see whether they mass-errata colorless lands to diamond (and then use it in the future) or whether diamond is a parasitic concept that exists only in Oath.
I saw something pointing out that a few months ago WOTC changed their tag for Chaos from {C} to {CHAOS}, which suggests that the tag for diamond is {C} (ie. colorless).
All I'm saying is if <> is treated the same way is then there would likely be reminder text on the cards like Scrying Sheets has. If <> means it requires colourless mana then why don't Wastes simply produce 1? Why the new symbol? I think <> will be treated more like a 6th colour rather then a colourless requirement meaning we may not be able to play them in Marchesa.
It kind of sounds like you're arguing but from my perspective you guys are actually agreeing
Idk how it will shake out but if it is a sort of 6th color I do think Mirrorpool and Kozilek, the Great Distortion are sound arguments against the mass errata. If {1} = <>, then why does new Kozi have {8} and <><> in its cost? Isn't that just {10}? And why are mirrorpool's activated abilities costed like that?
How about an alternative idea? <> is actually any color, as in the eldrazi indiscriminately feast on mana and resources and do not care which particular type. Therefore <> can be paid with WUBRG<> but not {1} and <> can pay for <> or {1}. Thus essentially making <> all colors without actually being any color. That would keep it from being a parasitic concept and not break how fundamental concepts like "generic mana is worse than colored mana".
Ooooooh Damn, that would be sweet athough I feel like there would be reminder text explaining that <> works that way. You wouldn't be able to cast new Kosilek with an infinite mana combo that uses only colourless mana
@Elcon- its possable but I highly doubt they are going to Mass Eratta all lands that generate 1 into <>
If it turns out that diamond means "1 colorless mana" then it is necessarily true that Sol Ring taps for diamond diamond, because it already taps for 2 colorless mana. It's just that they haven't had a need to distinguish between the fact that {1} in a mana cost is generic and {1} in rules text is colorless.
It would be strange if diamond is any color, because {1} in a mana cost already means "pay for this with any kind of mana".
The reason to make diamond producing lands and diamond mana costs is to explore colorless as a color. At that point, you can ask the question "if a deck has to conform to producing colorless mana, what can colorless do?" Anything from Mono-white to 5 color can play Wurmcoil Engine or Karn, but that's not the case for this new Kozilek(assuming it's real). You can then make a card more powerful simply because it costs colored (actually colorless) mana. Lightning Bolt is a strong card, but it requires you to play Red. If it cost {1}, every deck in Modern would play 4 of them. Perhaps Wurmcoil Engine could have cost 3DD, had the distinction between colorless and generic existed at the time.
It kind of sounds like you're arguing but from my perspective you guys are actually agreeing
Idk how it will shake out but if it is a sort of 6th color I do think Mirrorpool and Kozilek, the Great Distortion are sound arguments against the mass errata. If {1} = <>, then why does new Kozi have {8} and <><> in its cost? Isn't that just {10}? And why are mirrorpool's activated abilities costed like that?
How about an alternative idea? <> is actually any color, as in the eldrazi indiscriminately feast on mana and resources and do not care which particular type. Therefore <> can be paid with WUBRG<> but not {1} and <> can pay for <> or {1}. Thus essentially making <> all colors without actually being any color. That would keep it from being a parasitic concept and not break how fundamental concepts like "generic mana is worse than colored mana".
Ooooooh Damn, that would be sweet athough I feel like there would be reminder text explaining that <> works that way. You wouldn't be able to cast new Kosilek with an infinite mana combo that uses only colourless mana
@Elcon- its possable but I highly doubt they are going to Mass Eratta all lands that generate 1 into <>
Maybe, unless they wanted to make it vanilla. This is actually a pretty cool concept if they go this route. Take something like Spine of Ish Sah. Wizards has said before that they are OK with every color having access to indiscriminate permanent removal as long as it is at 7. This is high for good reason - its not native to every color and there are many ways to explode into generic mana with artifacts. It has to be pretty high costed to account for that.
It's significantly more difficult to explode into colored mana and all the negatively costed things which let you do so over the years are single use. By working the <><> symbol into the cost they can probably get more aggressive with these wheel-breaking abilities, and maybe even add some new ones. I'm not a designer by any means but I feel having a symbol which adds a color requirement without actually adding a color gives them some solid new design space to play around with.
Anyway this is all just speculation but the more I think about it the more I like this interpretation of <>. I feel like it fits pretty well, even down the Eldrazi vorthos.
If it turns out that diamond means "1 colorless mana" then it is necessarily true that Sol Ring taps for diamond diamond, because it already taps for 2 colorless mana. It's just that they haven't had a need to distinguish between the fact that {1} in a mana cost is generic and {1} in rules text is colorless.
It would be strange if diamond is any color, because {1} in a mana cost already means "pay for this with any kind of mana".
The reason to make diamond producing lands and diamond mana costs is to explore colorless as a color. At that point, you can ask the question "if a deck has to conform to producing colorless mana, what can colorless do?" Anything from Mono-white to 5 color can play Wurmcoil Engine or Karn, but that's not the case for this new Kozilek(assuming it's real). You can then make a card more powerful simply because it costs colored (actually colorless) mana. Lightning Bolt is a strong card, but it requires you to play Red. If it cost {1}, every deck in Modern would play 4 of them. Perhaps Wurmcoil Engine could have cost 3DD, had the distinction between colorless and generic existed at the time.
Unless there is a mass errata like you suggestedthen there is no reason for wastes not to simply generate 1. For all intents and purposes 1 would suffice to pay the <> mana requirement.
If it turns out that diamond means "1 colorless mana" then it is necessarily true that Sol Ring taps for diamond diamond, because it already taps for 2 colorless mana. It's just that they haven't had a need to distinguish between the fact that {1} in a mana cost is generic and {1} in rules text is colorless.
It would be strange if diamond is any color, because {1} in a mana cost already means "pay for this with any kind of mana".
The reason to make diamond producing lands and diamond mana costs is to explore colorless as a color. At that point, you can ask the question "if a deck has to conform to producing colorless mana, what can colorless do?" Anything from Mono-white to 5 color can play Wurmcoil Engine or Karn, but that's not the case for this new Kozilek(assuming it's real). You can then make a card more powerful simply because it costs colored (actually colorless) mana. Lightning Bolt is a strong card, but it requires you to play Red. If it cost {1}, every deck in Modern would play 4 of them. Perhaps Wurmcoil Engine could have cost 3DD, had the distinction between colorless and generic existed at the time.
Unless there is a mass errata like you suggestedthen there is no reason for wastes not to simply generate 1. For all intents and purposes 1 would suffice to pay the <> mana requirement.
Yea I really don't think they'll go this route. R is strictly better than 1 is kind of a fundamental concept. Colored mana can pay for anything generic mana can and then some therefore you always prefer colored mana. If 1 = <> != R then this is broken. Suddenly there are instances where Mana Confluence is not only not worth 1 life, it's actually strictly worse than Zoetic Cavern. That seems really wrong.
If colored cannot pay for <> then I feel like the most likely path is that <> is a parasitic concept that only exists in Oath. A mass errata would create confusion bordering on chaos. Many, many players would just be totally confused and lost. Not to mention how annoying it would be that they just reprinted cards like High Market in C15 using the old templating despite the fact that they probably had full knowledge <> was coming.
I'm pretty sure that's exactly how it's going to work. I don't think they'd do something as obscure as throw us a new only relevant to set land. Giving actual colorless mana a symbol is pretty helpful considering there is an actual difference between the generic mana costs of cards and colorless mana. This way it can't be ramped into with some mono green junk or cheated out with animar. I doubt those were the deciding factors, but I can already tell that will be making the biggest impact on our format outside of what itll actually do for colorless decks.
If it turns out that diamond means "1 colorless mana" then it is necessarily true that Sol Ring taps for diamond diamond, because it already taps for 2 colorless mana. It's just that they haven't had a need to distinguish between the fact that {1} in a mana cost is generic and {1} in rules text is colorless.
It would be strange if diamond is any color, because {1} in a mana cost already means "pay for this with any kind of mana".
The reason to make diamond producing lands and diamond mana costs is to explore colorless as a color. At that point, you can ask the question "if a deck has to conform to producing colorless mana, what can colorless do?" Anything from Mono-white to 5 color can play Wurmcoil Engine or Karn, but that's not the case for this new Kozilek(assuming it's real). You can then make a card more powerful simply because it costs colored (actually colorless) mana. Lightning Bolt is a strong card, but it requires you to play Red. If it cost {1}, every deck in Modern would play 4 of them. Perhaps Wurmcoil Engine could have cost 3DD, had the distinction between colorless and generic existed at the time.
Unless there is a mass errata like you suggestedthen there is no reason for wastes not to simply generate 1. For all intents and purposes 1 would suffice to pay the <> mana requirement.
Yea I really don't think they'll go this route. R is strictly better than 1 is kind of a fundamental concept. Colored mana can pay for anything generic mana can and then some therefore you always prefer colored mana. If 1 = <> != R then this is broken. Suddenly there are instances where Mana Confluence is not only not worth 1 life, it's actually strictly worse than Zoetic Cavern. That seems really wrong.
If colored cannot pay for <> then I feel like the most likely path is that <> is a parasitic concept that only exists in Oath. A mass errata would create confusion bordering on chaos. Many, many players would just be totally confused and lost. Not to mention how annoying it would be that they just reprinted cards like High Market in C15 using the old templating despite the fact that they probably had full knowledge <> was coming.
The part you are missing is that it's not that {1} = D != R. It's that "T: add {1}" is "T: add {D}", but that {1}RR is different from {D}RR in a mana cost.
You already understand the difference between {1} and colorless mana. Sol Ring says "T: add 2", if that 2 is generic mana, then that mana is whatever color you want it to be and you could in principle cast a Lightning Bolt and a Swords to Plowshares off of a Sol Ring. You know that you cannot do that because Sol Ring makes colorless mana. Similarly, you know the mana cost of Wurmcoil engine doesn't require 6 colorless mana, it requires 6 mana of any kind (6 plains works just as well as UrzaTron with 1 colorless left floating). You already know how to distinguish between {1} generic and {1} colorless, so there's nothing confusing if {1} colorless becomes its own symbol. If that's what happens, then there's no mass-errata taking place, it's just that a bunch of lands that say "T: add 1 colorless mana" would now have a symbol for what that means, just like Mox Emerald taps for G, despite paper printings of it using words instead of a symbol to convey that.
Having the same symbol for colorless and generic is the confusing part. If diamond works the way I think it will work, it's actually much more clear what's going on.
To each his own. I personally think its going to act just like a 6th colour in that <> casting costs will require <> mana and 1 will not be able to pay for <> costs. That being said I think the mana will be considered colourless and mono <> nonartifact cards will be able to target Pristine Angel.
"6th colour in that <> casting costs will require <> mana" That's what I've said several times now.
I think it's plausible that diamond is equivalent to 1 colorless, meaning Sol Ring says T: add diamond diamond. Doing so would not actually be anything new other than giving a symbol to "1 colorless mana", and getting rid of the confusing fact that {1} in a mana cost is absolutely not the same thing as {1} in rules text. The former is generic mana of any type and the latter is 1 colorless mana.
"6th colour in that <> casting costs will require <> mana" That's what I've said several times now.
I think it's plausible that diamond is equivalent to 1 colorless, meaning Sol Ring says T: add diamond diamond. Doing so would not actually be anything new other than giving a symbol to "1 colorless mana", and getting rid of the confusing fact that {1} in a mana cost is absolutely not the same thing as {1} in rules text. The former is generic mana of any type and the latter is 1 colorless mana.
I understand you're opinion but I'm saying I don't think solring will change from 2 to <><>. It will still generate generic mana that can't be used to pay for <> costs.
Sol Ring doesn't tap for generic mana. Sol Ring taps for colorless mana. Generic mana is the 2 that's in the mana cost of Damnation, and may be paid for with WUBRG or colorless mana. Generic mana only exists in mana costs of spells and abilities. Rules text of things that make {1} make "1 colorless mana" (see old versions of Sol Ring and Ashnod's Altar). Sol Ring doesn't produce generic, it makes colorless. The current way of writing this is to use {1} for either colorless or generic, which is confusing in that the {1} in generic mana means "any color or colorless" while 1 in rules text means "1 colorless" instead of "1 of any color or colorless". A new symbol for "1 colorless" would make sense and eliminate a confusing part of the game.
The open question is whether diamond is going to mean "1 colorless mana" or if it's a completely new kind of mana that has no color. I think the former is at least plausible. If it's not what happens, then diamond is going to be a crappy parastic mechanic like snow that shows up in one set and then disappears, and the price of Wastes a few years from now will be painfully high for a basic land simply for EDH demand.
Aight elcon, I'm on board. You're right, that does make the most sense. Here's hoping they errata the world as we know it. Do not want a snowland situation
"What if every colorless mana had its own symbol?"
I totally understand the confusion of the 1 symbol and it probably should be changed. I just wonder why wizards would chose to fix such an old problem now instead of 15 years ago? I kinda feel like at this point they have made their bed and now need to lie in it. I doubt they are going to errata hundreds of cards but I could be wrong. Its definately possible.
Anyway I kinda feel like we have hi-jacked Solrunes thread (sorry dude). We'll find out when we find out.
Modern: UUUBlue Man Group
Legacy: UWBMiracles
Edh: UUUThassa Control WWWHokori Stax GGGJolrael, Empress of Land Stompy BBBGriselbrand French List RBGShattergang(Super Villians) RWGHazezon Flicker UBRMarchesa Aggro URGMaelstom Wanderer (Maelstorm)
Reaches never seemed to work out, and beacon can bring us back in the game if being hated on.
I cut reaches a long time ago. Its great in that perfect scenario where your opponents board is clear and you can pump a lot of mana into it but that scenario is rare. Personally I feel like it fits better in a control deck with lots of board wipes.
@Hakim: flesh Carver seems good for the deck at first glance but takes a lot of time to get going. The Mana cost to active his ability will get annoying as well. Overall if you put time to get him going you can probably shell out a 4/4 every few turns (if not bigger) but there is so much more you can be doing. (btw this guy got cut from my deck very early after playing with him a few times). if you are looking for a new sac outlet Falkenrath Aristocrat all the way
I agree that Falkenrath Aristocrat is better than Flesh Carver. Aristocrat is one of the Decks best sac outlets.
But I think Flesh Carver is good too. I run him and am happy with him. He isn't as good of a sac outlet as others are, because of the added mana cost, but he is good body even without that effect. For 3 mana you get a 2/2 with evasion that leaves another 2/2 on the field when dying. Most of the time the token will be even bigger, because Flesh Carver is getting counters from dethrone. That you can use him as a sac oulet too is just a really nice bonus. And the effect of getting two +1/+1 counters is quite strong, it would be broken if it hadn't a mana cost attached to it. Or it would probably be a much weaker effect like +2/+2 until eot if it wouldn't be for the mana cost.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Mono Konda| Sakashima| Yahenni| Ashling| Selvala|C Karn
Guilds Grand Arbiter| Meren| Gisa & Geralf| Scorpion God| Omnath| Sisay| Karlov| Avacyn| Jhoira v2| Rashmi|
Shards WUB Oloro|GWU Roon|RGW Jurassic Park|UBR Nekusar|BRG Kresh|
Clans RWU Narset|WBR Vampires|BGW Doran|UBG Muldrotha|URG Animar|
4-Colors GWUB Atraxa|BRGWSaskia|RGWU Hydra Hug| UBRGYidris|WUBRBreya|
5-Color WUBRG Super Friends
Extra Decks Titania| Taigam| Locust God| Cats| Tishana| Kumena| Squirrels| Slimefoot} Baron|RGW Samut|UBR Pirates|UBR Mairsil| WUBRG Ramos|
Draft it Here!
UUUBlue Man Group
Legacy:
UWBMiracles
Edh:
UUUThassa Control
WWWHokori Stax
GGGJolrael, Empress of Land Stompy
BBBGriselbrand French List
RBGShattergang(Super Villians)
RWGHazezon Flicker
UBRMarchesa Aggro
URGMaelstom Wanderer (Maelstorm)
All I'm saying is if <> is treated the same way is then there would likely be reminder text on the cards like Scrying Sheets has. If <> means it requires colourless mana then why don't Wastes simply produce 1? Why the new symbol? I think <> will be treated more like a 6th colour rather then a colourless requirement meaning we might not be able to play them in Marchesa. They likely will be considered colourless just like snow mana is but there is a chance it will be considered a new colour as well.
BChainer, Dementia Master(Big Mana/Reanimator)
BRRakdos, The Showstopper (Mass Life Loss/Ramp)
BUThe Scarab God (Zombie Tribal/Control)
BWKarlov of the Ghost Council (Life Gain)
BGJarad, Golgari Lich Lord (Stompy/Dredge)
BRGProssh, Skyraider of Kher (Tokens/Non-infinite Combo)
The new symbol is because there's a difference between {1} and {colorless}. Damnation costs 2BB, which means you need 2 black and 2 of anything, WUBRG or colorless would work, because the 2 doesn't mean colorless but rather "generic".
The new symbol is because they are distinguishing between the color "colorless" and "generic" mana. It allows them to explore a space where you have to make an effort at being colorless in your manabase in order to play the new Kozilek, or any other card that requires colorless mana, because the mana cost isn't just generic and therefore playable via using any color you like. There's no reminder text that R has to be paid for with R, so there is no reason to require reminder text that says diamond requires diamond, there would instead be a new rule stating what diamond means. It's likely that diamond means "1 mana with the color colorless". It absolutely looks like a 6th color that has no color.
Up to BFZ, nothing has cared to distinguish between generic mana (mana of any color) and colorless mana (mana with no color). It looks like we're about to get a set that does care to distinguish between them. It won't necessarily be a new color identity(if it is, Sol Ring and every other colorless rock can only be played in a colorless deck), but it does mean that it requires colorless producing mana sources to support diamond mana costs.
This is why I think <> costs will require <> specific mana and not just 1
BChainer, Dementia Master(Big Mana/Reanimator)
BRRakdos, The Showstopper (Mass Life Loss/Ramp)
BUThe Scarab God (Zombie Tribal/Control)
BWKarlov of the Ghost Council (Life Gain)
BGJarad, Golgari Lich Lord (Stompy/Dredge)
BRGProssh, Skyraider of Kher (Tokens/Non-infinite Combo)
It makes sense if Sol Ring is about to receive errata that says "T: Add diamond diamond to your mana pool", though that is a huge amount of errata to do. It makes sense to make Wastes tap for diamond if they're going to distinguish between colorless mana and generic mana, which is what it looks like they're going to do. If that's the case, {1} means generic, and diamond means colorless. It is also unnecessarily clunky to put "diamond must be paid for with colorless producing mana sources" on every diamond cost card.
A reddit post pointed out that they recently changed their tag for the Chaos symbol in gatherer(I assume gatherer) from {C} to {CHAOS}. It therefore looks like Wastes has the oracle text "T: Add {C} to your mana pool" just like Mountain says "T: Add {R} to your mana pool".
It kind of sounds like you're arguing but from my perspective you guys are actually agreeing
Idk how it will shake out but if it is a sort of 6th color I do think Mirrorpool and Kozilek, the Great Distortion are sound arguments against the mass errata. If 1 = <>, then why does new Kozi have 8 and <><> in its cost? Isn't that just 10? And why are mirrorpool's activated abilities costed like that?
How about an alternative idea? <> is actually any color, as in the eldrazi indiscriminately feast on mana and resources and do not care which particular type. Therefore <> can be paid with WUBRG<> but not 1 and <> can pay for <> or 1. Thus essentially making <> all colors without actually being any color. That would keep it from being a parasitic concept and not break how fundamental concepts like "generic mana is worse than colored mana".
@Elcon- its possable but I highly doubt they are going to Mass Eratta all lands that generate 1 into <>
BChainer, Dementia Master(Big Mana/Reanimator)
BRRakdos, The Showstopper (Mass Life Loss/Ramp)
BUThe Scarab God (Zombie Tribal/Control)
BWKarlov of the Ghost Council (Life Gain)
BGJarad, Golgari Lich Lord (Stompy/Dredge)
BRGProssh, Skyraider of Kher (Tokens/Non-infinite Combo)
It would be strange if diamond is any color, because {1} in a mana cost already means "pay for this with any kind of mana".
The reason to make diamond producing lands and diamond mana costs is to explore colorless as a color. At that point, you can ask the question "if a deck has to conform to producing colorless mana, what can colorless do?" Anything from Mono-white to 5 color can play Wurmcoil Engine or Karn, but that's not the case for this new Kozilek(assuming it's real). You can then make a card more powerful simply because it costs colored (actually colorless) mana. Lightning Bolt is a strong card, but it requires you to play Red. If it cost {1}, every deck in Modern would play 4 of them. Perhaps Wurmcoil Engine could have cost 3DD, had the distinction between colorless and generic existed at the time.
Maybe, unless they wanted to make it vanilla. This is actually a pretty cool concept if they go this route. Take something like Spine of Ish Sah. Wizards has said before that they are OK with every color having access to indiscriminate permanent removal as long as it is at 7. This is high for good reason - its not native to every color and there are many ways to explode into generic mana with artifacts. It has to be pretty high costed to account for that.
It's significantly more difficult to explode into colored mana and all the negatively costed things which let you do so over the years are single use. By working the <><> symbol into the cost they can probably get more aggressive with these wheel-breaking abilities, and maybe even add some new ones. I'm not a designer by any means but I feel having a symbol which adds a color requirement without actually adding a color gives them some solid new design space to play around with.
Anyway this is all just speculation but the more I think about it the more I like this interpretation of <>. I feel like it fits pretty well, even down the Eldrazi vorthos.
BChainer, Dementia Master(Big Mana/Reanimator)
BRRakdos, The Showstopper (Mass Life Loss/Ramp)
BUThe Scarab God (Zombie Tribal/Control)
BWKarlov of the Ghost Council (Life Gain)
BGJarad, Golgari Lich Lord (Stompy/Dredge)
BRGProssh, Skyraider of Kher (Tokens/Non-infinite Combo)
Yea I really don't think they'll go this route. R is strictly better than 1 is kind of a fundamental concept. Colored mana can pay for anything generic mana can and then some therefore you always prefer colored mana. If 1 = <> != R then this is broken. Suddenly there are instances where Mana Confluence is not only not worth 1 life, it's actually strictly worse than Zoetic Cavern. That seems really wrong.
If colored cannot pay for <> then I feel like the most likely path is that <> is a parasitic concept that only exists in Oath. A mass errata would create confusion bordering on chaos. Many, many players would just be totally confused and lost. Not to mention how annoying it would be that they just reprinted cards like High Market in C15 using the old templating despite the fact that they probably had full knowledge <> was coming.
URXSurf's Up, Mizz Magnus!XRU
URGWKynaios and Tiro's Multiplayer MenagerieWGRU
The part you are missing is that it's not that {1} = D != R. It's that "T: add {1}" is "T: add {D}", but that {1}RR is different from {D}RR in a mana cost.
You already understand the difference between {1} and colorless mana. Sol Ring says "T: add 2", if that 2 is generic mana, then that mana is whatever color you want it to be and you could in principle cast a Lightning Bolt and a Swords to Plowshares off of a Sol Ring. You know that you cannot do that because Sol Ring makes colorless mana. Similarly, you know the mana cost of Wurmcoil engine doesn't require 6 colorless mana, it requires 6 mana of any kind (6 plains works just as well as UrzaTron with 1 colorless left floating). You already know how to distinguish between {1} generic and {1} colorless, so there's nothing confusing if {1} colorless becomes its own symbol. If that's what happens, then there's no mass-errata taking place, it's just that a bunch of lands that say "T: add 1 colorless mana" would now have a symbol for what that means, just like Mox Emerald taps for G, despite paper printings of it using words instead of a symbol to convey that.
Having the same symbol for colorless and generic is the confusing part. If diamond works the way I think it will work, it's actually much more clear what's going on.
BChainer, Dementia Master(Big Mana/Reanimator)
BRRakdos, The Showstopper (Mass Life Loss/Ramp)
BUThe Scarab God (Zombie Tribal/Control)
BWKarlov of the Ghost Council (Life Gain)
BGJarad, Golgari Lich Lord (Stompy/Dredge)
BRGProssh, Skyraider of Kher (Tokens/Non-infinite Combo)
I think it's plausible that diamond is equivalent to 1 colorless, meaning Sol Ring says T: add diamond diamond. Doing so would not actually be anything new other than giving a symbol to "1 colorless mana", and getting rid of the confusing fact that {1} in a mana cost is absolutely not the same thing as {1} in rules text. The former is generic mana of any type and the latter is 1 colorless mana.
BChainer, Dementia Master(Big Mana/Reanimator)
BRRakdos, The Showstopper (Mass Life Loss/Ramp)
BUThe Scarab God (Zombie Tribal/Control)
BWKarlov of the Ghost Council (Life Gain)
BGJarad, Golgari Lich Lord (Stompy/Dredge)
BRGProssh, Skyraider of Kher (Tokens/Non-infinite Combo)
The open question is whether diamond is going to mean "1 colorless mana" or if it's a completely new kind of mana that has no color. I think the former is at least plausible. If it's not what happens, then diamond is going to be a crappy parastic mechanic like snow that shows up in one set and then disappears, and the price of Wastes a few years from now will be painfully high for a basic land simply for EDH demand.
BChainer, Dementia Master(Big Mana/Reanimator)
BRRakdos, The Showstopper (Mass Life Loss/Ramp)
BUThe Scarab God (Zombie Tribal/Control)
BWKarlov of the Ghost Council (Life Gain)
BGJarad, Golgari Lich Lord (Stompy/Dredge)
BRGProssh, Skyraider of Kher (Tokens/Non-infinite Combo)
It doesn't necessarily mean they're about to make a symbol to distinguish them, but it does acknowledge existing confusion.
Edit: MaRo in 2012: http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/26155270744/why-do-colored-mana-symbols-not-stack-like
"What if every colorless mana had its own symbol?"
Anyway I kinda feel like we have hi-jacked Solrunes thread (sorry dude). We'll find out when we find out.
BChainer, Dementia Master(Big Mana/Reanimator)
BRRakdos, The Showstopper (Mass Life Loss/Ramp)
BUThe Scarab God (Zombie Tribal/Control)
BWKarlov of the Ghost Council (Life Gain)
BGJarad, Golgari Lich Lord (Stompy/Dredge)
BRGProssh, Skyraider of Kher (Tokens/Non-infinite Combo)
Been liking Command Beacon over Lavaclaw Reaches. Seems like a very good swap to me.
Reaches never seemed to work out, and beacon can bring us back in the game if being hated on.
Draft it Here!
UUUBlue Man Group
Legacy:
UWBMiracles
Edh:
UUUThassa Control
WWWHokori Stax
GGGJolrael, Empress of Land Stompy
BBBGriselbrand French List
RBGShattergang(Super Villians)
RWGHazezon Flicker
UBRMarchesa Aggro
URGMaelstom Wanderer (Maelstorm)
BChainer, Dementia Master(Big Mana/Reanimator)
BRRakdos, The Showstopper (Mass Life Loss/Ramp)
BUThe Scarab God (Zombie Tribal/Control)
BWKarlov of the Ghost Council (Life Gain)
BGJarad, Golgari Lich Lord (Stompy/Dredge)
BRGProssh, Skyraider of Kher (Tokens/Non-infinite Combo)
I agree that Falkenrath Aristocrat is better than Flesh Carver. Aristocrat is one of the Decks best sac outlets.
But I think Flesh Carver is good too. I run him and am happy with him. He isn't as good of a sac outlet as others are, because of the added mana cost, but he is good body even without that effect. For 3 mana you get a 2/2 with evasion that leaves another 2/2 on the field when dying. Most of the time the token will be even bigger, because Flesh Carver is getting counters from dethrone. That you can use him as a sac oulet too is just a really nice bonus. And the effect of getting two +1/+1 counters is quite strong, it would be broken if it hadn't a mana cost attached to it. Or it would probably be a much weaker effect like +2/+2 until eot if it wouldn't be for the mana cost.