I am very excited at the prospect of this new mana functioning as someone earlier suggested it might: <> can be paid for with "<> mana" or two of any other type of mana.
That would mean that <> cards could still be played as colorless in all the same ways, but you gain a benefit (reduced cost) from casting them with Wastes.
The more I think about it, the more viable this seems. It just makes sense, unlike many of the other proposed functionalities.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I play:
Block Tiny Leaders:
Theros Block / Anax & Cymede
Return to Ravnica Block / Vorel of the Hull Clade
Khans of Tarkir Block / Shu Yun, the Silent Tempest
<> 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.
Right, I think that is basically what I was trying to say. I clarified my original wording. I think the term "colorless" now refers to "generic" mana (like 1), so <> shouldn't really be called "colorless" it should be "eldrazi" mana or something. A 6th color. I'm very doubtful that old cards that produce colorless mana would be able to create <>, unless it's a "mana of any color" card. So Sol Ring, for example should still only make 2, not <><>.
<> 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.
Bingo. And Kozilek's Channeler just happens to tap for 2 colorless mana, leading me to believe that this isn't some special "snow" colorless mana that can only be payed by things that produce "<>". Colorless mana is still colorless mana, it just has a symbol now.
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
Has anyone noted that <> could be exclusively colorless? As in ONLY for colorless on both sides? So Kozilek can be cast for 8 generic mana and 2 specifically colorless mana, while Mirrorpool creates mana that can ONLY be used for colorless mana? (perhaps even to the extent of not being able to cast Kalonian Tusker with a Mycosynth Lattice using <> mana.)
This seems like the most reasonable meaning for <>.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My thoughts are with the friends and family of the Orlando Shooting victims and with the rest of the LGBTQA+ community.
Check out my Newborder Peasant Cube here! http://www.cubetutor.com/draft/37467
Necarg, please don't acknowledge this in any way whatsoever.
True Name Mafia (Win),Clan Contest IX Mafia (Win), Bravely Default Mafia (Loss), BOTAS (loss), BfV (Loss), Ace Attourney (loss)
Rules Advisor before they were eradicated
Has anyone noted that <> could be exclusively colorless? As in ONLY for colorless on both sides? So Kozilek can be cast for 8 generic mana and 2 specifically colorless mana, while Mirrorpool creates mana that can ONLY be used for colorless mana? (perhaps even to the extent of not being able to cast Kalonian Tusker with a Mycosynth Lattice using <> mana.)
This seems like the most reasonable meaning for <>.
The problem is that beyond very contrived scenarios like mycosynth lattice, there would be no functional difference between the mana produced by Wastes and the mana produced by blasted landscape. Theres no reason to create a mana symbol for "Colorless mana that can only be spent on generic costs", because thats redundant. Colorless mana is already restricted to only being able to pay generic costs
Any explanation for the symbol has to cover both why it would exist in casting costs and why it would exist on lands, particularly a new subtypeless basic land.
Has anyone noted that <> could be exclusively colorless? As in ONLY for colorless on both sides? So Kozilek can be cast for 8 generic mana and 2 specifically colorless mana, while Mirrorpool creates mana that can ONLY be used for colorless mana? (perhaps even to the extent of not being able to cast Kalonian Tusker with a Mycosynth Lattice using <> mana.)
This seems like the most reasonable meaning for <>.
The problem is that beyond very contrived scenarios like mycosynth lattice, there would be no functional difference between the mana produced by Wastes and the mana produced by blasted landscape. Theres no reason to create a mana symbol for "Colorless mana that can only be spent on generic costs", because thats redundant. Colorless mana is already restricted to only being able to pay generic costs
Any explanation for the symbol has to cover both why it would exist in casting costs and why it would exist on lands, particularly a new subtypeless basic land.
the reason to make the symbol is because there have been very, very few colorless costs in magic's history. this opens up that design space. edit: I just looked, and couldn't find even a single card that requires colorless mana.
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.
I also noticed this. Cosi has a strange hat on Shrine of the Forsaken Gods which didn't make sense based on old-Kozilek's art, but does with new-Kozilek. Maybe it's something he can turn on and off?
Honestly if these are real, then beyond the prerelease and prize packs, I don't see myself opening up a whole lot of gatewatch packs.
That's a very kneejerk reaction at this stage.
What exactly is so much worse about this than anything they did in BFZ?
You mean besides reworking how colorless mana works?
I still don't get the hate that BFZ gets. Sure, some underpowered cards and, as a red player, no good burn spells, but other than that I think it's a pretty decent set.
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)
It's essentially snow mana, or at least like snow mana. I actually really like it, seeing it's a basic with no sub type so you can run it in a colorless edh deck if I'm reading the rules right.
In what universe? If you build a deck like that, and ever draw that hand, I will personally come to wherever you live, perform complicated acts of awestruck ********, then disembowel myself to escape the world that allowed something like this to occur and validate you.
Honestly if these are real, then beyond the prerelease and prize packs, I don't see myself opening up a whole lot of gatewatch packs.
That's a very kneejerk reaction at this stage.
What exactly is so much worse about this than anything they did in BFZ?
You mean besides reworking how colorless mana works?
I still don't get the hate that BFZ gets. Sure, some underpowered cards and, as a red player, no good burn spells, but other than that I think it's a pretty decent set.
And where is it said they're changing how it works? It could very well just be giving colorless mana a unique symbol to distinguish it from generic (which allows it to be in a cost).
-snip-
generic mana vs colorless mana
educate yourself
Please refrain from engaging in idle semantics on the internet. My meaning was clear and I edited it before you even posted.
People are free to use the words "colorless costs" and "generic costs" and everyone will know what they're talking about
We don't need legions of people chewing anyone out for using the dreaded "colorless cost" terminology, thats not productive.
yes, for generating mana there is no functional difference
Which is why this mechanic is not as he described. Any rational explanation for this symbol have to cover both the casting cost and mana production sides, we can't just postulate one side and ignore the other. Since its plainly inconsistent as theres no functional difference on the lands, we can rule out that scenario.
the reason to make the symbol is because there have been very, very few colorless costs in magic's history. this opens up that design space.
Have there been any? From what I've seen on gatherer, there have been a few red and black restricted X spells, but nothing that could be paid exclusively with colorless mana. Perhaps my googlefu isn't up to snuff, but I think that very very few is actually zero. And honestly, its not that great of a design space anyway
So this could be fetched with evolving wilds or absorb vis but not arid mesa,and you could not turn an enemy land into Wastes with reef shaman, but you could turn your own wastes into a mountain, which would let it tap for EITHER red or eldrazi mana. 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
You're a litle wrong with the Reef Shaman example. If you turned this into a mountain, you wouldn't be able to tap it for <> since setting a land's subtype erases all abilities printed on it. (If it didn't, Blood Moon would be a very different card.)
<> 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.
Right, I think that is basically what I was trying to say. I clarified my original wording. I think the term "colorless" now refers to "generic" mana (like 1), so <> shouldn't really be called "colorless" it should be "eldrazi" mana or something. A 6th color. I'm very doubtful that old cards that produce colorless mana would be able to create <>, unless it's a "mana of any color" card. So Sol Ring, for example should still only make 2, not <><>.
I don't think you understand. Colorless is not the same as generic, and it confuses new players. Colorless needs its own symbol distinct from generic casting costs, especially if you want colorless mana to matter for some reason.
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 like the idea that <> is the new generic symbol for colorless mana. However, I also fear that because of this, we'll be seeing a lot of "why did Wizards make this card require <>" in the future. If this is a thing now, I hope Wizards doesn't start slapping <> on artifact mana costs or replacing our generic artifacts with colorless cards that require <> to make full use of this new thing.
well, it would allow them to make more powerful cards at the same CMC
artifact 1 costs 5 and does X
artifact 2 costs 3<><> and due to the steeper cost it can do X+1
I'm not sure I like that though, because then I'm forced to run lands and/or other sources that have T: Add <> to your mana pool when in the past, I wouldn't have been required to. Thus even though the card may be better, it also means my mana base has to be worse or there may be moments when I can't cast the card even though I could if it were still a generic colorless card.
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.
That was not at all a motivation for Barry's land. The only motivation for Barry's Land was to push Domain to 6, and Wastes doesn't do that because it lacks a basic land type.
So this could be fetched with evolving wilds or absorb vis but not arid mesa,and you could not turn an enemy land into Wastes with reef shaman, but you could turn your own wastes into a mountain, which would let it tap for EITHER red or eldrazi mana. 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
You're a litle wrong with the Reef Shaman example. If you turned this into a mountain, you wouldn't be able to tap it for <> since setting a land's subtype erases all abilities printed on it. (If it didn't, Blood Moon would be a very different card.)
ah you're right on that example, I was thinking of the urborg, tomb of yawgmoth style of *adding* a subtype, I'll edit that example
It's essentially snow mana, or at least like snow mana. I actually really like it, seeing it's a basic with no sub type so you can run it in a colorless edh deck if I'm reading the rules right.
Given wotc's opinion of how snow mana turned out, I seriously doubt it. There is a need for a new symbol for colorless mana, and this also neatly allows them to use "colorless mana matters" if they want to.
I have made a lengthy article doing a critical analysis on Eldrazi/Void Mana, along with some additional information that others may enjoy reading about the history of Wastes, "Barry's Land" and the never released set "Spectral Chaos".
I like the idea that <> is the new generic symbol for colorless mana. However, I also fear that because of this, we'll be seeing a lot of "why did Wizards make this card require <>" in the future. If this is a thing now, I hope Wizards doesn't start slapping <> on artifact mana costs or replacing our generic artifacts with colorless cards that require <> to make full use of this new thing.
well, it would allow them to make more powerful cards at the same CMC
artifact 1 costs 5 and does X
artifact 2 costs 3<><> and due to the steeper cost it can do X+1
I'm not sure I like that though, because then I'm forced to run lands and/or other sources that have T: Add <> to your mana pool when in the past, I wouldn't have been required to. Thus even though the card may be better, it also means my mana base has to be worse or there may be moments when I can't cast the card even though I could if it were still a generic colorless card.
I hope that doesn't happen often either, but it's nice to have the design space open. Besides for this set, and other colorless matters sets, I don't think we will see <> very often in costs.
That would mean that <> cards could still be played as colorless in all the same ways, but you gain a benefit (reduced cost) from casting them with Wastes.
The more I think about it, the more viable this seems. It just makes sense, unlike many of the other proposed functionalities.
Theros Block / Anax & Cymede
Return to Ravnica Block / Vorel of the Hull Clade
Khans of Tarkir Block / Shu Yun, the Silent Tempest
Peasant:
Kuldotha Red
Commander:
Maga, Traitor to Mortals
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)
Right, I think that is basically what I was trying to say. I clarified my original wording. I think the term "colorless" now refers to "generic" mana (like 1), so <> shouldn't really be called "colorless" it should be "eldrazi" mana or something. A 6th color. I'm very doubtful that old cards that produce colorless mana would be able to create <>, unless it's a "mana of any color" card. So Sol Ring, for example should still only make 2, not <><>.
Bingo. And Kozilek's Channeler just happens to tap for 2 colorless mana, leading me to believe that this isn't some special "snow" colorless mana that can only be payed by things that produce "<>". Colorless mana is still colorless mana, it just has a symbol now.
That's a very kneejerk reaction at this stage.
What exactly is so much worse about this than anything they did in BFZ?
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
This seems like the most reasonable meaning for <>.
Check out my Newborder Peasant Cube here! http://www.cubetutor.com/draft/37467
True Name Mafia (Win),Clan Contest IX Mafia (Win), Bravely Default Mafia (Loss), BOTAS (loss), BfV (Loss), Ace Attourney (loss)
Rules Advisor before they were eradicated
"Oh no! It's too exciting!"
The problem is that beyond very contrived scenarios like mycosynth lattice, there would be no functional difference between the mana produced by Wastes and the mana produced by blasted landscape. Theres no reason to create a mana symbol for "Colorless mana that can only be spent on generic costs", because thats redundant. Colorless mana is already restricted to only being able to pay generic costs
Any explanation for the symbol has to cover both why it would exist in casting costs and why it would exist on lands, particularly a new subtypeless basic land.
the reason to make the symbol is because there have been very, very few colorless costs in magic's history. this opens up that design space. edit: I just looked, and couldn't find even a single card that requires colorless mana.
I also noticed this. Cosi has a strange hat on Shrine of the Forsaken Gods which didn't make sense based on old-Kozilek's art, but does with new-Kozilek. Maybe it's something he can turn on and off?
You mean besides reworking how colorless mana works?
I still don't get the hate that BFZ gets. Sure, some underpowered cards and, as a red player, no good burn spells, but other than that I think it's a pretty decent set.
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)
If you resolve it, aside from having a huge monster you are probably drawing 6 or 7 cards. That sounds great.
Please refrain from engaging in idle semantics on the internet. My meaning was clear and I edited it before you even posted.
People are free to use the words "colorless costs" and "generic costs" and everyone will know what they're talking about
We don't need legions of people chewing anyone out for using the dreaded "colorless cost" terminology, thats not productive.
Which is why this mechanic is not as he described. Any rational explanation for this symbol have to cover both the casting cost and mana production sides, we can't just postulate one side and ignore the other. Since its plainly inconsistent as theres no functional difference on the lands, we can rule out that scenario.
Have there been any? From what I've seen on gatherer, there have been a few red and black restricted X spells, but nothing that could be paid exclusively with colorless mana. Perhaps my googlefu isn't up to snuff, but I think that very very few is actually zero. And honestly, its not that great of a design space anyway
You're a litle wrong with the Reef Shaman example. If you turned this into a mountain, you wouldn't be able to tap it for <> since setting a land's subtype erases all abilities printed on it. (If it didn't, Blood Moon would be a very different card.)
I don't think you understand. Colorless is not the same as generic, and it confuses new players. Colorless needs its own symbol distinct from generic casting costs, especially if you want colorless mana to matter for some reason.
...and you get the cards whether he resolves or not
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
I'm not sure I like that though, because then I'm forced to run lands and/or other sources that have T: Add <> to your mana pool when in the past, I wouldn't have been required to. Thus even though the card may be better, it also means my mana base has to be worse or there may be moments when I can't cast the card even though I could if it were still a generic colorless card.
Trades
Pucatrade with me!
(Signature courtesy of Argetlam of Hakai Studios
That was not at all a motivation for Barry's land. The only motivation for Barry's Land was to push Domain to 6, and Wastes doesn't do that because it lacks a basic land type.
ah you're right on that example, I was thinking of the urborg, tomb of yawgmoth style of *adding* a subtype, I'll edit that example
Given wotc's opinion of how snow mana turned out, I seriously doubt it. There is a need for a new symbol for colorless mana, and this also neatly allows them to use "colorless mana matters" if they want to.
It is hosted over at "The Meadery" and/or "Tappedout.net". The Meadery one is far easier to read.
From deviantART perhaps?
Or more likely, from Tappedout.net! That's pretty much where all my decks are stored.
I hope that doesn't happen often either, but it's nice to have the design space open. Besides for this set, and other colorless matters sets, I don't think we will see <> very often in costs.
PucaTrade Invite. Sign up and enjoy the first 500 points ($5) free!
This is incorrect. "Generic mana" is still a term that has a very different meaning from "colourless mana".