Another problem i have:
What's the point in making a basic land that produces "colorless"? There are hundreds of lands that are strictly better - even in BFZ there are, i think, 9 at the moment.
So is it just a limited thing and for the possibility to fetch a colorless-producing-land with Evolving wilds and the like?
Wouldn't it be strange to make a new Basic (!) land - which is pretty rare - and they wouldn't get played outside of limited?
It a consequence of progress. They can't change the lands made prior to Wastes to be worse than it so that it adheres to the rule of nonbasics not being better than basics.
Its not just for limited. Its something they can print from now on in each large set regardless if the set has a colorless theme or not.
The new basic is currently a common due to small sets not having basic land sheets. That's obviously not rare at all. Your going to see it in enough boosters that getting a decent amount won't be a problem at all. And Modern,Legacy and Commander aren't limited formats. Colorless decks can be made without having to rely on mostly nonbasic land bases and having to get completely get blown out by nonbasic hate.
It says: The ramification of the “strictly better” rule is that we cannot design lands that tap for a colored mana without having some kind of drawback. The nonbasic land status, incidentally, is not considered by R&D to be enough of a drawback.
So the rule doesn't apply to "wastes" by definition.
Wastes as colorless mana producing basic lands seems like the perfect choice for a set where "lands matter" and "colorless matters". It's the perfect intersection so it works with eldrazi and ally decks.
Aside from 'math mana' which I don't know what you mean, I agree with everything you said. Plains do invoke 'sun mana' to me. Just as trees invoke 'growth mana', islands 'water mana' etc. Every plane has those 5 basic elements and that is the tie that binds them together. <> is the outlier and doesn't really fit outside of Zendikar, unless the Eldrazi head to a new plane. Do it wizards! Send them to Lorwyn! Eat the elves and ugly Kithkin! God I hate that place.
So basically you're so much an artist Vorthos you make things up?
I don't see why your totally subjective vision of the world should limit design conducted by other people. Help me out there?
So, could someone sum up the argument so the rest of the site understands what everyone's talking about? I keep hearing about the 'Snowdrazi mana' vs the 'pays for only colorless' vs the 'replaces generic' or whatever the sides even are at this point, but at this point you've all seemed to have developed a thread-specific jargon.
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.
There's only one point of contention in what <> will mean for the game. Just one.
Will older colorless-mana-generators be able to pay for <> or not?
That's the TL;DR and the main thing we don't know yet and won't find out for a few weeks.
Those who think that only new OGW cards will be able to pay for <> - that's the 'snow 2.0 camp'
Those who think that all colorless mana will be changed to <> on the 318 cards that currently exist that generate colorless (like Sol Ring) - that's the 'new colorless symbol camp'.
Honestly it can go either way though my personal opinion is that the colorless-symbol position makes more sense for the game.
So, could someone sum up the argument so the rest of the site understands what everyone's talking about? I keep hearing about the 'Snowdrazi mana' vs the 'pays for only colorless' vs the 'replaces generic' or whatever the sides even are at this point, but at this point you've all seemed to have developed a thread-specific jargon.
I'll give it a shot. One hypothesis is that <> (shorthand for the diamond symbol seen on Wastes) is going to be a new type of mana. This is not without prescedent, since we've had new types of mana before, such as Snow mana, Phyrexian mana, etc. The counterpoint to this argument basically boils down to the fact that such a mechanic tends to be gimmicky and parasitic - look at Snow mana, for example, it is only useful in snow-heavy decks, and therefore has little value outside of the sets it was printed in.
Another hypothesis is that Wastes taps for 1 colorless mana, and <> is going to become the symbol for 1 colorless mana from here on out, just as G is the symbol for 1 green mana. This would have the benefits of being a backwards-compatible way of adding a pseudo sixth color to Magic, opening up design space for future cards with costs that specifically require colorless mana (of which, Kozilek would be the first example we've seen), as well as clearing up the common confusion between Colorless mana (mana that cannot pay for colored costs) and Generic costs (mana costs that can be paid for with mana of any color, or colorless). However, it also has the drawbacks of potentially confusing existing players who never fully understood the difference between colorless mana and generic costs, but have thus far never really needed to understand it (since nothing has cost specifically colorless mana until now), and the fact that it would require a not insignificant amount of errata. Though, this eratta would not amount to any functional changes (Sol Ring would still cost 1 and would still tap for two colorless, but in its oracle text and in any future printings, it would be written "T: Add <><> to your mana pool).
"I am confident that if anyone actually
penetrates our facades, even the most
perceptive would still be fundamentally
unprepared for the truth of House Dimir."
Locke has summarized perfectly. I wish we could delete the 76 pages and just show his post until we have official confirmation.
I wish there was a filter for quote blocks, misconceptions, Revolutionary's formatting...lifestyle, and my wisecracks. There's no way there's five whole pages of constructive, non-repeated discussion here.
Locke has summarized perfectly. I wish we could delete the 76 pages and just show his post until we have official confirmation.
I wish there was a filter for quote blocks, misconceptions, Revolutionary's formatting...lifestyle, and my wisecracks. There's no way there's five whole pages of constructive, non-repeated discussion here.
I'm afraid you won't find a better filter for that than the power button...
It says: The ramification of the “strictly better” rule is that we cannot design lands that tap for a colored mana without having some kind of drawback. The nonbasic land status, incidentally, is not considered by R&D to be enough of a drawback.
Unfortunately, that's not what that sentence says. The sentence doesn't say that the rule is that they cannot design lands that tap for a colored mana without having some kind of drawback. Instead it says that as a consequence of the rule No Land Can Be “Strictly Better” Than a Basic Land, they cannot design lands that tap for a colored mana without having some kind of drawback.
If <> is just a new symbol for colorless mana, then there will be a new consequence of the rule: they cannot design lands that tap for a colorless mana without having some kind of drawback. Because Wastes is a basic land that just taps for a colorless mana. Or they will abolish/modify that rule.
It seems likely to me that that rule was one of the biggest problems with a colorless basic, because they lose a lot of design space if they adhere to it after printing a colorless basic. However, by making Wastes generate a new type of mana that is necessary to cast a special subset of cards, they would be able to neatly sidestep that rule. They did a similar thing with the RTR Guildgates, to keep them from being just worse shocks, even though they don't explicitly have such a rule for non-basics.
It says: The ramification of the “strictly better” rule is that we cannot design lands that tap for a colored mana without having some kind of drawback. The nonbasic land status, incidentally, is not considered by R&D to be enough of a drawback.
Unfortunately, that's not what that sentence says. The sentence doesn't say that the rule is that they cannot design lands that tap for a colored mana without having some kind of drawback. Instead it says that as a consequence of the rule No Land Can Be “Strictly Better” Than a Basic Land, they cannot design lands that tap for a colored mana without having some kind of drawback.
If <> is just a new symbol for colorless mana, then there will be a new consequence of the rule: they cannot design lands that tap for a colorless mana without having some kind of drawback. Because Wastes is a basic land that just taps for a colorless mana. Or they will abolish/modify that rule.
It seems likely to me that that rule was one of the biggest problems with a colorless basic, because they lose a lot of design space if they adhere to it after printing a colorless basic. However, by making Wastes generate a new type of mana that is necessary to cast a special subset of cards, they would be able to neatly sidestep that rule. They did a similar thing with the RTR Guildgates, to keep them from being just worse shocks, even though they don't explicitly have such a rule for non-basics.
There's also nothing saying R&D can't change that rule. For a long time, the rule for creature removal overall was "nothing better than Terror", until they decided to break that with Doom Blade. I think it's far more likely they sat down and said "the intention of that rule was that no lands should be better than the big five basics, right?", rather than worrying over whether they can reprint the painlands moving forward.
Can you provide a specific example of this confusion you keep citing, and the scope of how far it extends? I imagine a conversation like this:
"Hey, there's a 1 there and a 1 there... does that mean I have to pay 1 for 1?"
"Actually, the 1 in the cost can be paid by any mana, it's a generic symbol. But the 1 produced by that card is colorless; it can be used to pay for 1, but not for a specific color of mana (not coincidentally)."
"Oh I get it. So what's the difference between generic and colorless mana?"
"Practically nothing."
The bolded portion is where the confusion lies. Why does a new player need to ask the bolded question in the first place? If a new player never needed to ask the question in the first place, then the confusion would not be an issue since it would have never existed to start with. But since a player needs to ask the question, the confusion is an issue.
The speed at which a typical new player has in understanding the difference is directly correlated to how big of an issue learning the difference between the two concepts is, but it doesn't say anything about the confusion. In the dialogue you posted, the new player instantly understands the difference between colorless and generic. However, they have only learned the difference after having asked the bolded question.
I'm arguing that the bolded question shouldn't even be asked in the first place.
- If {<>} replaces 1 in mana-production effects, then the question no longer becomes appropriate, since "paying with 1" would no longer exist. This would get rid of the confusion entirely.
- If {<>} is a new type of mana separate from conventional colorless mana, then the question will still need to be asked, since "paying with 1" would still exist.
Did you forget? You disagreed with my statement that "<> = 1" and "<> is strictly colorless, but not equal to 1" would open up the same design space. I'm asking why, or how?
Emphasis mine, and Not. At. All. I'm not saying there's no validity in that mess of text, but I really can't make much sense of what you're getting at, or what it has to do with hypothetical design space.
I've been trying to get a response from you to some questions that I've posed. Here is what I've said regarding the design space issue:
"While both meanings of {<>} open up new design space, the question is how much design space that each change actually brings. If {<>} is indeed a new type of mana that is colorless (by definition of lack of color) but not colorless (by separation of mana types), how much design space does that truly open up? Specifically, how much design space does it open up compared to the design space that would have opened up if {<>} were the new colorless mana (in both lack of color and separation of mana types) symbol?"
"Your assertion was merely that both theories of {<>} would open up design space, to which I agree. But how much design space would each theory open up? How much of a future set would each theory's new design space need to occupy for that theory to be feasible?"
Neither of those quotes are disagreements. They ask questions, most of which are restatements of one another, which you've answered by this point. The last question, "How much of a future set would each theory's new design space need to occupy for that theory to be feasible", hasn't been answered yet.
You agree that since both theories open up design space, that in order for that design space to be actually seen by the player base, the set structure would have to be modified. The question is this: How would you change the set structure to accommodate this new design space? Note that the question applies regardless of whether "{<>} = 1 in production effects" or "{<>} = new type of mana" is true. I explain this question in more detail below.
OK, it looks like we aren't on the same page. Let's see if we can clarify things a bit.
The definition of design space that I use (and I assume most other posters such as Benalicious as well) basically refers to the range of cards that could possibly be created. The design space that opens up for both theories is essentially the same: cards that cost <>, whatever set of abilities they choose to associate with it. <> as a new type of mana gives an additional mana production ability, so there are technically more possible card designs, but those designs aren't very exciting because that type of mana is strictly worse than the other types. Point is, although it's arguable how much of the design space is likely to be used under the two theories, the fact is that the actual space made available if it's a new mana type is at least as large as the space made available if <> is just a new symbol for colorless mana.
Alright that's my (our?) position. Let me see if I understand yours. What I think you're referring to is card slots, the 'space' within a set. Your argument is that the overall representation of each color/faction will be lower if it is a new mana type than just a new symbol.
The thing is, that isn't necessarily true. Given your breakdown, there is actually no difference in representation between the two theories. Under New Mana Theory, there are 7 groups of spells - the five colors, colorless, and Eldrazi. Under New Symbol Theory, there are also 7 groups of spells - the five colors, colorless spells that don't cost <>, and colorless spells that do cost <>. It would completely arbitrary to lump the two types of colorless spells into one faction in the second case. The same constraints are true for the two colorless factions under both scenarios. You can play cards that cost <> only in decks that have enough sources of <>, and you can play cards that only cost generic mana in any deck.
Now, what could be different is the amount of space dedicated to sources of <>. If <> is a new symbol for colorless, then it is indeed true that there are more existing sources of <> with which to build on, so they may need to spend more comparatively card slots in OGW if <> is a new type of mana. However, I don't think this is an issue for a couple of reasons. The first is the presence of a basic land that produces <>. Technically, they could introduce this new type of mana with only Wastes as a source of <>, because you can put as many Wastes into your deck as you want. Obviously they haven't done so, as we know of Mirrorpool already, but they don't necessarily need to put in many more sources either way.
The second is that this is Zendikar, a land matters plane. They have more leeway to fit in many mana sources because there are so many slots devoted to lands. There are cycles of lands at common, uncommon, and rare in BFZ, and on top of that there is still evolving wilds and the new enemy manlands. Yes, most of those had color associations, but losing those associations has a much smaller impact than losing representation in spells.
I appreciate your time you've taken to respond. I have no problems agreeing with the idea that New Type Theory allows for at least as much design space as New Symbol Theory -- I agree with that entirely. Fortunately, this makes the delineation of my question a lot easier, since there is no need to separate between theories.
Regardless of how many groups the theories end up with (seven in both cases), that doesn't really explain how much space each group would occupy in a set. Let's label the groups as white, blue, black, red, green, {<>}, and pure-generic (with {<>} and pure-generic meaning what they mean in the appropriate theory). Since we're only considering the representation of the groups that we assume would get equal representation, it is okay if pure-generic gets less representation than the other six groups. But this still opens up the possibility of one group being vastly under-represented, or even not represented at all.
Currently, the six groups in a set are white, blue, black, red, green, and pure-generic. There is no seventh group, and each of the five color groups receive just-about-equal representation as each other, with pure-generic receiving considerably less. That's okay.
If {<>} were introduced as a seventh group, then white, blue, black, red, green, {<>}, and pure-generic would each be contending for the spots in a set. With the assumption that {<>} opens up design space, the goal is to make the set structure portray the design-space-to-set-representation ratio as much as possible. That is, if {<>} opens as much design space as a color, it gets just as much set space as a color does; if {<>} opens even more design space than a color, it gets even more set space than a color does; if {<>} opens up about 2/3 of the design space as a color, it gets about 2/3 as much representation as a color.
This is the motivation behind my numerical example that I previously posted. Given the numbers in my example (36 for each color, 16 for pure-generic, for a total of 196), the question becomes how to reshape the set so that it fits the design-space-to-set-representation ratio I mentioned above. The unknown here is the amount of design space that {<>} would open up in comparison to a color, which is up to interpretation. If the fraction of design space that {<>} opens up compared to a color is denoted as P, would enough {<>} cards be added to the 196 to make the ratio of {<>} cards to white cards equal to P? Or would enough cards be removed from each color and added to {<>} to make the ratio of {<>} cards to white cards equal to P? Or would it be a combination of both? Lastly, what is the value of P?
There's also nothing saying R&D can't change that rule. For a long time, the rule for creature removal overall was "nothing better than Terror", until they decided to break that with Doom Blade. I think it's far more likely they sat down and said "the intention of that rule was that no lands should be better than the big five basics, right?", rather than worrying over whether they can reprint the painlands moving forward.
They did something similar with hard counters needing to cost at least UU, I believe.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How to use card tags (please use them for everybody's sanity)
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format Minimum deck size: 60 Maximum number of identical cards: 4 Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
I don't get this new trend of saying the symbol is a flavor fail if it does represent "specifically colorless." How does the diamond shape make Sisay's Ring make less flavor sense than the numeral "2"? Were people out there thinking "Sweet, I have my two mana now! If only I had a three source so I could play my Sword of Feast and Famine."
It depends on how you perceive the new mana symbol. To me, I see a hedron, so the wastes produces hedron/eldrazi mana. If you see that, then there is no way that Sisay's ring from Dominaria should ever produce 2 eldrazi mana. 2 colorless mana, however, could be produced on any plane.
So you're saying you see a roughly diamond like symbol, and it is automatically Hedron mana, but 2 doesn't come off as Math mana? Do plains make Sun mana?
Aside from 'math mana' which I don't know what you mean, I agree with everything you said. Plains do invoke 'sun mana' to me. Just as trees invoke 'growth mana', islands 'water mana' etc. Every plane has those 5 basic elements and that is the tie that binds them together. <> is the outlier and doesn't really fit outside of Zendikar, unless the Eldrazi head to a new plane. Do it wizards! Send them to Lorwyn! Eat the elves and ugly Kithkin! God I hate that place.
So a "2" means colorless to you, not number mana? How does water mana counter a spell? Every time you cast Hallowed Burial do you feel the two suns power? Is Toshiro Umezawa a skull creature or a black creature? They are symbols, and they evoke things, but they are just symbols. I question what exactly the numeral 2 evokes for fantasy flavor, or how a diamond is somehow less acceptable.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MTGSalvation; Where the whining is a time honored tradition, and enjoying the game is trolling.
I think it's far more likely they sat down and said "the intention of that rule was that no lands should be better than the big five basics, right?", rather than worrying over whether they can reprint the painlands moving forward.
I would agree with that iff this mechanic is limited in scope, and contained to this set and maybe comes back at most once in a while in the future.
I think that many of the proponents New Symbol Theory are pushing for the idea that this is the chance for colorless to be a faction on equal footing with the five colors in the future. That in all future sets there will continue to be cards costing specifically colorless mana, with roughly equal representation to spells requiring colored mana. If that were to be the case, I think that they would still have to apply the 'strictly better' rule to Wastes. The spirit of the rule is to protect the fundamental building blocks of Magic, the basic lands, from being made obsolete. If <> costing spells are on par with colored spells, then those fundamental building blocks will include Wastes.
And that would indeed greatly constrain nonbasic lands. Suffice it to say that regardless of which theory proves to be true, I firmly believe that cards that cost <> won't be an evergreen mechanic.
I think that many of the proponents New Symbol Theory are pushing for the idea that this is the chance for colorless to be a faction on equal footing with the five colors in the future. That in all future sets there will continue to be cards costing specifically colorless mana, with roughly equal representation to spells requiring colored mana. If that were to be the case, I think that they would still have to apply the 'strictly better' rule to Wastes. The spirit of the rule is to protect the fundamental building blocks of Magic, the basic lands, from being made obsolete. If <> costing spells are on par with colored spells, then those fundamental building blocks will include Wastes.
I don't remember seeing anything like that. Maybe in OGW, because eldrazi have a colorless matters theme, but I don't think many people are saying colorless should have as much showing as all the colors for the rest of time. A colorless mana symbol allows for more design in the colorless matters set, while also allowing them to throw in a few specifically colorless cards every now and then if they want to in the future.
I've been playing for a LONG time and I can't say that I've ever encountered a situation where generic mana vs colourless mana was a thing.
However that MaRo made a rather long (for his standards) blogatog post about just that makes me thing that this is exactly what it will end up being (on top of him saying that sometimes spoilers aren't really advertised in a earlier post)
I appreciate your time you've taken to respond. I have no problems agreeing with the idea that New Type Theory allows for at least as much design space as New Symbol Theory -- I agree with that entirely. Fortunately, this makes the delineation of my question a lot easier, since there is no need to separate between theories.
This is the motivation behind my numerical example that I previously posted. Given the numbers in my example (36 for each color, 16 for pure-generic, for a total of 196), the question becomes how to reshape the set so that it fits the design-space-to-set-representation ratio I mentioned above. The unknown here is the amount of design space that {<>} would open up in comparison to a color, which is up to interpretation. If the fraction of design space that {<>} opens up compared to a color is denoted as P, would enough {<>} cards be added to the 196 to make the ratio of {<>} cards to white cards equal to P? Or would enough cards be removed from each color and added to {<>} to make the ratio of {<>} cards to white cards equal to P? Or would it be a combination of both? Lastly, what is the value of P?
Cool, good to be talking on the same terms.
I do think the representation within the set is an interesting question. As you mentioned, it's difficult to know exactly what they'll put in this <> group, as we only have mythics to go from. From a draft perspective, I think there has to be some pull to make it worth shaping your deck around it. Unlike cards that only cost generic mana, you can't just put them in any deck and be able to cast them. So I do think that they will have a decent amount of representation in this set. Here are two major possibilities I can think of.
They may make it equal in representation to the five colors. This would make for basically a six color draft, which would be fairly interesting. I think to have enough slots for each faction, they would need to take away most of the pure-generic spells. I think that this would make reading signals more important because there aren't pure-generic cards to serve as filler, and fewer total cards in each faction. They would also have to make a lot of backbone cards that cost <>, which may be kind of weird.
They may regard <> as a sort of 'splash color,' with fairly expensive but powerful spells that don't each cost too much <>. Even though Kozilek is a double <> spell, the fact that it's 10 mana makes it still somewhat splashable, depending on the number and type of sources of <>. I think this is more likely, as they can save <> for more flashy things. I think they could pull this off without changing the ratios too much. If they make all the expensive Eldrazi cards cost <>, it would be about right. Most decks only need a couple of finishers after all.
I've been playing for a LONG time and I can't say that I've ever encountered a situation where generic mana vs colourless mana was a thing.
However that MaRo made a rather long (for his standards) blogatog post about just that makes me thing that this is exactly what it will end up being (on top of him saying that sometimes spoilers aren't really advertised in a earlier post)
How long you've been playing without encountering this problem is unimportant, no one is saying that people who have been taught the game and the go off to play run into this problem. The problem lies in TEACHING magic to new player. Now if you can say "I've taught dozens of players to play and this was never a problem." Then you've added useful information to the discussion. In my personal experience, I've taught about 8 people to play and 6 of them tried to use colorless mana to pay for colored spells, because they understood that symbol to mean any kind of mana. Did they continue to make this mistake? Of course not, after you teach them they won't do it again, the same way after you teach them they don't attack creatures but players they don't do it again. But the fact that this has to be taught is why people say it should be changed.
I've been playing for a LONG time and I can't say that I've ever encountered a situation where generic mana vs colourless mana was a thing.
However that MaRo made a rather long (for his standards) blogatog post about just that makes me thing that this is exactly what it will end up being (on top of him saying that sometimes spoilers aren't really advertised in a earlier post)
Until OGW, there is no significant difference. Now - there will be. We'll have to see how the diamonds lie.
I wish there was a filter for quote blocks, misconceptions, Revolutionary's formatting...lifestyle, and my wisecracks. There's no way there's five whole pages of constructive, non-repeated discussion here.
I'm afraid you won't find a better filter for that than the power button...
Zing!
On a serious note, at this point we're all obligated to do our part to hit 100 pages before information is leaked which decides who eats mist intruder crow.
Can you provide a specific example of this confusion you keep citing, and the scope of how far it extends? I imagine a conversation like this:
"Hey, there's a 1 there and a 1 there... does that mean I have to pay 1 for 1?"
"Actually, the 1 in the cost can be paid by any mana, it's a generic symbol. But the 1 produced by that card is colorless; it can be used to pay for 1, but not for a specific color of mana (not coincidentally)."
"Oh I get it. So what's the difference between generic and colorless mana?"
"Practically nothing."
The bolded portion is where the confusion lies. Why does a new player need to ask the bolded question in the first place? If a new player never needed to ask the question in the first place, then the confusion would not be an issue since it would have never existed to start with. But since a player needs to ask the question, the confusion is an issue.
The speed at which a typical new player has in understanding the difference is directly correlated to how big of an issue learning the difference between the two concepts is, but it doesn't say anything about the confusion. In the dialogue you posted, the new player instantly understands the difference between colorless and generic. However, they have only learned the difference after having asked the bolded question.
I'm arguing that the bolded question shouldn't even be asked in the first place.
Why not? It's simply answered (more so than most), and questions are a natural part of the learning process. How do you feel about the confusion caused for new players which might cause them to ask any of the following questions?
-What's the difference between an instant and a sorcery?
-What's the difference between a forest card and a mountain card?
-Whats the difference between a creature and an artifact creature?
-Why isn't this colorless creature an artifact?
-What does t mean?
-What does 'tap' mean?
-How do you win the game?
- If {<>} replaces 1 in mana-production effects, then the question no longer becomes appropriate, since "paying with 1" would no longer exist. This would get rid of the confusion entirely.
And replace it with a similar confusion as to what <> means, how to pay for grey numbers in mana costs, and why they both have grey backdrops but aren't the same.
You agree that since both theories open up design space, that in order for that design space to be actually seen by the player base, the set structure would have to be modified. The question is this: How would you change the set structure to accommodate this new design space? Note that the question applies regardless of whether "{<>} = 1 in production effects" or "{<>} = new type of mana" is true. I explain this question in more detail below.
Based on your previous post, I assume you're looking for an answer with specific numbers. I can't see a reasonable way to answer that question as I'm not on R&D and set numbers and distributions change literally from set to set. Anything I could say abstractly would be speculative; suffice to say that some model would be possible, can we agree on that?
If {<>} were introduced as a seventh group, then white, blue, black, red, green, {<>}, and pure-generic would each be contending for the spots in a set. With the assumption that {<>} opens up design space, the goal is to make the set structure portray the design-space-to-set-representation ratio as much as possible.
As stated by who? You? By something other that an imaginary metric you cooked up?
That is, if {<>} opens as much design space as a color, it gets just as much set space as a color does; if {<>} opens even more design space than a color, it gets even more set space than a color does; if {<>} opens up about 2/3 of the design space as a color, it gets about 2/3 as much representation as a color.
This was never anyone's stated position that I'm aware of. It was that "<> = new type of mana" would open up (at least) as much space as "<> = 1".
Sorry if someone else said it before but...in my opinion, the only logic answer is that <> represents a new type of mana (let's say eldrazi colorless mana or blind mana or whatever). The main reason for this is, simply put, why would you EVER use that wastes land if you could pay for <> with colorless? Let's say I play a GR ramp with Kozilek...why would I use Wates and not Kessig wolf run for casting Kozilek? Of course, <> could just mean "pay this only with colorless" and Wates will see play in exactly 0 deck, but who knows? :)) We'll have to wait and see.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
GBR May the Jund'ish side of the Force be with you! GBR
Sorry if someone else said it before but...in my opinion, the only logic answer is that <> represents a new type of mana (let's say eldrazi colorless mana or blind mana or whatever). The main reason for this is, simply put, why would you EVER use that wastes land if you could pay for <> with colorless? Let's say I play a GR ramp with Kozilek...why would I use Wates and not Kessig wolf run for casting Kozilek? Of course, <> could just mean "pay this only with colorless" and Wates will see play in exactly 0 deck, but who knows? :)) We'll have to wait and see.
You cannot get a Waste with a Sakura Tribe Elder. Kessig Wolf Run and such gets hit by non-basic hate pretty hard as well. Waste plays pretty well in heavy colorless decks using the Battle for Zendikar duals. It is really only as useless as any basic.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MTGSalvation; Where the whining is a time honored tradition, and enjoying the game is trolling.
Sorry if someone else said it before but...in my opinion, the only logic answer is that <> represents a new type of mana (let's say eldrazi colorless mana or blind mana or whatever). The main reason for this is, simply put, why would you EVER use that wastes land if you could pay for <> with colorless? Let's say I play a GR ramp with Kozilek...why would I use Wates and not Kessig wolf run for casting Kozilek? Of course, <> could just mean "pay this only with colorless" and Wates will see play in exactly 0 deck, but who knows? :)) We'll have to wait and see.
You cannot get a Waste with a Sakura Tribe Elder. Kessig Wolf Run and such gets hit by non-basic hate pretty hard as well. Waste plays pretty well in heavy colorless decks using the Battle for Zendikar duals. It is really only as useless as any basic.
You CAN get a Wastes with Sakura-Tribe Elder.
Sacrifice Sakura-Tribe Elder: Search your library for a basic land card, put that card onto the battlefield tapped, then shuffle your library.
Wastes is a basic land, it can be fetched. I think there are only two generic fetch cards that can fetch basics that can't fetch Wastes because they look for a basic land type.
Wastes were also partially designed to solve a hole in Commander decks, which they clearly already stated.
Wastes were also partially designed to solve a hole in Commander decks, which they clearly already stated.
Who is they, and when/where did they say this?
A little while back (I think in 2013), at PAX Australia Aaron Forsythe said they had figured out how to do colourless basics and referred to the fact that colourless Commander decks would benefit from it.
You cannot get a Waste with a Sakura Tribe Elder. Kessig Wolf Run and such gets hit by non-basic hate pretty hard as well. Waste plays pretty well in heavy colorless decks using the Battle for Zendikar duals. It is really only as useless as any basic.
You CAN get a Wastes with Sakura-Tribe Elder.
Sacrifice Sakura-Tribe Elder: Search your library for a basic land card, put that card onto the battlefield tapped, then shuffle your library.
Wastes is a basic land, it can be fetched. I think there are only two generic fetch cards that can fetch basics that can't fetch Wastes because they look for a basic land type.
If you take the post in its entirety, I think it's pretty dang clear BauerBoss made a typo and meant to say "can". If you slow down and take in what people are saying with a bit of common sense, you might not end up arguing with those who are on your side of the fence.
This has been addressed once before.
Here's the article articulating the rules on lands: http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr65
It says: The ramification of the “strictly better” rule is that we cannot design lands that tap for a colored mana without having some kind of drawback. The nonbasic land status, incidentally, is not considered by R&D to be enough of a drawback.
So the rule doesn't apply to "wastes" by definition.
Wastes as colorless mana producing basic lands seems like the perfect choice for a set where "lands matter" and "colorless matters". It's the perfect intersection so it works with eldrazi and ally decks.
So basically you're so much an artist Vorthos you make things up?
I don't see why your totally subjective vision of the world should limit design conducted by other people. Help me out there?
So, could someone sum up the argument so the rest of the site understands what everyone's talking about? I keep hearing about the 'Snowdrazi mana' vs the 'pays for only colorless' vs the 'replaces generic' or whatever the sides even are at this point, but at this point you've all seemed to have developed a thread-specific jargon.
--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.
Will older colorless-mana-generators be able to pay for <> or not?
That's the TL;DR and the main thing we don't know yet and won't find out for a few weeks.
Those who think that only new OGW cards will be able to pay for <> - that's the 'snow 2.0 camp'
Those who think that all colorless mana will be changed to <> on the 318 cards that currently exist that generate colorless (like Sol Ring) - that's the 'new colorless symbol camp'.
Honestly it can go either way though my personal opinion is that the colorless-symbol position makes more sense for the game.
I'll give it a shot. One hypothesis is that <> (shorthand for the diamond symbol seen on Wastes) is going to be a new type of mana. This is not without prescedent, since we've had new types of mana before, such as Snow mana, Phyrexian mana, etc. The counterpoint to this argument basically boils down to the fact that such a mechanic tends to be gimmicky and parasitic - look at Snow mana, for example, it is only useful in snow-heavy decks, and therefore has little value outside of the sets it was printed in.
Another hypothesis is that Wastes taps for 1 colorless mana, and <> is going to become the symbol for 1 colorless mana from here on out, just as G is the symbol for 1 green mana. This would have the benefits of being a backwards-compatible way of adding a pseudo sixth color to Magic, opening up design space for future cards with costs that specifically require colorless mana (of which, Kozilek would be the first example we've seen), as well as clearing up the common confusion between Colorless mana (mana that cannot pay for colored costs) and Generic costs (mana costs that can be paid for with mana of any color, or colorless). However, it also has the drawbacks of potentially confusing existing players who never fully understood the difference between colorless mana and generic costs, but have thus far never really needed to understand it (since nothing has cost specifically colorless mana until now), and the fact that it would require a not insignificant amount of errata. Though, this eratta would not amount to any functional changes (Sol Ring would still cost 1 and would still tap for two colorless, but in its oracle text and in any future printings, it would be written "T: Add <><> to your mana pool).
"I am confident that if anyone actually
penetrates our facades, even the most
perceptive would still be fundamentally
unprepared for the truth of House Dimir."
I wish there was a filter for quote blocks, misconceptions, Revolutionary's formatting...lifestyle, and my wisecracks. There's no way there's five whole pages of constructive, non-repeated discussion here.
I'm afraid you won't find a better filter for that than the power button...
Unfortunately, that's not what that sentence says. The sentence doesn't say that the rule is that they cannot design lands that tap for a colored mana without having some kind of drawback. Instead it says that as a consequence of the rule No Land Can Be “Strictly Better” Than a Basic Land, they cannot design lands that tap for a colored mana without having some kind of drawback.
If <> is just a new symbol for colorless mana, then there will be a new consequence of the rule: they cannot design lands that tap for a colorless mana without having some kind of drawback. Because Wastes is a basic land that just taps for a colorless mana. Or they will abolish/modify that rule.
It seems likely to me that that rule was one of the biggest problems with a colorless basic, because they lose a lot of design space if they adhere to it after printing a colorless basic. However, by making Wastes generate a new type of mana that is necessary to cast a special subset of cards, they would be able to neatly sidestep that rule. They did a similar thing with the RTR Guildgates, to keep them from being just worse shocks, even though they don't explicitly have such a rule for non-basics.
The bolded portion is where the confusion lies. Why does a new player need to ask the bolded question in the first place? If a new player never needed to ask the question in the first place, then the confusion would not be an issue since it would have never existed to start with. But since a player needs to ask the question, the confusion is an issue.
The speed at which a typical new player has in understanding the difference is directly correlated to how big of an issue learning the difference between the two concepts is, but it doesn't say anything about the confusion. In the dialogue you posted, the new player instantly understands the difference between colorless and generic. However, they have only learned the difference after having asked the bolded question.
I'm arguing that the bolded question shouldn't even be asked in the first place.
- If {<>} replaces 1 in mana-production effects, then the question no longer becomes appropriate, since "paying with 1" would no longer exist. This would get rid of the confusion entirely.
- If {<>} is a new type of mana separate from conventional colorless mana, then the question will still need to be asked, since "paying with 1" would still exist.
I've been trying to get a response from you to some questions that I've posed. Here is what I've said regarding the design space issue:
"While both meanings of {<>} open up new design space, the question is how much design space that each change actually brings. If {<>} is indeed a new type of mana that is colorless (by definition of lack of color) but not colorless (by separation of mana types), how much design space does that truly open up? Specifically, how much design space does it open up compared to the design space that would have opened up if {<>} were the new colorless mana (in both lack of color and separation of mana types) symbol?"
"Your assertion was merely that both theories of {<>} would open up design space, to which I agree. But how much design space would each theory open up? How much of a future set would each theory's new design space need to occupy for that theory to be feasible?"
Neither of those quotes are disagreements. They ask questions, most of which are restatements of one another, which you've answered by this point. The last question, "How much of a future set would each theory's new design space need to occupy for that theory to be feasible", hasn't been answered yet.
You agree that since both theories open up design space, that in order for that design space to be actually seen by the player base, the set structure would have to be modified. The question is this: How would you change the set structure to accommodate this new design space? Note that the question applies regardless of whether "{<>} = 1 in production effects" or "{<>} = new type of mana" is true. I explain this question in more detail below.
I appreciate your time you've taken to respond. I have no problems agreeing with the idea that New Type Theory allows for at least as much design space as New Symbol Theory -- I agree with that entirely. Fortunately, this makes the delineation of my question a lot easier, since there is no need to separate between theories.
Regardless of how many groups the theories end up with (seven in both cases), that doesn't really explain how much space each group would occupy in a set. Let's label the groups as white, blue, black, red, green, {<>}, and pure-generic (with {<>} and pure-generic meaning what they mean in the appropriate theory). Since we're only considering the representation of the groups that we assume would get equal representation, it is okay if pure-generic gets less representation than the other six groups. But this still opens up the possibility of one group being vastly under-represented, or even not represented at all.
Currently, the six groups in a set are white, blue, black, red, green, and pure-generic. There is no seventh group, and each of the five color groups receive just-about-equal representation as each other, with pure-generic receiving considerably less. That's okay.
If {<>} were introduced as a seventh group, then white, blue, black, red, green, {<>}, and pure-generic would each be contending for the spots in a set. With the assumption that {<>} opens up design space, the goal is to make the set structure portray the design-space-to-set-representation ratio as much as possible. That is, if {<>} opens as much design space as a color, it gets just as much set space as a color does; if {<>} opens even more design space than a color, it gets even more set space than a color does; if {<>} opens up about 2/3 of the design space as a color, it gets about 2/3 as much representation as a color.
This is the motivation behind my numerical example that I previously posted. Given the numbers in my example (36 for each color, 16 for pure-generic, for a total of 196), the question becomes how to reshape the set so that it fits the design-space-to-set-representation ratio I mentioned above. The unknown here is the amount of design space that {<>} would open up in comparison to a color, which is up to interpretation. If the fraction of design space that {<>} opens up compared to a color is denoted as P, would enough {<>} cards be added to the 196 to make the ratio of {<>} cards to white cards equal to P? Or would enough cards be removed from each color and added to {<>} to make the ratio of {<>} cards to white cards equal to P? Or would it be a combination of both? Lastly, what is the value of P?
They did something similar with hard counters needing to cost at least UU, I believe.
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format
Minimum deck size: 60
Maximum number of identical cards: 4
Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
So a "2" means colorless to you, not number mana? How does water mana counter a spell? Every time you cast Hallowed Burial do you feel the two suns power? Is Toshiro Umezawa a skull creature or a black creature? They are symbols, and they evoke things, but they are just symbols. I question what exactly the numeral 2 evokes for fantasy flavor, or how a diamond is somehow less acceptable.
I would agree with that iff this mechanic is limited in scope, and contained to this set and maybe comes back at most once in a while in the future.
I think that many of the proponents New Symbol Theory are pushing for the idea that this is the chance for colorless to be a faction on equal footing with the five colors in the future. That in all future sets there will continue to be cards costing specifically colorless mana, with roughly equal representation to spells requiring colored mana. If that were to be the case, I think that they would still have to apply the 'strictly better' rule to Wastes. The spirit of the rule is to protect the fundamental building blocks of Magic, the basic lands, from being made obsolete. If <> costing spells are on par with colored spells, then those fundamental building blocks will include Wastes.
And that would indeed greatly constrain nonbasic lands. Suffice it to say that regardless of which theory proves to be true, I firmly believe that cards that cost <> won't be an evergreen mechanic.
However that MaRo made a rather long (for his standards) blogatog post about just that makes me thing that this is exactly what it will end up being (on top of him saying that sometimes spoilers aren't really advertised in a earlier post)
Cool, good to be talking on the same terms.
I do think the representation within the set is an interesting question. As you mentioned, it's difficult to know exactly what they'll put in this <> group, as we only have mythics to go from. From a draft perspective, I think there has to be some pull to make it worth shaping your deck around it. Unlike cards that only cost generic mana, you can't just put them in any deck and be able to cast them. So I do think that they will have a decent amount of representation in this set. Here are two major possibilities I can think of.
They may make it equal in representation to the five colors. This would make for basically a six color draft, which would be fairly interesting. I think to have enough slots for each faction, they would need to take away most of the pure-generic spells. I think that this would make reading signals more important because there aren't pure-generic cards to serve as filler, and fewer total cards in each faction. They would also have to make a lot of backbone cards that cost <>, which may be kind of weird.
They may regard <> as a sort of 'splash color,' with fairly expensive but powerful spells that don't each cost too much <>. Even though Kozilek is a double <> spell, the fact that it's 10 mana makes it still somewhat splashable, depending on the number and type of sources of <>. I think this is more likely, as they can save <> for more flashy things. I think they could pull this off without changing the ratios too much. If they make all the expensive Eldrazi cards cost <>, it would be about right. Most decks only need a couple of finishers after all.
How long you've been playing without encountering this problem is unimportant, no one is saying that people who have been taught the game and the go off to play run into this problem. The problem lies in TEACHING magic to new player. Now if you can say "I've taught dozens of players to play and this was never a problem." Then you've added useful information to the discussion. In my personal experience, I've taught about 8 people to play and 6 of them tried to use colorless mana to pay for colored spells, because they understood that symbol to mean any kind of mana. Did they continue to make this mistake? Of course not, after you teach them they won't do it again, the same way after you teach them they don't attack creatures but players they don't do it again. But the fact that this has to be taught is why people say it should be changed.
Until OGW, there is no significant difference. Now - there will be. We'll have to see how the diamonds lie.
Zing!
On a serious note, at this point we're all obligated to do our part to hit 100 pages before information is leaked which decides who eats
mist intrudercrow.Why not? It's simply answered (more so than most), and questions are a natural part of the learning process. How do you feel about the confusion caused for new players which might cause them to ask any of the following questions?
-What's the difference between an instant and a sorcery?
-What's the difference between a forest card and a mountain card?
-Whats the difference between a creature and an artifact creature?
-Why isn't this colorless creature an artifact?
-What does t mean?
-What does 'tap' mean?
-How do you win the game?
And replace it with a similar confusion as to what <> means, how to pay for grey numbers in mana costs, and why they both have grey backdrops but aren't the same.
Based on your previous post, I assume you're looking for an answer with specific numbers. I can't see a reasonable way to answer that question as I'm not on R&D and set numbers and distributions change literally from set to set. Anything I could say abstractly would be speculative; suffice to say that some model would be possible, can we agree on that?
As stated by who? You? By something other that an imaginary metric you cooked up?
This was never anyone's stated position that I'm aware of. It was that "<> = new type of mana" would open up (at least) as much space as "<> = 1".
You cannot get a Waste with a Sakura Tribe Elder. Kessig Wolf Run and such gets hit by non-basic hate pretty hard as well. Waste plays pretty well in heavy colorless decks using the Battle for Zendikar duals. It is really only as useless as any basic.
You CAN get a Wastes with Sakura-Tribe Elder.
Wastes is a basic land, it can be fetched. I think there are only two generic fetch cards that can fetch basics that can't fetch Wastes because they look for a basic land type.
Wastes were also partially designed to solve a hole in Commander decks, which they clearly already stated.
Who is they, and when/where did they say this?
A little while back (I think in 2013), at PAX Australia Aaron Forsythe said they had figured out how to do colourless basics and referred to the fact that colourless Commander decks would benefit from it.
If you take the post in its entirety, I think it's pretty dang clear BauerBoss made a typo and meant to say "can". If you slow down and take in what people are saying with a bit of common sense, you might not end up arguing with those who are on your side of the fence.