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.
I wasn't aware that 98% of all Magic cards produced colorless mana.
Seriously, the amount of cards that would change is somewhere between 1% and 2%. That are fewer cards than those that were affected by the big creature type update and the introduction of the term battlefield. And unlike the creature type update, a <> errata wouldn't even be a functional change. Only cosmetical.
You yourself are proving the point here: It is confusing to have the same symbols mean totally opposite things. 1 currently stands for both a colorless mana and a generic mana in a cost. Giving the former its own symbol makes a lot of sense and makes the mana system easier to grok for new players.
And while the <> symbol looks fitting for the Eldrazi, its kinda diamond-like (or even star-like) shape is also generic enough to fit for all of Magic. Even the name of the new basic land is very generic on purpose.
If <> does continue forward into other sets as the colorless mana symbol it can be described in flavor by the Eldrazi escaping Zendikar and permanently changing the nature of colorless mana.
This would clarify the difference between colorless mana and generic mana costs, but that would also funnily enough make yet another rules clarification necessary for Elemental Resonance. And I guess cards like Mage-Ring Network might need to be errata'd either back like the printed text of City of Shadows or similar to Karametra's Acolyte in some way.
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.
IIRC, I think Nantuko Elder was even considered a misprint at the time.
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.
A strike against that (albeit not perfect) is that, as was noted, Kozilek doesn't have a reminder text but it has one line of flavor text, proving that if anything too complex was going on, they could fit some reminder in.
Also, rules overhaul is not a mechanics.
They aren't simply similar, they're nearly identical silhouettes.
So, you're saying that they base a symbol on redesign of a five-year old expansion symbol. And based on your image comparing, you are probably right.
However, if you wanted to associate a symbol with Eldrazi, would you really do that? In my opinion, this is more likely to be a homage or even an Easter Egg, but not something that is meant to be flavor-binding for all eternity (unlike, say Phyrexian mana).
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.
Precisely because there's so many option, there is not much that could be proved from choosing one over others. I do not say that the symbol has no Eldrazi connotations -- I say that those connotations are not strong enough to make the symbol make no sense outside that context (someone here said that the symbol looks like a star, for example).
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.
Note that this is not actually the first time Wizards changed the templating of colorless mana production. The global errata you're speaking about happened before, in the very same 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.
Bravo sir
You're welcome.
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
However, you've said before that your analysis is not based on your opinions but on logic. Yet now you're using terms like "seeing payoff". Plus, I have seen you here during many past rumor seasons and I always had the feeling you don't like almost anything Wizards do in the new sets -- which by itself makes your theory less probable because it assumes that choosing between two options, Wizards would choose the one you prefer -- uncharacteristic optimism, coming from you.
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.
I think this is not necessarily true. Set identity is not made by mechanics but by themes. This would be an expansion on the colorless theme that would make use of new evergreen mechanic and use colorless mana symbols in costs where they will not usually be appearing from now on.
Now, here's another little clue. I remembered it, but somebody dug it out in more presentable form:
The rule 107.12 used to say:
"The chaos symbol is {C}. It appears on one face of the planar die used in the Planechase casual variant, as well as in abilities that refer to the results of rolling the planar die. See rule 901, "Planechase.""
But in Magic: Origins, it got changed to this:
"The chaos symbol is {CHAOS}. It appears on one face of the planar die used in the Planechase casual variant, as well as in abilities that refer to the results of rolling the planar die. See rule 901, "Planechase.""
What was the reason for this change? The obvious reason is that Wizards wanted to use the {C} symbol shorthand for something else. According to the "colorless mana symbol" hypothesis, {C} would be a fine symbol for colorless mana. Under the hypothesis of Eldrazi mana, it could be easily marked with the { E} symbol (makes an emoticon without that space).
This is just a very indirect evidence, so I wonder if you can find a simpler explanation for this rules change.
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).
thats cause i was talking about permanents adding colorless mana there
after the update Sol Ring would read "T: Add <> <>" cause Sol Rings generate colorless mana
in casting costs however the 1 doesnt stand for colorless mana, it stands for generic mana
the <> clears that up
That would cause far too much errata for me to think its correct. If anything I think <> is going to be type of mana similar to Snow mana or Phyrexian. It's a colorless mana that can be used to pay for <> or generic mana. So essentially a sixth color without actually being a color.
I've got two cents to add about whether a possible distinction from 1 to <> would add a lot of complication, and that's if Wizards erratas or prints cards that produce generic mana still. If all mana sources that don't produce a color get errata'd to say <>, then it would be a simple change. I'm just unsure of any repercussions a change like that would bring to older formats.
As for why they wouldn't roll out a change like this before OGW? Commander couldn't, as it would reveal a mechanical change going forward in all of Magic. That seems a bit much for a supplementary set. Not putting the change in BFZ makes sense if they wanted the return of Eldrazi to be the star of the first set.
That being said, it could definitely be something as straightforward as Snow v2. My only hang up on such a thing would be if it had as little future compatibility like its predecessor.
When do official spoilers start? I'd love to get some clarification on this.
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).
thats cause i was talking about permanents adding colorless mana there
after the update Sol Ring would read "T: Add <> <>" cause Sol Rings generate colorless mana
in casting costs however the 1 doesnt stand for colorless mana, it stands for generic mana
the <> clears that up
That would cause far too much errata for me to think its correct. If anything I think <> is going to be type of mana similar to Snow mana or Phyrexian. It's a colorless mana that can be used to pay for <> or generic mana. So essentially a sixth color without actually being a color.
The actual errata though is on par with changinf all instances of "Can block as though ~ has flying" with Reach. It's a purely cosmetic errata that has been done before with colourless mana itself even.
If it actually changed things fundamentally like the Creature type errata then yeah that would be too much
Yeah they always used to call it # colorless mana even if paired with colored mana
actually, we don't have a rules text for wastes yet. right now it is just a basic land. we can assume they will make a rule to let it add eldrazi mana, but for the time being, wastes does not make mana.
It is not that complicated. It is an IN-pool tagged type of colorless mana, like any card that adds mana that can only be used for something specific, like Mishra's Workshop. Obviously no errata. Those are basics with a flawless symbol, it's a NEW type of mana that isn't all that new and both is and isn't a sixth color. Totally right. <> is 1 differentiated colorless mana in cost and "add this", colorless is not all backwards to <>.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Warning: Um, warning. This is going to be a game state violation. And a taking extra turns and drawing extra cards violation, pretty much, a whole bunch of violations. Look at me, I'm the DCI."
I've got two cents to add about whether a possible distinction from 1 to <> would add a lot of complication, and that's if Wizards erratas or prints cards that produce generic mana still. If all mana sources that don't produce a color get errata'd to say <>, then it would be a simple change. I'm just unsure of any repercussions a change like that would bring to older formats.
As for why they wouldn't roll out a change like this before OGW? Commander couldn't, as it would reveal a mechanical change going forward in all of Magic. That seems a bit much for a supplementary set. Not putting the change in BFZ makes sense if they wanted the return of Eldrazi to be the star of the first set.
That being said, it could definitely be something as straightforward as Snow v2. My only hang up on such a thing would be if it had as little future compatibility like its predecessor.
When do official spoilers start? I'd love to get some clarification on this.
I presume we will get a Christmas spoiler. Then again, I also presume that the Christmas spoiler will be this -- Kozilek and Wastes.
As for how big a change it would be, I've heard mentioned Elemental Resonance as a card that would get more complicated, but I don't think that's actually the case. Because of Elemental Resonance and similar, the game already HAS special rules for using symbols that are only used in costs to produce mana:
106.8. If an effect would add mana represented by a hybrid mana symbol to a player’s mana pool, that player chooses one half of that symbol. If a colored half is chosen, one mana of that color is added to that player’s mana pool. If a colorless half is chosen, an amount of colorless mana represented by that half’s number is added to that player’s mana pool.
106.9. If an effect would add mana represented by a Phyrexian mana symbol to a player’s mana pool, one mana of the color of that symbol is added to that player’s mana pool.
So all it would need would just be a note that adding generic mana symbol to the mana pool will add colorless mana.
That would cause far too much errata for me to think its correct. If anything I think <> is going to be type of mana similar to Snow mana or Phyrexian. It's a colorless mana that can be used to pay for <> or generic mana. So essentially a sixth color without actually being a color.
Nothing would need errata, although they would probably put it in anyway. Per the comp rules:
107.4b Numeral symbols (such as {1}) and variable symbols (such as {X}) represent generic mana in costs. Generic mana in costs can be paid with any type of mana. For more information about {X}, see rule 107.3.
107.4c Numeral symbols (such as {1}) and variable symbols (such as {X}) can also represent colorless mana if they appear in the effect of a spell or ability that reads “add [mana symbol] to your mana pool” or something similar. (See rule 107.3e.)
Sol Ring already produces <><>, we just didn't know that's what it was called. Really, we're just going back to how colorless mana used to be indicated.
actually, we don't have a rules text for wastes yet. right now it is just a basic land. we can assume they will make a rule to let it add eldrazi mana, but for the time being, wastes does not make mana.
Wastes and Mirrorpool both do not have a land type. (The other fullart basic lands in ZEN and BFZ still have their basic land types on the type line.) So "T: Add <> to your mana pool." is likely not defined by a game rule like the five basic land types but is just card text on Wastes. Just as a textless Cryptic Command still has the full card text of the normal version, a textless Wastes still has the card text of the normal version.
Im assuming all lands that produce 1 or 2 and so forth, will be errated to produce <> or <><>. But that really is not necessary... though that would make cards that require <> mana a bit parasitic.
That's a large errata. The parasitic part is what I'm afraid of, but at this point what I expect.
And even then, why not just have Mirrorpool tap to add 1, rather than <>? It would achieve the same thing.
Don't think we'll truly know the answer until the WotC rules lawyers weigh in, but having it play like colourless Snow mana makes a lot more sense in my mind.
The fact that Mirrorpool doesn't just add 1 is what makes me sad.
From what I can tell based on formatting, Mirrorpool adding <> instead of {1} is just, ah, set mechanic formatting. It's like, Deep-Sea Terror mechanically has Threshold, but the ability isn't keyworded because Threshold isn't in Magic Origins.
This is the opposite of that- a 'keyword/symbol use' specific to this set that won't show up in successive sets, but not showing up doesn't mean anything. Barry's Land taps for colorless, <> as a mana symbol only has any actual meaning in mana costs, not in mana generation. A <> cost can only be paid with colorless, likely, but <> in a generation effect would be like if Boreal Druid tapped for {snow mana symbol}.
The <> being in effects that ADD mana, rather than just costs, is probably similar to the re-ordering of the color symbol order in Khans of Tarkir's wedges- it's there to help players make a visual connection between the mechanics and themes. It's not there because they're reordering the color pie.
Why can't it be "<> mana costs can only be paid with colorless or <> mana"? With this, there would be no need to change the symbol for colorless mana, and it still allows for the existence of <> mana.
Here are my predictions & examples of how <> mana will work.
Example #1: City of Brass can tap for W, U, B, R, G. It cannot tap for <>. This is because <> is colorless and City of Brass only produces colored mana.
Example #2: A single <> mana can be used to cast Sensei's Divining Top. Top requires 1 generic. It doesn't care what kind of mana. A single W, U, B, R, G or <> can be used.
Example #3: A single <> cannot be used to cast Serum Visions. <> is colorless. Serum Visions requires U.
Example #4: If you have UUUUUUUUUU (thats 10 U) in you pool, you cannot cast a card that costs 8<><>.
Example #5: If you have UUUUUUUUUU (thats 10 U) in you pool, you can cast a card that costs 8UU.
<> is the symbol for colorless mana.
Not all mana is colored.
Colorless mana is not the same thing as generic mana.
All mana can be used to pay for generic costs.
You cannot pay for a Lightning Bolt with <>. Just as you cannot pay for it with W, U, B, or G. You can only pay for it with R.
Generic mana equals any kind of mana. W, U, B, R, G or <> can be used for generic costs.
Colorless mana equals mana without a color. Only <> is colorless mana. W, U, B, R, G cannot be used for colorless costs.
Phyrexian mana was only a cost. No land produced phyrexian mana. Hybrid is only a cost, not a kind of mana that can be produced. In the same logic, no land should produce the colorless mana symbol. It should only be a cost.
This land does not tap for 1. If the mana is colorless, it should have satisfied the colorless mana symbol.
Furthermore, the Wastes would be useless. Why play Wastes when you can play literally any other land that comes into play untapped and taps for colorless?
Therefore, I do not think the mana symbol means "colorless mana", I think it means something else.
Or, at least one of the spoiled cards is fake.
If it is produced by a land, it means it is something different than colorless mana. If not, then cards like Hedron Archive don't make sense and would have to be errata'd.
This could be something super parasitic, like adding purple except purple is colorless.
The only alternative that could save this is if the symbol means two things. Like, <> can be paid by 2 colorless or by <>. And when produced as mana it would be 1 colorless or 1 <>. This would make it a cost and a type of mana.
So, Kozilek could be played for 12 or 8<><> (or 10<>, I suppose).
This land taps for 1 colorless unless it is paying for <>.
And you can only pay <> equal to the number of them in the cost. You aren't Kozilek with 5 lands.
The only thing I need to figure out is how this affects the mana cost. Can you cast Kozilek for 10<> against Void Winnower?
Pseudo-Sixth color. Anything that references colors of mana, or colored mana does not refer to <>. City of Brass at the top there is a good example of this. This doesn't affect anything that gets bonuses for the number of different types of mana used to cast it, or the number of types of basic lands you have. It fulfills many of the functions of a sixth color, but not all.
I thought Maro told us, that they dont like to print Land at Mythic
Maro said that cycles of utility dual lands (like the shocks or fetches) wouldn't be printed at mythic. Oddbal, one-off lands are okay to print at mythic.
I think Permanence is spot in (post #93). They've wanted something to differentiate between colorless mana generation and generic mana costs for some time.
I think we can also look at other TCGs, Pokemon has had a colorless energy type for some time now. Not only as an energy card type, but also as a cost on certain types of Pokemon.
WOTC didn't have any problem borrowing the idea of mythic rarity from Yu Gi Oh, so I wouldn't put it past them to borrow colorless from Pokemon.
Phyrexian mana was only a cost. No land produced phyrexian mana. Hybrid is only a cost, not a kind of mana that can be produced. In the same logic, no land should produce the colorless mana symbol. It should only be a cost.
This land does not tap for 1. If the mana is colorless, it should have satisfied the colorless mana symbol.
<> IS the colorless manasymbol
cause right now there is NO symbol for it, with <> we finally have one
Your statement suggests that Sol Ring now taps for <><> .. Also, Every Single land that comes into play untapped and taps for colorless is better than Wastes. Why even make it then? There are more than enough colorless lands to take their place in standard. Just play Tomb of the Spirit Dragon, the Blighted lands, and the pain lands to activate your blighted lands.
It lets colorless commander decks play burnished Hart or traveler's amulet. It also works for limited. Yeah, colorless basics are of limited use, but they do have some value just like how command tower only works in commander.
While possible, creating a sixth basic land type had huge ramifications. There are a lot of rules both in the game rules and in the tournament floor rules that revolve around basic land types. If Cave were printed, for example, the following would all happen:
Coalition Victory would require six basic land types in play for the win.
Anytime a card listed the basic land types from then on, it would have to include Cave.
Dream Thrush could now make a land produce colorless mana.
Essentially, we were messing around with one of the fundamentals of the game. Sure we could do it, but was it worth the cost?
Why play Wastes when you can play literally any other land that comes into play untapped and taps for colorless?
Because then you do not get the benefits of being a Basic Land. Fetchable with Evolving Wilds. Immune to Tectonic Edge. It is a subtle thing, these Wastes.
It's still a basic land with all the value that that entails. Can't be targeted by non-basic hate. Can be pulled out by basic tutors. Can be run in colorless EDH decks. And it's something that people have wanted for a long time, just as a cool thing to have. Eventually all design space will be explored.
Here are my predictions & examples of how <> mana will work.
Example #1: City of Brass can tap for W, U, B, R, G. It cannot tap for <>. This is because <> is colorless and City of Brass only produces colored mana.
Example #2: A single <> mana can be used to cast Sensei's Divining Top. Top requires 1 generic. It doesn't care what kind of mana. A single W, U, B, R, G or <> can be used.
Example #3: A single <> cannot be used to cast Serum Visions. <> is colorless. Serum Visions requires U.
Example #4: If you have UUUUUUUUUU (thats 10 U) in you pool, you cannot cast a card that costs 8<><>.
Example #5: If you have UUUUUUUUUU (thats 10 U) in you pool, you can cast a card that costs 8UU.
<> is the symbol for colorless mana.
Not all mana is colored.
Colorless mana is not the same thing as generic mana.
All mana can be used to pay for generic costs.
You cannot pay for a Lightning Bolt with <>. Just as you cannot pay for it with W, U, B, or G. You can only pay for it with R.
Generic mana equals any kind of mana. W, U, B, R, G or <> can be used for generic costs.
Colorless mana equals mana without a color. Only <> is colorless mana. W, U, B, R, G cannot be used for colorless costs.
I feel like this should be stickied somewhere for all to read lol.
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 feel like this should be stickied somewhere for all to read lol.
Except that that information is not confirmed, has many issues, and there exist alternate possibilities that fit better...hucka among others is merely speaking as though this information is confirmed.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I play:
Block Tiny Leaders:
Theros Block / Anax & Cymede
Return to Ravnica Block / Vorel of the Hull Clade
Khans of Tarkir Block / Shu Yun, the Silent Tempest
I agree with those that believe that this new mana symbol represents colorless mana and not generic mana, and the goal of introducing it in this set is to drive home that distinction. I'm pretty confident that it won't trigger a huge errata to hundreds (if not thousands) of cards, Wizards wouldn't be foolish enough to do that. Plus this also will make it distinctly different than S snow mana in that it doesn't require that specific mana for certain spells and abilities. Colorless <> mana can be used for X generic mana, and X generic mana can be used for <> colorless mana IMO.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Seriously, the amount of cards that would change is somewhere between 1% and 2%. That are fewer cards than those that were affected by the big creature type update and the introduction of the term battlefield. And unlike the creature type update, a <> errata wouldn't even be a functional change. Only cosmetical.
You yourself are proving the point here: It is confusing to have the same symbols mean totally opposite things. 1 currently stands for both a colorless mana and a generic mana in a cost. Giving the former its own symbol makes a lot of sense and makes the mana system easier to grok for new players.
And while the <> symbol looks fitting for the Eldrazi, its kinda diamond-like (or even star-like) shape is also generic enough to fit for all of Magic. Even the name of the new basic land is very generic on purpose.
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
This would clarify the difference between colorless mana and generic mana costs, but that would also funnily enough make yet another rules clarification necessary for Elemental Resonance. And I guess cards like Mage-Ring Network might need to be errata'd either back like the printed text of City of Shadows or similar to Karametra's Acolyte in some way.
IIRC, I think Nantuko Elder was even considered a misprint at the time.
A strike against that (albeit not perfect) is that, as was noted, Kozilek doesn't have a reminder text but it has one line of flavor text, proving that if anything too complex was going on, they could fit some reminder in.
Also, rules overhaul is not a mechanics.
So, you're saying that they base a symbol on redesign of a five-year old expansion symbol. And based on your image comparing, you are probably right.
However, if you wanted to associate a symbol with Eldrazi, would you really do that? In my opinion, this is more likely to be a homage or even an Easter Egg, but not something that is meant to be flavor-binding for all eternity (unlike, say Phyrexian mana).
Precisely because there's so many option, there is not much that could be proved from choosing one over others. I do not say that the symbol has no Eldrazi connotations -- I say that those connotations are not strong enough to make the symbol make no sense outside that context (someone here said that the symbol looks like a star, for example).
Note that this is not actually the first time Wizards changed the templating of colorless mana production. The global errata you're speaking about happened before, in the very same context.
You're welcome.
However, you've said before that your analysis is not based on your opinions but on logic. Yet now you're using terms like "seeing payoff". Plus, I have seen you here during many past rumor seasons and I always had the feeling you don't like almost anything Wizards do in the new sets -- which by itself makes your theory less probable because it assumes that choosing between two options, Wizards would choose the one you prefer -- uncharacteristic optimism, coming from you.
I think this is not necessarily true. Set identity is not made by mechanics but by themes. This would be an expansion on the colorless theme that would make use of new evergreen mechanic and use colorless mana symbols in costs where they will not usually be appearing from now on.
Now, here's another little clue. I remembered it, but somebody dug it out in more presentable form:
http://www.yawgatog.com/resources/rules-changes/dtk-ori/
The rule 107.12 used to say:
"The chaos symbol is {C}. It appears on one face of the planar die used in the Planechase casual variant, as well as in abilities that refer to the results of rolling the planar die. See rule 901, "Planechase.""
But in Magic: Origins, it got changed to this:
"The chaos symbol is {CHAOS}. It appears on one face of the planar die used in the Planechase casual variant, as well as in abilities that refer to the results of rolling the planar die. See rule 901, "Planechase.""
What was the reason for this change? The obvious reason is that Wizards wanted to use the {C} symbol shorthand for something else. According to the "colorless mana symbol" hypothesis, {C} would be a fine symbol for colorless mana. Under the hypothesis of Eldrazi mana, it could be easily marked with the { E} symbol (makes an emoticon without that space).
This is just a very indirect evidence, so I wonder if you can find a simpler explanation for this rules change.
That would cause far too much errata for me to think its correct. If anything I think <> is going to be type of mana similar to Snow mana or Phyrexian. It's a colorless mana that can be used to pay for <> or generic mana. So essentially a sixth color without actually being a color.
As for why they wouldn't roll out a change like this before OGW? Commander couldn't, as it would reveal a mechanical change going forward in all of Magic. That seems a bit much for a supplementary set. Not putting the change in BFZ makes sense if they wanted the return of Eldrazi to be the star of the first set.
That being said, it could definitely be something as straightforward as Snow v2. My only hang up on such a thing would be if it had as little future compatibility like its predecessor.
When do official spoilers start? I'd love to get some clarification on this.
Yeah they always used to call it # colorless mana even if paired with colored mana
http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=3753
Custom Set
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hu9uNBSUt92PwGhvexYlwFvsh6_SJBlEEIUV3H9_XyU/edit?usp=sharing
I presume we will get a Christmas spoiler. Then again, I also presume that the Christmas spoiler will be this -- Kozilek and Wastes.
As for how big a change it would be, I've heard mentioned Elemental Resonance as a card that would get more complicated, but I don't think that's actually the case. Because of Elemental Resonance and similar, the game already HAS special rules for using symbols that are only used in costs to produce mana:
So all it would need would just be a note that adding generic mana symbol to the mana pool will add colorless mana.
Nothing would need errata, although they would probably put it in anyway. Per the comp rules:
107.4b Numeral symbols (such as {1}) and variable symbols (such as {X}) represent generic mana in costs. Generic mana in costs can be paid with any type of mana. For more information about {X}, see rule 107.3.
107.4c Numeral symbols (such as {1}) and variable symbols (such as {X}) can also represent colorless mana if they appear in the effect of a spell or ability that reads “add [mana symbol] to your mana pool” or something similar. (See rule 107.3e.)
Sol Ring already produces <><>, we just didn't know that's what it was called. Really, we're just going back to how colorless mana used to be indicated.
Revised Edition Sol Ring
From what I can tell based on formatting, Mirrorpool adding <> instead of {1} is just, ah, set mechanic formatting. It's like, Deep-Sea Terror mechanically has Threshold, but the ability isn't keyworded because Threshold isn't in Magic Origins.
This is the opposite of that- a 'keyword/symbol use' specific to this set that won't show up in successive sets, but not showing up doesn't mean anything. Barry's Land taps for colorless, <> as a mana symbol only has any actual meaning in mana costs, not in mana generation. A <> cost can only be paid with colorless, likely, but <> in a generation effect would be like if Boreal Druid tapped for {snow mana symbol}.
The <> being in effects that ADD mana, rather than just costs, is probably similar to the re-ordering of the color symbol order in Khans of Tarkir's wedges- it's there to help players make a visual connection between the mechanics and themes. It's not there because they're reordering the color pie.
This land does not tap for 1. If the mana is colorless, it should have satisfied the colorless mana symbol.
Furthermore, the Wastes would be useless. Why play Wastes when you can play literally any other land that comes into play untapped and taps for colorless?
Therefore, I do not think the mana symbol means "colorless mana", I think it means something else.
Or, at least one of the spoiled cards is fake.
If it is produced by a land, it means it is something different than colorless mana. If not, then cards like Hedron Archive don't make sense and would have to be errata'd.
This could be something super parasitic, like adding purple except purple is colorless.
The only alternative that could save this is if the symbol means two things. Like, <> can be paid by 2 colorless or by <>. And when produced as mana it would be 1 colorless or 1 <>. This would make it a cost and a type of mana.
So, Kozilek could be played for 12 or 8<><> (or 10<>, I suppose).
This land taps for 1 colorless unless it is paying for <>.
And you can only pay <> equal to the number of them in the cost. You aren't Kozilek with 5 lands.
The only thing I need to figure out is how this affects the mana cost. Can you cast Kozilek for 10<> against Void Winnower?
8.RG Green Devotion Ramp/Combo 9.UR Draw Triggers 10.WUR Group stalling 11.WUR Voltron Spellslinger 12.WB Sacrificial Shenanigans
13.BR Creatureless Panharmonicon 14.BR Pingers and Eldrazi 15.URG Untapped Cascading
16.Reyhan, last of the Abzan's WUBG +1/+1 Counter Craziness 17.WUBRG Dragons aka Why did I make this?
Building: The Gitrog Monster lands, Glissa the Traitor stax, Muldrotha, the Gravetide Planeswalker Combo, Kydele, Chosen of Kruphix + Sidar Kondo of Jamuraa Clues, and Tribal Scarecrow Planeswalkers
Maro said that cycles of utility dual lands (like the shocks or fetches) wouldn't be printed at mythic. Oddbal, one-off lands are okay to print at mythic.
I think Permanence is spot in (post #93). They've wanted something to differentiate between colorless mana generation and generic mana costs for some time.
I think we can also look at other TCGs, Pokemon has had a colorless energy type for some time now. Not only as an energy card type, but also as a cost on certain types of Pokemon.
WOTC didn't have any problem borrowing the idea of mythic rarity from Yu Gi Oh, so I wouldn't put it past them to borrow colorless from Pokemon.
Your statement suggests that Sol Ring now taps for <><> .. Also, Every Single land that comes into play untapped and taps for colorless is better than Wastes. Why even make it then? There are more than enough colorless lands to take their place in standard. Just play Tomb of the Spirit Dragon, the Blighted lands, and the pain lands to activate your blighted lands.
It is not the colorless mana symbol.
8.RG Green Devotion Ramp/Combo 9.UR Draw Triggers 10.WUR Group stalling 11.WUR Voltron Spellslinger 12.WB Sacrificial Shenanigans
13.BR Creatureless Panharmonicon 14.BR Pingers and Eldrazi 15.URG Untapped Cascading
16.Reyhan, last of the Abzan's WUBG +1/+1 Counter Craziness 17.WUBRG Dragons aka Why did I make this?
Building: The Gitrog Monster lands, Glissa the Traitor stax, Muldrotha, the Gravetide Planeswalker Combo, Kydele, Chosen of Kruphix + Sidar Kondo of Jamuraa Clues, and Tribal Scarecrow Planeswalkers
Correct.
To quote Maro (source http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/mm/25):
Because then you do not get the benefits of being a Basic Land. Fetchable with Evolving Wilds. Immune to Tectonic Edge. It is a subtle thing, these Wastes.
Correct.
Because those other lands are not Basic Lands.
I feel like this should be stickied somewhere for all to read lol.
GW Rhys the Redeemed EDH
RUGAnimar, Soul of Elements EDH
WBRAlesha, Who Smiles at Death EDH
Except that that information is not confirmed, has many issues, and there exist alternate possibilities that fit better...hucka among others is merely speaking as though this information is confirmed.
Theros Block / Anax & Cymede
Return to Ravnica Block / Vorel of the Hull Clade
Khans of Tarkir Block / Shu Yun, the Silent Tempest
Peasant:
Kuldotha Red
Commander:
Maga, Traitor to Mortals