Do we all agree there is a difference between Generic mana and Colourless mana? If you don't again this statement from MaRo should show you otherwise
bunnysnack asked: Do you prefer "generic" or "colorless" when teaching new players the game?
They mean different things. Generic mana is a cost that can be paid by any type of mana regardless of color. Colorless mana is mana that doesn’t have a color.
If <> is now the symbol for colourless mana rather than the generic 1 then that simplifies explanations for new players. There are 6 types of Mana, WUBRG and colourless. By giving colourless mana a separate symbol from Generic Mana it makes a distiction between tap card and it produces x and something with X in it's casting cost. I think this improves explaining the games to new players.
1 in the casting cost is different from produces 1 giving things that mean different things different symbols is less confusing not more
It also allows you have Colourless matters cards like Mirrorpool and Kozilek. If the Eldrazi are going to be spreading out from Zendikar and becoming a multiplane threat, then I can see them wanting to have that available. It allows them to reduce costs on powerful colourless cards like for example Scour from existence could potentially now be costed 3<><> because now you need a source of mana that doesn't come from the 5 basic lands.
The question is if <> is the way they plan on symbolizing colourless mana from now on, then will past cards that produce colourless mana be Errata'd to say they produce <> I would say yes. Because otherwise it's way to parasitic. Not just for Modern but for standard. Remember BFZ block has to play nice with KTK FRF, DTK Origins, SOI Fears, Lock and Stock before it rotates out. Allowing cards like Shivan reef to tap for <> or pay 1 life tap for U or R makes them more attractive in current standard. The blighted cycle and Mana-Ring Network also become more playable if colourless matters becomes a thing.
It just really sucks that it's going to be at least Christmas before we get any confirmation on any of this. (I wonder if MaRo's general silence the past day or so is because he's being flooded with questions on it and they are debating what to do)
I skimmed the thread but was the "new" mana explained at all anywhere or are people assuming that it'll be only paid with colorless?
I'm just curious on what the implications in, let's say EDH for example, will be. Is it going to be restricted or will it be usable in any deck? Aside from the weird mana symbol, the first effect is really nice on top of giving him Menance. The counter ability is also interesting but I don't think it will see play in current standard just like Newlamog. I'm not going to judge Oath yet until more stuff is spoiled. If Kozilek made an appearance, let's see if Emrakul does as well (or if Emrakul somehow ties in with SOI).
As I understand the fact that Wastes are called basic lands means they are not restricted in commander. (If I remember correctly Aaron Forsythe said they had solved colorless basic land at PAX in 2014 mentioning for commander purposes. I remember in the various speculations about what colourless lands would look like. Tap for 1 colourless mana was always ruled out because that would seem like a pointless land. With the creation of the <> symbol and cards requiring <> as opposed to just 1, solves that issue nicely.
I'll say this if these cards are faked WotC needs to find out who made them and hire them because this solves multiple issues in a simple and elegant matter.
I'll believe it when I see WOTC post it. Considering the misspelling of the artists name on Kozilek, and the new Basic Land being labeled as "C" instead of "L" in the bottom left corner, I'm still thinking fake.
The artist's name is not misspelled and the "C" on Wastes is because it is being sorted as Common and not Basic Land in the set (which just means it won't be in the basic land slot in booster packs). See cards like Mortuary Mire.
Except that it is a basic land. Not just a land, like Mortuary Mire. I wouldn't be too happy if one of the commons in my pack is a basic land, instead of just filling the land slot like all the other basic lands.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Standard: GR Pummeler
Modern: Mono-Red Control, Lantern Control, Eldrazi Taxes, Skred Infect
Pauper: Affinity
EDH: Gaddock Teeg Kithkin Tribal, Meren
Legacy: 8 Rack, Omnitell (Both in progress)
I strongly suspect this is in fact fake, but if real this means colorless EDH decks can run cards that fetch basics! E.g. Myriad Landscape
The source who confirms this gave us the first Blighted land last season, and has provided card information and confirmations in multiple previous seasons including Theros, BNG, and M14. If he says this is real, I believe him.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Moderator Helpdesk
Currently Playing:
Legacy: Something U/W Controlish EDH Cube
Hypercube! A New EDH Deck Every Week(ish)!
There is no rule saying basic lands must be in the land slot of a booster pack. Making it a basic land only means you can play more than 4 wastes if you want, and you may want to do so if <> is a big thing in OGW.
No rules but it takes away a common card from limited.
In limited you can add as many basic lands you want to you pool, so opening a common land takes away a card from your pool directly.
No go.
unless you can't add Wastes, just like you couldn't add snow-covered lands in Coldsnap drafts. These aren't wasting a common slot so much as they'd be "wasting" a pick.
Someone quote me on this: The Waste tapping for a diamond colorless provides one of any color to cast a colorless spell. Like snow, but can be used as any color for the new colored colorless cards.
In my opinion, it functions as a sixth color indeed.
You can pay <> only with <>, but otherwise you can use it as colorless.
It does not make sense for a WASTED land to produce any color.
There is also significant difference between this and snow. Snow cards and snow lands produces NORMAL mana (by symbol), that gained the snow quality by being produced by snow permanent. No card produced directly This (the basic land and Mirrorpool) uses <> as separate symbol.
Prediction: This is a sixth color that will count towards converge.
Wonder how they let it interact with domain, as the land does not have a type per se.
I guess you could look at it as a sixth color, or that colorless would now be considered a color, just not per the rules. I think <> mana is more of their way of making cards that can only be cast with colorless mana, if <> is all colorless mana, without putting "Use only colorless mana to cast this" on whatever number of cards in Oath, or beyond, that may come of this.
If this is the way of turning colorless mana into another type of mana, or even color, then I am for it. We've had colorless for so long that only changing the 1 or 2 on most mana rocks to "<>" or "<><>" won't be the biggest problem, but again only if <> mana is meant to replace colorless.
I agree that <> in costs must be paid with a land that produces <>. But I don't think it's going to count as a 6th color, but rather colorless always. To me, it seems this is supposed to represent "Eldrazi mana" thematically, like Phrexian mana in the Scars block. And with all the dual-colored Eldrazi in the first set, I can see this more or less saying "Use this as <>, colorless or any for spells with devoid" in comparison to the text on Eldrazi Temple. Idk, it might be too powerful (like Eldrazi, in general), but thematically it would fit and could be seen as evolving devoid.
On a side note, the land is basic so it interacts with the new Duals!!
Momir Vig, Simic Visionary
Melek, Izzet Paragon
Oona, Queen of the Fae
Bruna, Light of Alabaster
Gisela, Blade of Goldnight
Rhys the Redeemed
Jarad, Golgari Lich Lord
Sen Triplets
The Mimeoplasm WUBRGSliver OverlordGRBUW WUBRGSliver Hivelord(Superfriends)GRBUW
I certainly wasn't expecting this. Oath looks interesting now, I wonder if Emrakul will also show up?
Yeah, BFZ honestly bored me - despite having a lot of cool designs and such - and I was hardly even thinking about Oath before this leak came out. If the leaker did so to hype up Oath, it's working for me. On the other hand, if <> turns out to be some special Eldrazi mana, then I'll become decidedly less interested. Wastes are sweet in any case. I like the fact that you can't Wasteland a Wastes. It's already wasted!
Even if some of them were really good, I cannot imagine ever wanting to splash colorless instead of another actual color into my deck, whether that be in Limited or any other format.
At least in Legacy, 12 Post, MUD and Death and Taxes already run 8+ colorless lands, so if speculation that {<>} == colorless-only is correct, and there ends up actually being some good G<>, W<> or vanilla <> cards, it'd be pretty amusing for those decks to get something.
Do we all agree there is a difference between Generic mana and Colourless mana? If you don't again this statement from MaRo should show you otherwise
bunnysnack asked: Do you prefer "generic" or "colorless" when teaching new players the game?
They mean different things. Generic mana is a cost that can be paid by any type of mana regardless of color. Colorless mana is mana that doesn’t have a color.
If <> is now the symbol for colourless mana rather than the generic 1 then that simplifies explanations for new players. There are 6 types of Mana, WUBRG and colourless. By giving colourless mana a separate symbol from Generic Mana it makes a distiction between tap card and it produces x and something with X in it's casting cost. I think this improves explaining the games to new players.
1 in the casting cost is different from produces 1 giving things that mean different things different symbols is less confusing not more
It also allows you have Colourless matters cards like Mirrorpool and Kozilek. If the Eldrazi are going to be spreading out from Zendikar and becoming a multiplane threat, then I can see them wanting to have that available. It allows them to reduce costs on powerful colourless cards like for example Scour from existence could potentially now be costed 3<><> because now you need a source of mana that doesn't come from the 5 basic lands.
The question is if <> is the way they plan on symbolizing colourless mana from now on, then will past cards that produce colourless mana be Errata'd to say they produce <> I would say yes. Because otherwise it's way to parasitic. Not just for Modern but for standard. Remember BFZ block has to play nice with KTK FRF, DTK Origins, SOI Fears, Lock and Stock before it rotates out. Allowing cards like Shivan reef to tap for <> or pay 1 life tap for U or R makes them more attractive in current standard. The blighted cycle and Mana-Ring Network also become more playable if colourless matters becomes a thing.
It just really sucks that it's going to be at least Christmas before we get any confirmation on any of this. (I wonder if MaRo's general silence the past day or so is because he's being flooded with questions on it and they are debating what to do)
I skimmed the thread but was the "new" mana explained at all anywhere or are people assuming that it'll be only paid with colorless?
I'm just curious on what the implications in, let's say EDH for example, will be. Is it going to be restricted or will it be usable in any deck? Aside from the weird mana symbol, the first effect is really nice on top of giving him Menance. The counter ability is also interesting but I don't think it will see play in current standard just like Newlamog. I'm not going to judge Oath yet until more stuff is spoiled. If Kozilek made an appearance, let's see if Emrakul does as well (or if Emrakul somehow ties in with SOI).
As I understand the fact that Wastes are called basic lands means they are not restricted in commander. (If I remember correctly Aaron Forsythe said they had solved colorless basic land at PAX in 2014 mentioning for commander purposes. I remember in the various speculations about what colourless lands would look like. Tap for 1 colourless mana was always ruled out because that would seem like a pointless land. With the creation of the <> symbol and cards requiring <> as opposed to just 1, solves that issue nicely.
I'll say this if these cards are faked WotC needs to find out who made them and hire them because this solves multiple issues in a simple and elegant matter.
I don't see this being correct. I agree this is a specific type of colorless, but I don't see it replacing the colorless mana symbol. Plenty of cards tap for 1, this mana is colorless and it's pretty easy to tell. <> is adding another layer of complexity for new players, a lot more so than the simple 1. And it seems like a big, rules-affecting change for the second set in a block, where cards in the first tap for 1, not to mention the 20+ years of old cards that would need to be changed.
It's kind of interesting that this depiction of Kozilek has a "crown" made of the same black, angular protrusions as his brood,
whereas Kozilek, Butcher of Truth does not.
It makes sense that he would, it just seems a rather large change to make.
Momir Vig, Simic Visionary
Melek, Izzet Paragon
Oona, Queen of the Fae
Bruna, Light of Alabaster
Gisela, Blade of Goldnight
Rhys the Redeemed
Jarad, Golgari Lich Lord
Sen Triplets
The Mimeoplasm WUBRGSliver OverlordGRBUW WUBRGSliver Hivelord(Superfriends)GRBUW
It seems to me that <> is almost certainly NOT a new symbol for 1. If so, why would the new Kozilek cost 8<><>? How is that different than 10?
The likely answer is that <> is a new type of mana like G or B.
Questions that come to mind are:
1) Can a multicolor source like City of Brass produce <>? (I'm thinking yes... but maybe not)
2) Can a card with <> mana go into an EDH deck with a non-<> general? (I'm thinking no)
It seems to me that <> is almost certainly NOT a new symbol for colorless. If so, why would the new Kozilek cost 8<><>? How is that different than 10?
Questions like this illustrate that there's confusion around colorless mana and generic mana. This is exactly why it'd be nice to have a symbol for colorless mana and specifically colorless (rather than generic) costs.
<> is almost certainly NOT a new symbol for colorless. If so, why would the new Kozilek cost 8<><>? How is that different than 10?
Well, the 8 part of his cost is a generic mana cost- it could be paid for with mana of any (or no) color. Under the theory that <> means colorless mana, <> in a cost would mean it can only be paid for with colorless mana, not mana of any color.
Thus, Kozilek would require 2 colorless mana plus 8 mana of any or no color.
I'll believe it when I see WOTC post it. Considering the misspelling of the artists name on Kozilek, and the new Basic Land being labeled as "C" instead of "L" in the bottom left corner, I'm still thinking fake.
The artist's name is not misspelled and the "C" on Wastes is because it is being sorted as Common and not Basic Land in the set (which just means it won't be in the basic land slot in booster packs). See cards like Mortuary Mire.
Except that it is a basic land. Not just a land, like Mortuary Mire. I wouldn't be too happy if one of the commons in my pack is a basic land, instead of just filling the land slot like all the other basic lands.
You're right. That doesn't mean they won't do it anyway.
How about brown mana? You know, waste, brown? Toilet humor.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playing since 1994: Currently MAGS (HomeBrew),Standard & Pauper (Pioneer and Modern are degenerate trash formats)
STOP using "dude/bro" as a pejorative or insult. Grow up.
Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”
Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Martin Luther King Jr.: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
1) Can a multicolor source like City of Brass produce <>? (I'm thinking yes... but maybe not)
2) Can a card with <> mana go into an EDH deck with a non-<> general? (I'm thinking no)
Under the current understanding of the neo-snow scenario:
1) No, a multicolor source like City of Brass cannot produce Eldrazi Mana. Eldrazi mana is colorless, not a new color. It is its own new type of mana. The only source for it will be cards that explicitly produce Eldrazi Mana, like Wastes or Mirrorpool.
2) Yes, a card with <> will be able to go into any EDH deck unrestricted, as its not a color and thus not outside any color identity. It would take a rules change to commander to make this different. But considering one strong motivation for Barry's Land was to give future colorless commander decks access to a colorless basic land, it is very likely intentionally given a place in commander.
So this could be fetched with evolving wilds or absorb vis but not arid mesa, you could give it the Swamp subtype with urborg, tomb of yawgmoth and it could tap for B or <>, but an ability like reef shaman's that overwrites its types would make it lose the ability to tap for <> (as I stand corrected). Wastes could not be destroyed by wasteland. A charmed pendant would not produce any mana from flipping Kozilek, and Kozilek is still colorless identity, and its not changed into a mountain by blood moon. If you made it snow with arcum's weathervane, the <> could be spent for 1, S, X or <> costs
If <> is now the symbol for colourless mana rather than the generic 1 then that simplifies explanations for new players. There are 6 types of Mana, WUBRG and colourless. By giving colourless mana a separate symbol from Generic Mana it makes a distiction between tap card and it produces x and something with X in it's casting cost. I think this improves explaining the games to new players.
1 in the casting cost is different from produces 1 giving things that mean different things different symbols is less confusing not more
It also allows you have Colourless matters cards like Mirrorpool and Kozilek. If the Eldrazi are going to be spreading out from Zendikar and becoming a multiplane threat, then I can see them wanting to have that available. It allows them to reduce costs on powerful colourless cards like for example Scour from existence could potentially now be costed 3<><> because now you need a source of mana that doesn't come from the 5 basic lands.
The question is if <> is the way they plan on symbolizing colourless mana from now on, then will past cards that produce colourless mana be Errata'd to say they produce <> I would say yes. Because otherwise it's way to parasitic. Not just for Modern but for standard. Remember BFZ block has to play nice with KTK FRF, DTK Origins, SOI Fears, Lock and Stock before it rotates out. Allowing cards like Shivan reef to tap for <> or pay 1 life tap for U or R makes them more attractive in current standard. The blighted cycle and Mana-Ring Network also become more playable if colourless matters becomes a thing.
It just really sucks that it's going to be at least Christmas before we get any confirmation on any of this. (I wonder if MaRo's general silence the past day or so is because he's being flooded with questions on it and they are debating what to do)
As I understand the fact that Wastes are called basic lands means they are not restricted in commander. (If I remember correctly Aaron Forsythe said they had solved colorless basic land at PAX in 2014 mentioning for commander purposes. I remember in the various speculations about what colourless lands would look like. Tap for 1 colourless mana was always ruled out because that would seem like a pointless land. With the creation of the <> symbol and cards requiring <> as opposed to just 1, solves that issue nicely.
I'll say this if these cards are faked WotC needs to find out who made them and hire them because this solves multiple issues in a simple and elegant matter.
Cubetutor Peasant'ish-Funbox
Project: Khans of Tarkir Cube (cubetutor)
Except that it is a basic land. Not just a land, like Mortuary Mire. I wouldn't be too happy if one of the commons in my pack is a basic land, instead of just filling the land slot like all the other basic lands.
Modern: Mono-Red Control, Lantern Control, Eldrazi Taxes, Skred Infect
Pauper: Affinity
EDH: Gaddock Teeg Kithkin Tribal, Meren
Legacy: 8 Rack, Omnitell (Both in progress)
I've asked the source but he hasn't replied yet.
The source who confirms this gave us the first Blighted land last season, and has provided card information and confirmations in multiple previous seasons including Theros, BNG, and M14. If he says this is real, I believe him.
Currently Playing:
Legacy: Something U/W Controlish
EDH Cube
Hypercube! A New EDH Deck Every Week(ish)!
unless you can't add Wastes, just like you couldn't add snow-covered lands in Coldsnap drafts. These aren't wasting a common slot so much as they'd be "wasting" a pick.
I agree that <> in costs must be paid with a land that produces <>. But I don't think it's going to count as a 6th color, but rather colorless always. To me, it seems this is supposed to represent "Eldrazi mana" thematically, like Phrexian mana in the Scars block. And with all the dual-colored Eldrazi in the first set, I can see this more or less saying "Use this as <>, colorless or any for spells with devoid" in comparison to the text on Eldrazi Temple. Idk, it might be too powerful (like Eldrazi, in general), but thematically it would fit and could be seen as evolving devoid.
On a side note, the land is basic so it interacts with the new Duals!!
none
Modern
UBG B/U/G control
BBB MBC
WUR Control
WWW Prison
RRR Goblins
Legacy
BBB Pox
UBG B/U/G Control
UWU StoneBlade
UW Miracle Control
Bring on Karn or Ugin 2.0, costing <><><><><><><> and with more power than both previous versions put together...
Reprint Stasis!
Control needs more love.
EDH:
Momir Vig, Simic Visionary
Melek, Izzet Paragon
Oona, Queen of the Fae
Bruna, Light of Alabaster
Gisela, Blade of Goldnight
Rhys the Redeemed
Jarad, Golgari Lich Lord
Sen Triplets
The Mimeoplasm
WUBRGSliver OverlordGRBUW
WUBRGSliver Hivelord(Superfriends)GRBUW
Yeah, BFZ honestly bored me - despite having a lot of cool designs and such - and I was hardly even thinking about Oath before this leak came out. If the leaker did so to hype up Oath, it's working for me. On the other hand, if <> turns out to be some special Eldrazi mana, then I'll become decidedly less interested. Wastes are sweet in any case. I like the fact that you can't Wasteland a Wastes. It's already wasted!
At least in Legacy, 12 Post, MUD and Death and Taxes already run 8+ colorless lands, so if speculation that {<>} == colorless-only is correct, and there ends up actually being some good G<>, W<> or vanilla <> cards, it'd be pretty amusing for those decks to get something.
So, it's not impossible, just improbable
I don't see this being correct. I agree this is a specific type of colorless, but I don't see it replacing the colorless mana symbol. Plenty of cards tap for 1, this mana is colorless and it's pretty easy to tell. <> is adding another layer of complexity for new players, a lot more so than the simple 1. And it seems like a big, rules-affecting change for the second set in a block, where cards in the first tap for 1, not to mention the 20+ years of old cards that would need to be changed.
whereas Kozilek, Butcher of Truth does not.
It makes sense that he would, it just seems a rather large change to make.
Reprint Stasis!
Control needs more love.
EDH:
Momir Vig, Simic Visionary
Melek, Izzet Paragon
Oona, Queen of the Fae
Bruna, Light of Alabaster
Gisela, Blade of Goldnight
Rhys the Redeemed
Jarad, Golgari Lich Lord
Sen Triplets
The Mimeoplasm
WUBRGSliver OverlordGRBUW
WUBRGSliver Hivelord(Superfriends)GRBUW
Good luck casting those under a Blood Moon, though!
The likely answer is that <> is a new type of mana like G or B.
Questions that come to mind are:
1) Can a multicolor source like City of Brass produce <>? (I'm thinking yes... but maybe not)
2) Can a card with <> mana go into an EDH deck with a non-<> general? (I'm thinking no)
Questions like this illustrate that there's confusion around colorless mana and generic mana. This is exactly why it'd be nice to have a symbol for colorless mana and specifically colorless (rather than generic) costs.
Well, the 8 part of his cost is a generic mana cost- it could be paid for with mana of any (or no) color. Under the theory that <> means colorless mana, <> in a cost would mean it can only be paid for with colorless mana, not mana of any color.
Thus, Kozilek would require 2 colorless mana plus 8 mana of any or no color.
You're right. That doesn't mean they won't do it anyway.
How about brown mana? You know, waste, brown? Toilet humor.
STOP using "dude/bro" as a pejorative or insult. Grow up.
Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”
Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Martin Luther King Jr.: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
Under the current understanding of the neo-snow scenario:
1) No, a multicolor source like City of Brass cannot produce Eldrazi Mana. Eldrazi mana is colorless, not a new color. It is its own new type of mana. The only source for it will be cards that explicitly produce Eldrazi Mana, like Wastes or Mirrorpool.
2) Yes, a card with <> will be able to go into any EDH deck unrestricted, as its not a color and thus not outside any color identity. It would take a rules change to commander to make this different. But considering one strong motivation for Barry's Land was to give future colorless commander decks access to a colorless basic land, it is very likely intentionally given a place in commander.
So this could be fetched with evolving wilds or absorb vis but not arid mesa, you could give it the Swamp subtype with urborg, tomb of yawgmoth and it could tap for B or <>, but an ability like reef shaman's that overwrites its types would make it lose the ability to tap for <> (as I stand corrected). Wastes could not be destroyed by wasteland. A charmed pendant would not produce any mana from flipping Kozilek, and Kozilek is still colorless identity, and its not changed into a mountain by blood moon. If you made it snow with arcum's weathervane, the <> could be spent for 1, S, X or <> costs