Lands are going to look fucking stupid with the new colorless mana symbol.
>>43752650
Doesn't say devoid meaning it now has color
New symbol is a new color.
>>43752650
colorless mana =/= generic mana
I can't wait to cast Kozilek for 8 generic mana and 2 goatses.
>>43753172
This is the most retarded theory to come out of these spoilers
>>43752650
Heeeeeeh, it's fine.
>>43753172
They're clearly fake spoilers. Even in the face of overwhelming evidence, I refuse to acknowledge any card as real until they show up in Wizards' official spoilers.
It's how I cope with new set releases.
>>43753172
Did you miss the 14 large colourless Eldrazi that don't actually say Devoid?
>>43752650
They looked fucking stupid already, you were just used to the awkward as shit 1.
>>43752650
>implying we will ever see the symbol again outside of this set
>implying it is not just a cheap gimick to drag attention away from how awful all sets port gatecrash have been
>>43753172
it has the exact same frame as every devoid card you retard
>>43752650
They actually look way better now with the colorless symbol. It think this is awesome.... Also bismuth lands... Who doesn't like bismuth?
>>43753172
Assuming these are true, and I'm not certain, you are wrong.
Devoid is used on cards that have a colored mana cost, and thus would be colored.
This has no native color, because the new mana symbol is colorless.
>>43753992
what are you talking about,
khans block was amazing and had more powerfull playables than rtr block
>>43752650
Assuming the new spoilers are real, would Wastes be a 6th basic land type for Domain, Prismatic Omen, and Coalition Victory?
>>43754124
Wastes does not have a basic land type.
>>43754124
Nope.
The card itself doesn't have a type. It's basic land, not basic land - wastes.
>>43754116
>what is dead cat bounce
learn to life, son
>>43754146
>>43754148
Wait shit, doesn't this mean it's an elaborate hoax?
>>43754353
With how desperate WotC is for ideas, not necessarily. It could just be a "basic land" for interaction with searchers, but not for any of the effects I listed.
More spoilers when? We've argued enough about this one imo
>>43754240
tell that to treasure cruise, dig through time,
kolaghans command, monastery swiftspear, siege rhino, collected company, tasigur, monastery mentor, murderous cut and anafenza
all of these se a good to decent amount of play in nonrotating formats INCLUDING VINTAGE
It should be changed to:
>Discard a card with converted mana cost X: Counter target spell with converted mana cost equal to or lower than X
Because as it stands right now, it seems like a really fucking useless card even in Eldrazi Kitchen Table decks. There's no reason not to play Ulamog over this.
>>43754450
you do get to draw a lot of cards
equal to or less than means that any big cmc card has a high chance of just being a catch-all counter
>>43754417
>not actually knowing what dead cat bounce is.
your reply says more than a ever could how much you don't understand
>people not calling it anus mana like they should
>>43752650
The most interesting theory I've read was actually in another thread, where an anon said that the spoilers could have been intentionally leaked by wizards, but are actually fake. This would make some sense, since Kozilek has always been like Loki in magic; the trickster. This could go deep into some magic lore, and be a ploy set up by wizards as Kozilek trying to "trick us" by making these fake mana symbols.
More than likely though, they are real. Hopefully they are real. It would be reminiscent of snow lands, while also encouraging people to play some lands that produce colourless mana. The pain lands would get a big boost, and it would explain why they were reprinted over some other better lands like the buddy lands or the scry lands again (which could have been core set lands since scry is evergreen). This also helps people playing EDH with colourless generals, making it so they don't have to spend a boatload of mana just for a mana base.
Either way, hope these are real and I can't wait to see how they expand this in Oath of the Gatewatch.
>>43754471
>equal to or less than means that any big cmc card has a high chance of just being a catch-all counter
So? That's exactly as it should be. It's an Eldrazi deck. Just like Titan's presence.
This costs 10 mana and 2 of that mana has to be colorless, there's really no reason to gimp it like that.
>>43754076
The new mana symbol is clearly grey. It taps for salt.
>>43754240
But anon, that term has no meaning here because the value of khans block has nothing to do with speculators. Speculators actually drove down the market value of the khans cards hard through the demand of fetches, yet khans still has had a huge influence on every format.
Criticism is cool. Randomly spouting a term from your school textbook is not.
>>43754664
>still not getting the analogy
the analogy is that even with sets getting worse, there will, once in a while, be a set that works in the opposite trend, i.e. getting better. The sets were:
rtr-ok i guess
theros-shit. SHIIIIITTTT
Khans-bretty good
BFZ- Come on son
At least that is what bfz seems like it is going to be. While the general trend is going to be down for quite a while, khans was a 'dead cat bounce' which clearly cut against the rule.
>>43754727
Yes we get it magic is dying. Just like it has been for the past two decades.
>>43754727
Except khans was not good.
Protip: having fetches =/= good set
>>43754727
I get the analogy, it's just a shit analogy because the term does not describe what is happening.
If siege rhino was a shitty 1/1 vanilla for four mana and speculators were buying it up to create an artificial perception of value to protect their investments temporarily, that would be a dead cat bounce.
>Assuming that anybody who disagrees with you doesn't "get it"
>It's impossible that somebody could understand you completely and still say you are mistaken.
>I must greentext
Juvenile.
>>43755657
bet you think time spiral was a good block
>>43752650
It's a good thing they're not going to be putting that symbol on them after OGW
>>43755886
I'm hyped.
I mean...well i'll be disappointed at first, very few cards will be playable right away.
But as soon as Khans is gone, everything is on the table. I'm going for either a Grixis or BU Kozilek deck. Spring can't get here soon enough.
>>43752650
I will dine on the bullet if "a void as cryptic as reality itself" turns out to be actual flavor text
>>43756779
Considering how bad flavor text has been recently, I wouldn't be surprised.
>>43756779
>>43756945
It also echoes Ulamog's flavor text. I hope you like lead, brother.
>>43753208
I hope it's fake because it's just causing a ruckus, not very exciting by itself.
But it is't that big of a stretch, snow mana exists.
'Nonbasic lands produce <> instead of their normal mana' needs to be a thing. make it cost <><><>. do it.
>>43757283
Soft LD that make wastes out of other lands.The new "basic" was actually a token all along!
I don't particularly want to see a colorless basic, but making certain cards cost colorless mana specifically might not be too bad.
Either way, I think this is fake.
>>43757358
Token cards have "token" on their type line.
>>43753992
>mfw I made this gif
>>43754543
Carpool mana
>>43755866
>time spiral was a bad block
Confirmed for casual shitter.
>>43759583
Time Spiral block in retrospect had a lot of great cards and neat ideas.
Time Spiral sets individually made an interesting draft environment, but also drove away newbies with its >30 mechanics.
Time Spiral as a standard environment was an anti-fun clusterfuck, and is only fondly remembered by people who never played during it.
>>43757283
Shit Moon
<><><>
Enchantment
All nonbasic lands are Wastes
hire me wizzords
>>43759766
Being really interesting for draft and giving the boot to casuals is almost enough to justify it being the best block ever even without the nostalgia trip.Odyssey block beats it out, though. Absolutely fucking perfect.
>>43759896
Odyssey/Onslaught was the best Standard of all timefor U/B.
>>43752650
But why didn't they introduce this last set? It seems kind of stupid that things like Kozilek's Channeler can't actually help cast Kozilek if you have no diamond mana and Ulamog just requiring just colorless and not diamond. Spoiler Season can't come fast enough because I want to know things like "Can I ultimate price Kozilek?"
>>43759935
Dat tog
>>43760236
I already feel for the judges, because there are going to be stupid people like this one.
>>43760236
Kozilek must be less adapted to the environment outside of the blind eternities, so he can't be pulled into the world without colorless mana.
>>43760236
Diamond IS colorless. Kozilek's Channeler reads "T: Add <><> to your mana pool." All colorless sources in the entire game are being retrofitted to this new standard.
>>43760555
>[citation needed]
>>43760595
>†: A modicum of common sense
>>43752650
Funny thing is that the new basic land will change existing rules.
305.6. The basic land types are Plains, Island, Swamp, Mountain, and Forest. If an object uses the words “basic land type,” it’s referring to one of these subtypes. A land with a basic land type has the intrinsic ability “{T}: Add [mana symbol] to your mana pool,” even if the text box doesn’t actually contain that text or the object has no text box. For Plains, [mana symbol] is {W}; for Islands, {U}; for Swamps, {B}; for Mountains, {R}; and for Forests, {G}. See rule 107.4a. Also see rule 605, “Mana Abilities.”
>>43760618
.... it seems more likely to be like snow mana.
in five years colored diamond mana
>>43760641
How is it like snow mana? Mirrorpool and Wastes don't have a special supertype.
>>43760641
Snow mana comes from a permanent with the snow supertype producing mana.
Wastes have no supertype besides basics. And no type, for that matter. They would have to significantly alter the comp rules to make what you are saying work.
Also, Kozelik doesn't have devoid, but uses the colorless frame. Logically, one could assume that big K (and by extension, the diamond mana symbol) is actually just colorless.
>>43760671
I believe he is saying that it wouldn't unheard of for <> to be its own mana symbol that isn't just generic colorless. In this case Kozilek's Channeler would not read "add <><>", but "add 2", which could not be used to pay <> costs.
>>43760720
Exactly.
>>43760720
Seems very unlikely that the mana cost used on the premiere eldrazi big bad would mean anything other than "only colorless can be used to pay for this."
>>43760638
I don't see what you're getting at. Nothing about that line will be changed.
>>43760766
This block was all about colored colorless cards
>>43760805
It might add the text "A basic land without a basic land type has the intrinsic ability "T: add <> to your mana pool."
I've always liked Kozilek. Emrakul might be stronger but if any of the Titans can really be described as a big bad it's him. Ulamog and his brood is just a mindless force of hunger and Emrakul barely seems to pay attention. It's Kozilek that schemes and plans, who takes us apart to find out how we work.
I don't think it's coincidence that the Wastes are related to Kozilek and his weird bismuth shit. Think about it, Ulamog and his brood just drain the land dry and render it useless. But Kozilek and his brood aren't destroying it, they're down underground and they're transforming it into something that serves them. Emrakul didn't give a rat's arse about Zendikar and Ulamog just wants to eat it all but Kozilek is trying to change the whole plane into something new.
"This baseless speculation makes little sense and has a lot of problems associated with it. Oh well, can't consider other possibilities!"
- you guys
>>43760866
Except Wastes' text box already contains its mana ability.
>>43760902
You seem butthurt because people disagreed with you. Kindly grow a fucking pair.
>>43760909
What text box?
srs business
>>43760988
I agree with the propositions. Eight Forests and a Sol Ring will be able to cast Kozilek.
>>43760947
That's going to be the full art promo version, the regular land will have a tap ability
>>43760919
Explain to me why the new mana is strictly colorless or some "new symbol" in such a way that it makes sense.
>>43761036
>The new symbo means can only be paid with colorless!
>mirrorpool taps for 1 can only be paid with colorless mana
>>43761212
>G means can only be paid with green!
>forest taps for 1 can only be paid with green mana
>>43761212
I think the idea is that diamond will be the new symbol for one colourless mana.
>>43761212
Quit being obtuse.
>>43761263
But why?
>>43761253
I guess I need to spell it out. If it can be paid with any colorless mana, why would a land need to tap for it explicitly?
>>43761306
Because colorless mana doesn't have its own symbol and has for some reason been sharing the same symbol as generic mana.
>>43761306
>But why?
I agree it's not really needed but it's probably to clean up the rules. If (1) means you can pay with one mana of any colour, it implies adding (1) to your mana pool is adding one mana of any colour to your mana pool.
>>43761353
Generic mana is mana that appears in costs, such as 4R or 2U. Colorless mana is mana as it appears in your pool. Making colorless mana a cost, different than generic mana, makes colorless a color.
>>43761140
Not him, but I don't think so, usually promo cards have some kind of indicator on it, this one only has the set number and rarity on it.
>>43761389
As additional clarification on what this guy said, imagine generic mana as a six-way hybrid mana symbol. When effects like this card try to add hybrid mana to your mana pool, you get to choose which half you add, but for generic mana, it adds colorless. The functions of cards like this might change with the addition of <>, but who knows.
>>43761389
But that's not something that anyone has ever been confused about?
>>43761436
>makes colorless a color.
I guess that is Eldrazi's flavor, they despise colored mana. The same way that Processors would eat your exiled cards instead of using mana, these new eldrazis are going to force you to not use colored mana on them.
>>43761491
Wouldn't it make more sense for them to process colored mana without regard for what type it was? The new symbol meaning colored mana of any type. Because that's kind of what the whole set is about.
>>43761491
They don't despise it any more than a baloth despises non-green mana.
>>43761528
Maybe despise was the wrong word, since I don't even think they are capable of feeling it.
>>43761526
That's a different interpretation about it, but then I don't think Wastes would work as a land.
>>43761619
It would tap for colorless, but if it was used for converge/sunburst it would count as 1 color
>>43761677
I think this would be a bit too complex.
>>43761526
>The new symbol meaning colored mana of any type
that's literally what the (8) on new Kozi's cost is for, how can you be so fucking stupid?
>>43760766
Seems unlikely that wizards would introduce mass confusion by updating hundreds of cards in a literal whim.
>>43753172
If it is already colorless you wouldn't have to point it out. So there is no keyword.
>10+ cost cards
How are you supposed to use these in modern or limited?
They seem like they're all just commander bait
And how is this going to work in Commander/EDH?
>>43763410
it didn't confuse many people when they shortened "attacking doesn't cause this creature to tap" to "vigilance"
>>43752650
>Eldrazi had a color the whole time, we just weren't able to comprehend its true form until now
>>43763505
MTG also wasn't marketed to literally retards at the time. The average intelligence of people who played back then was much higher,
>>43763489
If it's all colourless then Tron can use it and it's certainly open for the non-shit reanimation cards outside of Standard.
>>43763410
It's not a rules change to things that make colorless mana so it doesn't matter. Nothing needs to be "updated."
>>43763574
>The average intelligence of people who played back then was much higher
>I know this because I, a very intelligent person, started playing earlier
>>43763810
Did I mention my wicked sense of humor?
>>43761140
No basic land needs a text box anymore, after they changed the rules.
So I would assume they change the rules so that Wastes also don't need a text box like all the other basic lands.
Would not be the first time, they do something like this.
>>43752650
>>43765670
>extremely efficient creature buffs
Is this referring to equipment?
>>43765670
>milling
blue
>board wipes
white
>extremely efficient creature buffs
green
>mass token generation
green again
>etc
please show your work
fuck, do these people even play magic
>>43753992
>all sets post gatecrast
You mean all sets post Time Spiral, you fucking child.
>>43765785
>inistrad
>>43765785
I can name two good sets since Time Spiral.
Now, if you had said blocks, I'd agree.
>>43765773
>>43765746
It's awkwardly worded, but I think Pic is actually trying to say things it shares with other colors and does well. Not exclusive abiltiies
I'm just gonna use those mana in my Myr deck.
>>43763489
with Tron, or by reanimating them out of the graveyard or some other way of not actually paying the mana cost.
>Turn 1
>>43766309
>cast
>CAST
>>43766309
With three entire cards to maybe protect yourself with. Wow.
Or you could have gone with Iona and shut them down completely.
>>43759766
I loved Ravnica/TS standard and I definitely played it.
Lorwyn can suck a dick though.
>a new mana symbol?
>LOL NEW BASIC LANDS, 6TH COLOR, MAGIC IS DEAD
Right cause snow mana and phyrexian mana weren't a thing. It's just going to be a new mechanic, represented by a mana symbol instead of a keyword, which isn't exactly a new idea in magic. I will bet my entire fucking collection that all it means is "2 Colorless mana, and 8 mana in any combination of colors, including colorless." I.E., it specifically requires some of its mana to be devoid of color, instead of the color not mattering. It will last 1 set, and then we will never see it again. Which is a shame, it would be rad as hell in artifacts.
>>43766370
>Your point? He shows how black can cheat a basically anything on the field on turn one and you go
>MUH CAST
nigger I think he doesn't care about card advantage since he just pulled a 12/12 out of his hands for 4 mana and 3 spells because he just gonna win the game unless the guy has mana and could counter it with say Mana Leak or FoW
>>43767499
If you wanted to do that, why not reanimate Grizzy?
Or the newlamog that doesn't die to doom blade?
Or... hell, inkwell is probably a better target.
>>43761306
>If cards already have "Can block as if it has flying" why do we even need reach?
This is what you sound like.
>>43767451
actually it is a new basic land, just not a new basic land type. People already discarded it being a 6th color from the beginning, since Kozilek has it in his mana cost and is colorless without devoid.
I am actually pretty hyped for it, it is going to be fun to see something new, and how people will speculate its value. Fuck your official formats.
>>43761306
Because basic lands doesn't spell out
T: Add G to your Mana Pool
anymore
>>43765773
>milling
>blue
Grindstone
>>board wipes
>white
Nevinyarrl disk
>>extremely efficient creature buffs
>green
Equipment
>>mass token generation
>green again
>>etc
The Hive
>please show your work
Okay I need someone to summarise the last few descussions of spoiler
>>43769478
It's colorless
nu uh
It's colorless
nu uh
It's colorless
nu uh
It's colorless
nu uh
>>43769244
>Grindstone
Artifact.
>Nevinyarrl disk
Artifact.
>Equipment
Artifact.
>The Hive
Artifact.
Different anon here, you're a fucking retard. Those aren't in-colour, those are for any colour.
Jesus fuck you dumb twat.
>>43769491
are you dumb?
Artifacts are colorless
>>43769596
>Artifacts are colorless
>those are for any colour.
Are you?
They should have just released this concept in commander of the spoilers are real
If wizards really wants to make money, get rid of the reserve list. By now all vintage players are online and have sold their power to idiots who have always been mesmorized by 0 drop mana rocks
>>43769606
guy are you an idiot?
this guy >>43765773 was saying that those effects were color bound and would not appear on colorless cards. I showed that those effects do indeed show up on colorless cards.
>>43769608
>Reprinting the 0 drop mana rocks
Literal madman
>>43769614
No, he was saying that the guy in >>43765670 pic, who said "colorless does things that other 'colors' can't," was patently false
>>43765785
What's wrong with Lorwyn? It was still a pre-NWO set, with Rebecca Guay art, amazing limited format, good cards at common rarity and the neowalkers were not too supid.
>>43769628
Heh. Maybe. i was actually expecting a 5 drop black lotus with delve after TC got spoiled
>>43763810
The NWO and Adquisition plan was all about reducing the complexity of the game to a minimun, to be able to sell the game to a larger audience. That's something that they are very proud to say, so yes, the game is catering to retards now, smartass.
>>43769628
> From the Vault: Fuck those guys.
>>43769207
A green land taps for green to pay for green mana costs
If you're theory was correct:
1) A land that tapped for colorless could pay the new mana cost.
2) If a land that tapped for colorless could pay for it, then a land that tapped for the new mana symbol would tap for colorless
3) we already have a symbol for a land that taps for colorless
4) because there is no need for two symbols to represent the same thing, it is unlikely that the new symbol means strictly colorless
>>43767542
Yes, because we have reach now there is no need for "can block creatures with flying". Let's try thinking before we blurt out the first thing that comes to our head
>>43766382
Dropping a dark rit, that's reanimator for you. A tier 1 legacy deck.
>>43763016
Colored mana is not colorless mana. So tron/12post/MUD has to work to play this.
>>43769632
>was patently false
it's only "false" because is unable to read that pic.
Green for instance cannot mill or has creature board wipes.
>>43761491
>The same way that Processors would eat your exiled cards instead of using mana
This is a joke, right?
Because it's pretty funny, because all the Processors are terrible and all the effects that aren't complete shit require mana on top of processing.
There is not a single "exile cards for effect instead of paying mana" processor because all the processors are overcosted to begin with
>>43770959
being shit is irrelevant to what the mechanic does. Ony a couple of them requires mana on top of "processing", because they can be used multiple times, instead of only when its cast or enters the battlefield.
What is so hard to understand that they consume exiled cards in addition/instead of mana?
>>43769207
I honestly don't understand the benefit or remove the tap ability from lands and only placing the mana symbol. The old way feels so much more intuitive.
>>43771123
>What is so hard to understand that they consume exiled cards in addition/instead of mana?
Because costing mana on top of processing is overcosted.
Exiled cards isn't a free resource, there is a limit. You have to spend mana to get cards exiled in the first place. Honestly instead of costing mana+processing for the effects they should have just costed variable amounts of processing.
>>43770951
>green can't mill, therefore no other color can
Stop being a retard and read pic again. He said that colorless can do stuff that any other color can't.
>>43754450
Or you could use Void Winnower and build with mostly 3 cost cards like Titan's Presence, and some 5 cost cards.
>>43771130
Because most people didn't know that being a Mountain is what allowed you to tap, and the tap written was just a reminder.
>>43769638
>Lorwyn
>Good art
Get a load of this fucking guy
>>43769478
Some idiots think that wizards is going to errata all nonbasic lands to have the new symbol when in reality "true colorless" will only be a thing for this set and be produced exclusively by wastes and other non basics from OGW. Those some people incorrectly believe that (1) can pay for (<>).
>>43769819
>we already have a symbol for a land that taps for colorless
yeah i really wish they'd print this it looks great
>>43771470
I like it
>>43771470
Of course if your theory is incorrect then they wouldn't have to. So that's a non point.
>>43771470
I also like it I wouldn't mind these to stay... However I do understand why they replaced the 1 with a <>. Looks probably much better then the giant one. Could you make one with a <>?
>>43771609
what theory?
>>43771277
are you dumb? That's not what he is saying at all.
He is saying that colorless can offer flexibility by offering things that your color cannot do. For instance you are playing green you don't have access to Board wipes. But with colorless you can get that access. But at a price since colorless effects cost usually more mana or are slower.
>>43771781
>"colorless has a unique and relatively well defined mechanical space and can absolutely do things that other 'colors' can't"
>"Other colors get de facto access to colorless effects"
Those effects are not colorless, it is colorless who gets access to color effects. No one is argueing about colorless offering flexibility.
>>43771277
>He said that colorless can do stuff that any other color can't.
I think what he meant was that colorless cards can have any of the abilities present in cards of a specific color, but without the casting restrictions in the form of requiring that specific color of mana to use them.
>>43753208
The office is hell right now because of the shit stain that leaked it. Normally legal only has to deal with stupid inane shit like trying to stop counterfeit printers, which never works so it's just filling out the same pointless shit, but now we gotta track down the faggot who did this and the past week has just been the worst fucking ever.
>>43771909
>>43771890
Also, I am starting to think that he meant true colorless, not artifacts, only stuff like Eldrazi, Karn and Ugin. This explains milling(eldrazi processing), board wipe(Karn), and mass/repeated token generation(eldrazi spawn/scion).
Which makes he an even bigger retard.
I think he's saying "colorless is the only identity that has all of these things", which is an argument that colorless really is its own identity.
>>43771976
You're on the legal team at Wizards?
protip: Rosewater leaked Mirrorpool
>>43772288
probably just some basement dweller who dreamed he could work at wijjards.
Could wotc make a new plane that is set in space?
>>43771341
But boys I run into the problem that a lot of new players think tapping a Llanowar Elves creates a Forest somehow, either letting you play another one from your hand or fetching from your library. I show them an old Forest and it clears that up right away.
>>43772380
"outter space" is too sci-fi for wizards, so no
>>43772380
All planes are set in space. Thats why there are stars int he night sky on every plane.
>>43772419
Except Theros, where stars are on minotaur butts
>>43772412
What then is a plane we could go to thats not just some bastardization of a standard trope? I remember in a ps2 game called Champions of Norrath there was a area that was set in what is basically a living plane. Like with cysts and puss and shit. Would a living plane be possible?
>>43772451
>bastardization of a standard trope
There's nothing new under the sun, pal. Sorry to disappoint
>>43772404
You don't need to show an old forest, you can show any nonforest land that produces G. Or maybe they will even understand if you show a card that adds 1 to your mana pool.
>>43771976
>implying you work at wizards
>>43772330
>tfw I wasted triple dubs on a neckbeard
>>43771765
That the new mana is strictly colorless or the new colorless symbol
>>43771470
But the problem is not with generating colorless mana, but how to make the cost payment relevant.
The current symbol has the intrinsic rule of "it can be paid with mana of any color, including colorless". Meaning colorless doesn't actually really matter on paying costs.
The new expansion symbol seems to be just a "change" of what colorless means on the mana cost of the card. The "old colorless" sysmbol will still refer to "pay it with mana of any color or colorless mana", while the "new colorless" sysmbol will mean "pay it only with colorless mana".
I don't think it'll be the nrew 6th color or some sort. that'll just mess things too much, rather than give a new meaning to what colorless is on mana cost and how you pay those costs when playing a card or activating an ability
I don't know why you guys are just now making a big deal about wasteland, it's existed since tempest
>>43773600
>I don't think it'll be the nrew 6th color or some sort. that'll just mess things too much
How? (<>) can only be paid for by lands that generate (<>), which will only be Wastes and nonbasics from OGW, it's as simple as that.
>>43773856
Fucking this. Simplest solution is almost always the correct one.
>>43773600
The way you're describing colorless mana makes it another color, there would be no difference between how it worked and how colore mana works
>>43754450
It's fine (in theory) in dredge, given that you are sure to have cards with cmc 1-5, which blanks most removal and most cards in general when talking modern/legacy, whenever you need them
>>43773856
I'm sure wizards is retarded enough to say kamigawa is parasitic bullshit and then turn around and print a set specific mana cost
>>43773856
>>43773884
Except that would just mean creating a new set-specific color which is against WotC's design specs for MtG.
The simplest solution is <> being a non-generic colorless cost being printed on lands because >>43771470 looks stupid.
>>43774434
>Except that would just mean creating a new set-specific color which is against WotC's design specs for MtG.
No, it's colorless with a unique symbol (<>) specifically for Oath.
>The simplest solution is <> being a non-generic colorless cost being printed on lands because >>43771470 looks stupid.
But in that case there'd be no need for (<><>) on Kozilek's casting cost or Mirrorpool.
>>43774434
Against WotC's design specs according to whom? ANd technically true colorless isn't a color, that's the whole point
>>43774416
You honestly think that WotC has that much self-awareness?
>>43761465
false.
>>43763489
since it's a new symbol for mana, you can't include them in any commander decks, or kozilek or mirrorpool, unless newzilek is your commander. that is unless they change the rulings.
>>43774478
>But in that case there'd be no need for (<><>) on Kozilek's casting cost or Mirrorpool.
Yes there is.
In the case of costs (e.g. Kozilek), a symbol is the best way to convey to a reader what kind of mana base is required to pay for a given cost. If it was text and not a symbol, you'd have to read rather than glance to find out. It's the same reasoning behind using the "{#P}" Phyrexian symbols (conveys that the card is playable outside of its color) or the snow symbols (conveys that you need basic snow lands to pay for a cost).
I've already addressed basic lands but in the case of non-basic lands like Mirrorpool, I would argue that printing <> rather than {1} on sources makes the relation with costs a lot more evident for new players for the format.
>>43774683
Your explanation isn't wrong, but it's not parsimonious. I still adhere that >>43773856
is the most correct explanation, and that every other possble explanation I've seen grasps at far too many straws.
>>43774866
it's pretty unlikely that that is the case. it doesn't make sense from a game design perspective. they wouldn't add a new kind of basic just to make a special kind of mana - I think it's pretty clear that <> is just mana that can only be paid with colorless and they are adding a new kind of basic without a basic type on it that can make colorless mana so you can cast it. it's a lot more logical that way.
>>43773856
Has it been confirmed the new symbol is its own mana type? As far as we know we are only speculating 'bout what the new symbol means.
>>43774182
Colorless has already been deifned as a mana type (106.1b), but is not considered itsa own color. I guess we'll have to wait till the FAQ but I don't think this will change with the new symbol.
A I said, I still think this is just a way on what "colorless" means on the cost of the card/ability, making a difference on what "generic mana" and "colorless mana" means withut changing the definition of that type of mana on the game.
>>43775065
nothing has been confirmed
there's no point speculating, just wait until the set actually comes out and we'll all see that it's exactly what we thought it was - a cost that can only be paid with colorless mana
>>43775086
I like your style.
>>43775047
Try telling that to MaRo once the official spoilers come out. (<>) isn't an errata, it's new design space being explored in a small set, and nothing more.
>>43775273
did you reply to the wrong post? i did not say anything about errata
>>43775420
Doesn't your argument imply that (<>) will be replacing (1) when adding colorless to your mana pool? That seems to be the prevailing opinion; I apologize if that wasn't your implication.
>>43775065
Colorless is mana as it appears in a mana pool, generic mana is mana as it appears in mana costs.
>>43775047
How does snow mana 2 not make sense? Its pretty straightforward.
The colorless only theory is supported by eldrazi having been colorless in the past, and nothing else. Other theories are based on the other cards we've seen, context, and use in gameplay. I think its obvious which makes more sense.
>>43775555
And that's what I'm sayin'. Now we'll have a generic mana symbol and a colorless mana symbol. Both with different meaning.
>>43775628
So now colorless is a color.
What leads you to believe that?
>>43775700
The fact that true colorless has a symbol on both a land and in the cost of a spell. Try to keep up
>>43775782
Except thats just speculation on your part
>>43775700
Colorless is not a color. Is a mana type as defined on 106.1b. I don't think that will change.
The only "change" it seems they are making is to make difference between "generic" and "colorless" on the mana symbols for payment of spells and abilities without changing the general rules of mana and mana types.
>>43775782
A colorless card has a symbol on it. Which could mean a great number of things.
>>43775793 sums it up
>>43775939
If it can pay for specific type costs and generic costs, then it is functionally identical to a color. Any cards they would print would be that color. You can claim that it's still colorless, but it functions exactly like a color. There would be no lands that tap for generic mana, so we have six types of mana that can be tapped for, each corresponding to a type of cost. If they want to print a card that generates mana that cannot be used for colored costs, that is no longer possible.
>>43777083
>If it can pay for specific type costs and generic costs, then it is functionally identical to a color.
So, according to you, snow is a color.
>>43754116
Khans was literally shit tier
>>43777083
>You can claim that it's still colorless, but it functions exactly like a color
except that it can't be made with "add X mana of any color"
>>43777164
Yes, snow is kind of like a color. This is not problematic. There were no snow permenants outside of ice age. It did not change the function of any previously existing cards. It did not limit design space in the future.
>>43777247
Wow that meaningfully impacts that argument you really shut me down!
>>43777237
Mtg: Creatures the Wordening
>>43777301
your argument is that <> can't be a non-generic colorless because wotc wouldn't turn colorless into a color identity which it already is so at this point i'm not even sure what you're trying to argue
>>43752650
I just want everyone to know that alt+4 gets you
>>43777421
colorless isn't a color identity.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but all this new symbol means is that it has to be paid with colorless mana rather than colored mana, right?
>>43777421
Its not a color identity, what do you mean?
>>43777512
There hasn't been any official explanation, it's all speculation. Some baseless some otherwise.
>>43777083
>There would be no lands that tap for generic mana
All lands wich taps for "generic mana" actually taps for colorless mana.
> If they want to print a card that generates mana that cannot be used for colored costs, that is no longer possible.
They are only printing a basic land that we guess it'll generates colorless mana. So far only non basic lands could generate colorless, wich limit the amount of avaliable sources of colorless to 4 per card, and the format your deck belongs.
In terms of mana symbols for cost payments, we already have hybrid and phyrexian mana symbols that arent their own colors. but they represent a method of payment of that cost. I.e 'This cost can be paid with either A or B". This new "wasteland" sysmbol can perfectly be similar to hybrid or phyrexian. Just a reminder that means that cost must be paid with colorless mana. without have to become it's own color.
>>43777512
Nobody knows what the fuck it really means.
Nobody from wizards has confirmed anything.
>>43777512
>means is that it has to be paid with colorless mana
Then what the fuck does a land tapping for that symbol even mean?
>>43777612
this godamnit this
>>43777572
>>43776996
Then let me ask you something, do you think the sun is going to rise tomorrow?
>>43777669
Probably
>>43777421
>color identity
That only matters for EDH and EDH-like formats.
>>43771380
>Implying Lorwyn was not GOAT
>>43777577
You have a land that taps for the symbol, in order to accept that the symbol means colorless only you have to accept that the symbol replaces the colorless symbol
>>43777669
Yes why?
>>43777718
>>43777791
How can you know though? Nothing has been confirmed, it's all just speculation!
>>43777932
I'm basing my theory on the information we have and logical deduction.
You appear to be using the tried and tested "guess randomly and ignore all evidence to the contrary" method.
>>43777932
That's why I said probably. Because I don't know. There's plenty of rather unlikely situations in which the sun doesn't rise tomorrow
>>43777982
So you're just going to ignore all of the logical evidence that doesn't point to the ridiculous conclusion that Wizards is going to errata all instances of (1) to (<>) in mana producers? How stupid can you be?
>>43774646
So you can't use Snowmana in EDH unless your commander has snowmana in its cost?
>>43778621
it's color that matters not the symbol
>>43778747
>It's color that matters
>Kozilek is colorless without devoid
So there shouldn't be any problem.
>>43778041
What evidence? All you have given is explanations of why it's not impossible, nothing as to why it's likely or even probable.
>tfw you'll never have such a beautiful family as Mark Rosewater;_;
>>43782058
Is that the only facial expression he is capable of?
>>43782123
Apparently.
>people still can't figure this shit out
It's colorless mana with a deliberate 'required mana' symbol. It doesn't have a color, so all those "choose a color" cards like caged sun would have no effect- it's colorless.
Painlands won't be fucking errata'd to tap for this instead- they tap for the most generic type of mana, and this isn't that.
It's not "the new symbol for colorless mana" because (#) is its own special class of shitter mana, and lands (and creatures) that produce it as their "bad" mode won't stop existing.
It IS "a new mana symbol that happens to be colorless." This answer is the least confusing, places the smallest burden on players/the game itself, and is the least retarded.
>>43775551
no, <> is just a new kind of cost that can only be paid by generic mana. so we have wastes as a way to actually add colorless to your pool - as it stands in limited, there aren't many ways to add actual colorless mana to your pool, typically you add one of wubrg with your basic lands being the predominant mana source in those formats. so by having a mana cost that can't be paid by any of actual wubrg colored mana, they're like haha look its cool cuz like in case you guys haven't noticed yet the eldrazi are colorless! woo colorless
i think any theory involving errata is most likely false
>>43775608
it doesn't make sense that they would do that from a game design perspective. like the theory itself makes sense, obviously the mechanic itself of having <> be mana from a waste source is simple. i just don't think they would do that, it's not interesting and is a thing we've seen for exactsies before. they wouldn't add a waste basic just so they can have wastes matters cards - it makes more sense that they would add it so they can have colorless matters cards.
>>43782404
>a new kind of cost that can only be paid by generic mana
Would any deck even run this Card it seems as shitty as the last set.
>>43782436
it's ok if you don't understand anon, i can explain further for you
so mana in your mana pool can be one of the 5 colors, or it can be generic mana
for example, mind stone taps for generic mana
a basic island taps for blue mana
previously, colored mana was basically always strictly better than generic mana because you can pay colorless mana costs with any color of mana
but now, you have to have generic mana to pay for <> costs, so it adds a requirement to have certain kinds of mana sources to play those cards. pretty cool huh?
im always glad to help a beginner in need :)
>>43782547
>or it can be generic mana
No, it cannot. Generic mana can NEVER be in your mana pool.
>>43782572
Look at the smile at the end it's just a joke.
>>43782591
Good, I hope it is. I'm slowly losing any tiny bit of hope I had left in /tg/. I'm glad Wizards are finally making the distinction between generic mana and colorless mana so as not to confuse new players like >>43782547 this guy.
>>43782634
it's ok if you're confused, you can just admit it and we can explain it to you
>>43758884
>6.5 mb
you are the shittiest gif maker i have ever seen
>>43782404
How does that not make game design sense? "We wanted to show that the eldrazi are so alien that they don't even use regular mana"? Its a way to print big creatures that don't just get jammed into artifact mama decks. I think its great game design.
>>43782634
Seriously, explain why that theory makes any sense. Meaning explain why it's likely to be type case, not just explain why it's not impossible.
Why do you insist in playing this shit game when there others like:
Android: Netrunner
Doomtown: Reloaded
Ashes: Rise of the Pheonixborn
Summoner Wars
Mage Wars: Academy/Arena
Any other LCG by FFG
Dice Masters
Gaming has moved on, and it has left you tcgers behind.
>>43783517
I understand ignorance, but if you know about this other games, then you're just retarded.
Ccg players are funny. Kept barging into tcg thread claiming superiority when their thread dies in minutes.
>>43783517
I'll bet you bitch that no one wants to play games with you
>>43783572
CCG and TCG are the same thing you retard.
