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.
Thank you, you said this so clearly.
I was struggling to think of a good
way to say it, and this nails it.
It's no different than Abduction
"saying" dies prior to our having
the word.
Likewise, no different from Spirit Link
which never said "enchanted creature
gets lifelink" ...and doesn't say it now,
either.
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.
Thank you, you said this so clearly.
I was struggling to think of a good
way to say it, and this nails it.
It's no different than Abduction
"saying" dies prior to our having
the word.
Likewise, no different from Spirit Link
which never said "enchanted creature
gets lifelink" ...and doesn't say it now,
either.
Spirit Link and lifelink are different things. on a creature with lifelink and spirit link you will get 2 triggers.
wizards is not going to errata 200+ cards.
<> will be a pseudo 6th color and spells with <> will only be able to cast with <> mana from the new cards like wastes, otherwise you could play any ***** painland to make <>. this is 100% not the case.
on the oder hand you will be able to pay <> and get a generic colorles mana. but not the other way around.
This will not "greatly confuse new players" because
many new players come though the most "errata" driven
or "errata neutral" channels (Duels of the Planeswalkers)
or opening new packs in standard/sealed product.
Commander 2016 will have Sol Rings printed with T: <> <>
A "promo" of Wastlands will say
T: <>
T: Destroy target non-basic land
-----------------
Next point. There is plenty of reasons to have WASTES
over (name non-basic card without ebt that is printed
t: add (1)... (and a few of these have been said).
But before reviewing any of them, let's be clear,
while "non-basic lands" are not to be designed as
"strictly better" than basics...that doesn't have
to mean all basics.
For example, Simic Growth Chamber
is strictly better than a "Mountain" at producing
blue and green mana. (Though it comes in tapped).
Further, not all draw backs are "horrible". Pain
lands, for example, are pretty "small" drawbacks.
Heck, "shocks" aren't that much of a drawback (see
the high level of play in modern).
Now, the strongest reason to play these cards
at least for now is "Parasitic".
I. They interact well with the new Tango Lands.
(2 Wastes means your Canopy Vista enters
untapped).
II. There is non-basic hate right now in standard.
I'm looking at you Crumble to Dust Wastes gets
around.
III. There are 21 "Current in standard" relevant
cards that care about basic/non-basic lands.
III. It solves a design space problem of "artifacts"
being too aggressively costed for effects that can
be thought of as "belonging to a color" (discard in
black, for example) by putting a constructed mana
base cost on decks that want to "dabble" in this off
color ability. (Think of it as the opposite of either
devoid or artifacts with colored mana costs like Behemoth Sledge or Executioner's Capsule)
So, an artifact that "destroys" an enchantment
could be a future design without letting black
use all swamps and Cabal Coffers to
cast it.
IV. There COULD be a card even more restrictive
cards in Oath than Kozi (Emmy might be <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>)
Which would start to get very hard to play in
standard without a basic land that can be any
number of in your deck (or the right kind of ramp...
which implies <> = colorless =/= generic mana) and
nary impossible in draft/sealed.
Being basic means I get access to any number of
them for building my draft / sealed decks.
V. It can get around the effects of the highly
played (yes, laugh with me) Reality Twist or Naked Singularity (a little less laughable since
it's played in Legacy) though is ironically hosed by Pulse of Llanowar LOL
------------------
And, last... While it's still an argument to advance
an at this point, a debatable position, I think that Boreal Druid actually is a strong bit of
evidence AGAINST the Snow 2.0 theory.
Here's why.
The card does not read T: S
It reads T: 1 , yet the creature
does indeed product "snow" mana.
That is, the idea of a "snow" feature tapping
for the symbol is inconsistent.
And, that no snow permanent had the "snow symbol"
in it's casting cost -- further inconsistent.
Now, of course, since "Snow 2.0" or the right
approach to "Snow" can mean anything, I cannot
be sure your theory doesn't fix all these ideas.
wizards is not going to errata 200+ cards.
<> will be a pseudo 6th color and spells with <> will only be able to cast with <> mana from the new cards like wastes, otherwise you could play any ***** painland to make <>. this is 100% not the case.
on the oder hand you will be able to pay <> and get a generic colorles mana. but not the other way around.
As far as you conclusion goes, we will have to wait and see.
However, we can presently judge your assertion.
The word "Dies" required errata for about 426 cards
as evidenced by this Gatherer Search where I asked
for 'dies' and removed all the blocks from Innistrad
and beyond. (There may be some extra errata cards
in the few core sets that I didn't remove)
But still, 426 is FAR into 200+.
And that was just one piece of proof.
I suspect I could find over a hundred
errata required cards at the time
"exile" was added to the parlance...
to say NOTHING of "enters the battlefield"
...really, battlefield, do you have
any sense of how many cards received
errata for that? It might be 1000's.
I'm confused at the confusion over this. The <> is a new mana symbol, it is produced from the Wastes basic land. While it has no color, <> is not colorless mana in the sense of a land that produces 1. If a card had the casting cost of 1 <> <>, then it could be paid with one mana of any color w/u/b/r/g/<>/or 1 colorless mana, and 2 <> mana, the <> can only be paid with <>. Seems simple to me. I could be wrong, but i don't see why it should be anything other than this.
I'm pretty sure the goal here is create a way to differentiate between colorless mana and generic mana.
I was thinking the same thing as well. Perhaps <> is strictly colorless mana, where as (1) can be any mana. It doesn't necessitate a sixth color, but it gives items which produce colorless a bit more value and intrigue.
I'm confused at the confusion over this. The <> is a new mana symbol, it is produced from the Wastes basic land. While it has no color, <> is not colorless mana in the sense of a land that produces 1. If a card had the casting cost of 1 <> <>, then it could be paid with one mana of any color w/u/b/r/g/<>/or 1 colorless mana, and 2 <> mana, the <> can only be paid with <>. Seems simple to me. I could be wrong, but i don't see why it should be anything other than this.
Came here to say this. I see how people want to live the dream, but if one steps back and looks at the big picture with an Occam's razor in hand, I think the most likely hypothesis is this one. It would bring less extra complexity and less changes.
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.
That makes no sense. If <> can only be paid by <>, then it wouldn't need any reminder text. What would it say, 'you may only use <> to pay for <>'? Like people have been saying, it's basically just a sixth color of mana and functions like any other color of mana.
On the other hand, it would need reminder text if it was payable with any colorless mana. Specifically it would say something like 'you may use any form of colorless mana to pay for <>' or something like that. Why? Because even if they errata things like Sol Ring to say add <><> to your mana pool, that's only on Gatherer. People who don't look up stuff on Gatherer wouldn't realize that you could use Sol Ring to pay for <> because their paper copy of Sol Ring still says 2.
I will gladly help if you want me as your third party.
I'd welcome your help as long as 256k is cool with it. I know he said something about 1000 posts, but it's close enough for me. You seem like a trustworthy guy~
One thing is sure, if you end up being wrong about your prediction, delete your posts ASAP. I promise you, many people are going to get shamed once the truth comes out.
I assure you that somebody on this forum has a signature with someone else's quote saying something long the lines of "Treasure Cruise is bad. It will never see play". Which, btw, I dub this act "sig-shaming".
Commander 2016 will have Sol Rings printed with T: <> <>
A "promo" of Wastlands will say
T: <>
T: Destroy target non-basic land
I actually do not like this idea at all. Relly hope they don't do this but I think you are probably right. I do not like the idea of retroactively erratating endless cards just to support some single-set gimmick twenty years in that probably only appears on a dozen cards anyway..
The new mana symbol is clearly unique and not related to generic or colorless mana produced from other lands/artifacts. Otherwise Kozilek is broken. This is fine with me since I am sick of overpowered cards like Karn and Ugin who smash the color pie into bits.
If the colorless v. generic interpretation is correct, then here are the answers to the commonly repeating questions.
What is {<>} and how is it different from 1?
{<>} is colorless mana.
Abilities that currently add colorless mana to your mana pool will be errata'd to add that much {<>} to your mana pool. This is not a functional change.
This is distinctly different from 1, 2, 3, ... and X which going forward will only be used to represent generic mana in costs.
Generic mana in a cost can be paid with any type of mana. {<>} in a cost can only be paid with colorless mana.
Why bother playing Wastes when I can play Battlefield Forge or any other land that taps for colorless instead?
Wastes is a basic land.
You can search for Wastes with Evolving Wilds and other basic land search. Wastes is not affected by Blood Moon or other nonbasic hate.
For limited, Wastes can appear in the basic land slot in Oath of the Gatewatch booster packs. In Coldsnap drafts you had to evaluate when you needed to draft snow mana sources if you drafted any cards with S activations. Likewise in OGW drafts you will need to evaluate when you need to draft colorless mana sources if you draft any cards with {<>} costs.
In Commander, Wastes enables cheaper mana bases for colorless commanders and allows the use of basic land search.
Why couldn't it just be "T: Add 1 to your mana pool" and a S-like cost that can only be paid with colorless mana?
Again, the whole point is to differentiate between colorless mana (which can be added to your mana pool) and generic mana (which is in costs and can be paid with any type of mana).
Colorless cards with {<>} in costs is probably going to be a major theme in OGW, but then going forward something that is used occasionally when it is needed. The more important aspect is differentiating generic mana costs and colorless mana.
But that is a lot of errata. Why can't older cards just be left the same?
Before Onslaught, cards were just written as "T: Add one colorless mana to your mana pool. For example, Deserted Temple. All cards printed before Onslaught that produce colorless mana already have errata. Now the cards printed from Onslaught through Battle for Zendikar will need errata.
The Onslaught change was good for shortening card text, but it creates confusion for new players because 1 means different things depending on where it appears on a card. The OGW change will errata a lot of cards, but in the long run it solves a bigger problem for new players.
But I don't like change.
That isn't a question. But we don't yet know if this is certain. It does appear to be the simplest interpretation of what we see on these spoiled cards.
One thing is sure, if you end up being wrong about your prediction, delete your posts ASAP. I promise you, many people are going to get shamed once the truth comes out.
I assure you that somebody on this forum has a signature with someone else's quote saying something long the lines of "Treasure Cruise is bad. It will never see play". Which, btw, I dub this act "sig-shaming".
Oh, come on. It's a tradition. What is spoiler season without video confirmation of someone eating their cards?
One thing is sure, if you end up being wrong about your prediction, delete your posts ASAP. I promise you, many people are going to get shamed once the truth comes out.
I assure you that somebody on this forum has a signature with someone else's quote saying something long the lines of "Treasure Cruise is bad. It will never see play". Which, btw, I dub this act "sig-shaming".
Oh, come on. It's a tradition. What is spoiler season without video confirmation of someone eating their cards?
I am prepared to eat some delicious Storm Crow if I'm wrong. Literal or not...that depends on if my friends let me live it down. I've got money riding on this too! $10 baby!
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...
Actually, it's important that mana produced by Rosheen is colorless, not 'generic' (?), for cards like Consume Spirit
<> is evidently not simply a replacement for 1 as a mana ability. If it was intended as such then they would have printed Kozilek's Channeler in the 2nd set rather than in Battle for Zendikar with that symbol. It would be really, really poor oversight to have the 'new way' and the 'old way' appear in the same block. Thus it is clear that this is not the way this will be used.
If there were non-eldazi cards with the old 1 and no eldazi cards with it - I could see the case for eldazi taint. However, this is an Eldazi card in the first set with 2 - which if the colourless errata theory is true should have waited until the 2nd set and had <><> instead.
Since we assume that Wizards are not complete idiots and that they design the entire block as a 'package deal' - it is quite clear this this is something else, and likely effectively a '6th colour' even if it is colourless rules-wise.
I also agree with everything clan_iraq posted several pages back (page 3 IIRC) - however the argument I post here is the most compelling one by far.
My question is, if <> truly does stand for colorless, doesn't this change just make pain lands into tri-lands and objectively the best lands in standard? Won't that break the format somehow?
Painlands would only act as "three color lands" for two or three dozen cards from OGW with <> in their casting or activation costs. Nothing earth shattering.
[quote from="pierrebai »" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/magic-fundamentals/the-rumor-mill/648042-ogw-mirrorpool-new-mythic-land-producing-new-type?comment=66"]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.
But those cards already produce colorless mana. There's no need to errata anything because nothing's changing. This is no more of a "mass errata" than reprinting old cards in the new frame is.
My question is, if <> truly does stand for colorless, doesn't this change just make pain lands into tri-lands and objectively the best lands in standard? Won't that break the format somehow?
It doesn't change anything because they already produce colorless mana.
They could change the symbol for "one colorless mana" to a picture of justin beiber and nothing besides the art on the cards would be different.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cyme we inne frið, fram the grip of deaþ to lif inne ðis smylte land.
My question is, if <> truly does stand for colorless, doesn't this change just make pain lands into tri-lands and objectively the best lands in standard? Won't that break the format somehow?
Depends on the spells. We don't know much as of now, but Kozilek and Mirrorpool must be on the higher end of the power spectrum for "only colorless" cards.
We literately can't rate the mechanic until the whole set is spoiled. 99% of the cards can be trash, but if they print some insane card like "<><>, Instant, Exile target creature" then everything goes out the window.
It can't anything other than the narrow parasitic only reason to introduce an actual basic because of that point - no land may be better. Rishadan Ports, Wastelands, all random colorless producers that come into play untapped at a surpassing level of strictly better, despite the latter points to come. An Eldrazi is rare. What seems least sensical and backwards unhelpful to some is a multi-phase card. That is pretty strongly logically undeniable. What we see is, this says BASIC LAND. And the land is pretty darn good. Unrestricted in number, all Journeyer's Kites and Wayfarer's Baubles and Terramorphic Expanses are live. Awful if it were. Cards as printed. Therefore, nonsense if it is not a new proliferations voltron. Is that all that more restrictive than playing a tron set in your deck in the first place. Colorless tribal becomes 'the' splash, therefore, of any deck like that. It can choose 'self', not 'ISN'T good enough without color'.
Edit: As a new identity, as a COST, it probably CAN be paid by either: Any two purely colorless mana, any three purely colorless mana, or any two or three mana whatsoever. Nothing says different, that it would HAVE to be two if it at all was the same as the 2/x symbol.
"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."
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Thank you, you said this so clearly.
I was struggling to think of a good
way to say it, and this nails it.
It's no different than Abduction
"saying" dies prior to our having
the word.
Likewise, no different from Spirit Link
which never said "enchanted creature
gets lifelink" ...and doesn't say it now,
either.
Spirit Link and lifelink are different things. on a creature with lifelink and spirit link you will get 2 triggers.
wizards is not going to errata 200+ cards.
<> will be a pseudo 6th color and spells with <> will only be able to cast with <> mana from the new cards like wastes, otherwise you could play any ***** painland to make <>. this is 100% not the case.
on the oder hand you will be able to pay <> and get a generic colorles mana. but not the other way around.
This will not "greatly confuse new players" because
many new players come though the most "errata" driven
or "errata neutral" channels (Duels of the Planeswalkers)
or opening new packs in standard/sealed product.
Commander 2016 will have Sol Rings printed with T: <> <>
A "promo" of Wastlands will say
T: <>
T: Destroy target non-basic land
-----------------
Next point. There is plenty of reasons to have WASTES
over (name non-basic card without ebt that is printed
t: add (1)... (and a few of these have been said).
But before reviewing any of them, let's be clear,
while "non-basic lands" are not to be designed as
"strictly better" than basics...that doesn't have
to mean all basics.
For example, Simic Growth Chamber
is strictly better than a "Mountain" at producing
blue and green mana. (Though it comes in tapped).
Further, not all draw backs are "horrible". Pain
lands, for example, are pretty "small" drawbacks.
Heck, "shocks" aren't that much of a drawback (see
the high level of play in modern).
Now, the strongest reason to play these cards
at least for now is "Parasitic".
I. They interact well with the new Tango Lands.
(2 Wastes means your Canopy Vista enters
untapped).
II. There is non-basic hate right now in standard.
I'm looking at you Crumble to Dust Wastes gets
around.
III. There are 21 "Current in standard" relevant
cards that care about basic/non-basic lands.
For example, Fertile Thicket, blighted woodland,
Explosive Vegetation, pilgrim's eye, or
sword of the animist...as examples.
There are non-parasitic reasons.
I. It would make new Kozi, playable in commander
verses a deck that resolves a blood moon or
the like.
II. It would allow colorless decks (in commander)
to play some of the most relevant artifacts for
'mono-color' (now add colorless) decks, i.e.,
Solemn Simulacrum, Burnished Hart,
Journeyer's Kite, or Wayfarer's Bauble
and of course Extraplanar Lens
III. It solves a design space problem of "artifacts"
being too aggressively costed for effects that can
be thought of as "belonging to a color" (discard in
black, for example) by putting a constructed mana
base cost on decks that want to "dabble" in this off
color ability. (Think of it as the opposite of either
devoid or artifacts with colored mana costs like
Behemoth Sledge or Executioner's Capsule)
So, an artifact that "destroys" an enchantment
could be a future design without letting black
use all swamps and Cabal Coffers to
cast it.
IV. There COULD be a card even more restrictive
cards in Oath than Kozi (Emmy might be <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>)
Which would start to get very hard to play in
standard without a basic land that can be any
number of in your deck (or the right kind of ramp...
which implies <> = colorless =/= generic mana) and
nary impossible in draft/sealed.
Being basic means I get access to any number of
them for building my draft / sealed decks.
V. It can get around the effects of the highly
played (yes, laugh with me) Reality Twist or
Naked Singularity (a little less laughable since
it's played in Legacy) though is ironically hosed by
Pulse of Llanowar LOL
------------------
And, last... While it's still an argument to advance
an at this point, a debatable position, I think that
Boreal Druid actually is a strong bit of
evidence AGAINST the Snow 2.0 theory.
Here's why.
The card does not read T: S
It reads T: 1 , yet the creature
does indeed product "snow" mana.
That is, the idea of a "snow" feature tapping
for the symbol is inconsistent.
And, that no snow permanent had the "snow symbol"
in it's casting cost -- further inconsistent.
Now, of course, since "Snow 2.0" or the right
approach to "Snow" can mean anything, I cannot
be sure your theory doesn't fix all these ideas.
Thanks for reading and letting me participate.
As far as you conclusion goes, we will have to wait and see.
However, we can presently judge your assertion.
The word "Dies" required errata for about 426 cards
as evidenced by this Gatherer Search where I asked
for 'dies' and removed all the blocks from Innistrad
and beyond. (There may be some extra errata cards
in the few core sets that I didn't remove)
But still, 426 is FAR into 200+.
And that was just one piece of proof.
I suspect I could find over a hundred
errata required cards at the time
"exile" was added to the parlance...
to say NOTHING of "enters the battlefield"
...really, battlefield, do you have
any sense of how many cards received
errata for that? It might be 1000's.
<Shrugs>
I was thinking the same thing as well. Perhaps <> is strictly colorless mana, where as (1) can be any mana. It doesn't necessitate a sixth color, but it gives items which produce colorless a bit more value and intrigue.
Came here to say this. I see how people want to live the dream, but if one steps back and looks at the big picture with an Occam's razor in hand, I think the most likely hypothesis is this one. It would bring less extra complexity and less changes.
You do get a land token, but you're sacrificing a land for it so I don't see how it ramps
That makes no sense. If <> can only be paid by <>, then it wouldn't need any reminder text. What would it say, 'you may only use <> to pay for <>'? Like people have been saying, it's basically just a sixth color of mana and functions like any other color of mana.
On the other hand, it would need reminder text if it was payable with any colorless mana. Specifically it would say something like 'you may use any form of colorless mana to pay for <>' or something like that. Why? Because even if they errata things like Sol Ring to say add <><> to your mana pool, that's only on Gatherer. People who don't look up stuff on Gatherer wouldn't realize that you could use Sol Ring to pay for <> because their paper copy of Sol Ring still says 2.
I'd welcome your help as long as 256k is cool with it. I know he said something about 1000 posts, but it's close enough for me. You seem like a trustworthy guy~
I assure you that somebody on this forum has a signature with someone else's quote saying something long the lines of "Treasure Cruise is bad. It will never see play". Which, btw, I dub this act "sig-shaming".
PucaTrade Invite. Sign up and enjoy the first 500 points ($5) free!
I actually do not like this idea at all. Relly hope they don't do this but I think you are probably right. I do not like the idea of retroactively erratating endless cards just to support some single-set gimmick twenty years in that probably only appears on a dozen cards anyway..
Fully-powered 600-Card "Dream Cube" https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/dreamcube
450-Card "Artificer's Cube" https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/artificer
Cubing in Indianapolis...send me a PM!!
What is {<>} and how is it different from 1?
{<>} is colorless mana.
Abilities that currently add colorless mana to your mana pool will be errata'd to add that much {<>} to your mana pool. This is not a functional change.
This is distinctly different from 1, 2, 3, ... and X which going forward will only be used to represent generic mana in costs.
Generic mana in a cost can be paid with any type of mana. {<>} in a cost can only be paid with colorless mana.
Why bother playing Wastes when I can play Battlefield Forge or any other land that taps for colorless instead?
Wastes is a basic land.
You can search for Wastes with Evolving Wilds and other basic land search. Wastes is not affected by Blood Moon or other nonbasic hate.
For limited, Wastes can appear in the basic land slot in Oath of the Gatewatch booster packs. In Coldsnap drafts you had to evaluate when you needed to draft snow mana sources if you drafted any cards with S activations. Likewise in OGW drafts you will need to evaluate when you need to draft colorless mana sources if you draft any cards with {<>} costs.
In Commander, Wastes enables cheaper mana bases for colorless commanders and allows the use of basic land search.
Why couldn't it just be "T: Add 1 to your mana pool" and a S-like cost that can only be paid with colorless mana?
Again, the whole point is to differentiate between colorless mana (which can be added to your mana pool) and generic mana (which is in costs and can be paid with any type of mana).
Colorless cards with {<>} in costs is probably going to be a major theme in OGW, but then going forward something that is used occasionally when it is needed. The more important aspect is differentiating generic mana costs and colorless mana.
But that is a lot of errata. Why can't older cards just be left the same?
Before Onslaught, cards were just written as "T: Add one colorless mana to your mana pool. For example, Deserted Temple. All cards printed before Onslaught that produce colorless mana already have errata. Now the cards printed from Onslaught through Battle for Zendikar will need errata.
The Onslaught change was good for shortening card text, but it creates confusion for new players because 1 means different things depending on where it appears on a card. The OGW change will errata a lot of cards, but in the long run it solves a bigger problem for new players.
But I don't like change.
That isn't a question. But we don't yet know if this is certain. It does appear to be the simplest interpretation of what we see on these spoiled cards.
I am prepared to eat some delicious Storm Crow if I'm wrong. Literal or not...that depends on if my friends let me live it down. I've got money riding on this too! $10 baby!
PucaTrade Invite. Sign up and enjoy the first 500 points ($5) free!
If there were non-eldazi cards with the old 1 and no eldazi cards with it - I could see the case for eldazi taint. However, this is an Eldazi card in the first set with 2 - which if the colourless errata theory is true should have waited until the 2nd set and had <><> instead.
Since we assume that Wizards are not complete idiots and that they design the entire block as a 'package deal' - it is quite clear this this is something else, and likely effectively a '6th colour' even if it is colourless rules-wise.
I also agree with everything clan_iraq posted several pages back (page 3 IIRC) - however the argument I post here is the most compelling one by far.
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
But those cards already produce colorless mana. There's no need to errata anything because nothing's changing. This is no more of a "mass errata" than reprinting old cards in the new frame is.
It doesn't change anything because they already produce colorless mana.
They could change the symbol for "one colorless mana" to a picture of justin beiber and nothing besides the art on the cards would be different.
Depends on the spells. We don't know much as of now, but Kozilek and Mirrorpool must be on the higher end of the power spectrum for "only colorless" cards.
We literately can't rate the mechanic until the whole set is spoiled. 99% of the cards can be trash, but if they print some insane card like "<><>, Instant, Exile target creature" then everything goes out the window.
PucaTrade Invite. Sign up and enjoy the first 500 points ($5) free!
Edit: As a new identity, as a COST, it probably CAN be paid by either: Any two purely colorless mana, any three purely colorless mana, or any two or three mana whatsoever. Nothing says different, that it would HAVE to be two if it at all was the same as the 2/x symbol.