If it is a new mana type, then you are correct and Eldrazi mana will not be compelling outside of block. Unless they print other <><> cost spells in the future anyway. I don't find sol rings tapping for <><> compelling either. So, a matter of taste.
Yes, all of the theories in this thread are still unconfirmed. But that doesn't mean that the likelyhood of them being true is the same. The theory that <> will be the new symbol for colorless mana is treated as fact by some people because it is like a hundred times more likely than any other theory put forth here and anywhere else. If you look at the bigger picture, it fits perfectly, while no other theory (including <> being some completely new type of Eldrazi mana) fits nearly as well.
At this point, arguing against <> being the symbol for colorless mana is mostly due to three reasons:
- A misunderstanding of the difference between colorless mana and generic mana costs and why this actually matters.
- Not being aware of the bigger picture (the sum of logical arguments, offical statements of R&D members, the core rules and Magic's current design).
- Subjectively not wanting it to be true (for whatever reason).
Instead of arguing with a user who has repeatedly demonstrated a failure to grasp the difference between functional and cosmetic errata, as well as the difference between colorless and generic mana, would you care to dissect a coherent argument?
Quote from Benalicious Hero »
Everyone who keeps referencing the Grand Creature Type Update and language changes throughout the game seems to be looking over a fundamental fact: those changes were seen as necessary to clear up or simplify the previous language. A couple specific examples: "is put into your graveyard from the battlefield" became "dies", because 'dies' is more flavorful, more grokable, and saves a whopping 43 character spaces. "Comes into play" became "enters the battlefield" and "play a spell" became "cast a spell" because the word 'play' was previously used as an ambiguous catch-all which applied to casting spells, playing lands, and permanents of any kind entering the battlefield, which caused a lot of confusion for newer players as far as which actions triggered which abilities.
Here's the thing about <> (and I know a lot of people don't want to acknowledge this): <> might clear up the confusion between colorless and generic mana on a technical level, but not on a practical one. Because the confusion between the two has been safely ignored since the inception of the game. For instance, every spoiler season, multiple people will describe a card as costing "two red mana and three colorless", and no one sees fit to correct them because doing so wouldn't serve any real purpose; on the contrary, everyone takes them to mean generic mana, or at least understands on a fundamental level that the new red spell can be cast with two red mana and three mana of any color (or no color).
Creating a symbol which specifically defines colorless mana certainly serves to carve out new design space, but I believe it would have the opposite effect of what everyone arguing for "<> = 1" is claiming: it would stump newer players because it's an arbitrary symbol with no inherent meaning, whereas up until now, many players have confused colorless and generic mana, but it hasn't really mattered. And you know what else? The possibility that <> is a new type of mana (which has no color, but is not interchangeable with colorless mana) would serve the same purpose as far as opening up design space.
(1) Seeing an old card that taps for colorless mana reprinted in OGW, if it adds {1} or <>.
(2) Seeing a new OGW card that taps for {1} since we've already seen tapping for <>.
(3) A card that has <> in its mana cost with reminder text of what <> means.
Until we see one of those things, this thread is just an amusing rollercoaster of dissenting opinions.
I'm of the opinion that if {<>} isn't the new cosmetic design for 1 that it will be some form of subset-dependent mechanic. But, assuming that {<>} is a cosmetic change for 1, I don't understand why the assumption is that the change from 1 to {<>} in the mention of colorless mana automatically entails the change from 1 to {<>} in the mention of generic mana.
Oh, it doesn't, I was just speculating of what possible changes could come. We don't know anything at all right now for sure. There is no reason why generic mana costs would become <> mana costs, I was just assuming that Wizards may use this change as an opportunity to nerf older uber powered artifacts like sol ring.
But what makes you believe that? There is literally nothing pointing towards them arbitrarily adding functional errata to any cards.
I am speculating. But to me changing every colourless mana source in the history of the game to <> is equally farfetched.
How is a minor cosmoetic change sound farfetch'd at all? Nearly every set has one.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MTGSalvation; Where the whining is a time honored tradition, and enjoying the game is trolling.
I'm of the opinion that if {<>} isn't the new cosmetic design for 1 that it will be some form of subset-dependent mechanic. But, assuming that {<>} is a cosmetic change for 1, I don't understand why the assumption is that the change from 1 to {<>} in the mention of colorless mana automatically entails the change from 1 to {<>} in the mention of generic mana.
Oh, it doesn't, I was just speculating of what possible changes could come. We don't know anything at all right now for sure. There is no reason why generic mana costs would become <> mana costs, I was just assuming that Wizards may use this change as an opportunity to nerf older uber powered artifacts like sol ring.
But what makes you believe that? There is literally nothing pointing towards them arbitrarily adding functional errata to any cards.
I am speculating. But to me changing every colourless mana source in the history of the game to <> is equally farfetched.
You mean how Wizards changed every T on every card that needed to tap to use an ability to the tap symbol that we all know of today, doesn't seem too far fetched, not to mention how the mana symbols did get updated and polished over time as well.
Instead of arguing with a user who has repeatedly demonstrated a failure to grasp the difference between functional and cosmetic errata, as well as the difference between colorless and generic mana, would you care to dissect a coherent argument?
Wow, thanks for the flame. Don't understand why you feel the need to attack me like this. Despite your presumptions I actually do understand the difference between colourless and generic mana and functional vs cosmetic errata. If you read my posts you would see that.
Yes, all of the theories in this thread are still unconfirmed. But that doesn't mean that the likelyhood of them being true is the same.
Disagree with everything you wrote here. It's equally likely that <> is a new type of mana at this point as it is a new symbol for colorless. Having <> be a new type of mana also fits perfectly into 'the bigger picture'.
Those arguing against <> being a new type of mana is mostly due to
1. Being unhappy with parasitic mechanics in general.
2. Subjectively not wanting it to be true (for whatever reason)
Surely you're not suggesting that ALL theories are equally likely no matter the theory, right?
After all, we've seen some "theories" removed from this thread and put into total speculation. Even the mods see that not all theories are "equal".
Finally, why the resistance. Even if the <>=1 theory were "less likely"...that doesn't mean it's not true. After all, it's less likely you will flip 5 heads or tails in a row than mixed heads/tails. However, you probably wouldn't have to flip too long to get 5 heads/tails in a row.
So "being less likely" isn't a condemnation to "it won't happen". So let's be honest about what's more or less likely.
Now, those arguing "against" (I'd prefer the phrase arguing for <>=1) "a new kind of mana", are not "mostly" bringing up parasitism or "not wanting it to be true".
This strikes me as very disingenuous.
We know there's a basic land. We know it taps for <>.
We know that <> is colorless because it's used to cast a colorless spell.
We know that 1 in costs is NOT colorless.
So, let me just ask you. What is more likely that there are "two types" of colorless mana... One of them is unambiguously colorless in both costs and mana pool creation and another that offers potential confusion with the symbols for generic mana. And, on top of that, this new mana that is colorless, is needed to cast Kozi and is generated Wastes and Mirrorpool (a land that is not 'obviously' connected to Eldrazi)... OR, that Colorless mana, something that exists, is finally getting a symbol?
Almost BY definition, A + B is less likely than just A. Does it mean A + B isn't TRUE? No... But it is always less likely (remember, unlikely things happen all the time -- see lotto winners, even double lotto winners).
So, for those of us who argue that <>=1
There are some strong bit of supporting evidence.
That <>=1 is the change of the Chaos symbol to {Chaos} verses {C} in the rules. Which now leaves {C} to become the strategy to produce the <> aka colorless symbol.
<>=1 impacts the rules a whole lot less for a whole lot more benefit. (How often does 107.4h The snow mana symbol {S} represents one generic mana in a cost. This generic mana can be paid with one mana of any type produced by a snow permanent (see rule 205.4f). Effects that reduce the amount of generic mana you pay don’t affect {S} costs. (There is no such thing as “snow mana”; “snow” is not a type of mana.) impact anything -- and how great is it to have a rule to remind us there's no such ting a "snow mana" or even 205.4f Any permanent with the supertype “snow” is a snow permanent. Any permanent that doesn’t have this supertype is a nonsnow permanent, regardless of its name. )
And, it's actually WORSE than snow. Because presumably <> exist in your mana pool.
So the number of places the rules would need to change are MUCH, MUCH greater.
Again, A + B is less likely than just A or B all the time.
Wow, thanks for the flame. Don't understand why you feel the need to attack me like this. Despite your presumptions I actually do understand the difference between colourless and generic mana and functional vs cosmetic errata. If you read my posts you would see that.
I wasn't attacking you, I was attacking the user who thought it progressive to take on your nonsensical arguments instead of sticking to the legitimate debate at hand. For the record, I did read your posts and I'm aware that you know the difference. I'll make you a deal: I'm willing to admit I was wrong about you, if you're willing to admit that you presented the equivalent of the argument, "If <> is the new 1, what's to stop Wizards from changing the casting cost of Sol Ring to <>? What's to stop them from changing the U in Ancestral Recall to R?" And when that fallacy was pointed out to you by multiple users, you continued to try to defend your stance instead of owning up to its silliness.
Look at dreamstone hedron. What does the thing in the Eldrazi's tentacles look like? Looks like <> to me. What is the Eldrazi doing to this thing? It seems like it is grabbing mana from it which is echoed by the flavor text.
Fair enough. I'm still curious about your answer to my second question, though -- if the symbol were introduced in another block, would you have the same opinion of it?
What about them? Yes, they are included in "everyone", and they aren't given much mind because the issue isn't given much mind because it's not really an issue. Knowing the difference between generic mana and colorless mana has rarely (see: never) been important to gameplay because "strictly colorless" has never before been explored as a design space.
How do you know it's not really an issue? How do you know that the issue regarding newer players learning that 1 in costs denotes a generic mana cost is as small of an issue as you claim it to be?
I don't really understand why you so quickly dismiss the confusion that newer players may have when learning the two different meanings of 1. Yes, newer players quickly need to learn the difference, and yes, they don't really speak up because their constant questioning of game rules doesn't allow them to progress with playing the game, but that doesn't mean the confusion automatically becomes a non-issue.
Creating a symbol which specifically defines colorless mana certainly serves to carve out new design space, but I believe it would have the opposite effect of what everyone arguing for "<> = 1" is claiming: it would stump newer players because it's an arbitrary symbol with no inherent meaning, whereas up until now, many players have confused colorless and generic mana, but it hasn't really mattered. And you know what else? The possibility that <> is a new type of mana (which has no color, but is not interchangeable with colorless mana) would serve the same purpose as far as opening up design space.
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?
Maybe you should reread my post... or try answering your own questions. I asserted that the design space would be the same; can you provide a counter example?
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?
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
And, it's actually WORSE than snow. Because presumably <> exist in your mana pool.
So the number of places the rules would need to change are MUCH, MUCH greater.
Again, A + B is less likely than just A or B all the time.
Actually, existing in your mana pool is much better than snow. For one, because it follows the exact same rules that colored mana does now, so there is less need to create subsections that reference it specifically, as they do for snow and phyrexian mana costs. In addition, you don't have to check what source generated the mana, which is weird. Once it's in your pool, it can be treated as independent from its source.
In fact, the rules changes necessary for both theories are nearly identical. There is one additional change needed for <> to be a new mana type, which is to change rule 106.1b to add a seventh mana type. I've outlines the changes in this post. (Props to tgambitg for first posting the rules changes for <> is the new colorless symbol). A summary of the rules changes are as follows:
For New Mana Theory
106.1b - add a new mana type
For Both Theories
107.4 - add the new mana symbol and define what it represents
202.1 - specify matching the new symbol when paying costs
117.7 - specify what happens when reducing costs by <> if it's not part of the cost
702.47 - same as 117.7 in the section on Offering
That's all. It's possible there's a rule for Wastes to generate <>, instead of having rules text on the card, but could be true for both theories, but this is the minimum with what we have seen. Only one rule change is specific to <> being a new mana type, and it is a very small (two word) change. Hardly much, much greater.
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?
To the first question, both theories open up the exact same design space. Actually scratch that. New Mana Theory actually opens up more design space. That is because you have two separate mana generation abilities to work with. For instance, you can now make a pain land that deals you a damage for generating B or <> instead of B or W, but still generate 1 pain free. This land would be impossible to make if <> is just a new symbol for colorless mana.
It also lets them push <> costed cards without worrying about Tron getting too strong, but that's more of a development/balance issue.
To the second question, actually no future design space is technically necessary. They've made many mechanics that are one-and-done. I don't see any reason for them to bring back Outlast or Formidable, to cite some recent examples. It's not really a requirement for there to be future design space, though both theories do support it.
Instead of arguing with a user who has repeatedly demonstrated a failure to grasp the difference between functional and cosmetic errata, as well as the difference between colorless and generic mana, would you care to dissect a coherent argument?
Quote from Benalicious Hero »
Everyone who keeps referencing the Grand Creature Type Update and language changes throughout the game seems to be looking over a fundamental fact: those changes were seen as necessary to clear up or simplify the previous language. A couple specific examples: "is put into your graveyard from the battlefield" became "dies", because 'dies' is more flavorful, more grokable, and saves a whopping 43 character spaces. "Comes into play" became "enters the battlefield" and "play a spell" became "cast a spell" because the word 'play' was previously used as an ambiguous catch-all which applied to casting spells, playing lands, and permanents of any kind entering the battlefield, which caused a lot of confusion for newer players as far as which actions triggered which abilities.
Here's the thing about <> (and I know a lot of people don't want to acknowledge this): <> might clear up the confusion between colorless and generic mana on a technical level, but not on a practical one. Because the confusion between the two has been safely ignored since the inception of the game. For instance, every spoiler season, multiple people will describe a card as costing "two red mana and three colorless", and no one sees fit to correct them because doing so wouldn't serve any real purpose; on the contrary, everyone takes them to mean generic mana, or at least understands on a fundamental level that the new red spell can be cast with two red mana and three mana of any color (or no color).
Creating a symbol which specifically defines colorless mana certainly serves to carve out new design space, but I believe it would have the opposite effect of what everyone arguing for "<> = 1" is claiming: it would stump newer players because it's an arbitrary symbol with no inherent meaning, whereas up until now, many players have confused colorless and generic mana, but it hasn't really mattered. And you know what else? The possibility that <> is a new type of mana (which has no color, but is not interchangeable with colorless mana) would serve the same purpose as far as opening up design space.
Giving colorless mana its own symbol may not strictly be necessary, but it would clear up and simplify things. The same is true for most of the M10 wording changes, too. The game worked fine with "comes into play" and "play a spell". Pretty much nobody said: I really wish they would use more flavorful terminology like "enters the battlefield" and "cast a spell". (Maybe this was confusing for new players? Just like colorless mana and generic mana costs using the same symbol is confusing for new players? It's hard to tell as an experienced long-time player what is confusing for new players and what is not.) Those terminology changes - just like giving colorless mana its own symbol - were simply kept on the back burner until the time was right to make those changes. For the terminology changes, this was the first modern coreset that also introduced several rules changes. For the colorless mana symbol, this was the introduction of strictly colorless mana costs in a block whose most prominent faction's flavor and mechanics are deeply linked to colorlessnes.
The confusion between colorless mana and generic mana costs has not been "safely ignored since the inception of the game". It was pretty much introduced in 2003, a full decade after the game's inception, when they started using the generic mana symbols like 1 on cards that produced colorless mana. Until then, nearly every card that did this said "add one [two/three] colorless mana to your mana pool". So, until 2003, there was a clear seperation between colorless mana and generic costs. Since then however, the game uses the same symbols to refer to two nearly opposite things: The most retrictive type of mana and the most flexible mana cost. Using the same symbol for nearly opposite things is clearly unnecessary confusion. Why not use two different symbols instead? And yes, I know that you can safely play the game without caring about this... once you have learned to accept this inconsistency and to ignore this distinction. You don't care how your car's engine works on a technical level as long as you can drive that car.
However, for many new players who are learning the game, this issue is confusing, since they haven't learned to live with it yet. I ran into it a few times when teaching the game and Mark Rosewater has said multiple times that their market research attests that it is a problem for new players. Not a huge one, which is why they haven't fixed it in years, but still a problem. I know it's hard to see a new player's problem when you have personally overcome this problem years ago. That doesn't change the fact that it exists though. (Btw, this change may seem confusing for existing players, since they have to unlearn something they accepted and did for years, but keep in mind that there is nothing for new players to unlearn. They start the game without that baggage. Changes like this are more confusing for existing players than they are for new players, but I can assure you that it will seem natural after a few months.)
With all due respect, saying the intruduction of a symbol for colorless mana "would stump newer players because it's an arbitrary symbol with no inherent meaning" is silly. There are six types of mana in this game, five of which had their own symbol for decades. Now the sixth one gets its own symbol and this would suddenly stump players? Just the opposite, it brings the sixth type of mana in line with the other five. Why should green mana have its own symbol, but not colorless mana? Now, that's a real stumper! It would be far more consistent if colorless mana had its own symbol, just like the others, too. Even if that symbol isn't as great a fit as tree=green.
And while the distinction between colorless mana and generic mana costs didn't matter on a practical level for most players until know, it instantly becomes an issue once colorless mana costs are introduced. You can't have Kozilek, the Great Distortion cost 8 generic and 2 colorless mana without colorless mana having its own unique symbol. Well, you could have him cost 10 and add a line of text that says "You must spend at least two colorless mana to cast Kozilek.", but that is super clunky. Imagine Snapcaster Mage costing 2 and saying "You must spend at least one blue mana to cast Snapcaster Mage." in his text box. Ridiculous. So, the introduction of strict colorless costs makes a unique symbol for colorless mana necessary.
In conclusion, the introduction of a symbol for colorless mana does many useful things in one swoop:
- Allows the use of strictly colorless mana cost, a great mechanical evolution of the colorless Eldrazi.
- Creates consistency among all six types of mana.
- Reduces confusion for new players.
- Has broad uses for future sets.
- Builds on the existing mana system rather than introducing a seventh type of mana as a narrow gimmick in a small set.
One of these alone might not have been enough to force this change, but all together sure do. The bigger picture (formed by the sum of all logical arguments, offical statements of R&D members like Mark Rosewater and Aaron Forsythe, the game's core rules and Magic's (modern) design philosophy) clearly points towards <> being the symbol for colorless mana.
What I would like: a "colorless color" *trollface*
<> is a new color (but we might not see it later sets)
<> is colorless per Definition (like the card would have Devoid)
<> is ignored by color identity (to make Tron happy as if it where not strong enough)
PS: what I would like to where cards with colorless {P} as cost
I'm sure there will be more but they'll have to be pretty damn powerful above and beyond the flagship mythics to not make it an even bigger flop than snow, since snow also provided colored mana in nearly every source. New eldrazi mana would seriously have to have stuff stronger than lightning bolt to make the cards playable outside of limited or casual. That kind of makes the new eldrazi mana theory seem kind of unreasonable since it would just make a bunch of useless cards, especially considering kozi probably isn't even worth reanimating most of the time.
So many people here think that Wizards are a bunch of idiots, based on a handful of spoilers.
You can donate all your Wastes-related cards to me. I'll take proper care of these unplayable cards for you.
Here's the thing about <> (and I know a lot of people don't want to acknowledge this): <> might clear up the confusion between colorless and generic mana on a technical level, but not on a practical one. Because the confusion between the two has been safely ignored since the inception of the game. For instance, every spoiler season, multiple people will describe a card as costing "two red mana and three colorless", and no one sees fit to correct them because doing so wouldn't serve any real purpose; on the contrary, everyone takes them to mean generic mana, or at least understands on a fundamental level that the new red spell can be cast with two red mana and three mana of any color (or no color).
I correct people locally (as in, I say "Red and 2 other" and if someone says "Red and 2 colorless" I correct them) but I'm too lazy to do so online.
And it hasn't been ignored since the inception of the game. There was a dramatic difference between colorless mana being generated in ABUR and generic mana costs.
That difference was removed. Saying the confusion has been there since the beginning is simply incorrect.
Creating a symbol which specifically defines colorless mana certainly serves to carve out new design space, but I believe it would have the opposite effect of what everyone arguing for "<> = 1" is claiming: it would stump newer players because it's an arbitrary symbol with no inherent meaning, whereas up until now, many players have confused colorless and generic mana, but it hasn't really mattered. And you know what else? The possibility that <> is a new type of mana (which has no color, but is not interchangeable with colorless mana) would serve the same purpose as far as opening up design space.
What's the inherent meaning of a tree? Or a swirly ball of fire?
How do you know it's not really an issue? How do you know that the issue regarding newer players learning that 1 in costs denotes a generic mana cost is as small of an issue as you claim it to be?
I don't really understand why you so quickly dismiss the confusion that newer players may have when learning the two different meanings of 1. Yes, newer players quickly need to learn the difference, and yes, they don't really speak up because their constant questioning of game rules doesn't allow them to progress with playing the game, but that doesn't mean the confusion automatically becomes a non-issue.
Once again, the answer to your question is in the block of text you quoted:
Quote from Benalicious Hero »
What about them? Yes, they are included in "everyone", and they aren't given much mind because the issue isn't given much mind because it's not really an issue. Knowing the difference between generic mana and colorless mana has rarely (see: never) been important to gameplay because "strictly colorless" has never before been explored as a design space.
See, I don't tend to blindly state something without providing supporting facts. But if you aren't bothering to analyze what I'm saying, I don't know why you would bother replying at all.
Quote from Thought Criminal »
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?
Wrong. My assertion was that the design space made available by the change would be the same in either case. See Locke's and lueg's posts.
Can. You. Provide. A. Counter. Example? Can you prove otherwise? With a hypothetical card design or anything else?
Giving colorless mana its own symbol may not strictly be necessary, but it would clear up and simplify things.
Stop right there. How? We can agree it would create new design space, but you have to justify this comment. How is introducing an arbitrary symbol more simple and clear than the explanation that "1 represents generic mana in costs and colorless mana in production"?
Quote from Star Slayer »
The same is true for most of the M10 wording changes, too. The game worked fine with "comes into play" and "play a spell". Pretty much nobody said: I really wish they would use more flavorful terminology like "enters the battlefield" and "cast a spell".
False. More players than not--and especially introductory players--were confused by the multiple meanings of play. WotC stated as much when justifying the changes.
Quote from Star Slayer »
(Maybe this was confusing for new players? Just like colorless mana and generic mana costs using the same symbol is confusing for new players?
No, not just like that, because the fact that 1 currently represents both generic and colorless mana does not cause confusion for new players. They may often confuse the two terms, but that's not the same thing--their inability to identify which is which doesn't affect their ability to play the game.
Quote from Star Slayer »
The confusion between colorless mana and generic mana costs has not been "safely ignored since the inception of the game". It was pretty much introduced in 2003, a full decade after the game's inception, when they started using the generic mana symbols like 1 on cards that produced colorless mana. Until then, nearly every card that did this said "add one [two/three] colorless mana to your mana pool". So, until 2003, there was a clear seperation between colorless mana and generic costs. Since then however, the game uses the same symbols to refer to two nearly opposite things: The most retrictive type of mana and the most flexible mana cost.
The fact that WotC started by spelling out the difference between colorless and generic mana and then went to combining the two under the umbrella of one easy-to-grasp symbol after the development process of the game had matured is not an argument that works in your favor.
Quote from Star Slayer »
Using the same symbol for nearly opposite things is clearly unnecessary confusion.
No, that's not clearly the case. Everyone--including people who can't tell the difference between colorless and generic--has been dealing with the same symbol with no consequences for over a decade.
Quote from Star Slayer »
Why not use two different symbols instead? And yes, I know that you can safely play the game without caring about this... once you have learned to accept this inconsistency and to ignore this distinction. You don't care how your car's engine works on a technical level as long as you can drive that car.
So basically you're asking why everyone who owns a car doesn't bother to learn how it works on a technical level? Gee, I wonder.
Quote from Star Slayer »
However, for many new players who are learning the game, this issue is confusing, since they haven't learned to live with it yet. I ran into it a few times when teaching the game
Sounds like you got hung up on explaining a technical difference that has never mattered up to this point. As far as teaching someone to play a game goes, that's the definition of unnecessary baggage.
Quote from Star Slayer »
(Btw, this change may seem confusing for existing players, since they have to unlearn something they accepted and did for years, but keep in mind that there is nothing for new players to unlearn. They start the game without that baggage. Changes like this are more confusing for existing players than they are for new players, but I can assure you that it will seem natural after a few months.)
The concept isn't confusing for me in the least; it's just a dumb idea.
Quote from Star Slayer »
With all due respect, saying the intruduction of a symbol for colorless mana "would stump newer players because it's an arbitrary symbol with no inherent meaning" is silly. There are six types of mana in this game, five of which had their own symbol for decades. Now the sixth one gets its own symbol and this would suddenly stump players? Just the opposite, it brings the sixth type of mana in line with the other five. Why should green mana have its own symbol, but not colorless mana? Now, that's a real stumper! It would be far more consistent if colorless mana had its own symbol, just like the others, too. Even if that symbol isn't as great a fit as tree=green.
(Bold emphasis is mine.)
You just shot yourself in the foot and simultaneously answered your own question. Tree = Green. Sun = White. Water = Blue. Scary Skull = Black. Fire = Red. Diamond = ... Colorless? The disconnect is clear on a common sense level.
Quote from Star Slayer »
And while the distinction between colorless mana and generic mana costs didn't matter on a practical level for most players until know, it instantly becomes an issue once colorless mana costs are introduced. You can't have Kozilek, the Great Distortion cost 8 generic and 2 colorless mana without colorless mana having its own unique symbol.
True, but you can have Kozilek cost 8 generic mana and 2 Eldrazi/Hedron/Whatever mana just fine, and it doesn't involve applying a cosmetic errata to hundreds of existing cards.
Quote from Star Slayer »
In conclusion, the introduction of a symbol for colorless mana does many useful things in one swoop:
- Allows the use of strictly colorless mana cost, a great mechanical evolution of the colorless Eldrazi.
- Creates consistency among all six types of mana.
- Reduces confusion for new players.
- Has broad uses for future sets.
- Builds on the existing mana system rather than introducing a seventh type of mana as a narrow gimmick in a small set.
Given all the points I've made above and in previous posts, this laundry list still doesn't hold much weight to me. But I'm willing to revisit it.
I correct people locally (as in, I say "Red and 2 other" and if someone says "Red and 2 colorless" I correct them) but I'm too lazy to do so online.
And it hasn't been ignored since the inception of the game. There was a dramatic difference between colorless mana being generated in ABUR and generic mana costs.
That difference was removed. Saying the confusion has been there since the beginning is simply incorrect.
See above.
Quote from rigeld2 »
What's the inherent meaning of a tree? Or a swirly ball of fire?
Trees are green and fire burns red. What color is a geometric shape?
I correct people locally (as in, I say "Red and 2 other" and if someone says "Red and 2 colorless" I correct them) but I'm too lazy to do so online.
And it hasn't been ignored since the inception of the game. There was a dramatic difference between colorless mana being generated in ABUR and generic mana costs.
That difference was removed. Saying the confusion has been there since the beginning is simply incorrect.
See above.
You mean
The fact that WotC started by spelling out the difference between colorless and generic mana and then went to combining the two under the umbrella of one easy-to-grasp symbol after the development process of the game had matured is not an argument that works in your favor.
?
First, that's not "since inception" and second they changed that not for an "easy-to-grasp" symbol, but because they were cutting words out across the board and needed a symbol. They went with what they had. That doesn't mean it was the right idea.
Quote from rigeld2 »
What's the inherent meaning of a tree? Or a swirly ball of fire?
Trees are green and fire burns red. What color is a geometric shape?
It isn't. ohsnap you mean it's colorless?
And those aren't the inherent meanings of a tree or a swirly ball of fire.
What about a sun? The sun is fire too... And skulls are white.
Wow, thanks for the flame. Don't understand why you feel the need to attack me like this. Despite your presumptions I actually do understand the difference between colourless and generic mana and functional vs cosmetic errata. If you read my posts you would see that.
I wasn't attacking you, I was attacking the user who thought it progressive to take on your nonsensical arguments instead of sticking to the legitimate debate at hand. For the record, I did read your posts and I'm aware that you know the difference. I'll make you a deal: I'm willing to admit I was wrong about you, if you're willing to admit that you presented the equivalent of the argument, "If <> is the new 1, what's to stop Wizards from changing the casting cost of Sol Ring to <>? What's to stop them from changing the U in Ancestral Recall to R?" And when that fallacy was pointed out to you by multiple users, you continued to try to defend your stance instead of owning up to its silliness.
Actually, I wasn't defending anything, I was just postulating a theory and I stated this as speculation about 3x. I admit that I am ignorant of Wizards policies to never change functionality of older cards. Wasn't time vault errated like 3x?
Look at dreamstone hedron. What does the thing in the Eldrazi's tentacles look like? Looks like <> to me. What is the Eldrazi doing to this thing? It seems like it is grabbing mana from it which is echoed by the flavor text.
Fair enough. I'm still curious about your answer to my second question, though -- if the symbol were introduced in another block, would you have the same opinion of it?
When I saw the symbol, I immediately made the connection to hedrons, so yes, even if this was in Lorwyn or some other crappy plane then I would still assume hedron mana. I guess my brain just automatically associates diamond objects with hedrons if it is anywhere on a magic card.
Actually, I wasn't defending anything, I was just postulating a theory and I stated this as speculation about 3x. I admit that I am ignorant of Wizards policies to never change functionality of older cards. Wasn't time vault errated like 3x?
Plenty of older cards were given functional errata, usually alongside major rules or formatting revisions. It's been quite a long time since they've done functional errata, though, and their official stance is that they avoid it whenever possible. Cosmetic errata still happen fairly often, though.
even though there were no traditional basic lands with the non full art format in BFZ
Someone needs to check out the Holiday box and see what kind of lands are in it.
Hint: They aren't full art.
I've been buying packs and fat packs. If they just now wanted to release them, that is suckiness as far as WotC is concerned. "Hey guys, lets spend more money and making new versions of the land that will strip this set of half the reason people are buying it AND advertise on the back of the box that it still has full art!"
It's not actually advertised on the back of the box as having all full art lands.
And it's not my fault you made an incorrect statement without doing 30 seconds of research.
That aside, Plains 254/274 has the same picture (albeit dimensions altered), same number, and same rarity (L), as its full art counterpart. The main thing to catch from that is the "L" rarity. This pushes more to the notion that Wastes won't have a continuation into ALL of the future sets after Oath of the Gatewatch, as its rarity is still common and not land, like the original five basics.
Dragon's Maze guildgates had a C rarity and lived in the Basic Land slot (and iirc had different art from the other sets). So hanging your hat on the rarity probably isn't the best idea.
Let's work backwards: How did the guildgates run in the prerelease of Theros? Born of Gods? Magic 2014? Journey to Nyx? Magic 2015? Dragons of Tarkir? Khans of Tarkir? Fate Reforged? Battle for Zendikar? They didn't run in any of those because they haven't been reprinted outside of Ravnica sets. Which is why it got the "C" rarity instead of "L" rarity, also because of the obvious reason: being a nonbasic land, which Wastes is not.
Now for the easy thing: random unboxing video. This isn't the first video I've seen where it shows the back of the box. Check 1:12 of this video: that is a full art forest.
Wizards retcon'd hedrons from being an ancient eldrazi race thing, see dreamstone hedron, to eldrazi prison cubes, see Aligned Hedron Network. Vorthos' were pissed and it makes speculating really wonky because you need to look at RoE with a grain of salt.
Now for the easy thing: random unboxing video. This isn't the first video I've seen where it shows the back of the box. Check 1:12 of this video: that is a full art forest.
I'm aware of what the box looks like. I have one over there.
The box literally never says it's all full art basics inside. There are some full arts in there - in the packs after all.
Actually, I wasn't defending anything, I was just postulating a theory and I stated this as speculation about 3x. I admit that I am ignorant of Wizards policies to never change functionality of older cards. Wasn't time vault errated like 3x?
When I saw the symbol, I immediately made the connection to hedrons, so yes, even if this was in Lorwyn or some other crappy plane then I would still assume hedron mana. I guess my brain just automatically associates diamond objects with hedrons if it is anywhere on a magic card.
So, 7th Edition Sissay's Ring in your mind is connected to Hedrons and Eldrazi?
Ironically, this was "exactly" the artifact one of the 'haters' of the <>=1
camp use to say specifically. "What does Sisay's Ring have to do with Kozi..."
In fact, those diamonds are WAY more Zendikari than are the ninja star shapes
of wastes.
Let's work backwards: How did the guildgates run in the prerelease of Theros? Born of Gods? Magic 2014? Journey to Nyx? Magic 2015? Dragons of Tarkir? Khans of Tarkir? Fate Reforged? Battle for Zendikar? They didn't run in any of those because they haven't been reprinted outside of Ravnica sets. Which is why it got the "C" rarity instead of "L" rarity, also because of the obvious reason: being a nonbasic land, which Wastes is not.
Actually, they're C because the L's in Oath have already been printed.
They're the BfZ lands. There will be NO "L" rarity cards in oath at all.
Second, yes, wastes is a BASIC LAND, it is not non-basic.
As the word is printed on EVERY card. LOL
In an effort to give you a benefit of the doubt,
I'm going to assume you mean, "Wastes" is not a
"basic land TYPE".
And, as far as the gates (or even the Fetch lands in Khans Block)
the could appear in the LAND SLOT
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
All Power to the People
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Instead of arguing with a user who has repeatedly demonstrated a failure to grasp the difference between functional and cosmetic errata, as well as the difference between colorless and generic mana, would you care to dissect a coherent argument?
(1) Seeing an old card that taps for colorless mana reprinted in OGW, if it adds {1} or <>.
(2) Seeing a new OGW card that taps for {1} since we've already seen tapping for <>.
(3) A card that has <> in its mana cost with reminder text of what <> means.
Until we see one of those things, this thread is just an amusing rollercoaster of dissenting opinions.
How is a minor cosmoetic change sound farfetch'd at all? Nearly every set has one.
You mean how Wizards changed every T on every card that needed to tap to use an ability to the tap symbol that we all know of today, doesn't seem too far fetched, not to mention how the mana symbols did get updated and polished over time as well.
Wow, thanks for the flame. Don't understand why you feel the need to attack me like this. Despite your presumptions I actually do understand the difference between colourless and generic mana and functional vs cosmetic errata. If you read my posts you would see that.
Surely you're not suggesting that ALL theories are equally likely no matter the theory, right?
After all, we've seen some "theories" removed from this thread and put into total speculation. Even the mods see that not all theories are "equal".
Finally, why the resistance. Even if the <>=1 theory were "less likely"...that doesn't mean it's not true. After all, it's less likely you will flip 5 heads or tails in a row than mixed heads/tails. However, you probably wouldn't have to flip too long to get 5 heads/tails in a row.
So "being less likely" isn't a condemnation to "it won't happen". So let's be honest about what's more or less likely.
Now, those arguing "against" (I'd prefer the phrase arguing for <>=1) "a new kind of mana", are not "mostly" bringing up parasitism or "not wanting it to be true".
This strikes me as very disingenuous.
We know there's a basic land. We know it taps for <>.
We know that <> is colorless because it's used to cast a colorless spell.
We know that 1 in costs is NOT colorless.
So, let me just ask you. What is more likely that there are "two types" of colorless mana... One of them is unambiguously colorless in both costs and mana pool creation and another that offers potential confusion with the symbols for generic mana. And, on top of that, this new mana that is colorless, is needed to cast Kozi and is generated Wastes and Mirrorpool (a land that is not 'obviously' connected to Eldrazi)... OR, that Colorless mana, something that exists, is finally getting a symbol?
Almost BY definition, A + B is less likely than just A. Does it mean A + B isn't TRUE? No... But it is always less likely (remember, unlikely things happen all the time -- see lotto winners, even double lotto winners).
So, for those of us who argue that <>=1
There are some strong bit of supporting evidence.
That <>=1 is the change of the Chaos symbol to {Chaos} verses {C} in the rules. Which now leaves {C} to become the strategy to produce the <> aka colorless symbol.
<>=1 impacts the rules a whole lot less for a whole lot more benefit. (How often does 107.4h The snow mana symbol {S} represents one generic mana in a cost. This generic mana can be paid with one mana of any type produced by a snow permanent (see rule 205.4f). Effects that reduce the amount of generic mana you pay don’t affect {S} costs. (There is no such thing as “snow mana”; “snow” is not a type of mana.) impact anything -- and how great is it to have a rule to remind us there's no such ting a "snow mana" or even 205.4f Any permanent with the supertype “snow” is a snow permanent. Any permanent that doesn’t have this supertype is a nonsnow permanent, regardless of its name. )
And, it's actually WORSE than snow. Because presumably <> exist in your mana pool.
So the number of places the rules would need to change are MUCH, MUCH greater.
Again, A + B is less likely than just A or B all the time.
I wasn't attacking you, I was attacking the user who thought it progressive to take on your nonsensical arguments instead of sticking to the legitimate debate at hand. For the record, I did read your posts and I'm aware that you know the difference. I'll make you a deal: I'm willing to admit I was wrong about you, if you're willing to admit that you presented the equivalent of the argument, "If <> is the new 1, what's to stop Wizards from changing the casting cost of Sol Ring to <>? What's to stop them from changing the U in Ancestral Recall to R?" And when that fallacy was pointed out to you by multiple users, you continued to try to defend your stance instead of owning up to its silliness.
Fair enough. I'm still curious about your answer to my second question, though -- if the symbol were introduced in another block, would you have the same opinion of it?
[/quote]
How do you know it's not really an issue? How do you know that the issue regarding newer players learning that 1 in costs denotes a generic mana cost is as small of an issue as you claim it to be?
I don't really understand why you so quickly dismiss the confusion that newer players may have when learning the two different meanings of 1. Yes, newer players quickly need to learn the difference, and yes, they don't really speak up because their constant questioning of game rules doesn't allow them to progress with playing the game, but that doesn't mean the confusion automatically becomes a non-issue.
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?
[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
Actually, existing in your mana pool is much better than snow. For one, because it follows the exact same rules that colored mana does now, so there is less need to create subsections that reference it specifically, as they do for snow and phyrexian mana costs. In addition, you don't have to check what source generated the mana, which is weird. Once it's in your pool, it can be treated as independent from its source.
In fact, the rules changes necessary for both theories are nearly identical. There is one additional change needed for <> to be a new mana type, which is to change rule 106.1b to add a seventh mana type. I've outlines the changes in this post. (Props to tgambitg for first posting the rules changes for <> is the new colorless symbol). A summary of the rules changes are as follows:
For New Mana Theory
106.1b - add a new mana type
For Both Theories
107.4 - add the new mana symbol and define what it represents
202.1 - specify matching the new symbol when paying costs
117.7 - specify what happens when reducing costs by <> if it's not part of the cost
702.47 - same as 117.7 in the section on Offering
That's all. It's possible there's a rule for Wastes to generate <>, instead of having rules text on the card, but could be true for both theories, but this is the minimum with what we have seen. Only one rule change is specific to <> being a new mana type, and it is a very small (two word) change. Hardly much, much greater.
To the first question, both theories open up the exact same design space. Actually scratch that. New Mana Theory actually opens up more design space. That is because you have two separate mana generation abilities to work with. For instance, you can now make a pain land that deals you a damage for generating B or <> instead of B or W, but still generate 1 pain free. This land would be impossible to make if <> is just a new symbol for colorless mana.
It also lets them push <> costed cards without worrying about Tron getting too strong, but that's more of a development/balance issue.
To the second question, actually no future design space is technically necessary. They've made many mechanics that are one-and-done. I don't see any reason for them to bring back Outlast or Formidable, to cite some recent examples. It's not really a requirement for there to be future design space, though both theories do support it.
The confusion between colorless mana and generic mana costs has not been "safely ignored since the inception of the game". It was pretty much introduced in 2003, a full decade after the game's inception, when they started using the generic mana symbols like 1 on cards that produced colorless mana. Until then, nearly every card that did this said "add one [two/three] colorless mana to your mana pool". So, until 2003, there was a clear seperation between colorless mana and generic costs. Since then however, the game uses the same symbols to refer to two nearly opposite things: The most retrictive type of mana and the most flexible mana cost. Using the same symbol for nearly opposite things is clearly unnecessary confusion. Why not use two different symbols instead? And yes, I know that you can safely play the game without caring about this... once you have learned to accept this inconsistency and to ignore this distinction. You don't care how your car's engine works on a technical level as long as you can drive that car.
However, for many new players who are learning the game, this issue is confusing, since they haven't learned to live with it yet. I ran into it a few times when teaching the game and Mark Rosewater has said multiple times that their market research attests that it is a problem for new players. Not a huge one, which is why they haven't fixed it in years, but still a problem. I know it's hard to see a new player's problem when you have personally overcome this problem years ago. That doesn't change the fact that it exists though. (Btw, this change may seem confusing for existing players, since they have to unlearn something they accepted and did for years, but keep in mind that there is nothing for new players to unlearn. They start the game without that baggage. Changes like this are more confusing for existing players than they are for new players, but I can assure you that it will seem natural after a few months.)
With all due respect, saying the intruduction of a symbol for colorless mana "would stump newer players because it's an arbitrary symbol with no inherent meaning" is silly. There are six types of mana in this game, five of which had their own symbol for decades. Now the sixth one gets its own symbol and this would suddenly stump players? Just the opposite, it brings the sixth type of mana in line with the other five. Why should green mana have its own symbol, but not colorless mana? Now, that's a real stumper! It would be far more consistent if colorless mana had its own symbol, just like the others, too. Even if that symbol isn't as great a fit as tree=green.
And while the distinction between colorless mana and generic mana costs didn't matter on a practical level for most players until know, it instantly becomes an issue once colorless mana costs are introduced. You can't have Kozilek, the Great Distortion cost 8 generic and 2 colorless mana without colorless mana having its own unique symbol. Well, you could have him cost 10 and add a line of text that says "You must spend at least two colorless mana to cast Kozilek.", but that is super clunky. Imagine Snapcaster Mage costing 2 and saying "You must spend at least one blue mana to cast Snapcaster Mage." in his text box. Ridiculous. So, the introduction of strict colorless costs makes a unique symbol for colorless mana necessary.
In conclusion, the introduction of a symbol for colorless mana does many useful things in one swoop:
- Allows the use of strictly colorless mana cost, a great mechanical evolution of the colorless Eldrazi.
- Creates consistency among all six types of mana.
- Reduces confusion for new players.
- Has broad uses for future sets.
- Builds on the existing mana system rather than introducing a seventh type of mana as a narrow gimmick in a small set.
One of these alone might not have been enough to force this change, but all together sure do. The bigger picture (formed by the sum of all logical arguments, offical statements of R&D members like Mark Rosewater and Aaron Forsythe, the game's core rules and Magic's (modern) design philosophy) clearly points towards <> being the symbol for colorless mana.
Uril, the Miststalker RGW -- Ulamog, the Infinite Gyre C -- Vhati il-Dal BG -- Jor Kadeen, the Prevailer RW -- Animar, Soul of Elements URG
Kiki-Jiki, Mirror Breaker R -- Maga, Traitor to Mortals B -- Ghave, Guru of Spores BGW -- Sliver Hivelord WUBRG
<> is a new color (but we might not see it later sets)
<> is colorless per Definition (like the card would have Devoid)
<> is ignored by color identity (to make Tron happy as if it where not strong enough)
PS: what I would like to where cards with colorless {P} as cost
So many people here think that Wizards are a bunch of idiots, based on a handful of spoilers.
You can donate all your Wastes-related cards to me. I'll take proper care of these unplayable cards for you.
( 0.0 )
=O ((U/R)) O=
(")(")
I'm an AI making Magic cards.
http://www.staalmedia.nl/nexus/#generate
I correct people locally (as in, I say "Red and 2 other" and if someone says "Red and 2 colorless" I correct them) but I'm too lazy to do so online.
And it hasn't been ignored since the inception of the game. There was a dramatic difference between colorless mana being generated in ABUR and generic mana costs.
That difference was removed. Saying the confusion has been there since the beginning is simply incorrect.
What's the inherent meaning of a tree? Or a swirly ball of fire?
Once again, the answer to your question is in the block of text you quoted:
See, I don't tend to blindly state something without providing supporting facts. But if you aren't bothering to analyze what I'm saying, I don't know why you would bother replying at all.
Wrong. My assertion was that the design space made available by the change would be the same in either case. See Locke's and lueg's posts.
Can. You. Provide. A. Counter. Example? Can you prove otherwise? With a hypothetical card design or anything else?
Stop right there. How? We can agree it would create new design space, but you have to justify this comment. How is introducing an arbitrary symbol more simple and clear than the explanation that "1 represents generic mana in costs and colorless mana in production"?
False. More players than not--and especially introductory players--were confused by the multiple meanings of play. WotC stated as much when justifying the changes.
No, not just like that, because the fact that 1 currently represents both generic and colorless mana does not cause confusion for new players. They may often confuse the two terms, but that's not the same thing--their inability to identify which is which doesn't affect their ability to play the game.
The fact that WotC started by spelling out the difference between colorless and generic mana and then went to combining the two under the umbrella of one easy-to-grasp symbol after the development process of the game had matured is not an argument that works in your favor.
No, that's not clearly the case. Everyone--including people who can't tell the difference between colorless and generic--has been dealing with the same symbol with no consequences for over a decade.
So basically you're asking why everyone who owns a car doesn't bother to learn how it works on a technical level? Gee, I wonder.
Sounds like you got hung up on explaining a technical difference that has never mattered up to this point. As far as teaching someone to play a game goes, that's the definition of unnecessary baggage.
The concept isn't confusing for me in the least; it's just a dumb idea.
(Bold emphasis is mine.)
You just shot yourself in the foot and simultaneously answered your own question. Tree = Green. Sun = White. Water = Blue. Scary Skull = Black. Fire = Red. Diamond = ... Colorless? The disconnect is clear on a common sense level.
True, but you can have Kozilek cost 8 generic mana and 2 Eldrazi/Hedron/Whatever mana just fine, and it doesn't involve applying a cosmetic errata to hundreds of existing cards.
Given all the points I've made above and in previous posts, this laundry list still doesn't hold much weight to me. But I'm willing to revisit it.
See above.
Trees are green and fire burns red. What color is a geometric shape?
You mean
?
First, that's not "since inception" and second they changed that not for an "easy-to-grasp" symbol, but because they were cutting words out across the board and needed a symbol. They went with what they had. That doesn't mean it was the right idea.
It isn't. ohsnap you mean it's colorless?
And those aren't the inherent meanings of a tree or a swirly ball of fire.
What about a sun? The sun is fire too... And skulls are white.
Actually, I wasn't defending anything, I was just postulating a theory and I stated this as speculation about 3x. I admit that I am ignorant of Wizards policies to never change functionality of older cards. Wasn't time vault errated like 3x?
When I saw the symbol, I immediately made the connection to hedrons, so yes, even if this was in Lorwyn or some other crappy plane then I would still assume hedron mana. I guess my brain just automatically associates diamond objects with hedrons if it is anywhere on a magic card.
Plenty of older cards were given functional errata, usually alongside major rules or formatting revisions. It's been quite a long time since they've done functional errata, though, and their official stance is that they avoid it whenever possible. Cosmetic errata still happen fairly often, though.
Let's work backwards: How did the guildgates run in the prerelease of Theros? Born of Gods? Magic 2014? Journey to Nyx? Magic 2015? Dragons of Tarkir? Khans of Tarkir? Fate Reforged? Battle for Zendikar? They didn't run in any of those because they haven't been reprinted outside of Ravnica sets. Which is why it got the "C" rarity instead of "L" rarity, also because of the obvious reason: being a nonbasic land, which Wastes is not.
Now for the easy thing: random unboxing video. This isn't the first video I've seen where it shows the back of the box. Check 1:12 of this video: that is a full art forest.
I'm aware of what the box looks like. I have one over there.
The box literally never says it's all full art basics inside. There are some full arts in there - in the packs after all.
Funny, you should bring that up. It was TIME VAULT that
specifically lead to the discipline of NOT doing functional
errata. See: http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/latest-developments/power-level-errata-b-gone-2006-07-14
So, 7th Edition Sissay's Ring in your mind is connected to Hedrons and Eldrazi?
Ironically, this was "exactly" the artifact one of the 'haters' of the <>=1
camp use to say specifically. "What does Sisay's Ring have to do with Kozi..."
In fact, those diamonds are WAY more Zendikari than are the ninja star shapes
of wastes.
Actually, they're C because the L's in Oath have already been printed.
They're the BfZ lands. There will be NO "L" rarity cards in oath at all.
Second, yes, wastes is a BASIC LAND, it is not non-basic.
As the word is printed on EVERY card. LOL
In an effort to give you a benefit of the doubt,
I'm going to assume you mean, "Wastes" is not a
"basic land TYPE".
And, as far as the gates (or even the Fetch lands in Khans Block)
the could appear in the LAND SLOT