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.
It doesn't matter what ANYONE'S opinion is. The set is done. Stating guesses as fact will never be intelligent or "right," regardless of whether predictions end up being accurate or not.
A set that revolved around the "Colorless theme" was the right time to introduce a change like the colorless mana symbol and use it in some way that felt unique, which the "alien and weird" Eldrazi allowed to do.
The other time might have been in a Core Set, but if I understand right, Wizards is planning not to do any more Core Sets.
I'll restate what I said in another thread (and which no one took me up on). It's clear that no-one can have absolute knowledge, but I feel that all the clues are there and that it is possible to come to a very clear conclusion about how this mechanic is going to work.
And so, I am willing to lay 10:1 odds ($100 vs $10) on the following propositions.
1. Assuming the cards are real (if they turn out to be fake, the wager is null and void....)
2. If I have 8 Forests and a Sol Ring in play, and a Kozilek, the Great Distortion in hand (and all other zones belonging to both me and all opponents are empty), I can legally cast Kozilek
3. If I have 100 Forests in play, and a Kozilek, the Great Distortion in hand (and all other zones belonging to both me and all opponents are empty), I can not legally cast Kozilek
I'll restate what I said in another thread (and which no one took me up on). It's clear that no-one can have absolute knowledge, but I feel that all the clues are there and that it is possible to come to a very clear conclusion about how this mechanic is going to work.
And so, I am willing to lay 10:1 odds ($100 vs $10) on the following propositions.
1. Assuming the cards are real (if they turn out to be fake, the wager is null and void....)
2. If I have 8 Forests and a Sol Ring in play, and a Kozilek, the Great Distortion in hand (and all other zones belonging to both me and all opponents are empty), I can legally cast Kozilek
3. If I have 100 Forests in play, and a Kozilek, the Great Distortion in hand (and all other zones belonging to both me and all opponents are empty), I can not legally cast Kozilek
I'll take you up on it. I think the 2nd proposition is incorrect. I think it's much more likely that you need specific lands like this one to cast the new Kozilek, because it's simpler though worse (read: more parasitic) design. The lack of reminder text on Kozilek and this land points toward it being as simple as possible.
I'll restate what I said in another thread (and which no one took me up on). It's clear that no-one can have absolute knowledge, but I feel that all the clues are there and that it is possible to come to a very clear conclusion about how this mechanic is going to work.
And so, I am willing to lay 10:1 odds ($100 vs $10) on the following propositions.
1. Assuming the cards are real (if they turn out to be fake, the wager is null and void....)
2. If I have 8 Forests and a Sol Ring in play, and a Kozilek, the Great Distortion in hand (and all other zones belonging to both me and all opponents are empty), I can legally cast Kozilek
3. If I have 100 Forests in play, and a Kozilek, the Great Distortion in hand (and all other zones belonging to both me and all opponents are empty), I can not legally cast Kozilek
I'll take you up on it. I think the 2nd proposition is incorrect. I think it's much more likely that you need specific lands like this one to cast the new Kozilek, because it's simpler though worse (read: more parasitic) design. The lack of reminder text on Kozilek and this land points toward it being as simple as possible.
Let's do it. Shall we find a trustworthy third party to act as escrow and arbiter?
Let's do it. Shall we find a trustworthy third party to act as escrow and arbiter?
Sure, do we just get a volunteer from the forum?
Yep. I'll accept anyone with more than 1000 posts. Let's say the loser pays the escrow $5. So I put in $105 and you put in $15 and then the winner gets it all less $5 fee.
Yep. I'll accept anyone with more than 1000 posts. Let's say the loser pays the escrow $5. So I put in $105 and you put in $15 and then the winner gets it all less $5 fee.
ok so there are two sides here. one side thinks <> is parasitic and works like snow mana. in that argument, <> in a cost can only be paid with a few specific cards that generate <> including wastes and mirrorpool. the other side thinks <> in costs means "must be colorless." but if the latter is true, why bother putting <> on wastes and mirrorpool? why not just have those cards say "T: add 1 to your mana pool?" people say they're the same thing... so why the massive change? for what gain? either they errata every card, which seems extreme, or they don't and just say "they're the same, sorry they look different but don't worry about it."
i'm sorry, it doesn't add up. there's no reason <> would appear anywhere but costs unless it's the parasitic version of the mechanic.
the idea is to be parasitic. that is why we will see very OP cards (like kozilek or mirrorpool) and this is why Mirrorpool and wastes produce <> instead of colorless
if <> were colorless Kozilek's cost would be <><><><><><><><><><>... If the (8) can by paid whit any color even whit <> and <> can be paid whit only colorless mana or <> the mechanical loses logical sense and becomes too complicated.
the idea is to be parasitic. that is why we will see very OP cards (like kozilek or mirrorpool) and this is why Mirrorpool and wastes produce <> instead of colorless
if <> were colorless Kozilek's cost would be <><><><><><><><><><>... If the (8) can by paid whit any color even whit <> and <> can be paid whit only colorless mana or <> the mechanical loses logical sense and becomes too complicated.
I don't think you understand there's a difference between colorless and generic. In a cost, 1 means it can be paid for with any type of mana. Adding 1 to your mana pool means you have a mana with no color. These are different. 8<><> would mean 8 generic mana and 2 colorless. That is, 8 mana of any type and 2 that are specifically colorless.
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 is not the colorless mana symbol.
There are cards that exist which care for basics and are colorless. Examples would be Solemn Simulacrum and friends. Does it make any noticable difference currently? No. Blood Moon doesn't stop you from casting a Wurmcoil Engine, but cards down the line could care. But it would stop you from casting the new Kozilek, and anything else with <> in the cost.
It's too early to straight up say "It is not X or Y."
Making the distinction between "colorless" and "generic" matter would cause nothing but confusion for most players. I really doubt that's how this is going to go.
The mana these lands generate will have some property that lets it pay <> costs. That's the most natural, instinctive way for them to work.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If the Vikings were around today, they would probably be amazed at how much glow-in-the-dark stuff we have, and how we take it for granted.
<> is void mana, anti-mana: colorless negative mana. You can't pay for <> with any positive amount of mana, but you can spend <> to increase the costs of other spells, which plays into Converge.
The lack of reminder text on Kozilek and this land points toward it being as simple as possible.
And as simple as possible means it is colorless mana. The sixth type of mana that has been in the game since Alpha in 1993. That's why it doesn't need any reminder text. A new mechanic like a new type of mana would need reminder text. Especially if it is as complex as some people here suggest. There is no reminder text though, so it is colorless mana.
Making the distinction between "colorless" and "generic" matter would cause nothing but confusion for most players. I really doubt that's how this is going to go.
But there is a difference between colorless and generic and not using distinct mana symbols creates confusion. Half the people who are arguing against <> being the new colorless mana symbol don't understand the difference between colorless and generic, proving the point that a visual distinct mana symbol would be helpful and necessary! Just look at how many claim that 8<><> and 10 would be the same if <> would stand for one colorless mana. There is at least one on every page in this thread and the other. There is one only a few posts above yours.
the idea is to be parasitic. that is why we will see very OP cards (like kozilek or mirrorpool) and this is why Mirrorpool and wastes produce <> instead of colorless
if <> were colorless Kozilek's cost would be <><><><><><><><><><>... If the (8) can by paid whit any color even whit <> and <> can be paid whit only colorless mana or <> the mechanical loses logical sense and becomes too complicated.
Do we really have to explain this Ad Nauseam (pun thoroughly intended)?
<> would mean COLORLESS ONLY and not generic.
Also, Mirrorpool looks pretty bad because it a, ETB tapped and, worst of all, it requires that you have at least another colorless-producing land in play if you want to use its abilities. This is a HUGE restriction and makes it completely unplayable in modern, I think. That is, assuming there aren't a LOT of powerful support cards for this mechanic, which I doubt given the power level of the current set.
i just makes no sense that sol ring mana can make <> <> mana. that would be just so ugly on so many levels. that's why i am 100% on Jedetzer's and e1sk4Lt side.
1 Point: Let us say this hypothesis that <> means strictly colorless mana (the "Colorless-Generic distinction hypothesis") is true.
Then why would I ever play Wastes instead of up to 4 copies of each painland or one of the numerous other lands that add strictly colorless mana without any drawback, and exist in pretty much every set?
Another point: some people assume one of two options is true: either a massive errata happens (e.g. Sol Ring), or this is an extremely parasitic mechanic. A third option is not considered: this is a new, recurrent element in the game (i.e. true "sixth color"). I do realize the diamond mana looks like the RoE expansion symbol, which makes this option less likely, but it is not exactly the same, and crazier things have happened...
1 Point: Let us say this hypothesis that <> means strictly colorless mana (the "Colorless-Generic distinction hypothesis") is true.
Then why would I ever play Wastes instead of up to 4 copies of each painland or one of the numerous other lands that add strictly colorless mana without any drawback, and exist in pretty much every set?
cause you cant get painlands with Evolving Wilds and its friends
Right, good point. Also Blood Moon matters.
Another point: some people assume one of two options is true: either a massive errata happens (e.g. Sol Ring), or this is an extremely parasitic mechanic. A third option is not considered: this is a new, recurrent element in the game (i.e. true "sixth color"). I do realize the diamond mana looks like the RoE expansion symbol, which makes this option less likely, but it is not exactly the same, and crazier things have happened...
if it were a true 6th color, then only cards from OGW on would support it. making <> true colorless and thus a pseudo-new "color" would mean that every card since alpha would support it. way easier to design
I wouldn't agree with "easier to design", though I see your point that an errata would instantly make it non-parasitic. But it also requires an errata that would confuse a lot of unexperienced players (there are a lot of printed cards with instances of {1} meaning true-colorless AND generic symbols on them). My hypothesis would be a new addition like Tribal - cards that cared about that type were initially parasitic to some degree (and ultimately stayed that way because Tribal was a failure, but I digress).
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?
Let's do a thought experiment.
Imagine if they had attempted to make the
"Devoid" concept represented in a graphic
(Something we've been told they tried and
found un-grokable)...
And, I showed you an early spoiler.
You would see the casting cost of say Horribly Awry and you would
say ...it's a blue card.
...after all, it's a blue card because
it has U in the casting cost.
But, I would say...oh no, no... because
see this symbol, it means the card has
no color!
In this case, the reason that mirrorpool
has T: New Symbol rather than T: 1 is
because you wouldn't do it any other way
provided it does mean 'colorless' mana
(which, by the way, is not a 6th color
by definition--and if it were by some
non-semantic sense, it has always been...
it's just that most folk do not have a
reason to distinguish generic mana--as
something you pay for a spell or an
activation cost--and colorless mana you
generate)
In fact, this is why many people speculate
that a card like Sol Ring will be errated
to T: symbol symbol
To give one more example, it is NOT a 6th
color because City of Brass
wouldn't be able to tap for it (new symbol).
As it cannot now on Modo, even though Wasteland does.
AS for the person who asked why it comes
in tapped...
...I do not think it's because now all
non-basics must be strictly worse than
"Wastes"...but rather, because of the
secondary abilities.
They're just WAY too good.
Imagine being able to drop that on the
same turn and cast some game warping spell
TWICE.
Mirrorpool's mana ability makes me think that the symbol doesn't imply "colorless mana", because 1 would have been completely fine to convey this meaning, just like any other colorless producing land. If that's some kind of "Eldrazi mana" I don't like the idea, because it's too parasitic to be interesting out of a single set.
This strikes me as such a strange reoccurring critique.
We don't say, "Why did they keyword Mennace" when cards
already said, "can't be blocked except by two or more creatures".
In fact, most people seem to want more things keyworded,
and or on cards that don't need keywords (like most instants).
So, the reason it has the new symbol rather than the old
is because...it's the new symbol. It will likely be the
new "evergreen" symbol if it means generated by a colorless
mana source (or in casting cost--paid by only colorless
rather than any generic mana).
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.
Quote me on this after OGW is out.
Actually, it's not "every"...land. And, you underestimated the 'types' as it will require errata to artifacts and creatures i.e. sol ring and Apprentice Wizard. But it wouldn't require errata for Rosheen Meanderer because that can generate "generic" colorless mana as it's only for X spells.
All in all, as few as 275 cards would need to be changed. That's not that huge an issue...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
All Power to the People
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The other time might have been in a Core Set, but if I understand right, Wizards is planning not to do any more Core Sets.
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
And so, I am willing to lay 10:1 odds ($100 vs $10) on the following propositions.
1. Assuming the cards are real (if they turn out to be fake, the wager is null and void....)
2. If I have 8 Forests and a Sol Ring in play, and a Kozilek, the Great Distortion in hand (and all other zones belonging to both me and all opponents are empty), I can legally cast Kozilek
3. If I have 100 Forests in play, and a Kozilek, the Great Distortion in hand (and all other zones belonging to both me and all opponents are empty), I can not legally cast Kozilek
I'll take you up on it. I think the 2nd proposition is incorrect. I think it's much more likely that you need specific lands like this one to cast the new Kozilek, because it's simpler though worse (read: more parasitic) design. The lack of reminder text on Kozilek and this land points toward it being as simple as possible.
Let's do it. Shall we find a trustworthy third party to act as escrow and arbiter?
Sure, do we just get a volunteer from the forum?
Yep. I'll accept anyone with more than 1000 posts. Let's say the loser pays the escrow $5. So I put in $105 and you put in $15 and then the winner gets it all less $5 fee.
Sounds good to me.
i'm sorry, it doesn't add up. there's no reason <> would appear anywhere but costs unless it's the parasitic version of the mechanic.
If you have 10 forest you can't cast kozilek
If you have 8 forest and 1 sol ring you can't cast kozilek
If you have 10 wastes you can cast Kozilek.
If you have 2 wastes you can cast Mind Stone
Mind stone, sol ring, etc don't add <> mana, cards like Mirrorpool add <> mana and cards like Kozilek require <> mana
It is so difficult?
I do not know why you think <> is synonymous of colorless
if <> were colorless Kozilek's cost would be <><><><><><><><><><>... If the (8) can by paid whit any color even whit <> and <> can be paid whit only colorless mana or <> the mechanical loses logical sense and becomes too complicated.
It's too early to straight up say "It is not X or Y."
The mana these lands generate will have some property that lets it pay <> costs. That's the most natural, instinctive way for them to work.
<> is void mana, anti-mana: colorless negative mana. You can't pay for <> with any positive amount of mana, but you can spend <> to increase the costs of other spells, which plays into Converge.
But there is a difference between colorless and generic and not using distinct mana symbols creates confusion. Half the people who are arguing against <> being the new colorless mana symbol don't understand the difference between colorless and generic, proving the point that a visual distinct mana symbol would be helpful and necessary! Just look at how many claim that 8<><> and 10 would be the same if <> would stand for one colorless mana. There is at least one on every page in this thread and the other. There is one only a few posts above yours.
Uril, the Miststalker RGW -- Ulamog, the Infinite Gyre C -- Vhati il-Dal BG -- Jor Kadeen, the Prevailer RW -- Animar, Soul of Elements URG
Kiki-Jiki, Mirror Breaker R -- Maga, Traitor to Mortals B -- Ghave, Guru of Spores BGW -- Sliver Hivelord WUBRG
Is this where we are now?
Older Magic as a Board Game: Panglacial Wurm , Mill
####
Do we really have to explain this Ad Nauseam (pun thoroughly intended)?
<> would mean COLORLESS ONLY and not generic.
Also, Mirrorpool looks pretty bad because it a, ETB tapped and, worst of all, it requires that you have at least another colorless-producing land in play if you want to use its abilities. This is a HUGE restriction and makes it completely unplayable in modern, I think. That is, assuming there aren't a LOT of powerful support cards for this mechanic, which I doubt given the power level of the current set.
Then why would I ever play Wastes instead of up to 4 copies of each painland or one of the numerous other lands that add strictly colorless mana without any drawback, and exist in pretty much every set?
Another point: some people assume one of two options is true: either a massive errata happens (e.g. Sol Ring), or this is an extremely parasitic mechanic. A third option is not considered: this is a new, recurrent element in the game (i.e. true "sixth color"). I do realize the diamond mana looks like the RoE expansion symbol, which makes this option less likely, but it is not exactly the same, and crazier things have happened...
Right, good point. Also Blood Moon matters.
I wouldn't agree with "easier to design", though I see your point that an errata would instantly make it non-parasitic. But it also requires an errata that would confuse a lot of unexperienced players (there are a lot of printed cards with instances of {1} meaning true-colorless AND generic symbols on them). My hypothesis would be a new addition like Tribal - cards that cared about that type were initially parasitic to some degree (and ultimately stayed that way because Tribal was a failure, but I digress).
Let's do a thought experiment.
Imagine if they had attempted to make the
"Devoid" concept represented in a graphic
(Something we've been told they tried and
found un-grokable)...
And, I showed you an early spoiler.
You would see the casting cost of say
Horribly Awry and you would
say ...it's a blue card.
...after all, it's a blue card because
it has U in the casting cost.
But, I would say...oh no, no... because
see this symbol, it means the card has
no color!
In this case, the reason that mirrorpool
has T: New Symbol rather than T: 1 is
because you wouldn't do it any other way
provided it does mean 'colorless' mana
(which, by the way, is not a 6th color
by definition--and if it were by some
non-semantic sense, it has always been...
it's just that most folk do not have a
reason to distinguish generic mana--as
something you pay for a spell or an
activation cost--and colorless mana you
generate)
In fact, this is why many people speculate
that a card like Sol Ring will be errated
to T: symbol symbol
To give one more example, it is NOT a 6th
color because City of Brass
wouldn't be able to tap for it (new symbol).
As it cannot now on Modo, even though
Wasteland does.
AS for the person who asked why it comes
in tapped...
...I do not think it's because now all
non-basics must be strictly worse than
"Wastes"...but rather, because of the
secondary abilities.
They're just WAY too good.
Imagine being able to drop that on the
same turn and cast some game warping spell
TWICE.
IT needs at least a chance to be removed.
This strikes me as such a strange reoccurring critique.
We don't say, "Why did they keyword Mennace" when cards
already said, "can't be blocked except by two or more creatures".
In fact, most people seem to want more things keyworded,
and or on cards that don't need keywords (like most instants).
So, the reason it has the new symbol rather than the old
is because...it's the new symbol. It will likely be the
new "evergreen" symbol if it means generated by a colorless
mana source (or in casting cost--paid by only colorless
rather than any generic mana).
Actually, it's not "every"...land. And, you underestimated the 'types' as it will require errata to artifacts and creatures i.e. sol ring and Apprentice Wizard. But it wouldn't require errata for Rosheen Meanderer because that can generate "generic" colorless mana as it's only for X spells.
All in all, as few as 275 cards would need to be changed. That's not that huge an issue...