Firstly, generic mana is still and has always been a part of Magic. Take a look into the Comprehensive Rulebook:
104.3b Numeral symbols (such as {1}) are generic mana costs and represent an amount of mana that can be paid with any color of, or colorless, mana.
You've got a bit of an old version of the rulebook there, by the way. The rule you're looking for is here:
107.4b Numeral symbols (such as {1}) and variable symbols (such as {X}) represent generic mana in costs. Generic mana in costs can be paid with any type of mana. For more information about {X}, see rule 107.3.
1. <> mana costs can only be paid with colorless mana
2. Lands that tap for <> produce colorless mana can only be used to pay for colorless spells
Please don't be no. 2
The biggest reason I don't think it's number 2, from BFZ.
Why would they just have made this card if they were going to introduce a new symbol for that very ability.
1. <> mana costs can only be paid with colorless mana
2. Lands that tap for <> produce colorless mana can only be used to pay for colorless spells
Please don't be no. 2
The biggest reason I don't think it's number 2, from BFZ.
Why would they just have made this card if they were going to introduce a new symbol for that very ability.
#1) OGW is developed after BFZ
#2) Even if when they came up with this brilliant idea during OGW design there was still time to incorporate it in the Fall set, it still makes sense to slow-roll it and make the big rule change in the winter because this adds something exciting and new to the game and wouldn't feel very similar to BFZ.
What if, the lands are fakes, but the Kozilek is liek Phyrexian mana, but the source has to be a Scion/Spawn thing. Which actually surprised me that they weren't like that already. Got to give Blue/GreenTron more win conditions I guess they were hurting for goodstuff.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Wanted -Zombie Foils and older expensive Zombie stuff. High Priority- Beta Z Master/ Int. Collector's Edition.
I call fakes. Why would they print a new Ulamog with traditional colorless mana but then completely change the casting cost of (at least) the Eldrazi Titans in the very next set?
My first impression was that <> is a new type of mana, distinct from the colorless T:1. That's how I'm going to view it until we get more information.
Far too parasitic, not only would it not play well outside of the block, it wouldn't even play well outside of the set. This seems extremely unlikely to me.
It makes far more sense and solves outstanding issues to distinguish colorless mana and colorless mana costs from generic mana costs. If they had to design magic all over again, I think they would have done that. Using the same symbol for colorless and generic like we do now just feels like a mistake that we've gotten used to.
A few points for and against <> being colorless that I haven't seen argued
Against
1. The flavor of the Eldrazi was that they used mana we didn't understand, that was why they are colorless. What if we are starting to comprehend their mana, and thus able to use it. This supports this being a new type of mana.
2. If this was supposed to be a change to the way colorless mana is represented, it would make more sense to introduce this in Origins or BFZ. Usually rules changes of this scale(the "ctp to etb" change, damage on the stack, manaburn, etc) came with core sets, doing it in a small set seems poorly timed. They could have then printed the blighted land cycle with the new symbol to help introduce people to it before creating cards that needed it. They could have also added Wastes in BFZ to help the supply.
For
1. The rules for Wastes becomes really complex if it doesn't mean colorless. Without a subtype to reference, the rules would have to specify that the card named Wastes tap for Eldrazi mana. If it does tap for colorless mana than the rules can just specify that basic lands without type tap for colorless. Alternatively, the rules text on Wastes could say it taps for Eldrazi mana and Wizards just printed a full art version with no rules text, this would go against the reason they added rules text to expeditions and stopped printing the textless promos.
I call fakes. Why would they print a new Ulamog with traditional colorless mana but then completely change the casting cost of (at least) the Eldrazi Titans in the very next set?
They were not designing OGW at the same time as BFZ. They could have very easily come up with the idea after BFZ was wrapped up. Even if not, it still makes sense to save something new to sell the winter set.
1. <> mana costs can only be paid with colorless mana
2. Lands that tap for <> produce colorless mana can only be used to pay for colorless spells
Please don't be no. 2
The biggest reason I don't think it's number 2, from BFZ.
Why would they just have made this card if they were going to introduce a new symbol for that very ability.
Yeah I totally agree with you.
The same reason they printed "can only be blocked by two or more creatures" right before Menace.
I'd be happy they don't limit themselves to "Well, we're about to release this change, so let's not print this card with an ability like that. We'll have it do something else instead."
What do you mean do I actually believe this, its a simple, undeniable fact. OGW design was completed after BFZ design, and OGW development is completed after BFZ development.
Another point in favor of <> meaning colorless mana, and colorless only when used in casting costs: it suddenly makes some of those crappy colorless with spell effect lands in BFZ look more playable.
A few points for and against <> being colorless that I haven't seen argued
Against
1. The flavor of the Eldrazi was that they used mana we didn't understand, that was why they are colorless. What if we are starting to comprehend their mana, and thus able to use it. This supports this being a new type of mana.
2. If this was supposed to be a change to the way colorless mana is represented, it would make more sense to introduce this in BFZ. Usually rules changes of this scale came with core sets (the "ctp to etb" change, damage on the stack, manaburn, etc). They could have then printed the blighted land cycle with the new symbol to help introduce people to it before creating cards that needed it. They could have also added Wastes in BFZ to help the supply.
For
1. The rules for Wastes becomes really complex if it doesn't mean colorless. Without a subtype to reference, the rules would have to specify that the card named Wastes tap for Eldrazi mana. If it does tap for colorless mana than the rules can just specify that basic lands without type tap for colorless. Alternatively, the rules text on Wastes could say it taps for Eldrazi mana and Wizards just printed a full art version with no rules text, this would go against the reason they added rules text to expeditions and stopped printing the textless promos.
For no. 2 it could be the case that since BFZ was going to be 3 block irc, BFZ(big)-OGW(small)-WHATEVER(big) they had to change OGW to the two block paradigm, the new land could be originally intended for the 3rd block but then had to be changed to the 2nd due the new scheme.
I'm pretty sure these (at least, Wastes and Kozilek) are real for a lot of the reasons other people are giving (and one more reason, more on that in a second).
I'm also basically 100% sure that the interpretation that <> is a new permanent way to refer to colorless mana and disambiguate it from generic mana is correct. Nothing else makes sense.
In fact, I would happily lay 10:1 odds (I'll bet $100 against your $10) that, if these cards are real, <> just means colorless and all previous sources of colorless mana will be erattaed to produce <> instead, while <> in a cost means that it must be paid with colorless mana (and that it means nothing more or less).
Finally, one reason that I think these are so likely to be real is exactly the fact that we are arguing over what <> means. If someone had made these cards expressly to leak as fake spoilers, I am certain they would have put reminder text on Kozilek to ensure that we understood what <> meant. If they're real, on the other hand, WotC has many other avenues to communicate the new rules when the set is officially spoiled.
clan_iraq was just saying that the opposite point of view is far more logically sound. You guys gotta try and be objective. It's painful to watch.
I don't see why I have to be consistent with clan_iraq. He has come to his own conclusions using his own reasoning and, while I see the sense in what he's saying, I think his premises are flawed. I think the very strongest reasons supporting my viewpoint are that 1. doing it this way would be good and elegant design (while the other theories all seem to rely on WotC having made some very bad design decisions); 2. This would open up design space that could be used in all future sets; and 3. MaRo has previously expressed that the ambiguity between colorless and generic mana causes some problems.
I recognize the validity of the arguments for why some other interpretation is more likely, but I give the three I just quoted in favour of my interpretation vastly more weight.
it would not surprise me if this was used to replace the production of colorless mana. When new players are learning the game i have often see them struggle with the concept that when in a mana cost (1) can be any color of mana, but when you are tapping darksteel citadel, it doesnt make any color.
My first impression was that <> is a new type of mana, distinct from the colorless T:1. That's how I'm going to view it until we get more information.
Far too parasitic, not only would it not play well outside of the block, it wouldn't even play well outside of the set. This seems extremely unlikely to me.
It makes far more sense and solves outstanding issues to distinguish colorless mana and colorless mana costs from generic mana costs. If they had to design magic all over again, I think they would have done that. Using the same symbol for colorless and generic like we do now just feels like a mistake that we've gotten used to.
I don't disagree with the claim that it would be parasitic.
It seems just as unlikely, though, that they would errata every card with the T:1 symbol, especially when that would include a dozen cards within the same block. If they were going to make that change, it would make far more sense to do it for BFZ.
I'm pretty sure these (at least, Wastes and Kozilek) are real for a lot of the reasons other people are giving (and one more reason, more on that in a second).
I'm also basically 100% sure that the interpretation that <> is a new permanent way to refer to colorless mana and disambiguate it from generic mana is correct. Nothing else makes sense.
In fact, I would happily lay 10:1 odds (I'll bet $100 against your $10) that, if these cards are real, <> just means colorless and all previous sources of colorless mana will be erattaed to produce <> instead, while <> in a cost means that it must be paid with colorless mana (and that it means nothing more or less).
Finally, one reason that I think these are so likely to be real is exactly the fact that we are arguing over what <> means. If someone had made these cards expressly to leak as fake spoilers, I am certain they would have put reminder text on Kozilek to ensure that we understood what <> meant. If they're real, on the other hand, WotC has many other avenues to communicate the new rules when the set is officially spoiled.
clan_iraq was just saying that the opposite point of view is far more logically sound. You guys gotta try and be objective. It's painful to watch.
I don't see why I have to be consistent with clan_iraq. He has come to his own conclusions using his own reasoning and, while I see the sense in what he's saying, I think his premises are flawed. I think the very strongest reasons supporting my viewpoint are that 1. doing it this way would be good and elegant design (while the other theories all seem to rely on WotC having made some very bad design decisions); 2. This would open up design space that could be used in all future sets; and 3. MaRo has previously expressed that the ambiguity between colorless and generic mana causes some problems.
I recognize the validity of the arguments for why some other interpretation is more likely, but I give the three I just quoted in favour of my interpretation vastly more weight.
Agreed completely. I'd also add that it could help solve standing problems with the current sorry state of artifacts. They currently have to make most of them unplayable due to color pie issues, but with this change they could make more powerful artifacts that you have to dilute your mana base to gain access to.
1. <> mana costs can only be paid with colorless mana
2. Lands that tap for <> produce colorless mana can only be used to pay for colorless spells
Please don't be no. 2
The biggest reason I don't think it's number 2, from BFZ.
Why would they just have made this card if they were going to introduce a new symbol for that very ability.
Yeah I totally agree with you.
The same reason they printed "can only be blocked by two or more creatures" right before Menace.
I'd be happy they don't limit themselves to "Well, we're about to release this change, so let's not print this card with an ability like that. We'll have it do something else instead."
Unlike Menace, it creates a situation where limited has very confusing rules. The difference between "Add 1 to your mana pool" and "Add <> to your mana pool" when you're trying to pay for <> is much more complicated than a creature either having the text "~ can't be blocked except by two or more creatures.' or "Menace (~ can't be blocked except by two or more creatures.)"
It clearly doesn't just mean colorless: Kozilek wouldn't cost 8DD instead of 10. This is some kind of special Eldrazi mana. I suspect that it is colorless, but unique beyond that. I'm pretty sure you can't tap Sol Ring and eight Plains to pay the two colorless and eight generic for Kozilek.
I'm hoping D can serve as any color of mana for devoid cards. That would be really neat.
Also, the symbol should be abbreviated as "D" and not "<>", the former is shorter and D stands for "devoid".
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
These days, some wizards are finding they have a little too much deck left at the end of their $$$.
MTG finance guy- follow me on Twitter@RichArschmann or RichardArschmann on Reddit
My first impression was that <> is a new type of mana, distinct from the colorless T:1. That's how I'm going to view it until we get more information.
Far too parasitic, not only would it not play well outside of the block, it wouldn't even play well outside of the set. This seems extremely unlikely to me.
It makes far more sense and solves outstanding issues to distinguish colorless mana and colorless mana costs from generic mana costs. If they had to design magic all over again, I think they would have done that. Using the same symbol for colorless and generic like we do now just feels like a mistake that we've gotten used to.
I don't disagree with the claim that it would be parasitic.
It seems just as unlikely, though, that they would errata every card with the T:1 symbol, especially when that would include a dozen cards within the same block. If they were going to make that change, it would make far more sense to do it for BFZ.
Again, they may not have even thought of it until after BFZ was done, and its such a great idea, it makes sense to just push forward since its something they can use in all future sets.
Your interpretation makes this parasitic to an absurd extreme, to the point where it doesn't even play well with BFZ. My interpretation makes some old weak BFZ lands suddenly look playable.
The errata is not a big problem, we already know its colorless mana, the "errata" is just giving it the symbol for colorless. Not a big deal, especially since we'd never again see the generic symbol outside of casting cost.
It clearly doesn't just mean colorless: Kozilek wouldn't cost 8DD instead of 10. This is some kind of special Eldrazi mana. I suspect that it is colorless, but unique beyond that. I'm pretty sure you can't tap Sol Ring and eight Plains to pay the two colorless and eight generic for Kozilek.
I'm hoping D can serve as any color of mana for devoid cards. That would be really neat.
Also, the symbol should be abbreviated as "D" and not "<>", the former is shorter and D stands for "devoid".
The point is that <> could mean requires colorless where as the 8 is generic mana (any color or colorless).
it would not surprise me if this was used to replace the production of colorless mana. When new players are learning the game i have often see them struggle with the concept that when in a mana cost (1) can be any color of mana, but when you are tapping darksteel citadel, it doesnt make any color.
Exactly, what we have now is a mistake that people have gotten used to, but its still a mistake and should not have been designed that way. Even if you decide you won't design any cards that require colorless in your next set (why not, at least a good artifact?), it still makes sense to use the diamond for colorless-producing to distinguish it from generic mana costs.
Unlike Menace, it creates a situation where limited has very confusing rules. The difference between "Add 1 to your mana pool" and "Add <> to your mana pool" when you're trying to pay for <> is much more complicated than a creature either having the text "~ can't be blocked except by two or more creatures.' or "Menace (~ can't be blocked except by two or more creatures.)"
It's not really confusing at all.
Are you confused that G can pay for 1?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yeah I totally agree with you.
#1) OGW is developed after BFZ
#2) Even if when they came up with this brilliant idea during OGW design there was still time to incorporate it in the Fall set, it still makes sense to slow-roll it and make the big rule change in the winter because this adds something exciting and new to the game and wouldn't feel very similar to BFZ.
UR Blue-Red Control
Modern:
UBR Grixis Control
UWR Jeskai Control
Selling some cards I don't want.
Generally less than tcg mid.
Far too parasitic, not only would it not play well outside of the block, it wouldn't even play well outside of the set. This seems extremely unlikely to me.
It makes far more sense and solves outstanding issues to distinguish colorless mana and colorless mana costs from generic mana costs. If they had to design magic all over again, I think they would have done that. Using the same symbol for colorless and generic like we do now just feels like a mistake that we've gotten used to.
Against
1. The flavor of the Eldrazi was that they used mana we didn't understand, that was why they are colorless. What if we are starting to comprehend their mana, and thus able to use it. This supports this being a new type of mana.
2. If this was supposed to be a change to the way colorless mana is represented, it would make more sense to introduce this in Origins or BFZ. Usually rules changes of this scale(the "ctp to etb" change, damage on the stack, manaburn, etc) came with core sets, doing it in a small set seems poorly timed. They could have then printed the blighted land cycle with the new symbol to help introduce people to it before creating cards that needed it. They could have also added Wastes in BFZ to help the supply.
For
1. The rules for Wastes becomes really complex if it doesn't mean colorless. Without a subtype to reference, the rules would have to specify that the card named Wastes tap for Eldrazi mana. If it does tap for colorless mana than the rules can just specify that basic lands without type tap for colorless. Alternatively, the rules text on Wastes could say it taps for Eldrazi mana and Wizards just printed a full art version with no rules text, this would go against the reason they added rules text to expeditions and stopped printing the textless promos.
They were not designing OGW at the same time as BFZ. They could have very easily come up with the idea after BFZ was wrapped up. Even if not, it still makes sense to save something new to sell the winter set.
Do you actually believe this?
Abzan Traverse / Traverse Shadow / UR Kiki
The same reason they printed "can only be blocked by two or more creatures" right before Menace.
I'd be happy they don't limit themselves to "Well, we're about to release this change, so let's not print this card with an ability like that. We'll have it do something else instead."
What do you mean do I actually believe this, its a simple, undeniable fact. OGW design was completed after BFZ design, and OGW development is completed after BFZ development.
For no. 2 it could be the case that since BFZ was going to be 3 block irc, BFZ(big)-OGW(small)-WHATEVER(big) they had to change OGW to the two block paradigm, the new land could be originally intended for the 3rd block but then had to be changed to the 2nd due the new scheme.
I don't see why I have to be consistent with clan_iraq. He has come to his own conclusions using his own reasoning and, while I see the sense in what he's saying, I think his premises are flawed. I think the very strongest reasons supporting my viewpoint are that 1. doing it this way would be good and elegant design (while the other theories all seem to rely on WotC having made some very bad design decisions); 2. This would open up design space that could be used in all future sets; and 3. MaRo has previously expressed that the ambiguity between colorless and generic mana causes some problems.
I recognize the validity of the arguments for why some other interpretation is more likely, but I give the three I just quoted in favour of my interpretation vastly more weight.
I don't disagree with the claim that it would be parasitic.
It seems just as unlikely, though, that they would errata every card with the T:1 symbol, especially when that would include a dozen cards within the same block. If they were going to make that change, it would make far more sense to do it for BFZ.
UR Blue-Red Control
Modern:
UBR Grixis Control
UWR Jeskai Control
Agreed completely. I'd also add that it could help solve standing problems with the current sorry state of artifacts. They currently have to make most of them unplayable due to color pie issues, but with this change they could make more powerful artifacts that you have to dilute your mana base to gain access to.
I'm hoping D can serve as any color of mana for devoid cards. That would be really neat.
Also, the symbol should be abbreviated as "D" and not "<>", the former is shorter and D stands for "devoid".
MTG finance guy- follow me on Twitter@RichArschmann or RichardArschmann on Reddit
Again, they may not have even thought of it until after BFZ was done, and its such a great idea, it makes sense to just push forward since its something they can use in all future sets.
Your interpretation makes this parasitic to an absurd extreme, to the point where it doesn't even play well with BFZ. My interpretation makes some old weak BFZ lands suddenly look playable.
The errata is not a big problem, we already know its colorless mana, the "errata" is just giving it the symbol for colorless. Not a big deal, especially since we'd never again see the generic symbol outside of casting cost.
The point is that <> could mean requires colorless where as the 8 is generic mana (any color or colorless).
375 unpowered cube - https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/601ac624832cdf1039947588
Exactly, what we have now is a mistake that people have gotten used to, but its still a mistake and should not have been designed that way. Even if you decide you won't design any cards that require colorless in your next set (why not, at least a good artifact?), it still makes sense to use the diamond for colorless-producing to distinguish it from generic mana costs.
It's not really confusing at all.
Are you confused that G can pay for 1?