<> is quite simply not 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 Zendicar 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.
yet Kozilek's Channeler adds 2. exactly what is needed to cast Kozilek after the change in terms of specific mana
coincidence?
doubt it
While that is a fair point - I'm 100% sure they won't have both the 'old way' and the 'new way' in the same block. Thus, in my opinion, what most people believe about this mana type is false. It does not pass the basic smell test. If they were going to do something like this they would have done it at the start of the block, not mid-block, so that the whole block has consistency.
I don't know why everyone is comparing it to Snow Mana. It's basically it's own mana type. It can pay for <> and it can pay for 1. However I don't believe 1 will be able to pay for <>. Just like any other colour of mana (except <> won't actually be a 'colour' of mana - because Eldrazi). Snow was specific because it's Snow in addition to being WUGRB. This mana is just <> and nothing else.
<> 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.
While that is a fair point - I'm 100% sure they won't have both the 'old way' and the 'new way' in the same block. Thus, in my opinion, what most people believe about this mana type is false. It does not pass the basic smell test. If they were going to do something like this they would have done it at the start of the block, not mid-block, so that the whole block has consistency.
I don't know why everyone is comparing it to Snow Mana. It's basically it's own mana type. It can pay for <> and it can pay for 1. However I don't believe 1 will be able to pay for <>. Just like any other colour of mana (except <> won't actually be a 'colour' of mana - because Eldrazi). Snow was specific because it's Snow in addition to being WUGRB. This mana is just <> and nothing else.
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.