![wastes[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/FbKpLrC.jpg "wastes[1].jpg")
I guess we have super colorless now
![kozilekthegreatdistortion[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/T8cc7BH.jpg "kozilekthegreatdistortion[1].jpg")
![mirrorpool[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/BfJ3vnz.jpg "mirrorpool[1].jpg")
>>43805369
You're a dumb double nigger. We know about this already.
I hear Theros is going to be a Greek themed enchantment set.
>>43805565
I hear they're going back to ravnica
>>43805518
Fuck off back to /b/.
>>43805369
Until I see the official spoilers I'll believe it's fake
>>43805411
Huh. This reminds me, I've heard somebody has been making an animu out of Lelouch.
>>43805369
Personally, I find this news as unexpected and exciting as the size of OP's massive cock and bank account! Truly, a paragon of human greatness.
Pretty sure that's just regular colorless and they are finally assigning it a symbol.
>>43806617
You'd be wrong
Its happening, the new promo for clash of wills has jace using it to counterspell kozilek and winning
>>43805369
Hell, it's about time. I suggested this years ago. Only I called it City, but whatever.
>>43805369
So what does this do, exactly? Add 1? Add 2? Add 1 that doesn't empty from the mana pool at end of phase? What?
>>43806800
Treat it as a 6th colour, you can use it to pay for generic colourless (artifact casting cost) or put it to pay the specified mana colour of Kozilek.
>>43806830
>generic colorless
I hate you.
>>43806617
You'd be right.
Guys they arent colorless mana, they're devoid mana. Think of it like the snow land of colorless mana.
>>43806868
Then what does 8<><> mean? Shouldn't it be 9<> if you are right.
>>43806926
Its because hes wrong anon, dont listen to shitposters.
>>43806926
it means 8 mana of any kind and 2 mana that must be colorless. You know, exactly the same way the other mama symbols work.
>>43806830
>generic colourless (artifact casting cost)
You have absolutely no grasp of the game's rules, design or terminology so please go back to the custom card thread and keep your speculation to yourself.
>>43806960
Which contracts the 'You'd be right' and hence my post.
It is effectively a sixth color.
>>43806937
I'm pretty sure that any thread about these leaks is inherently shitposting at this point
>>43807007
>colorless is a sixth color
please stop doing this
>>43807007
Colorless mana has been in the game forever, boy.
>>43807007
the you'd be right guy was referring to a post that said the symbol just means colorles, and im pretry sure that that is what it means.
>>43807052
Literally, from the beginning.
>>43807052
But assuming <> means 'pay only with colorless' it now functions identically to any other color.
>>43807086
this changes nothing, it just means they can specify colorless in a cost, as opposed to generic. colorless mana has always been explicitly a sixth type of mana along with the five colors.
>>43807086
fals. it doesn't feed number of color effects and does not grant color identity*
*pending retarded decisions provoked by this very symbol
>>43807086
>>43807070
>>43807052
If thats the case, then why is it on mirrorpool? >>43805400
Why does it say add one wastes to your mana pool, rather than just one colorless as they have done in the past if it would be one in the same?
>>43807086
It's literally just colorless mana.
They just now added a way to specify when colorless is needed in casting costs.
>>43807143
Flavor, to explicitely link the mana source to the cost, because the basic land says <> so the non-basics may as well say <> as well, etc.
>>43807143
they added a new symbol for clarity's sake. numbers are now exclusively generic mana and colorless mana will be represented by diamond thingy. it's like when they keyword existing card text.
>>43807143
it does say add one colorless. that is the new symbol for colorless. if they reprint sol ring it's text will be T: add <><> to your mana pool.
>>43807125
It changes everything.
Colored mana can pay Generic costs + Color specific costs.
Colorless mana (before) could pay generic costs.
It now can pay Generic costs + Color specific costs.
Are you so completely incapable of understanding that this change brings it more in line with the other colors, rather than being its own little thing?
>>43807194
>>43807162
What you guys are describing is the start of tribals... they have to reprint every single mana rock with this new symbol on it now
>>43807199
This.
You can run generic cost cards (artifacts etc) in any deck because you can pay them with whatever mana you have in that deck.
New cards with <> cost can only be run in decks able to produce <> mana, just like any other colour. Hence <> behaves like a full colour in its own right.
>>43805369
Now there's a specification to generic mana (like an inkmoth nexus can produce or utilize for abilities) and a colourless mana, which only wastes can produce. Before there was no distinction between colourless mana and generic mana and these cards show that there is. I think it's an interesting take and I'd like to see where/how it fits to the colour pie (generic mana was kinda in the middle, doing everything but at a much slower and costlier way, while synergistic with itself)
>>43807214
not really. all the information is present on the old cards, just in a different format. non-tardy players will be ably to grasp it. Just find one of them and ask for help whenever you want to play.
>>43807304
So only (so far) new kozilek can be a colourless commander. The other commanders like Karn are "generic" commanders, so to speak.
Well that opens up (and hinders) a lot of edh potential for this set.
>>43807305
I'm hoping rules wise its treated as a snow colorless. Its still colorless for all purposes except it has the tacked on eldrazi stuff, like the snow stuff was tacked onto the snow lands.
>>43807214
I'm pretty sure there are still plenty of cards that, as far as physical copies are concerned, still only say "does not tap to attack" or "ignores summoning sickness" or whatever the wordings were for vigilance and haste.
They probably will reprint several things with the new symbol, but there is nothing they HAVE to reprint because it's only a visual change, not anything to the functionality. Hell, even for that a bunch of cards got functionally changed in the big creature subtype update.
>>43807318
No every card in print is fucked, its like the cards with three lines describing vigilance. This symbol changes everything.
>>43807305
>inkmoth nexus
errata'd to produce <>
>>43807331
I hope that's the case, otherwise as >>43807328 put it, it really makes this set incapable of working in edh
>>43807353
Gimmie that sweet citation family and I'll belieb you
>>43807328
No. Older colorless cards are "just as colorless" as this new kozilek. Kozilek is just harder to cast. It's like the difference between 4R and 2RRR.
>>43807379
Yeah but I mean that something like mirror pool can only be played in new kozilek edh and not in a Karn deck
>>43807377
<> == {1}
>>43807377
check the gather after official spoilers, friend. 《:^)
>>43807194
This is an interesting change if we do have an errata.
Colorless mana was worth 'less' than colored mana because you can only pay generic costs (meaning the generic parts of spells and artifiacts). Colored mana could do everything colorless could do and more.
If colorless mana now has a line of spells only it can pay for, is tap <> still worth less than tap U?
(Well yes, because there are lot more U spells than <>, but if Wizards grows <>?)
>>43807351
No, you're looking at it wrong. The symbol changed functionality while in a mana cost you have to pay, yes, but when it's being added to the mana pool it's exactly the same as (1) or (2) or whatever. In no way is it a different kind of mana.
>>43807399
why not? colorless does not impart color identity.
unless sheldon gets all triggered by colorless having a symbol now.
>>43807407
>>43807406
Well gee whiz thanks guys, I sure do have egg on my face now. You made one heck of a
CTF
UBA
CHM
K
Out of me
>>43807412
I'm guessing required colorless to cast will be an eldrazi gimmick and be very rare in future non eldrazi sets.
>>43807428
new sheldon announcement
>Since colorless is now an identity, colorless cards can't be run in your deck unless your commander has a colorless symbol in his casting cost or an activated ability requiring colorless
>>43807399
I don't think that's going to be how it works, dib dubs. The symbol, when being added to the mana pool, is just a visual change. While being a "sixth color" kinda works as a description, really what it is is "hard to cast colorless"
For all identity reasons it's still colorless, including color identity stuff for EDH. Mirrorpool is a colorless land that only taps for colorless mana.
Basically, the symbol makes a difference in costs you pay but is just a new look for adding colorless mana to your mana pool. They're changing it for consistency, and it actually makes more sense now than adding "generic mana" to your mana pool, which acts as colorless but can be payed with anything. Now they are shown to add colorless mana specifically.
>>43805369
>Not megacolorless
"If a creature spell is cast using megacolorless mana, put a +1/+1 counter on it."
>>43807412
>is tap <> still worth less than tap U
Would you even be asking the question if insetad of a symbol, Wizards went full retard and printed "~'s casting cost must be paid with at least two colorless mana"?
>>43807476
Wow what a fucking retard. Karn and nuKozilek both still identify as colorless all the same.
>>43807456
well, what do you want from us? the set isnt actually out and obviously no one has any real citation.
the only evidence backing my "it's a mana symbol for colorless" is that the other theories are all completely fucking stupid and show a basic failure to comprehend game design or even common sense.
So will we see a new darksteel citadel full art with that new symbol or what?
>>43806960
>the other mama symbols
>>43807351
You're fucking retarded. It changes nothing. There is always one of you in this thread.
This isn't the first time shit like this has happened in MtG and it won't be the last.
Get the fuck over it. Christ.
>>43807499
Always the fucking +1/+1 counters. Fuck you, it's nothing mega about it
>>43807470
I think so too. This is probably wizards trying to kill two birds with one stone. Colorless in the cost is this super rare thing to give eldrazi identity, since colorless nonartifact isn't as special anymore and annihilator is rip.
Meanwhile, I bet the colorless symbol for adding to your mana pool is something they've wanted to do for a while now, and that's going to stick around.
>>43807426
So the symbol has two different meanings.
You're effectively going from a symbol with 1 meaning that everyone understood, to a bifurcated more confusing system.
That is the central problem with your theory, in addition to the shit on of RECENTLY PRINTED CARDS IN JUST THE LAST SET that use the traditional symbol.
<> is a new color, not super colorless. It is salt mana, and can only be paid with salt mana. Which is convenient, since adding a sixth color is going to produce a lot of it.
>>43807654
><> is a new color, not super colorless. It is salt mana, and can only be paid with salt mana. Which is convenient, since adding a sixth color is going to produce a lot of it.
Can't wait for Wizards to errata the back of every card printed before 2016.
>>43807470
>>43807598
>I'm guessing required colorless to cast will be an eldrazi gimmick
>Colorless in the cost is this super rare thing to give eldrazi identity
Why do such major change/new mechanic at the end of the eldrazi set tho? You would think something this big would be the major focus of not only a large set but at least the next 2 sets as well.
>>43807654
Actually, the symbol only has one meaning now and is much less complicated than how colorless used to work. You're just used to the other way of it so it seems more complicated.
R means add R to your mana pool. R can pay for R in costs or generic costs.
Colorless, meanwhile, used to add colorless mana to your mana pool with a symbol that only was on costs. You add (3) but (3) can be paid with colorless OR RRR.
Now, colorless adds <> to your mana pool. <> can pay for <> in costs or generic mana costs.
It is actually much easier to understand now because it doesn't behave weirdly anymore with what symbol it uses for generating mana.
>>43807685
Why would they do that? I never said it's a new color that will get enough support to warrant a design change. It's a one set gimmick, to be returned to every now and then in a coldsnap type fashion.
>>43807470
If this is the case, why isn't there an explanation of <> in the cards text? The Phyrexian mana symbols had text explainers, for example.
The lack of text explainers implies this is something like an evergreen change.
>>43807702
Making colorless function like a color is silly, and not at all intuitive anon.
Might as well rename it to colorful mana.
Eldrazi master race here
Not news.
It's just mana unassigned to a come, or in card text 'mana' not following any symbol out color.
I mean, I really just started playing, but I got it, and my friends who have been playing for years get it.
Are these threads troll threads?
>>43807654
>You're effectively going from a symbol with 1 meaning that everyone understood, to a bifurcated more confusing system
exactly the opposite. (1) used to mean either a colorless mana if you were adding it to your pool or "you can pay this with any kind of mana" if it was in a cost.
now, <> always means colorless and (1) always means any kind of mana.
>>43807654
No, it had two different meaning before.
(1) used to mean 1 generic mana in mana cost or 1 colorless mana in mana producers.
now (1) always mean generic mana and <> always mean colorless mana.
Have you idea of how many new players think that "add (1)" is awesome because they think that it means "add 1 mana of any color"?
>>43807739
They wouldn't make a set-specific color after admitting that Arcane/Splice was too parasitic.
>>43807770
People are talking about something that hasnt been explained other than a three pictures and no oracle text describing what the fuck is even going on. Naturally post quality will be shitty.
>>43807754
Its a mythic. Mythics don't need reminder text.
>>43807702
Give one reason why that's likely without just explaining why it's not impossible
>>43807754
oh, I'm sure the symbol is staying. it just won't be very common as a cost.
>>43807783
0? Because they see that symbol on almost every card and understand that it isn't colored mana?
>>43807788
>Give one reason why that's likely without just explaining why it's not impossible
It's the only explanation that isn't impossible.
>>43807788
Maro admitted that making (1) have two meaning was a bad move and confusing and all the other theories are bullshit?
>>43807808
Are you retarded? The simbol you see on almost every card means literally "mana of any color". Generic Mana =/= Colorless Mana.
>>43807788
>Give one reason why that's likely without just explaining why it's not impossible
Because all the competing theories are completely delusional bunk about snow.
>>43807788
>Give one reason why that's likely without just explaining why it's not impossible
because it gives every mana symbol a single meaning irrelevant of whether it is present in a cost or a mana ability, reducing head space required to understand, furthering WotC's ongoig attempts to encourage new players and keep down the game's ever-growing complexity
>>43807784
There's a difference, the arcane spells were necessarily bad outside of the block because they were balanced to have a bunch of arcane spells. Set specific mana interacts with ramp spells, and can be built around with cards outside of the set.
![5d6[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/PFXCd47.jpg "5d6[1].jpg")
>>43807808
Do you seriously think that the (1) in mana cost means colorless mana?
>>43807841
>can be built around with cards outside of the set
name me the cards that interact with snow mana outside if coldsnap
>>43807831
>citation needed
>>43807837
That's not an explanation
>>43807838
That makes the game more complex. The function of colorless mana is very intuitive.
>>43807879
I'm not talking about coldsnap
>>43807860
>reading comprehension needed
>>43807880
>That's not an explanation
"when you remove the impossible whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth" is a fundamental principle of logic.
this theory of what the <> means makes sense and fulfills magic design goals.
the other theories failing to do this things does promote this theory higher in probability.
>>43807880
>That makes the game more complex. The function of colorless mana is very intuitive.
no it doesn't and no it does not. this gives every symbol a single meaning rather than colorless/generic being two uses of a single symbol. that is a reduction of complexity. the meaning of colorless may be intuitive but the meaning of generic is not, especially next to colorless mana using the sane symbol.
>>43807964
So an explanation is when you give an argument showing how you arrived at a conclusion. "It makes sense", "everything else is impossible" and "its probable" are all conclusions, not premises. Without giving your premises, they are worthless
>>43807979
It uses the same symbol because colorless mana can only be used to pay for generic costs. If you differentiate between the two, you have a symbol which functions exactly like a color. Adding a sixth color does not reduce complexity
So it's a new mana that can pay generic and specific costs, have specific creatures and (probably) spells, BUT it's not a color so you can't use cards that target the color of your choice.
Isn't that pretty unfair?
>>43808101
The existence of sol lands and post lands would make it impossible to balance
>>43808092
but generic costs can not exclusively be paid with colorless. equating the two is inaccurate. colorless mana is already distinct from the other five colors, changing the symbol used for it does not alter its functionality. having colorless mana symbolized in the same way all other types of producable mana removes a complication of whether a symbol is colorless or generic, literally removing complexity.
>>43808092
Oh, so you just don't understand what complexity means. Alright.
Either that, or your ability for empathy is so low that you can't understand that the current system for colorless is actually messed up and it only makes sense to us because we have been playing with it for years.
>>43808142
I never said that. "It uses the same symbol because colorless mana can only be used to pay for generic costs". The purpose of colorless mana is that it is less versatile than colored mana. This is straightforward. Adding a new symbol does not make this more clear.
>>43808155
What is confusing about it.
>>43808210
>adding a symbol and then not using that symbol in any costs outside of gatewatch will not make it clear that this symbol is less useful than the other five symbols which are ued constantly
>having the less versatile symbol be the same as the symbol that is shorthand for "anything" makes it clear that the former is less versatile than anything else
>>43808221
It's been said several times in this thread now. Currently, colorless in a cost and colorless being added to the mana pool use the same symbol but are two different things.
With the new symbol, colorless will be able to function consistently. That means less exceptions and rules for it to remember, which means less complexity.
>>43808221
the same symbol means any color or no color, depending on where it is.
>>43808268
Yeah. The generic mana symbol in costs is the most versatile symbol. Meanwhile, the colorless symbol of (1) is the least versatile mana.
They're two different things.
>>43808271
You use colorless mana to pay for generic costs. That is all it does. They look the same because they are closely related.
>>43808297
You pay for one with the other. I have never met anyone confused by this.
>>43808822
>I have never met anyone confused by this.
Design space is not explored with the fantastically lucky in mind.
>>43808880
So let's assume that someone makes that mistake. They are corrected by someone they are playing with. How many times are they going to make that mistake? With the play/put into play change they cleared up something that varied from card to card. "Dies" cut down a common lengthy text string to one word. Making the distinction between colorless and generic mana does not solve a problem like this. If I say "I'm adding 6 generic mana from my mana drain", while that is not technically correct it is 100% unbeatable. The most common way to say mana cost is "its one green and two colorless". Not correct, not possible to be confused with anything else.
What you have done is find two things that are technically different, and acted like this subtle difference was backbreaking to explain to new players. It is not.
>>43806926
<> means that it specifically has to be paid by colorless. (1) means mana of any color.
So (8)<><> means that you have to pay 8 mana in any combination of colors or colorless, and 2 mana that cannot have any color.
This is how it will work:
Take this card here. First ability will be the same.
2nd ability will be Tap: add <> <>
Make sense?
>>43809245
(The 7 or more lands part will still be there).
Basically it's colorless only to cast colorless spells. Yes?
>>43809079
>So let's assume that someone makes that mistake. They are corrected by someone they are playing with. How many times are they going to make that mistake?
it doesn't matter, it already happened. that's a negative experience they had just as they were learning the game.
that costs customers.
>>43807470
Honestly, something as major as a new land reeks of evergreen. That, and it's a pre-existing mechanic. There have been "pay with only colorless mana" or "spend this mana only on artifacts" in the past.
>>43809265
No. You can still use it to pay for generic mana costs. Like, you could cast a 2G spell with that mana as long as you're getting a G from somewhere else.
>>43808805
They aren't though. You're only looking at half of it. Focusing on the mana. Generic mana costs and colorless mana are not closely related, because generic mana costs aren't especially tied to anything. They can be paid with any of the five colors in addition to colorless. It functions completely differently, and colorless mana is the odd one out here. If it were to have an actual symbol like the other colors it would be easier for new players to understand that they are not the same. That generic mana costs can be paid with anything.
>>43809584
>"pay with only colorless mana"
>0 cards found
>>43809281
"I tap my akdar wastes for green"
"You can't do that, that's colorless mana which you can only use to pay for the colorless part of the mana cost"
"Fuck this game, I made one mistake now I'm never playing again"
>>43809989
The only function of colorless mana is as a way to pay for generic costs. That's a pretty direct relationship.
>>43810117
yeah, pretty much. what about it?
>>43810154
Again, you're only looking at it in one direction. How can I possibly make that clearer to you?
>>43810117
There's also the mistake of thinking that (2) can only be payed with 2 colorless mana, because that's how every other mana cost works.
>>43810251
"You can pay for that with any type of mana"
"That's too complicated, I can't play this game!"
>>43810302
Make light of it all you want, it's an outlier that's easily fixed with this new colorless symbol.
>>43810224
It doesn't need to be two directional. By adding a new symbol for colorless mana, what you gain is making that relationship less obvious
>>43810328
You're solving a non problem.
>>43810336
Except you don't. Now it's VERY CLEAR that generic mana as a cost is its own thing, that doesn't get added to the mana pool. It is only a cost, that can be paid for with anything.
>>43810302
More like "then why doesn't my darksteel citadel add any color of mana to my mana pool? This game doesn't make any sense and is stupid."
>>43810378
Because that doesn't add to the game. Because the difference between those two things doesn't effect gameplay. Because adding more symbols increases complexity without adding anything.
>>43810461
adding more symbols that all function in a predictable way adds less complexity than having two very disparate meanings of a single symbol.
The 2 in 2G is generic mana
the D in 8DD is colorless mana
you cannot spend G on D, but you can spend G and D on 2
>>43805400
>2<>, {T}: Win target counterspell war.
>>43810554
But can I give Greg[/spoiler] 2 Dicks?
>>43807199
>>43807304
This doesn't change anything, other than allowing for a few—very likely set-specific cards—that are colorless yet aggressively costed because all of the mana isn't generic and they don't slot into all colors.
It's just previously slightly unexplored design space, not a new piece of the color pie.
>>43810461
>Because that doesn't add to the game.
Except that generic-only colorless spells have to be way overpriced because their costs can be paid with any mana. Being able to have spells that include a colorless-only mana cost stipulation allows for colorless spells to be more economically priced. It lets colorless be better.
>>43807528
Karn's ability requires generic mana, not colorless mana.
I have no idea why people are still arguing about this. Until spoilers, everyone should assume
>numerical mana cost: any color of mana can pay this
>goatse mana cost: only colorless mana can pay this
I wonder if there are any nay sayers left
>>43810837
Ancient tomb, city of traitors, cloudpost, tron lands
>>43811210
I'll believe it when there's a single reason to.
>>43811020
Colorless isn't a color though. It's not a positive identity that something has for a reason, it's a fallback. Anything with no colors and no color indicator must be colorless.
>>43811476
The fact that it's obvious isn't reason enough?
>>43809245
It's more likely that this is what's gonna happen.
>>43811644
And this
>>43811681
Aaaaand this.
>>43811701
now do Channel
>>43811448
Nobody's doubted the art as being real - it's otherwise unreleased art in the credited artists' styles. Some have STILL said they're fake though, and that the faker got ahold of three pieces of art somehow and made fakes from that.
>>43811558
Was more to the idea that Sheldon would throw a fit and rule that only True Colorless (aka Kozilek and only Kozilek) commanders could work, but Karn doesn't fit the requirements for that
>>43811772
even if sheldon was that pants-on-head i have a hard time believing that idea would get traction with literally anyone else.
>>43811720
Here you go
>>43811598
Right it's obvious great explanation 10/10
>>43811812
He is that pants-on-head so it could totally happen, but you are right about the other part.
>>43811598
It's never been obvious; one guy posted the idea when we first saw the spoilers and everyone started parroting it until they realized that it didn't make any sense, in other words you're too dumb to figure out that (<>) is just it's own symbol that happens to also be colorless and therefore expands upon "Colorless matters".
>>43811901
Again with the colored colorless teory?
>>43811946
>colored colorless
That's called Devoid, retard.
>>43812028
So it's devoid about a colorless mana that has also his own symbol while not having color but counting as a color and not as regular colorless?
The more you know...
>>43811901
The moment I saw the spoilers it was pretty fucking obvious - before I read any of the discussion on them - that what was going on was 'new symbol for adding colorless mana to your mana pool'
Any other explanation is horribly parasitic, moreso than Arcane or Snow or Kithkin Tribal or anything at all like that, especially since it's being put in the second of a block. A small set.
>>43812095
Are you retarded? Devoid =! <> , learn to read please.
>>43812110
>Any other explanation is horribly parasitic
>parasitic
>meme word
>>43812182
>doesn't know what a word means
>it must be a meme!
Flawless.
>>43812110
If its so obvious why can't you explain it?
>>43812208
>uses word incorrectly like every other retard on /mtg/
>accuses others of not knowing what it means
Flawless.
>>43812220
I did? ◇ is the symbol for colorless mana going forward. Old cards that generate colorless mana will be errata'd to have ◇. Old costs will not be touched, because nothing old costs specifically colorless mana. Sol Ring will cost 1 and tap to add ◇◇. They have done errata this far reaching before, multiple times. It is nonfunctional errata, simply changing the symbols involved (1 into ◇)
◇ in costs means it REQUIRES colorless, specifically, and not 'just anything' like generic mana. Note that the Comprehensive Rules differentiates the two. Kozilek requires the use of two colorless mana (from any source, so Kozilek's Channeler or two Eldrazi Scions or a pair of Shivan Reefs work, as do two Wastes) and eight of anything else.
>>43812254
>This is a term used by R&D that means that an idea is too self-contained. [...] Cards that are too parasitic say, “No, just look at this tiny subset of cards.”
Are you an imbecile? Parasitic was used perfectly with the meaning it has in a mtg context. Please try to argue how a sixth color of mana present only in the second and smallest set of a block isn't gonna be about a tiny subset of cards or too self-contained.
>>43807783
Literally fucking no one ever?
I've taught MTG to dozens of people over the years and out of all of the random shit they've thought when misunderstanding card text I've never had a single one of them think T: Add {1} meant add one mana of any color. I've never heard of anyone ever thinking Add {1} meant add one mana of any color.
>>43812318
You're on the spectrum, right?
>>43812371
I've seen it.
I've also seen people who thought you needed colorless lands to pay for the generic costs.
It happens a lot more when people try to teach themselves than when they've got someone teaching them.
>>43812336
>begging the question
>>43812386
>Quick explanation
>"If its so obvious why can't you explain it?"
>Detailed explanation
>"You must be autistic"
>>43812386
What's wrong with you?
>>43812336
If its a major mechanic in the set, then no
>>43812440
That wasn't me senpai.
But your explanation is extremely convoluted.
Either <> is a new symbol and (n) is colorless mana, or
<> is now colorless, and (n) is 'generic mana'.
It can't be both.
>>43812318
Ok you explained how it works. I was asking you to explain why its likely.
>>43812478
Arcane was a major mechanic in an entire block and it's the most evident example of a parasitic mechanic.
>>43812386
You should consider donating your body to science because I think we've just discovered an element more dense than osmium
>>43812508
It's likely because any other alternative explanation is nonsensical. Can you give a single other explanation for it that'd make sense from design perspective?
>>43812493
Actually it's not really convoluted and you're just shit at understanding simple concepts. It's LITERALLY just behaving like other mana symbols now.
>>43812534
Arcane isn't parasitic; 'Splice onto Arcane' is parasitic.
How long will it take for you retards to understand the difference?
>>43812493
You can't add generic mana to your mana pool. Only colorless. You can, however, pay a generic mana COST. That's true now - it's not a change. There's a difference between 'colorless mana' and 'generic mana costs', but they use the same symbols currently.
They're introducing ◇ to make it so they aren't sharing the same symbols.
◇ will be colorless mana.
Nothing will be adding (n) to your mana pool.
The stuff that USED TO add (n) to your mana pool will be errata'd to be some number of ◇.
See >>43811701
>>43812508
Because they've already mentioned that the generic mana cost being how colorless is added to the mana pool was a mistake.
They've wanted to change this for a while now, the Eldrazi are a good opportunity to start it.
>>43812577
Can you prove that you work for WOTC?
>>43812593
(1) =! (<>)
Or else there'd literally be no point in Mirrorpool adding (<>) to your mana pool.
>>43812578
That's honestly what most people mean when they say arcane - they're using it as a shorthand for 'splice onto arcane'
>>43812560
They wanted to push non artifact ramp, so the symbol is colored mana only. The land taps for mana which counts as a color of mana for converge, but not for anything else.
You still haven't offered an explanation.
>>43812597
What? I think you have me confused for someone else because I've never said anything related to that.
Yes, multiple people in the thread think you're an idiot.
>>43812619
>There is no point in a land that tap for mana
Seriously? It's so difficult to understand that "add <>" is the same as "add (1)" just with a new simbol?
>>43812650
I'm sorry but you used the word 'literally' where you mean't to use 'figuratively'.
>>43812619
Except there is because currently (1) is a fucked up symbol. It means two completely different things. As a mana, it's colorless, but as a cost it's just "generic mana" that anything, not just colorless, can pay for.
>>43812619
There is if they aren't printing "T: Add 1 to your mana pool" any more. Again, it's a full replacement - anything adding colorless mana is going to be ◇. Darksteel Citadel is going to be adding ◇. Eldrazi Spawn will be adding ◇. Mutavault will be adding ◇.
>>43812619
>Or else there'd literally be no point in Mirrorpool adding (<>) to your mana pool.
<> is the new colorless symbol. There is no "point" beyond it adding colorless.
The only "point" of <> is when it's present in a cost, such as the costs on Mirrorpool.
>>43812677
No I meant literally. That's what this idea for the symbol has it being. And so far it's the best explanation, anything else (like >>43812644 ) is retarded. It also matches with what WOTC has been wanting to do.
>>43812699
You have an inside line to wizards? Your explanation is just as retarded. See its easy to argue if you ignore argument forms!
>>43812664
>>43812678
>>43812686
>>43812688
Can anyone actually answer why they would wait until Oath to make such a pointless change if they were going to errata every single card in the set that adds (1) to your mana pool?
heh can't wait for the arguments when I use Urza's Incubator to pay for the colourless requirement on Kozilec
>>43812747
My guess is that it wouldn't work like that, though I can't say for sure.
>>43812734
Because they wanted to keep in under wraps until Kozi so they could surprise everyone, and they can't be bothered to care about people too dumb to figure out such a simple change.
>>43812734
Probably because they wanted it to be a big reveal with Kozilek.
>>43812780
>and they can't be bothered to care about people too dumb to figure out such a simple change.
This is post-NWO Wizards we're talking about, right?
>>43812767
It wouldn't, Urza's Incubator specifically interacts with generic mana costs, not colorless mana costs (which weren't actually a thing before <> existed).
Though there certainly won't be any shortage of people who could be tricked into thinking it works like that.
>>43812508
MaRo has said that, if he were to go back to the beginning, restarting Magic with what he knows now, one of the things he would change would be to add a specific colorless mana cost symbol.
There's also his recent blog post talking about the difference between generic mana and colorless mana, in which he says:
>The two get confused because we use a number in a mana circle to represent both.
Which seems to suggest a sense that the way colorless mana is handled now is not how he would like it to be done (note that he doesn't say "the two get confused because people erroneously use the wrong term to describe the generic mana symbol").
Can someone explain to me why it seems inconceivable that Wizards would errata the relatively low number of cards that produce colorless mana?
They've made bigger changes. And why not go ahead and change it now while they're making other big changes—like, I dunno, discontinuing core sets, changing the block structure?
Also, I dunno if anyone has mentioned it, but a few months ago Wizards changed the Planechase chaos symbol indicator to {CHAOS}, freeing up {C} for other use.
>>43812508
1. Wizards - and in particular, Maro - have stated in the past an interest in separating 'generic mana costs' from 'colorless mana'.
2. Wizards has been, in general, trying to tone down the level of parasitism (at least, as how they define it) in their sets. Thus why the Eldrazi stuff from BfZ works with artifact creatures, morphs, colorless tokens, etc, and not just other Eldrazi, and the processors work with ORings and delved shit.Ingest is the most parasitic here, not gonna defend that bullshit, other than it being rather minor
3. ◇ shows up in Oath of the Gatewatch, a small, second set. If ◇ were a sixth color, a snow equivalent, or anything along those lines, it would be much more likely to be the focus of an entire block rather than a single small set. As well, making it the focus of a single small set means that, in order to matter at all, almost every card would have to involve ◇ to some degree, which would be bad for gameplay in general (which is something WotC does not like doing intentionally).
4. As a counterpoint to the above, Wizards WOULD be much more willing to try to pull something like Rise of the Eldrazi's trick (SURPRISE COLORLESS NONARTIFACTS) again, only this time it's SURPRISE NEW COLORLESS SYMBOL and the nonfunctional errata that such entails. And it was even Kozilek they pulled it with last time...
5. Wastes are a basic land with no subtype and no supertype, and get the fullart land treatment that basic lands do. While on its own this would only imply that they don't have any other rules text beyond Tap For Mana, there's the case of the Expedition Lands, which are also 'full art' according to Wizards. If Wastes had any other rules text - even 'only spend on colorless spells - it would be written on the card itself. A non-fullart Wastes is going to be as simple as the other basic land cards.
![Kozilek+Animated[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/E4OfXu7.jpg "Kozilek+Animated[1].jpg")
>>43812780
>>43812792
Don't forget...
>>43813006
Being possible isn't the same as being likely.
Seems to me that /tg/ is projecting their expectations on the spoiled cards.
>>43813048
To add on to these points if Kozilek was a sixth color there would be an extraordinary amount of weird anti-synergy with the previous sets.
The presence of the titan Kozilek would not activate the card Titan's Presence, Kozilek's channelers would not be able to actually channel Kozilek themselves, All is Dust would kill him, Not of this World wouldn't protect him for free, and so on.
>>43813201
>a sixth color
Who exactly is claiming is a sixth color? Colorless isn't a color. <> is obviously a colorless cost.
>>43807687
because it will probably come back when we see emurakul again
>>43807687
Well, the next block is Shadows over Innsmo--- Innistrad, could be an Emrakul attacking Innistrad which would give us more use of the waste land.
>>43811448
>Black is never helpful
>>43811701
This looks so fucking retarded.
Arithmetic is too hard for new players so we're letting them count everything in little suns, trees and assholes.
-MaRo
>>43813349
Well this guy is for starters >>43807654 and the entire thread has been arguing about what the symbols mean.
You should read threads before you post in them.
>>43813048
>Ingest is the most parasitic here
If a mechanic is parasitic when it only work in its set, can we really say ingest is parasitic?since it doesn't work anywhere at all.
Also, I always wondered, why do we use that word to describe it? Isn't a parasite something that only work on other organisms? Shouldn't we talk of endemic mechanisms or something like that? A parasitic mechanic should be something that only work outside of its set (admittedly at their expense), no?
>>43813892
It's because that's what R&D calls the idea, really.
I'm guessing the reason THEY started calling it that was because they make the block more unique at the expense of the health of the game overall, or something like that.
>>43813964
I always saw it as just the mechanics 'feeding' off of each other, as opposed to working on their own.
>>43807351
>Deserts were originally supposed to tap for a sixth color of mana, planned to be introduced in Arabian Nights.
>Now Deserts can tap for that sixth color.
>>43813964
>>43813892
It's because the Eldrazi are parasites you dumb scute bugs.
>>43807304
Why would the color identity change
>>43807305
No. Never in the history of Magic an ability that puts mana in the mana pool has produced generic mana. Ever.
>>43807687
>end of the eldrazi set
Shadows over Innistrad, son. Shadows over Innistrad.
I can't believe people actually think they'll errata every card that has ever added generic mana to add this new mana. Only adding generic mana IS A DOWNSIDE.
If this mechanic stays in magic and isn't just a gatewatch gimmick, there's no fucking way they would want colorless decks playing ALMOST NO WASTES because a painland, storage, filter (it goes on forever) is INFINITELY better.
>>43808221
How would you word Mirrorpool without the new symbol.
Go on.
I'll wait.
>>43817253
This.
You get either colored (WUBRG) or colorless mana. "Generic" mana isn't a thing. If you tap a Mountain to pay a (1) cost, you're paying that cost with red mana.
>>43817325
>there's no fucking way they would want three-color decks playing ALMOST NO BASICS because a shockland, fetchland, battleland (it goes on forever) is INFINITELY better.
>>43817325
>wizards is any way averse to jewing people for fancy land
go to bed maro you're drunk again
Giving colourless mana a symbol is an interesting idea.
It makes things a little more constant in that all mana has a symbol, those little circles with numbers in them will only appear in costs (given the amount of questions ie read about adding hybrid mana this could be more useful than it appears), and it obviously allows for you to require colourless mana for costs.
Im scepticle about this because I'd have thought they would introduce this large templating change at the beginning of the block. Then again, BFZ is one of the most mechanically complex sets in a while so maybe thats why it would be introduced in OGW.
I dont know, id prefer it to be that rather than a snow mana variant.
>>43812336
You don't understand what parasitic means.
I'll try to explain to you by using Splice onto Arcane and its parallel universe counterpart where Kamigawa wasn't a terrible block with a handful of busted cards: Splice onto Instant.
Splice onto Arcane is parasitic because Arcane spells only appear in the Kamiwaga block (and probably won't ever happen anywhere else because Tribal has been shifted out) and only works inside the Kamigawa block. Splice onto Instant is not because Instants have been in every single set (save for Legions) of Magic.
Now, in your opinion: do you think a colorless mana cost can be used outside of Block Constructed?
>>43817325
You know they have a database and they can simply do a search and replace right.
Right?
>>43817541
>Add {G/C} to your mana pool.
Oh shiiiit it opens up a whole new design space
>>43813651
It's mostly been like that from the very beginning, you dingus.
>>43813651
It's almost funny as deep you have to dig to fuel your hivemind hate.
Don't you feel kind of stupid writing that shit?
>>43817325
see
>>43817352 and >>43817253
>>43807305
>>43817325
>can't distinguish between generic and colorless
So the {C} mana symbol is actually quite a good thing, uh?
>>43817762
That's the best part of this thread. Most people disagreeing with the idea are doing it because they're too stupid to realize what it helps with.
>>43817339
Mirrorpool
Land
Mirrorpool enters the battlefield tapped.
T: Add (1) to your mana pool.
3, T, Sacrifice Mirrorpool: Copy target instant or sorcery spell you control. You may choose new tarets for the copy. Spend at lease one colorless mana to pay for this cost.
5, T, Sacrifice Mirrorpool: Put a token onto the battlefield that's a copy of target creature you control. Spend at lease one colorless mana to pay for this cost.It's not too awful. But then there are going to have players who don't understand the difference between generic and colorless.
>>43817782
You made me chuckle.
>>43817683
*Sigh*
You cant add hybrid mana to your mana pool.
That would be worded as "Add G or C to your mana pool"
You could make a cost that used G/C, which might be interesting.
>Magic: the Gayening
How much more can they fuck up this once brilliant game.
>>43817825
Hah, true.
This thread has convinced me that Magic needs a colourless mana symbol to streamline how costs and mana work.
>>43817825
I kind of love the idea of hybrid colourless/color costs.
If you had cards like
Colourless Growth 1 G/C
Target creature gets +2/+2
and
Colourless Bolt 1 R/C
Deals 2 damage to target creature or player
You could play them in either their normal colour or you could run a bunch of colourless lands and be able to play hybrid colourless cards from all 5 colours.
Hybrid and a new colourless symbol is a bit much for this set, but maybe in an Eldrazhi invade Ravnica set.
>>43817339
Tap add (1) to your mana pool
The other abilities remain the same.
ITT: People who have played magic for years are all of a sudden really concerned about the minutiae of the comprehensive rules
>>43819277
The only people crying are the fags who weren't around for previous massive changes. The funny thing is this change is mostly cosmetic, unlike the changes that nearly redefined the game like how summon spells became creature spells, fundamentally altering how certain cards interact with the graveyard. And don't forget a decades worth of legends suddenly being awarded creature types they didn't previously have. This colorless mana thing is nothing by comparison.
>>43807499
Kek'd
Also consider your dubs checked
>>43807788
>Mythics don't need reminder text
But you're wrong.
>>43819486
The introduction of super types are a quite new thing and the grant creature update, was probably one of the greatest changes ever since it introduced functional errata to a lot of cards.
http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtgcom/feature/424a3
The new symbol on the other hand will not require one single functional errata so a very small change indeed.
