I personally think there is no way <> just replace 1. It is too confusing and too weird, and it does not feel right with the blighted lands, the temple of forsaken gods and all in BfZ. (They would have at least put all the manlands in BfZ and the rare lands subject to the new templating in Oath).
The <> has probably an easy and understandable meaning like Phyrexian mana. I personally think that it being able to pay for color in colorless spells (cards with devoid and such) makes sense.
which would make it a parasitic mechanic in a small set
werent they going away from such design decisions?
BFZ was the most parasitic set since Kamigawa block, and they haven't had time to assess the mistakes there.
Here is what I I think it means, and it's actually not that complicated. Something that taps for <> adds 1 that can only be used for colorless parts of a cost. Something with <> in its cost can only have that part paid for with colorless mana. This makes Wastes pretty terrible, however, unless there's some other added advantage to playing them that we have yet to see.
It can be produced by existing colourless-producing lands like Wasteland and Temple of the False God whereas a sixth colour could not be, and would need dedicated mana sources outside the likes of City of Brass. Secondly, it's unlikely to appear often in cards' actual mana costs beyond this set. This all assumes that we've guessed correctly how it works, and that the cards are real, of course.
Forgive me, if I'm just misunderstanding what you're saying. But with your explanation, I don't really see why Mirrorpool didn't just use the 1 symbol instead?
cause they are replacing the 1 symbol with <> to make the game more clear
It can be produced by existing colourless-producing lands like Wasteland and Temple of the False God whereas a sixth colour could not be, and would need dedicated mana sources outside the likes of City of Brass. Secondly, it's unlikely to appear often in cards' actual mana costs beyond this set. This all assumes that we've guessed correctly how it works, and that the cards are real, of course.
Forgive me, if I'm just misunderstanding what you're saying. But with your explanation, I don't really see why Mirrorpool didn't just use the 1 symbol instead?
cause they are replacing the 1 symbol with <> to make the game more clear
The why is new Kozilek's casting cost 8<><>?
so you can pay 2WWUUBBRR for him WWUUBBRRGG wont work though cause you need 2 of those to be colorless, hence the <>
its really not hard to understand, you just have to remember that 1 in casting costs does NOT mean colorless. it means generic
Okay, I agree that this is likely what it means, but that's different than what you said (which is that <> is nothing more than a rebranding of 1).
I personally think there is no way <> just replace 1. It is too confusing and too weird, and it does not feel right with the blighted lands, the temple of forsaken gods and all in BfZ. (They would have at least put all the manlands in BfZ and the rare lands subject to the new templating in Oath).
The <> has probably an easy and understandable meaning like Phyrexian mana. I personally think that it being able to pay for color in colorless spells (cards with devoid and such) makes sense.
which would make it a parasitic mechanic in a small set
werent they going away from such design decisions?
I understand your concern but I actually think this is one of the least parasitic way too think of the <> mana symbol.
First, it would have interactions outside of this set or block with sunburst and, depending on how the restrictions works colored mana in artifacts and lands.
Second, it would help devoid and BfZ eldrazis to be castable and playable in standard.
Third, it could also help converge and maybe other cards like Tasigur if the restrictions are larger (something like "<> counts for any color of mana other than the color of the spell or ability you spend it on" (not sure about the wording and maybe too complex or too strong).
Fourth, eldrazis are aliens and thus flavorfully tied to being parasitic, even mechanically. We saw it already in BfZ. That should not be different in Oath.
Either:
Wizards is going to overhaul general mana producers and errata all previous cards to read <> so they can use it going forward...
or
<> is a flavor choice, and therefore Eldrazi win on Zendikar, and will be the "big bad" for a while in the "story".
Otherwise it won't make sense for it to be introduced into the second set instead of the first. Both this and devoid don't need to exist in a set.
They aren't going to create a new mana symbol purely for flavor and they aren't going to errata half the cards in the game with a new symbol that produces even more problems than it solves in the long run. The only logical conclusion is that this is just a new snow mana, wastes produces eldrazi mana, kozilek needs 2 eldrazi mana and 8 of any kind of mana to be cast. It works like a 6th color of mana, but its still colorless and theres only 5 colors and only 5 basic land types. This all very neatly works within the rules of the game without warping anything and without requiring any fundamental overhauls over every card we know.
Its not complicated guys. Its just a new mana symbol that can only be paid by sources which produce that type of mana, like snow. Unlike snow, its generated directly (Wastes rules text is "T: Add <> to your mana pool", same as mirrorpool), not tied to a supertype. Like snow, it has to be paid with this kind of mana, it can't be paid for with blue or white or red or black or green mana. Presumably, eldrazi mana can be spent colorlessly like any of the other manas
I'm 99% sure that Mirrorpool produces <> instead of 1...because that's what Wastes do. Wastes has a <> symbol, and it's clearly Eldrazi flavored.
So my theory is that all the Eldrazy flavor lands will produce <> to tie in with Wastes, however, <> is no different than 1. <> costs can be paid with <> or 1, and 1 can be spent on 1 or <>. Simply a flavor choice.
No there won't be a mass errata of every single friggin mana producing land ever (for real?) nor there will be any strange rules baggage like "gold colorless" or anything.
<> is simply a flavorful way of 1 if it goes for mana producing, but in costs, it means "1 colorless mana".
Quote me on this after OGW is out.
WOTC already did 2 major (or was it all at once) errata sweeps. Creature type and class and the "cast" "exile" "battelfield" wording.
I don't see why they can't simply turn 1 into <>, 2 into <><> and so forth.
I hope this is a long-term change, that <> means colorless mana and 1 means generic mana. The errata doesn't strike me as a huge issue, as it doesn't change anything meaningful, only clarify things.
I love how everyone is focusing on the mana ability, and not the other two (completely bonkers) abilities-
It's like Riku of Two Reflections' homeland!
Hopefully the rules will allow him to actually run it in his deck!
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
WOTC already did 2 major (or was it all at once) errata sweeps. Creature type and class and the "cast" "exile" "battelfield" wording.
I don't see why they can't simply turn 1 into <>, 2 into <><> and so forth.
Because it doesn't actually simplify the game any more that it makes it more complicated and the symbol used for eldrazi mana is not flavor neutral. It wouldn't be easier for a new player to grok that <> is colorless mana, especially when that conflicts with 98% of existing cards. Thats not worth it in a cost/benefit analysis, theres a price to changing something so fundamental even if it would improve the game, and this wouldn't really be an improvement anyway.
But the symbol being very eldrazi-esque just poops all over any grand total overhaul theories. If this was a new evergreen symbol for colorless mana, they would have chosen a symbol that fits into all contexts, not a kozilek-esque eldrazi flavor symbol. There wouldn't be this bismuth visual thematic tying together the <> producing lands.
I love how everyone is focusing on the mana ability, and not the other two (completely bonkers) abilities-
It's like Riku of Two Reflections' homeland!
Hopefully the rules will allow him to actually run it in his deck!
Yeah, it's an interesting land. I am not convinced it needed to come into play tapped. I've heard a few people talk about it allowing cloning of Siege Rhino in Standard, but I honestly don't think that's where this card is most likely to see play (lands that add colorless mana in 3+ color decks?). More likely, I see this in mono-red copying burn spells, since it's a smaller activation cost and lots of burn spells tend to need only one red mana.
I don't think one can arrive at a certain conclusion about <>. It's either strictly colorless or snow-like colorless. There are good arguments on both sides.
Th only clear thing is that <> means a new restriction on mana. Otherwise, they would not need to print a new basic land. (Being a basic land, you can run as many of them as you wish, so that there are no issue with casting your spells, especially in draft and sealed.)
The only question is if it's exclusive or inclusive on previously existing colorless mana. Mechanically, I'm slightly leaning on inclusive, as it would make the cards with such cost work better with older sets. Flavorwise, I would lean on exclusive, as it would make wasted land more flavorful.
WOTC already did 2 major (or was it all at once) errata sweeps. Creature type and class and the "cast" "exile" "battelfield" wording.
I don't see why they can't simply turn 1 into <>, 2 into <><> and so forth.
Because it doesn't actually simplify the game any more that it makes it more complicated and the symbol used for eldrazi mana is not flavor neutral. It wouldn't be easier for a new player to grok that <> is colorless mana, especially when that conflicts with 98% of existing cards. Thats not worth it in a cost/benefit analysis, theres a price to changing something so fundamental even if it would improve the game, and this wouldn't really be an improvement anyway.
But the symbol being very eldrazi-esque just poops all over any grand total overhaul theories. If this was a new evergreen symbol for colorless mana, they would have chosen a symbol that fits into all contexts, not a kozilek-esque eldrazi flavor symbol. There wouldn't be this bismuth visual thematic tying together the <> producing lands.
It might be actually easier for new players for grok since they will see it in each new product they buy.
Next, I don't think the symbol looks very eldrazi-esque at all. Not like, say, Phyrexian mana. It's an abstract shape. You could argue that it looks a bit like a hedron, but hedrons have characteristic elongated shape -- they are not square unless you cut them at equator -- they have straight edges, not curved like this symbol, plus, hedrons are ANTI-Eldrazi. Why would you connect them with Eldrazi brand of magic?
Finally, for "Thats not worth it in a cost/benefit analysis, theres a price to changing something so fundamental even if it would improve the game, and this wouldn't really be an improvement anyway.", I'd like to see your analysis.
Now, based on my studies of both the history of the game and you, I will predict this: sometime around Christmas, Wizards will officially unveil a card or cards with this symbol, most likely Kozilek.
The players will start clamoring and asking for the rules. Eventually, maybe in Feature article, maybe on Tabak's tumbler, they will explain that they want to separate colorless and generic mana symbols, errata all colorless producers, and make this change for the future.
The very same day, you will make a post claiming that you had high hopes for this mechanic but that Wizards made a completely stupid decision.
WOTC already did 2 major (or was it all at once) errata sweeps. Creature type and class and the "cast" "exile" "battelfield" wording.
I don't see why they can't simply turn 1 into <>, 2 into <><> and so forth.
Because it doesn't actually simplify the game any more that it makes it more complicated and the symbol used for eldrazi mana is not flavor neutral. It wouldn't be easier for a new player to grok that <> is colorless mana, especially when that conflicts with 98% of existing cards. Thats not worth it in a cost/benefit analysis, theres a price to changing something so fundamental even if it would improve the game, and this wouldn't really be an improvement anyway.
But the symbol being very eldrazi-esque just poops all over any grand total overhaul theories. If this was a new evergreen symbol for colorless mana, they would have chosen a symbol that fits into all contexts, not a kozilek-esque eldrazi flavor symbol. There wouldn't be this bismuth visual thematic tying together the <> producing lands.
once one realizes that the 1 produced by lands and the 1 in the mana cost of cards do not mean the same thing. this changestarts to make sense.
As for the symbol, I would agree with you if the lines were straight. As is, to me, it resembles a star, which is a very raw energy source.
WOTC already did 2 major (or was it all at once) errata sweeps. Creature type and class and the "cast" "exile" "battelfield" wording.
I don't see why they can't simply turn 1 into <>, 2 into <><> and so forth.
Because it doesn't actually simplify the game any more that it makes it more complicated and the symbol used for eldrazi mana is not flavor neutral. It wouldn't be easier for a new player to grok that <> is colorless mana, especially when that conflicts with 98% of existing cards. Thats not worth it in a cost/benefit analysis, theres a price to changing something so fundamental even if it would improve the game, and this wouldn't really be an improvement anyway.
But the symbol being very eldrazi-esque just poops all over any grand total overhaul theories. If this was a new evergreen symbol for colorless mana, they would have chosen a symbol that fits into all contexts, not a kozilek-esque eldrazi flavor symbol. There wouldn't be this bismuth visual thematic tying together the <> producing lands.
It might be actually easier for new players for grok since they will see it in each new product they buy.
Next, I don't think the symbol looks very eldrazi-esque at all. Not like, say, Phyrexian mana. It's an abstract shape. You could argue that it looks a bit like a hedron, but hedrons have characteristic elongated shape -- they are not square unless you cut them at equator -- they have straight edges, not curved like this symbol, plus, hedrons are ANTI-Eldrazi. Why would you connect them with Eldrazi brand of magic?
Finally, for "Thats not worth it in a cost/benefit analysis, theres a price to changing something so fundamental even if it would improve the game, and this wouldn't really be an improvement anyway.", I'd like to see your analysis.
Now, based on my studies of both the history of the game and you, I will predict this: sometime around Christmas, Wizards will officially unveil a card or cards with this symbol, most likely Kozilek.
The players will start clamoring and asking for the rules. Eventually, maybe in Feature article, maybe on Tabak's tumbler, they will explain that they want to separate colorless and generic mana symbols, errata all colorless producers, and make this change for the future.
The very same day, you will make a post claiming that you had high hopes for this mechanic but that Wizards made a completely stupid decision.
Mark my words.
I don't make my analysis on opinions or wishful thinking, but on logical and rational conclusions. We have two scenarios being proposed that fit the template we've seen. On is a precedented "neo-snow" mechanic that would cleverly fit the long wanted barry's land into the game without having to overhaul all the rules spectacularly to do so. It would do something somewhat new yet be mechanically simple enough to be a one-off effect they can throw away after this set for a few years. The second scenario entails a massive errata for half the cards in the game, needing remakes to everything. It would have to be an evergreen change that affected every card from here on out. The mechanic itself would have something new only insofar as the costed cards like kozilek.
Now, I'm faced with figuring out which of these two scenarios is more likely. And my rational approach is to examine the evidence we have and see what makes more sense given what we know and what would take leaps of faith and mental gymnastics to make it work. First, by principle of KISS I'm more inclined to believe in a conservative and precedented mechanic being released by wizards than a crazy dramatical overhaul of the entire game. That seems more likely by nature. However, if the evidence points in the massive overhaul direction, I can't ignore it. So lets follow through with that.
The mana symbol we see on wastes and mirrorpool and kozilek is eldrazi-esque. This isn't a subjective thing where I see it and you don't. The kozilek brood has a visual thematic of geometric shapes with floating angular pieces at symmetric angles. Refer to it that betrays, artisan of kozilek, etc. It also resembles a hedron from zendikar, long represented by a diamond shape. This is further consistent with the symbol for OGW being a stylized cross between a hedron and kozilek's brood. Thats not my personal analysis, I took that right off whoever put it on the wiki. Look at the set symbol for worldwake- this is quite similar to the symbol we seen on the 'eldrazi mana'
Now say you're wizards, and you're constructing an evergreen colorless symbol to replace all colorless mana on all cards. You'd have a set of criteria for this symbol, and being flavor neutral would be a dead necessity. If this is flavorfully tied to the eldrazi and/or zendikar, it wouldn't be applicable. So to believe this is an evergreen mechanic is to believe this symbol has no flavor grounding on zendikar, which I believe is engaging in mental gymnastics
Now lets further follow that train of thought. Say you're constructing a colorless symbol to replace all colorless mana on all cards. Why would you hold this off until OGW but leave it out of BFZ when the sets are developed side by side? Its a gigantic change to the game, and BFZ is a set with a colorless theme. It would be nonsensical to make so many cards instantly rendered obsolete and in need of errata when you *know* you're about to print a new template. We saw the new card frame previewed in non-expansion products like commander before it hit in a major shift during a core set, when these changes are usually precedented (granted, something that can't happen anymore with the end of core sets). We just a commander product with no such change. Were they consciously printing that with obsolete templates too? Nonsensical to me.
Next, theres the practicality of this mechanic. With the assumption of neo-snow mana, the "Wastes" land makes sense as a basic land for decks running eldrazi, but if you were believing this to be a colorless-only mechanic, there would be no reason to run wastes when nonbasics with 1 production would be 'strictly better' (granted, not searchable by stuff like evolving wilds). With the neo-snow barry land interpretation, wastes has a valid reason for existing as a "6th color". Next, the question becomes, if this new mechanic is to play a major role in the set yet also go evergreen, then the only portion which would be mechanically part of this set would be the colorless-mandatory symbol in costs like Kozilek, since producing it would be evergreen anyway. Which means that either this cost in kozilek is not evergreen, or its not exclusive to this set and thus not counted towards the expansion mechanics. Which means these cards weren't previewing any set mechanics at all. Are we going to pretend that <> producing lands become evergreen but <> in casting costs is restricted to OGW? That doesn't make much sense.
Lastly, the bismuth thematics on the two lands we see and eldrazi being paid for both point towards a very strong connection between this eldrazi mana and the eldrazi. For something we'd have to believe is flavor neutral to be evergreen, it sure appears part and parcel to kozilek's world warping and eldrazi blighted lands.
I'm 99% sure that Mirrorpool produces <> instead of 1...because that's what Wastes do. Wastes has a <> symbol, and it's clearly Eldrazi flavored.
So my theory is that all the Eldrazy flavor lands will produce <> to tie in with Wastes, however, <> is no different than 1. <> costs can be paid with <> or 1, and 1 can be spent on 1 or <>. Simply a flavor choice.
No there won't be a mass errata of every single friggin mana producing land ever (for real?) nor there will be any strange rules baggage like "gold colorless" or anything.
<> is simply a flavorful way of 1 if it goes for mana producing, but in costs, it means "1 colorless mana".
Quote me on this after OGW is out.
WOTC already did 2 major (or was it all at once) errata sweeps. Creature type and class and the "cast" "exile" "battelfield" wording.
I don't see why they can't simply turn 1 into <>, 2 into <><> and so forth.
The creature/class update is regarded by Wizards to have been a mistake, although out of the three its the only one that provides a functional change to old cards. I get what people are saying about them illustrating a difference between 'can be paid by any color' and 'colorless' mana, but to me it seems more confusing, not less. I would rather it be a snow-esque set theme. The other main evidence against errata is that it would require them to errata cards from the same block immediately after printing them, which seems pretty unlikely and a major fail on wizards' part.
I don't make my analysis on opinions or wishful thinking, but on logical and rational conclusions. We have two scenarios being proposed that fit the template we've seen. On is a precedented "neo-snow" mechanic that would cleverly fit the long wanted barry's land into the game without having to overhaul all the rules spectacularly to do so. It would do something somewhat new yet be mechanically simple enough to be a one-off effect they can throw away after this set for a few years. The second scenario entails a massive errata for half the cards in the game, needing remakes to everything. It would have to be an evergreen change that affected every card from here on out. The mechanic itself would have something new only insofar as the costed cards like kozilek.
Now, I'm faced with figuring out which of these two scenarios is more likely. And my rational approach is to examine the evidence we have and see what makes more sense given what we know and what would take leaps of faith and mental gymnastics to make it work. First, by principle of KISS I'm more inclined to believe in a conservative and precedented mechanic being released by wizards than a crazy dramatical overhaul of the entire game. That seems more likely by nature. However, if the evidence points in the massive overhaul direction, I can't ignore it. So lets follow through with that.
The mana symbol we see on wastes and mirrorpool and kozilek is eldrazi-esque. This isn't a subjective thing where I see it and you don't. The kozilek brood has a visual thematic of geometric shapes with floating angular pieces at symmetric angles. Refer to it that betrays, artisan of kozilek, etc. It also resembles a hedron from zendikar, long represented by a diamond shape. This is further consistent with the symbol for OGW being a stylized cross between a hedron and kozilek's brood. Thats not my personal analysis, I took that right off whoever put it on the wiki. Look at the set symbol for worldwake- this is quite similar to the symbol we seen on the 'eldrazi mana'
Now say you're wizards, and you're constructing an evergreen colorless symbol to replace all colorless mana on all cards. You'd have a set of criteria for this symbol, and being flavor neutral would be a dead necessity. If this is flavorfully tied to the eldrazi and/or zendikar, it wouldn't be applicable. So to believe this is an evergreen mechanic is to believe this symbol has no flavor grounding on zendikar, which I believe is engaging in mental gymnastics
Now lets further follow that train of thought. Say you're constructing a colorless symbol to replace all colorless mana on all cards. Why would you hold this off until OGW but leave it out of BFZ when the sets are developed side by side? Its a gigantic change to the game, and BFZ is a set with a colorless theme. It would be nonsensical to make so many cards instantly rendered obsolete and in need of errata when you *know* you're about to print a new template. We saw the new card frame previewed in non-expansion products like commander before it hit in a major shift during a core set, when these changes are usually precedented (granted, something that can't happen anymore with the end of core sets). We just a commander product with no such change. Were they consciously printing that with obsolete templates too? Nonsensical to me.
Next, theres the practicality of this mechanic. With the assumption of neo-snow mana, the "Wastes" land makes sense as a basic land for decks running eldrazi, but if you were believing this to be a colorless-only mechanic, there would be no reason to run wastes when nonbasics with 1 production would be 'strictly better' (granted, not searchable by stuff like evolving wilds). With the neo-snow barry land interpretation, wastes has a valid reason for existing as a "6th color". Next, the question becomes, if this new mechanic is to play a major role in the set yet also go evergreen, then the only portion which would be mechanically part of this set would be the colorless-mandatory symbol in costs like Kozilek, since producing it would be evergreen anyway. Which means that either this cost in kozilek is not evergreen, or its not exclusive to this set and thus not counted towards the expansion mechanics. Which means these cards weren't previewing any set mechanics at all. Are we going to pretend that <> producing lands become evergreen but <> in casting costs is restricted to OGW? That doesn't make much sense.
Lastly, the bismuth thematics on the two lands we see and eldrazi being paid for both point towards a very strong connection between this eldrazi mana and the eldrazi. For something we'd have to believe is flavor neutral to be evergreen, it sure appears part and parcel to kozilek's world warping and eldrazi blighted lands.
What's simpler?
Creating a 6th color, that is tied to a specific theme, and viable for only 1 set.
Re-templating mana symbols to finally make a distinction between colorless and generic mana?
This 'big' change you're talking about erata wide for colorless mana, is really actually very minor and functionally changes 0 rules, while making a distinction between colorless and generic mana clear.
Adding a 6th color, for 1 set only, is pretty awkward.
====
Why a new symbol? Aside from making a distinction between generic 1 in a cost, which can be paid by anything, and making a symbol ( <> ) to specify specifically colorless mana, printing a "Barry's Land" with a giant 1 in the mana circle is pretty awkward, and honestly simply bad branding. While every other mana type has a symbol to brand, the generic/colorless 1 is lacking in branding. This is an excellent opportunity for it.
As for the reveal timing, that certainly is awkward... but it may also have been a marketing decision on reveal timing. Revealing the symbol before it becomes applicable and differentiable could have been awkward. Instead, this allows a reveal of the new brand at the same time as an iconic event, which is good for branding.
=====
This position on the land still leads a lot to be desired, though, namely that it will be strictly worse than any other basic land, and there would be no reason to run it - ever.
It can still go either way, or even a totally third way we're not seeing yet; but to say that the symbol is obviously Eldrazi is subjective. I disagree entirely. Each side of this new diamond is slightly curved - this doesn't match either Hedrons OR Kozi's brood... And there is plenty of marketing, branding, and rules reasoning to differentiate a colorless symbol from a generic one - it opens a lot of design space on colorless cards.
People, stop pretending one side is obviously right. It doesn't make your right, it only makes you sound like a zealot.
There are arguments on both sides. No, you're not more intelligent, more cunning, your position is not clearly right to anyone with a brain. People on the other side are not idiot, they don't fail to see the logic and elegance of your argument.
Half of you will be wrong on sig-worthy level. The other half will still be posturing zealot, except they'll be twice as annoying for "having been so right all along" or some such.
Creating a 6th color, that is tied to a specific theme, and viable for only 1 set.
Re-templating mana symbols to finally make a distinction between colorless and generic mana?
This 'big' change you're talking about erata wide for colorless mana, is really actually very minor and functionally changes 0 rules, while making a distinction between colorless and generic mana clear.
As the 6th pseudo-color is no more complex than snow mana, not actually requiring a new color or basic land type, and snow mana was only viable for 1 set, that seems simple enough.
But retemplating mana symbols to make a distinction between colorless and generic mana would also require the additional complication of "Colorless-only, non-generic mana" for casting costs as seen in kozileks cost. Considering thats two fairly distinct mechanics instead of one, with ambiguous evergreen status for the latter, and requiring a total overhaul of half the cards in the game, yeah it seems a mite complicated to me. Remember, the first scenario proposed explains both the symbols on lands and casting costs in a single mechanic. The second scenario proposes two mechanics, one necessarily evergreen, one which may or may not.
Adding a 6th color, for 1 set only, is pretty awkward.
Awkward? Yes. Parasitic? Very much so
But also, quite in line with wizards precedents. Wizards just gave us a set of terribly insular, parasitic mechanics. Wizards already gave us a 6th pseudo-color in snow, and also played with mana symbols for one set at a time with snow, hybrid & phyrexian mana. Its not a large leap to believe wizards would print a parasitic mechanic with a once-off mana symbol, but its a big deal to think they'd overhaul generic vs colorless mechanic mid-block while also introducing a new "colorless-only" cost associated with eldrazi, and then we don't know, would that cost be set exclusive and diamond lands be evergreen, or both evergreen? Besides that complication, the symbol being right in line with the kozilek/hedron visuals and everything tying to eldrazi thematics, its a pretty safe bet.
Then consider this. If wizards wants to add a new symbol to clear up "colorless vs generic" mana in mana producers, why would they complicate an already confusing scenario by having the casting cost exclusive mana added in the same set? Because theres no mechanical necessity for the symbol to appear in kozileks cost, he could have just cost 10 and they could have only used the evergreen mana producing symbol on mana producers, not on casting costs. Maybe a few sets down the line, once the dust has settled, you could introduce the concept of cards with costs only payable by colorless, with that same symbol for it. But doing both at the same time would be unnecessary confusion factor
Don't get me wrong, I am not making a judgment of which mechanic would be better or which I personally think should be redone. I'm just commenting on the likelihood and what the evidence points to. Myself, I've long said wizards should be doing some of these big overhauls of mechanics, my bone to pick is how creature combat deaths are handled. But timing, precedent, thematics, occam's razor, they all say this is just snow 2.0. Theres very obvious drawbacks to wizards giving us a neo-snow mana in that this set will be parasitic and play absolutely awful in extended formats and standard will have troubles adopting it.
or there simply is no eldrazi mana and "add <>" is just the new form of "add 1"
Id say it is VERY likey this. We will most likely see a huge errata where all instances of add 1 will be add <> and this lets them differentiate between colorless and generic in mana costs *go look at the Kozilek*
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
SonofaBith - Wizards was so excited about making the packaging for Modern Masters 2 recyclable, they decided to make most of the rares and all but 1 of the UC's recycle-bin ready too. Convenient!
I don't make my analysis on opinions or wishful thinking, but on logical and rational conclusions.
We shall see.
We have two scenarios being proposed that fit the template we've seen. On is a precedented "neo-snow" mechanic that would cleverly fit the long wanted barry's land into the game without having to overhaul all the rules spectacularly to do so. It would do something somewhat new yet be mechanically simple enough to be a one-off effect they can throw away after this set for a few years. The second scenario entails a massive errata for half the cards in the game, needing remakes to everything. It would have to be an evergreen change that affected every card from here on out. The mechanic itself would have something new only insofar as the costed cards like kozilek.
Here you assume, for no good reason, that Wizards simply wanted to make a "colorless matters" mechanic, and then invented the symbol to do that.
There is an alternate theory, though. The change separating colorless and generic mana might come first and THEN it opened new design space for "colorless matters". There are precedents for this (for example the morph mechanic which stemmed from proposed rules change to accomodate Illusionary Mask). The cost of giving errata (albeit not really functional) to large amount of cards would be substantial if it was done for the sake of the mechanic. However, if the mechanic would be allowed by a change that was planned ANYWAY, the cost would be effectively zero.
Now, I'm faced with figuring out which of these two scenarios is more likely. And my rational approach is to examine the evidence we have and see what makes more sense given what we know and what would take leaps of faith and mental gymnastics to make it work. First, by principle of KISS I'm more inclined to believe in a conservative and precedented mechanic being released by wizards than a crazy dramatical overhaul of the entire game. That seems more likely by nature. However, if the evidence points in the massive overhaul direction, I can't ignore it. So lets follow through with that.
The mana symbol we see on wastes and mirrorpool and kozilek is eldrazi-esque. This isn't a subjective thing where I see it and you don't. The kozilek brood has a visual thematic of geometric shapes with floating angular pieces at symmetric angles. Refer to it that betrays, artisan of kozilek, etc. It also resembles a hedron from zendikar, long represented by a diamond shape. This is further consistent with the symbol for OGW being a stylized cross between a hedron and kozilek's brood. Thats not my personal analysis, I took that right off whoever put it on the wiki. Look at the set symbol for worldwake- this is quite similar to the symbol we seen on the 'eldrazi mana'
Here, I can't agree with you. The symbol does NOT look like a hedron. In addition, you said it yourself, Kozilek is associated with angular pieces. This symbol has curved lines, not really in Kozilek's line.
If the symbol was specific and they wanted to use hedrons, they would use hedrons. Symbol for Worldwake? Still has the same basic assymetry (bottom half of symbol longer) like each Zendikar set symbol. BFZ symbol has both halves the same, but definitely does not have a four-fold symmetry.
Maybe you meant the "opening hedron" symbol of Rise of the Eldrazi? That looks more similar. But it's also quite old at this point and new players might not automatically recall it.
Now say you're wizards, and you're constructing an evergreen colorless symbol to replace all colorless mana on all cards. You'd have a set of criteria for this symbol, and being flavor neutral would be a dead necessity. If this is flavorfully tied to the eldrazi and/or zendikar, it wouldn't be applicable. So to believe this is an evergreen mechanic is to believe this symbol has no flavor grounding on zendikar, which I believe is engaging in mental gymnastics.
You treat "flavor neutrality" as if it is something that either exists or doesn't exist. There are degrees of flavor neutrality. In this case, you'd get a symbol that you could treat as reminding of something from Zendikar if you chose so, but that is simple enough to be simply an abstract shape (or, as someone suggested, a star) in any other context.
Now lets further follow that train of thought. Say you're constructing a colorless symbol to replace all colorless mana on all cards. Why would you hold this off until OGW but leave it out of BFZ when the sets are developed side by side? Its a gigantic change to the game, and BFZ is a set with a colorless theme. It would be nonsensical to make so many cards instantly rendered obsolete and in need of errata when you *know* you're about to print a new template. We saw the new card frame previewed in non-expansion products like commander before it hit in a major shift during a core set, when these changes are usually precedented (granted, something that can't happen anymore with the end of core sets). We just a commander product with no such change. Were they consciously printing that with obsolete templates too? Nonsensical to me.
See, this is the problem. You simply throw away nonsense too quickly. You do not recognize that nonsense has a time-tested place in game design.
To get something new, often you start with something nonsensical. And sometimes, it works, and yet it keeps looking nonsensical for some time. I remember being opposed to the idea that Wizards could print double-sided cards when first information about Innistrad came up. It seemed nonsensical to me and to many others, yet in the end it proved to be the truth.
Plus, we know that Wizards HAVE knowingly printed cards with templates they knew will be obsolete before. It happened during Time Spiral block where cards like AEther Web or Needlepeak Spider were not printed with the keyword reach.
There was a reason for it. The Future Sight changes were meant to be surprise for the players.
This might be the same logic. BFZ does not have cards that require colorless mana symbols. If Wizards introduced the symbol then, it would spoil some of the surprise from the next set. I remember a similar issue from (ironically) Time Spiral block, when the card Jhoira's Timebug gave a subtle hint that time counters will be used on permanents in later sets.
Next, theres the practicality of this mechanic. With the assumption of neo-snow mana, the "Wastes" land makes sense as a basic land for decks running eldrazi, but if you were believing this to be a colorless-only mechanic, there would be no reason to run wastes when nonbasics with 1 production would be 'strictly better' (granted, not searchable by stuff like evolving wilds).
One of the main reasons people wanted this land to be printed was to have a basic land for colorless Commander decks. Second is that there are cards and strategies that hurt nonbasic lands and if "all colorless" deck is to be a viable archetype, this land is a good thing to exist. It doesn't mean it has to be good or that it has to be played. It simply needs to exist as an option.
With the neo-snow barry land interpretation, wastes has a valid reason for existing as a "6th color". Next, the question becomes, if this new mechanic is to play a major role in the set yet also go evergreen, then the only portion which would be mechanically part of this set would be the colorless-mandatory symbol in costs like Kozilek, since producing it would be evergreen anyway. Which means that either this cost in kozilek is not evergreen, or its not exclusive to this set and thus not counted towards the expansion mechanics. Which means these cards weren't previewing any set mechanics at all. Are we going to pretend that <> producing lands become evergreen but <> in casting costs is restricted to OGW? That doesn't make much sense.
First of all, the cards were leaked, not previewed, so if there was any intent, we don't actually know it. And yes, we ARE going to pretend that the symbol will be evergreen in production but not in casting costs.
Lastly, the bismuth thematics on the two lands we see and eldrazi being paid for both point towards a very strong connection between this eldrazi mana and the eldrazi. For something we'd have to believe is flavor neutral to be evergreen, it sure appears part and parcel to kozilek's world warping and eldrazi blighted lands.
Here, I believe, is a false equivalence. A concept can be flavor neutral, and yet tied to a particular flavor in particular place. On Ravnica, color pairs are very much tied to the flavor of the guilds, but not elsewhere. Similarly, colorless mana can be flavorfully tied to Eldrazi here, but not in other places.
Heh, when some mention this whole "mass errata on all mana producers", they seem to forget that before Onslaught, whenever a card produced colorless mana, it explicity said "Add X colorless mana to your mana pool", for example, Crystal Quarry, but there were still cards that had replaced the whole "colorless mana" phrase with the generic mana symbol, like Nantuko Elder, later, when Onslaught came, the rest of stuff that produced colorless mana had that phrase replaced with the mana symbol, for example, Unholy Grotto.
This looks more like a way to differentiate colorless mana, which can be produced, from generic mana, which only appears on costs, but because generic mana could be paid with colorless mana, Wizards thought that players could understand that when the symbol appeared in the production, it meant colorless, and when appeared in a cost, it meant generic.
Now, the obvious advantage of it was that you could print cards that added lots of colorless mana without cluttering the text box with a string of mana symbols like it appeared in Geosurge, which adds seven R in a single shot, because that long-ass string of mana symbols looks rather ugly in a card (Khalni Hydra's mana cost looks hideous there for example)
The other part is that by giving it a proper symbol, colorless mana can explicitly appear now as part of costs, which goes HALF the way to make it a sixth color, because, given the example of Kozilek 2.0, to hardcast it you MUST spend at least 2 colorless mana, which, sadly, limits the amount of decks it could be played, not that it completely cuts it off like giving it colored mana symbols, but you can't ramp to it using colored mana sources like Cabal Coffers.
People, stop pretending one side is obviously right. It doesn't make your right, it only makes you sound like a zealot.
There are arguments on both sides. No, you're not more intelligent, more cunning, your position is not clearly right to anyone with a brain. People on the other side are not idiot, they don't fail to see the logic and elegance of your argument.
Half of you will be wrong on sig-worthy level. The other half will still be posturing zealot, except they'll be twice as annoying for "having been so right all along" or some such.
Stop.
Despite you being actually right (being lucky in a coin toss is NOT), they continue on anyway. I don't want a mass errata, I think it makes things confusing and eliminates potential design space, but I'm intelligent enough not to think my opinions are facts, something this site is rampant with. But hey, guys, ignore me too, and keep at it. You might impress someone equally unimpressive.
Here you assume, for no good reason, that Wizards simply wanted to make a "colorless matters" mechanic, and then invented the symbol to do that.
There is an alternate theory, though. The change separating colorless and generic mana might come first and THEN it opened new design space for "colorless matters". There are precedents for this (for example the morph mechanic which stemmed from proposed rules change to accomodate Illusionary Mask). The cost of giving errata (albeit not really functional) to large amount of cards would be substantial if it was done for the sake of the mechanic. However, if the mechanic would be allowed by a change that was planned ANYWAY, the cost would be effectively zero.
Wizards has long wanted to add Barry's land, thats widely known, and gives them good reason to make a colorless 6th basic land. They way we see it done would be cleverly fitting into the existing rules .
Now, I was responding to a question about mechanical simplicity for the purpose of Occam's Razor. The snow-style mechanic is simple and easy to grok. Eldrazi mana pays eldrazi costs. It requires no change to fundamental rules or templates. The overhaul scenario requires not only the overhaul of all existing colorless mana producers as this new symbol, but also the introduce a separate and distinct mechanic for the casting cost of colorless-only payments. Thats two mechanics, both more complex, in place of one simple one.
Here, I can't agree with you. The symbol does NOT look like a hedron. In addition, you said it yourself, Kozilek is associated with angular pieces. This symbol has curved lines, not really in Kozilek's line.
If the symbol was specific and they wanted to use hedrons, they would use hedrons. Symbol for Worldwake? Still has the same basic assymetry (bottom half of symbol longer) like each Zendikar set symbol. BFZ symbol has both halves the same, but definitely does not have a four-fold symmetry.
Maybe you meant the "opening hedron" symbol of Rise of the Eldrazi? That looks more similar. But it's also quite old at this point and new players might not automatically recall it.
They aren't simply similar, they're nearly identical silhouettes.
Given that the diamond shape is long associated with eldrazi, and a circumscribed diamond is the most logical way to carry this into a mana symbol given the constraints of the detail you can have in that small a size, this seems quite plainly eldrazi flavored to me. I can't just take it as a coincidence that wizards would choose a symbol with so much relation to zendikar for an evergreen mechanic. Try to think of how many more apt symbols there could be for colorless exclusive mana. There could be a simple black dot, or a black hollow circle.
You treat "flavor neutrality" as if it is something that either exists or doesn't exist. There are degrees of flavor neutrality. In this case, you'd get a symbol that you could treat as reminding of something from Zendikar if you chose so, but that is simple enough to be simply an abstract shape (or, as someone suggested, a star) in any other context.
As this would have to errata to apply to everything from academy ruins to phyrexian tower to scrying sheets to everflowing chalice, I don't see how the thematic of eldrazi corruption would have any place at all on these cards, or constrain future cards by implying that any land with a colorless drawback is now eldrazi-blighted. Thats another inconsistency, that while maybe not damning on its own, compounds everything else going on.
See, this is the problem. You simply throw away nonsense too quickly. You do not recognize that nonsense has a time-tested place in game design.
Bravo sir
To get something new, often you start with something nonsensical. And sometimes, it works, and yet it keeps looking nonsensical for some time. I remember being opposed to the idea that Wizards could print double-sided cards when first information about Innistrad came up. It seemed nonsensical to me and to many others, yet in the end it proved to be the truth.
Plus, we know that Wizards HAVE knowingly printed cards with templates they knew will be obsolete before. It happened during Time Spiral block where cards like AEther Web or Needlepeak Spider were not printed with the keyword reach.
There was a reason for it. The Future Sight changes were meant to be surprise for the players.
This might be the same logic. BFZ does not have cards that require colorless mana symbols. If Wizards introduced the symbol then, it would spoil some of the surprise from the next set. I remember a similar issue from (ironically) Time Spiral block, when the card Jhoira's Timebug gave a subtle hint that time counters will be used on permanents in later sets.
I'm not sure I see much payoff in that surprise, and it would make far more sense to surprise people in BFZ rather than OGW. Why give us a dull block of colorless-matters and parasitic mechanics only to spring (no pun intended) a huge overhaul very relevant to the previous set just in the next one. Wizards like their forwards allusions like eye of ugin, but we didn't see any such mechanical interplay in BFZ. Instead, cards like kozilek's channeler would be immediately obsolete and need errata, kind of the opposite of a peek ahead like timebug or tarmogoyf. That seems like a big knock against this scenario
One of the main reasons people wanted this land to be printed was to have a basic land for colorless Commander decks. Second is that there are cards and strategies that hurt nonbasic lands and if "all colorless" deck is to be a viable archetype, this land is a good thing to exist. It doesn't mean it has to be good or that it has to be played. It simply needs to exist as an option.
That secondary motivation is still completely covered by the neo-snow interpretation; these basic lands would be allowed in commander and could be used for colorless spells and be immune to non-basic hate. Now whether wastes would remain in standard when OGW rotates would be an interesting question, I'm not sure how basics are so handled, but either scenario helps commander
First of all, the cards were leaked, not previewed, so if there was any intent, we don't actually know it. And yes, we ARE going to pretend that the symbol will be evergreen in production but not in casting costs.
The problem here is set complexity. If both the mana producers and casting cost mechanics are evergreen and not exclusive to this set, than they wouldn't be counted against this sets quota for exclusive mechanics, despite being a fairly complicated new rule for players to adjust to. This means that OGW could easily wind up being too complex and esoteric with the rest of its mechanics. But under the snow scenario, it would be the central set mechanic just like phyrexian mana or hybrid mana or cascade or affinity. We might see it again years later, but it would be one of the 2-3 new mechanics introduced here and count towards the set identity. That wouldn't work if this was an evergreen mechanic that wasn't even a functional difference on lands.
Here, I believe, is a false equivalence. A concept can be flavor neutral, and yet tied to a particular flavor in particular place. On Ravnica, color pairs are very much tied to the flavor of the guilds, but not elsewhere. Similarly, colorless mana can be flavorfully tied to Eldrazi here, but not in other places.
The color symbols can exist in a flavor vacuum and not be tied to a plane, the gold borders work for any setting. Watermarks aren't functional. But an eldrazi mana symbol makes no sense produced by tendo ice bridge. Its like how we can't have a reprint of Living Weapon in a non-phyrexian context, because it creates a 0/0 germ token. Either you'd have to make some flavor rationalization for why there are living weapons infected by germ tokens, or you'd have to peg them to phyrexians. How can we have an eldrazi symbol on boreal druid? The eldrazi aren't on dominaria, certainly weren't back in the ice age.
As I said before, this on its own might not be a dealbreaker, but its strong evidence against it, because theres no reason for the symbol to be eldrazi flavored if its going to produce improper flavor juxtapositions, when they could far more easily have created a flavor neutral symbol like a black dot. The creative process might be fueled by crazy men coming up with nonsense, but then they refine the nonsense to make a finished product, and everything thrown at the wall should either find a place to stick or get torn down.
BFZ was the most parasitic set since Kamigawa block, and they haven't had time to assess the mistakes there.
The why is new Kozilek's casting cost 8<><>?
Okay, I agree that this is likely what it means, but that's different than what you said (which is that <> is nothing more than a rebranding of 1).
Wat?
We are basically looking at 2 options.
Either:
Wizards is going to overhaul general mana producers and errata all previous cards to read <> so they can use it going forward...
or
<> is a flavor choice, and therefore Eldrazi win on Zendikar, and will be the "big bad" for a while in the "story".
Otherwise it won't make sense for it to be introduced into the second set instead of the first. Both this and devoid don't need to exist in a set.
Custom Set
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hu9uNBSUt92PwGhvexYlwFvsh6_SJBlEEIUV3H9_XyU/edit?usp=sharing
Its not complicated guys. Its just a new mana symbol that can only be paid by sources which produce that type of mana, like snow. Unlike snow, its generated directly (Wastes rules text is "T: Add <> to your mana pool", same as mirrorpool), not tied to a supertype. Like snow, it has to be paid with this kind of mana, it can't be paid for with blue or white or red or black or green mana. Presumably, eldrazi mana can be spent colorlessly like any of the other manas
WOTC already did 2 major (or was it all at once) errata sweeps. Creature type and class and the "cast" "exile" "battelfield" wording.
I don't see why they can't simply turn 1 into <>, 2 into <><> and so forth.
Special Eldrazi mana would be boring.
It's like Riku of Two Reflections' homeland!
Hopefully the rules will allow him to actually run it in his deck!
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
Because it doesn't actually simplify the game any more that it makes it more complicated and the symbol used for eldrazi mana is not flavor neutral. It wouldn't be easier for a new player to grok that <> is colorless mana, especially when that conflicts with 98% of existing cards. Thats not worth it in a cost/benefit analysis, theres a price to changing something so fundamental even if it would improve the game, and this wouldn't really be an improvement anyway.
But the symbol being very eldrazi-esque just poops all over any grand total overhaul theories. If this was a new evergreen symbol for colorless mana, they would have chosen a symbol that fits into all contexts, not a kozilek-esque eldrazi flavor symbol. There wouldn't be this bismuth visual thematic tying together the <> producing lands.
Yeah, it's an interesting land. I am not convinced it needed to come into play tapped. I've heard a few people talk about it allowing cloning of Siege Rhino in Standard, but I honestly don't think that's where this card is most likely to see play (lands that add colorless mana in 3+ color decks?). More likely, I see this in mono-red copying burn spells, since it's a smaller activation cost and lots of burn spells tend to need only one red mana.
Th only clear thing is that <> means a new restriction on mana. Otherwise, they would not need to print a new basic land. (Being a basic land, you can run as many of them as you wish, so that there are no issue with casting your spells, especially in draft and sealed.)
The only question is if it's exclusive or inclusive on previously existing colorless mana. Mechanically, I'm slightly leaning on inclusive, as it would make the cards with such cost work better with older sets. Flavorwise, I would lean on exclusive, as it would make wasted land more flavorful.
It might be actually easier for new players for grok since they will see it in each new product they buy.
Next, I don't think the symbol looks very eldrazi-esque at all. Not like, say, Phyrexian mana. It's an abstract shape. You could argue that it looks a bit like a hedron, but hedrons have characteristic elongated shape -- they are not square unless you cut them at equator -- they have straight edges, not curved like this symbol, plus, hedrons are ANTI-Eldrazi. Why would you connect them with Eldrazi brand of magic?
Finally, for "Thats not worth it in a cost/benefit analysis, theres a price to changing something so fundamental even if it would improve the game, and this wouldn't really be an improvement anyway.", I'd like to see your analysis.
Now, based on my studies of both the history of the game and you, I will predict this: sometime around Christmas, Wizards will officially unveil a card or cards with this symbol, most likely Kozilek.
The players will start clamoring and asking for the rules. Eventually, maybe in Feature article, maybe on Tabak's tumbler, they will explain that they want to separate colorless and generic mana symbols, errata all colorless producers, and make this change for the future.
The very same day, you will make a post claiming that you had high hopes for this mechanic but that Wizards made a completely stupid decision.
Mark my words.
As for the symbol, I would agree with you if the lines were straight. As is, to me, it resembles a star, which is a very raw energy source.
I don't make my analysis on opinions or wishful thinking, but on logical and rational conclusions. We have two scenarios being proposed that fit the template we've seen. On is a precedented "neo-snow" mechanic that would cleverly fit the long wanted barry's land into the game without having to overhaul all the rules spectacularly to do so. It would do something somewhat new yet be mechanically simple enough to be a one-off effect they can throw away after this set for a few years. The second scenario entails a massive errata for half the cards in the game, needing remakes to everything. It would have to be an evergreen change that affected every card from here on out. The mechanic itself would have something new only insofar as the costed cards like kozilek.
Now, I'm faced with figuring out which of these two scenarios is more likely. And my rational approach is to examine the evidence we have and see what makes more sense given what we know and what would take leaps of faith and mental gymnastics to make it work. First, by principle of KISS I'm more inclined to believe in a conservative and precedented mechanic being released by wizards than a crazy dramatical overhaul of the entire game. That seems more likely by nature. However, if the evidence points in the massive overhaul direction, I can't ignore it. So lets follow through with that.
The mana symbol we see on wastes and mirrorpool and kozilek is eldrazi-esque. This isn't a subjective thing where I see it and you don't. The kozilek brood has a visual thematic of geometric shapes with floating angular pieces at symmetric angles. Refer to it that betrays, artisan of kozilek, etc. It also resembles a hedron from zendikar, long represented by a diamond shape. This is further consistent with the symbol for OGW being a stylized cross between a hedron and kozilek's brood. Thats not my personal analysis, I took that right off whoever put it on the wiki. Look at the set symbol for worldwake- this is quite similar to the symbol we seen on the 'eldrazi mana'
Now say you're wizards, and you're constructing an evergreen colorless symbol to replace all colorless mana on all cards. You'd have a set of criteria for this symbol, and being flavor neutral would be a dead necessity. If this is flavorfully tied to the eldrazi and/or zendikar, it wouldn't be applicable. So to believe this is an evergreen mechanic is to believe this symbol has no flavor grounding on zendikar, which I believe is engaging in mental gymnastics
Now lets further follow that train of thought. Say you're constructing a colorless symbol to replace all colorless mana on all cards. Why would you hold this off until OGW but leave it out of BFZ when the sets are developed side by side? Its a gigantic change to the game, and BFZ is a set with a colorless theme. It would be nonsensical to make so many cards instantly rendered obsolete and in need of errata when you *know* you're about to print a new template. We saw the new card frame previewed in non-expansion products like commander before it hit in a major shift during a core set, when these changes are usually precedented (granted, something that can't happen anymore with the end of core sets). We just a commander product with no such change. Were they consciously printing that with obsolete templates too? Nonsensical to me.
Next, theres the practicality of this mechanic. With the assumption of neo-snow mana, the "Wastes" land makes sense as a basic land for decks running eldrazi, but if you were believing this to be a colorless-only mechanic, there would be no reason to run wastes when nonbasics with 1 production would be 'strictly better' (granted, not searchable by stuff like evolving wilds). With the neo-snow barry land interpretation, wastes has a valid reason for existing as a "6th color". Next, the question becomes, if this new mechanic is to play a major role in the set yet also go evergreen, then the only portion which would be mechanically part of this set would be the colorless-mandatory symbol in costs like Kozilek, since producing it would be evergreen anyway. Which means that either this cost in kozilek is not evergreen, or its not exclusive to this set and thus not counted towards the expansion mechanics. Which means these cards weren't previewing any set mechanics at all. Are we going to pretend that <> producing lands become evergreen but <> in casting costs is restricted to OGW? That doesn't make much sense.
Lastly, the bismuth thematics on the two lands we see and eldrazi being paid for both point towards a very strong connection between this eldrazi mana and the eldrazi. For something we'd have to believe is flavor neutral to be evergreen, it sure appears part and parcel to kozilek's world warping and eldrazi blighted lands.
What's simpler?
This 'big' change you're talking about erata wide for colorless mana, is really actually very minor and functionally changes 0 rules, while making a distinction between colorless and generic mana clear.
Adding a 6th color, for 1 set only, is pretty awkward.
====
Why a new symbol? Aside from making a distinction between generic 1 in a cost, which can be paid by anything, and making a symbol ( <> ) to specify specifically colorless mana, printing a "Barry's Land" with a giant 1 in the mana circle is pretty awkward, and honestly simply bad branding. While every other mana type has a symbol to brand, the generic/colorless 1 is lacking in branding. This is an excellent opportunity for it.
As for the reveal timing, that certainly is awkward... but it may also have been a marketing decision on reveal timing. Revealing the symbol before it becomes applicable and differentiable could have been awkward. Instead, this allows a reveal of the new brand at the same time as an iconic event, which is good for branding.
=====
This position on the land still leads a lot to be desired, though, namely that it will be strictly worse than any other basic land, and there would be no reason to run it - ever.
It can still go either way, or even a totally third way we're not seeing yet; but to say that the symbol is obviously Eldrazi is subjective. I disagree entirely. Each side of this new diamond is slightly curved - this doesn't match either Hedrons OR Kozi's brood... And there is plenty of marketing, branding, and rules reasoning to differentiate a colorless symbol from a generic one - it opens a lot of design space on colorless cards.
Retired EDH - Tibor and Lumia | [PR]Nemata |Ramirez dePietro | [C]Edric | Riku | Jenara | Lazav | Heliod | Daxos | Roon | Kozilek
There are arguments on both sides. No, you're not more intelligent, more cunning, your position is not clearly right to anyone with a brain. People on the other side are not idiot, they don't fail to see the logic and elegance of your argument.
Half of you will be wrong on sig-worthy level. The other half will still be posturing zealot, except they'll be twice as annoying for "having been so right all along" or some such.
Stop.
As the 6th pseudo-color is no more complex than snow mana, not actually requiring a new color or basic land type, and snow mana was only viable for 1 set, that seems simple enough.
But retemplating mana symbols to make a distinction between colorless and generic mana would also require the additional complication of "Colorless-only, non-generic mana" for casting costs as seen in kozileks cost. Considering thats two fairly distinct mechanics instead of one, with ambiguous evergreen status for the latter, and requiring a total overhaul of half the cards in the game, yeah it seems a mite complicated to me. Remember, the first scenario proposed explains both the symbols on lands and casting costs in a single mechanic. The second scenario proposes two mechanics, one necessarily evergreen, one which may or may not.
Awkward? Yes. Parasitic? Very much so
But also, quite in line with wizards precedents. Wizards just gave us a set of terribly insular, parasitic mechanics. Wizards already gave us a 6th pseudo-color in snow, and also played with mana symbols for one set at a time with snow, hybrid & phyrexian mana. Its not a large leap to believe wizards would print a parasitic mechanic with a once-off mana symbol, but its a big deal to think they'd overhaul generic vs colorless mechanic mid-block while also introducing a new "colorless-only" cost associated with eldrazi, and then we don't know, would that cost be set exclusive and diamond lands be evergreen, or both evergreen? Besides that complication, the symbol being right in line with the kozilek/hedron visuals and everything tying to eldrazi thematics, its a pretty safe bet.
Then consider this. If wizards wants to add a new symbol to clear up "colorless vs generic" mana in mana producers, why would they complicate an already confusing scenario by having the casting cost exclusive mana added in the same set? Because theres no mechanical necessity for the symbol to appear in kozileks cost, he could have just cost 10 and they could have only used the evergreen mana producing symbol on mana producers, not on casting costs. Maybe a few sets down the line, once the dust has settled, you could introduce the concept of cards with costs only payable by colorless, with that same symbol for it. But doing both at the same time would be unnecessary confusion factor
Don't get me wrong, I am not making a judgment of which mechanic would be better or which I personally think should be redone. I'm just commenting on the likelihood and what the evidence points to. Myself, I've long said wizards should be doing some of these big overhauls of mechanics, my bone to pick is how creature combat deaths are handled. But timing, precedent, thematics, occam's razor, they all say this is just snow 2.0. Theres very obvious drawbacks to wizards giving us a neo-snow mana in that this set will be parasitic and play absolutely awful in extended formats and standard will have troubles adopting it.
Id say it is VERY likey this. We will most likely see a huge errata where all instances of add 1 will be add <> and this lets them differentiate between colorless and generic in mana costs *go look at the Kozilek*
GW Rhys the Redeemed EDH
RUGAnimar, Soul of Elements EDH
WBRAlesha, Who Smiles at Death EDH
We shall see.
Here you assume, for no good reason, that Wizards simply wanted to make a "colorless matters" mechanic, and then invented the symbol to do that.
There is an alternate theory, though. The change separating colorless and generic mana might come first and THEN it opened new design space for "colorless matters". There are precedents for this (for example the morph mechanic which stemmed from proposed rules change to accomodate Illusionary Mask). The cost of giving errata (albeit not really functional) to large amount of cards would be substantial if it was done for the sake of the mechanic. However, if the mechanic would be allowed by a change that was planned ANYWAY, the cost would be effectively zero.
Here, I can't agree with you. The symbol does NOT look like a hedron. In addition, you said it yourself, Kozilek is associated with angular pieces. This symbol has curved lines, not really in Kozilek's line.
If the symbol was specific and they wanted to use hedrons, they would use hedrons. Symbol for Worldwake? Still has the same basic assymetry (bottom half of symbol longer) like each Zendikar set symbol. BFZ symbol has both halves the same, but definitely does not have a four-fold symmetry.
Maybe you meant the "opening hedron" symbol of Rise of the Eldrazi? That looks more similar. But it's also quite old at this point and new players might not automatically recall it.
You treat "flavor neutrality" as if it is something that either exists or doesn't exist. There are degrees of flavor neutrality. In this case, you'd get a symbol that you could treat as reminding of something from Zendikar if you chose so, but that is simple enough to be simply an abstract shape (or, as someone suggested, a star) in any other context.
See, this is the problem. You simply throw away nonsense too quickly. You do not recognize that nonsense has a time-tested place in game design.
To get something new, often you start with something nonsensical. And sometimes, it works, and yet it keeps looking nonsensical for some time. I remember being opposed to the idea that Wizards could print double-sided cards when first information about Innistrad came up. It seemed nonsensical to me and to many others, yet in the end it proved to be the truth.
Plus, we know that Wizards HAVE knowingly printed cards with templates they knew will be obsolete before. It happened during Time Spiral block where cards like AEther Web or Needlepeak Spider were not printed with the keyword reach.
There was a reason for it. The Future Sight changes were meant to be surprise for the players.
This might be the same logic. BFZ does not have cards that require colorless mana symbols. If Wizards introduced the symbol then, it would spoil some of the surprise from the next set. I remember a similar issue from (ironically) Time Spiral block, when the card Jhoira's Timebug gave a subtle hint that time counters will be used on permanents in later sets.
One of the main reasons people wanted this land to be printed was to have a basic land for colorless Commander decks. Second is that there are cards and strategies that hurt nonbasic lands and if "all colorless" deck is to be a viable archetype, this land is a good thing to exist. It doesn't mean it has to be good or that it has to be played. It simply needs to exist as an option.
First of all, the cards were leaked, not previewed, so if there was any intent, we don't actually know it. And yes, we ARE going to pretend that the symbol will be evergreen in production but not in casting costs.
Here, I believe, is a false equivalence. A concept can be flavor neutral, and yet tied to a particular flavor in particular place. On Ravnica, color pairs are very much tied to the flavor of the guilds, but not elsewhere. Similarly, colorless mana can be flavorfully tied to Eldrazi here, but not in other places.
This looks more like a way to differentiate colorless mana, which can be produced, from generic mana, which only appears on costs, but because generic mana could be paid with colorless mana, Wizards thought that players could understand that when the symbol appeared in the production, it meant colorless, and when appeared in a cost, it meant generic.
Now, the obvious advantage of it was that you could print cards that added lots of colorless mana without cluttering the text box with a string of mana symbols like it appeared in Geosurge, which adds seven R in a single shot, because that long-ass string of mana symbols looks rather ugly in a card (Khalni Hydra's mana cost looks hideous there for example)
The other part is that by giving it a proper symbol, colorless mana can explicitly appear now as part of costs, which goes HALF the way to make it a sixth color, because, given the example of Kozilek 2.0, to hardcast it you MUST spend at least 2 colorless mana, which, sadly, limits the amount of decks it could be played, not that it completely cuts it off like giving it colored mana symbols, but you can't ramp to it using colored mana sources like Cabal Coffers.
Fan of Both old and new Slivers (But the new ones are still better anyway)
C Call of Emrakul - G vs R DD: Elves vs. Goblins - W vs B DD: Divine vs. Demonic - WUB Esper Artifice - RGW Aura Dancers
WUBRG Wrath of the Reaper King - WB Men of Faith - B Mercenaries - UB Phyrexian Assault 2.0 - WU Artifacts of Empires
BR Skeleton Warriors - RG Night of The Howlpack - B Bog Murderers - BR Eldrazi Assault - BGU Ulamog's Swarm
Wizards has long wanted to add Barry's land, thats widely known, and gives them good reason to make a colorless 6th basic land. They way we see it done would be cleverly fitting into the existing rules .
Now, I was responding to a question about mechanical simplicity for the purpose of Occam's Razor. The snow-style mechanic is simple and easy to grok. Eldrazi mana pays eldrazi costs. It requires no change to fundamental rules or templates. The overhaul scenario requires not only the overhaul of all existing colorless mana producers as this new symbol, but also the introduce a separate and distinct mechanic for the casting cost of colorless-only payments. Thats two mechanics, both more complex, in place of one simple one.
They aren't simply similar, they're nearly identical silhouettes.
Given that the diamond shape is long associated with eldrazi, and a circumscribed diamond is the most logical way to carry this into a mana symbol given the constraints of the detail you can have in that small a size, this seems quite plainly eldrazi flavored to me. I can't just take it as a coincidence that wizards would choose a symbol with so much relation to zendikar for an evergreen mechanic. Try to think of how many more apt symbols there could be for colorless exclusive mana. There could be a simple black dot, or a black hollow circle.
As this would have to errata to apply to everything from academy ruins to phyrexian tower to scrying sheets to everflowing chalice, I don't see how the thematic of eldrazi corruption would have any place at all on these cards, or constrain future cards by implying that any land with a colorless drawback is now eldrazi-blighted. Thats another inconsistency, that while maybe not damning on its own, compounds everything else going on.
Bravo sir
I'm not sure I see much payoff in that surprise, and it would make far more sense to surprise people in BFZ rather than OGW. Why give us a dull block of colorless-matters and parasitic mechanics only to spring (no pun intended) a huge overhaul very relevant to the previous set just in the next one. Wizards like their forwards allusions like eye of ugin, but we didn't see any such mechanical interplay in BFZ. Instead, cards like kozilek's channeler would be immediately obsolete and need errata, kind of the opposite of a peek ahead like timebug or tarmogoyf. That seems like a big knock against this scenario
That secondary motivation is still completely covered by the neo-snow interpretation; these basic lands would be allowed in commander and could be used for colorless spells and be immune to non-basic hate. Now whether wastes would remain in standard when OGW rotates would be an interesting question, I'm not sure how basics are so handled, but either scenario helps commander
The problem here is set complexity. If both the mana producers and casting cost mechanics are evergreen and not exclusive to this set, than they wouldn't be counted against this sets quota for exclusive mechanics, despite being a fairly complicated new rule for players to adjust to. This means that OGW could easily wind up being too complex and esoteric with the rest of its mechanics. But under the snow scenario, it would be the central set mechanic just like phyrexian mana or hybrid mana or cascade or affinity. We might see it again years later, but it would be one of the 2-3 new mechanics introduced here and count towards the set identity. That wouldn't work if this was an evergreen mechanic that wasn't even a functional difference on lands.
The color symbols can exist in a flavor vacuum and not be tied to a plane, the gold borders work for any setting. Watermarks aren't functional. But an eldrazi mana symbol makes no sense produced by tendo ice bridge. Its like how we can't have a reprint of Living Weapon in a non-phyrexian context, because it creates a 0/0 germ token. Either you'd have to make some flavor rationalization for why there are living weapons infected by germ tokens, or you'd have to peg them to phyrexians. How can we have an eldrazi symbol on boreal druid? The eldrazi aren't on dominaria, certainly weren't back in the ice age.
As I said before, this on its own might not be a dealbreaker, but its strong evidence against it, because theres no reason for the symbol to be eldrazi flavored if its going to produce improper flavor juxtapositions, when they could far more easily have created a flavor neutral symbol like a black dot. The creative process might be fueled by crazy men coming up with nonsense, but then they refine the nonsense to make a finished product, and everything thrown at the wall should either find a place to stick or get torn down.