What does /tg/ think of this?
Im still not sure what to make of it?
What type of mana does it tap for?
Is magic dead?
>>43911158
>Is magic dead?
Aleays and constantly, for any, all, and especially the slightest and vaguest reasons.
We have had this thread a million times nothing new could be said.
Just wait and see what it will be.
it taps for colorless. <> is the new format for (1) in mana producers.
>>43911334
Is there even any advantage of having colorless mana over regular mana?
>>43911363
Yes, now, because it seems new Eldrazi cards will require colourless mana as well as having generic mana in their mana costs.
>>43911158
The most plausible theory imo was that it simply taps for colorless mana and <> is the new symbol for colorless.
There already is a functional difference between generic and colorless mana, but they both use the same symbol and only the place where the symbol is used makes it clear if it is colorless or generic. To differentiate the symbols to frees up a bit of design space and it does not introduce a new concept so it is perfectly backwards compatible.
>>43911363
it's generally worse, but easier to get.
Can somenone post the link to the edited cards like Yavimaya Coast or Sol Ring with the <> symbol? I can't find them.
>>43911158
The most plausible theory imo is that it simply taps for salt mana, which is a new gimmick, similar to Snow mana. The other theories involve way too much redoing of old cards to be worth WotC's time, while also guaranteeing confusion.
>>43911158
From the original thread where Wastes was spoiled
>>43911363
Does there really need to be super vital meta reason for it? I remember when I was 8, 15 or 16 years ago, thinking it was weird that there wasn't a colorless basic land when you could have artifact decks that didn't have a single card calling for colored mana, and colorless stuff has only expanded since then.
Also, can someone explain how >>43911472 could possibly make any more sense than >>43911417? I feel like if WotC were going to introduce a new basic land for the first time in MTG's 20+ year history, it wouldn't be for a stupid one-off gimmick
>>43911666
>could possibly make any more sense than
Don't worry he doesn't make any sense.
They overhauled all cards once and gave each creature apropriate creature types.
>>43911158
We don't even know if it's real or not so speculating is pointless.
>>43911888
And it's not like Magic is currently immune to change. I mean, Jesus, they just restructured the whole block structure.
>>43911158
>What does /tg/ think of this?
Edgy as bismuth.
>>43911158
I think you should stop posting the same shitpost fucking thread every fucking day you stupid cunt
It's <> Void Mana - like how the snowflake symbol taps for Snow Mana.
>>43911158
For this to actually work it would require a significant rules change. The way the card is 'worded' (read: textless) it doesn't function with the current game mechanics.
A forest doesn't actually say Tap: Add G to your mana pool. All forests have the innate ability to add G to your mana pool through tapping. Tapping a forest to produce a green mana is a result of the mechanics of the game itself, not what a forest says on it. This is why Hallowed Fountain says Tap: Add W or U to your mana pool in brackets as reminder text, since it doesn't actually have any text. It has the innate ability to produce either white or blue mana. The card doesn't actually say anything.
However, this is just a Basic Land. It doesn't say 'Tap: Add 1 to your mana pool', since its textless. Basic cards don't have an innate ability to tap for 1, and neither do Lands, so how is this producing 1 colorless mana?
Now this could just be a full art card like the full art promo Lightning Bolts and actually say on the card Tap: Add 1 to your mana pool and it wouldn't require any rules changes, but it would be interesting to note that it would be the first full art card in an actual set instead of bring a promo.
It taps for <>, which is used to pay <> mana costs as well as used for numbered colorless mana costs. <> has a colorless color identity.
It's not that fuckin complex, folks.
>>43911158
Magic isn't dead, but from the look of the art that land's pretty dead
>>43911158
When are we getting more spoilers?
>>43911471
>>43917618
Painlands price spike?
>>43911471
And sol ring
>>43911471
Another
>>43911471
If there's anything anyone else wants, I can throw it together
>>43917618
>>43917640
>>43917662
Where's the circle around the diamond?
>>43917685
You ask for more than what thirty seconds in MSE allows for.
>>43917729
MSE comes with a blank colorless symbol which is just a gray circle so i don't know what the problem is
>>43911158
MAGIC IS DEAAAAAD
>>43917987
DING DING DING
>>43915943
You actually only need to update the basic land entry. Currently it says that he basic lands have the innate ability to tab for one mana and the color depends on the type. Simply adding: "If no type is given, basic lands will tab for colorless mana." is quite straight forward. Also adding colorless mana to the mana cost description, is quite easy. They then would need to introduce the symbol to the comprehensive rules and they are done.
It is actually not that complicated as it looks at first glance.
>>43917811
The fact that I was unaware that they had that. Thus, 'thirty seconds in MSE'
>>43915943
vanilla creatures were full art in future sight
also the solution to your problem is pretty much wrapped up in the colorless versus generic mana production; pretty sure we'll get an errata that simply expands wastes to have that innate quality but also not to count as a traditional basic land for the purposes of domain, etc. Case settled
>>43917303
Gonna be awhile, these first three cards leaked early.
>>43918426
Gotta go superjew on those enemy painlands, then.
>>43915943
I don't see how your argument supports the requirement for rules changes.
>>43911158
We don't know what it does. We don't even really know if it's real.
We can guess, though.
>>43911334
We don't know that for sure.
>>43919062
Yes but it is the safest bet.
>>43917811
>mana poole
>>43911363
Any card with that symbol in its casting cost must have that symbol payed for with colorless mana, rather than generic mana. So if something has 2<> as its cost you can use 2 of any kind of mana so long as the third comess not colored at all.
>>43917628
Where do you even want them to go, they're like 2 dollars each and have been reprinted millions of times.
>>43911158
>What does /tg/ think of this?
My body is ready.
>>43922269
Whoever posted this image for everyone to see should have been shitposted to hell for not supporting their local store and instead buying from big box stores.
Seriously, what the fuck are you people doing shopping at Walmart and Target, they don't host any fucking events; they don't have to eat the cost of hosting events like a brick and mortar does.
>>43923444
hopefully thieving from them... especially if they are paying BBstore price for them
why don't you guys post some dank mtg maymays :)
>>43923444
There is no need to be upset.
>>43923444
Maybe he didn't buy them.
It's possible that he stole them all and ran all the way home, giggling like a little girl all the while.
>>43922269
I think you should buy a booster box next time and save some money. Now you're a meme :/
>>43923444
>not buying out every Walgreen's in your area while they're currently 40% off
>>43911472
>implying WotC hasn't made large sweeping changes to things in the past
>"WotC won't get rid of 'Bury', they will have to reprint every old card with the new wording!"
>"WotC won't get rid of 'summon creature', they would have to go back and reprint every old card with the new format."
>"WotC won't use 'dies', they will have to reprint every old card with the new wording!"
They have literally made changes like this in the past for the sake of clarity in game mechanics. Changing colorless/artifact mana to be more easily told apart from generic mana fits in with this.
This ISNT some kind of new mana type. It already exists. Before it was marked as "Tap for (1)" which made one colorless mana, which could only be spent for generic costs like (1) in a spell or abilities cost. Some cards specified using only colorless mana or spending the mana only on artifacts, or other wording. This created a bit of unique rules scenario of some mana having additional unique properties other than its color, which was a practically unused design space, breifly touched upon with snow mana, but ultimately dropped.
NOW, it's changed to better implement that design space, by more clearly defining the difference between "Spend anything for this" and "Spend specifically this", even when the specific thing isn't actually a color. This opens up way more design space in the future, and is what leads me to believe this was designed with the intent of making it an evergreen mechanic right from the start.
>>43915943
>A Forest doesn't actually say "Tap: add G to your Mana pool"
There's plenty of sets that disagree with you there, friend.
It's almost like they wrote it out for a long time, then stopped once everyone knew what the basics did!
>>43918832
Literally every single set since magics inception has included a rules change.
>>43929343
Except that's fucking wrong, you retard
>>43923444
Sometimes the LGS runs out of stock before the Big Boxes. Sometimes it doesn't HAVE the stock. Other times, a man just gets the urge to buy 50 boosters while buying cheap frozen dinners.
There are many paths.
>>43929198
You're just pulling shit out of your ass by the shovel-load at this point.
>>43929339
If you look at more modern lands than fucking 4e, you'll note that the tap mana ability on lands is put in italics and parenthesis, meaning it's reminder text. Both basic lands and nonbasic double lands have this.
I was skeptical at first too when they first posted that, but looked it up myself and they're right. Being a Land - Mountain/Forest/Plains/Island/Swamp actually does confer the tap mana ability as a rule.
>>43929444
You may have noted my follow-up point:
>It's like they wrote it out for a long time, then stopped once everyone knew what the basics did!
Also, reading the rules explicitly states that, yes, all basic lands have the INTRINSIC rules text: "Tap for (MANA)" So yes, every forest does say that.
You would literally only have to add to rule 305.6 "Wastes for {<>}", and it would be totally fine in the rules.
So the 2 choices are:
1) Big as fuck errata shit
2) Super parasitic shit for the small set of a shit block
Yes? I don't know which one is worse.
>>43929414
Not that anon. While I'm not sure every single SET has done it, every BLOCK has had an update to the comprehensive rules. They have to add in the new keywords or terminology. It's a very minor change, but every single block does bring a change to it, and I wouldn't be surprised if every set did as well.
As for people saying that magic doesn't make huge sweeping changes like this, they have done it in the past. Adding evergreen keywords for commonly used effects (Reach, Shroud). Transform required a massive change to the rules and how decks were required to be built including actual rules for proxying cards. Equipment had a similarly massive revision to the rules, and to this day has a lot of clauses made to shoehorn it in (such as the rules for Creatures that have the Equip ability).
Hell, does anyone remember Mana Burn? That was a huge change. Or the Substance keyword, a keyword that has never been printed and only shows up as errata?
And the people saying its a new snow mechanic, I find that doubtful. Snow mana is generated intrinsically, not decidedly. Snow mana is just any mana produced by a card with the snow super type. Wastes do not have a super type other than basic, meaning this would require a much larger rules change than just adding a symbol for colorless mana, unless this is a new color entirely. That seems unlikely though, as it goes directly against the theme of the set it is being introduced in.
>>43929574
To be fair, wastes don't actually have a type of "Wastes". Still very easy to do though, just add "If a basic land does not have a subtype, it taps for <>"
>>43920678
>casting cost isn't the 4chan logo
bah
>>43923444
I'm more pissed off that he bought any packs at all from such a terrible fucking set.
Quick rules reminder for everyone. Colorless mana and generic mana are already different things, represented by the same symbol. Relevant rules below.
>105.1. There are five colors in the Magic game: white, blue, black, red, and green.
>105.2. An object can be one or more of the five colors, or it can be no color at all. An object is the color or colors of the mana symbols in its mana cost, regardless of the color of its frame. An object’s color or colors may also be defined by a color indicator or a characteristic-defining ability. See rule 202.2.
>105.2a A monocolored object is exactly one of the five colors.
>105.2b A multicolored object is two or more of the five colors.
>105.2c A colorless object has no color.
>105.3. Effects may change an object’s color or give a color to a colorless object.
>105.4. If a player is asked to choose a color, he or she must choose one of the five colors. “Multicolored” is not a color. Neither is “colorless.”
>106.1a There are five colors of mana: white, blue, black, red, and green.
>106.1b There are six types of mana: white, blue, black, red, green, and colorless.
>107.4b Numeral symbols (such as {1}) and variable symbols (such as {X}) represent generic mana in costs. Generic mana in costs can be paid with any type of mana. For more information about {X}, see rule 107.3.
>117.7a If a cost is reduced by an amount of colored mana, but its colored mana component doesn’t contain mana of that color, the cost is reduced by that amount of generic mana.
What this tells us, under current rules:
Cards cannot generate Generic Mana, but can generate Colorless Mana.
Cards can cost Generic Mana.
Currently, no card has a cost that requires Colorless Mana.
A card whose cost includes only Generic Mana, is considered colorless.
Generic is not actually a trait that mana can have, only a trait of mana costs.
>>43911158
>What does /tg/ think of this?
It's a neat concept that people are overthinking way too hard. It's likely going to be a passing gimmick that exists solely for the Eldrazi, but Ugin's thing is colorless magic, too, so he might get another planeswalker card.
The community that'll probably get the most out of it is the EDH players who might have access to basic colorless lands; depending on how the rulings work, of course.
>Im still not sure what to make of it?
Colorless is usually attributed to artifacts, but the Eldrazi are special snowflakes amongst the MtG multiverse, so they're getting special snowflake lands for their own personal use.
>What type of mana does it tap for?
Colorless. Whether or not it's necessary for the Eldrazi spells or if it can be substituted for generic mana is still unknown.
>Is magic dead?
Always and forever.
>>43930525
And additional information about Snow.
>107.4h The snow mana symbol {S} represents one generic mana in a cost. This generic mana can be paid with one mana of any type produced by a snow permanent (see rule 205.4f). Effects that reduce the amount of generic mana you pay don’t affect {S} costs. (There is no such thing as “snow mana”; “snow” is not a type of mana.)
>
205.4f Any permanent with the supertype “snow” is a snow permanent. Any permanent that doesn’t have this supertype is a nonsnow permanent, regardless of its name.
Snow mana does not actually exist, and thus cannot be added to the mana pool.
The Snow symbol in a mana cost is a Generic Mana symbol.
Any mana, regardless of color, can be used to pay a Snow symbol in a mana cost, however you may only spend mana generating by Cards with the Snow super type to do so.
Combining this information with the above post, and comparing it to existing cards, can give us some decent speculation.
Option 1: (most likely)
Wastes produces Colorless Mana, which now uses a different symbols from Generic Mana.
Now that colorless has its own symbol (while still not being a color), Colorless mana can now be added to the mana cost of cards, something that wasn't previously possible.
Basic lands without a subtype produce Colorless mana.
Rule 305.6 gets the text "If none of the above conditions are true, [mana symbol] is {<>}." added to the end of it.
Note that in commander, Wastes and other cards using the new symbol can still be included, even if your commander does not have a generic or colorless symbol in its mana cost. Colorless is not a color, and so it may be included, even if the representative symbol of it doesn't show up on the commander.
Option 2: (doubtful)
There is an entirely new color, Gray.
There is now an eldrazi that has a color, doesn't have Devoid, is not colorless, but for some reason still uses the normal colorless card frame.
>>43931710
Option 3: (doubtful)
It is a new mechanic, that draws inspiration from Snow, but does not act the same way or follow the same rules.
This new mechanic does not function the same way, and instead it can actually produce mana of its type. It also does not have a related super type.
However, like snow, it being used as part of a mana cost does not affect color identity, only casting cost.
Option 4: (probably fucking not)
The Basic super type now acts similarly to the Snow super type.
The <> symbol can only be paid for by any mana produced by a Basic permanent.
Option 5: (possible, but unlikely)
It's an entirely new mechanic for which there is no precedence. WotC does not typically add new mechanics to the game without at least partially drawing from an existing mechanic.
>>43917678
>>43917662
>>43917640
This really isn't how it's going to work.
By the way, do we now know if Wastes and the new symbol are real or not, or is there still a doubt?
>>43932048
And what makes you say that, anon?
>>43911158
>rarity marker of C instead of L
>on a basic
Guys seriously, it's fucking fake.
>>43931710
BTW Wizards did recently change the Chaos symbol from Planechase from {C} to {CHAOS}, freeing up {C} in the rules to be used for something else. Like colorless mana.
>>43911363
Colorless commander.
>>43911158
Karn, Silver Golem EDH when?
>>43929809
Adding "If a land does not have a subtype, it taps for <>" sounds way better to me.
>>43931771
>The Basic super type now acts similarly to the Snow super type.
>Very aggressively costed cards are printed for Modern but can only be cast with Basic Lands
>Pic related happens
I really, really, really like this idea.
>>43932048
Why not?
They've made larger changes in the past.
>>43935786
So now every single land without a subtype innately taps for <>, even if it could produce mana previously but had a cost attached to it, or could produce only colored mana (I.E., the vast majority of non-basic lands)?
>>43936012
That actually WOULD be a good way to finally introduce Muraganda. Dang.
Though personally, I'm hoping for some more artifact friendly artifacts. I.E. Hybrid mana costs of 2/<> 2/<>, or something similar. Easy for artifact focused decks to play, possible but still harder for other decks to play. Make splashing artifacts be more of a choice on par with splashing a color, instead of just "Eh, I'll just throw in a play set of this one artifact. No big deal."
>>43938590
To be honest, while adding ◇ to your mana pool is probably going to just be The New Way Of Doing It, ◇ as a cost is probably going to be an Eldrazi Thing - a way to distinguish them and make it so you DON'T have to make most of them Devoid to avoid the problem of 'either they suck, everyone runs them, or they're too expensive to see play in anything but heavy ramp'
>>43917640
>>43932048
Because they already have shown that its not how its going to work.
A)its fucking retarded to have that many unnecessary mana symbols on a card. With this system, cards like Ulamog or any large colorless spell would hardly have any room for its name. Its sometimes done on cards like Khalni Hydra to make them more difficult to cast, but its totally pointless otherwise.
B) Pic Related. They've already shown that it is to specifically show the eldrazi destruction of the land. Colorless mana will still be depicted the same way
>>43918256
>tab
Are you the guy who made a shade vampire rogue in my dnd campaign?
>>43938980
>With this system, cards like Ulamog or any large colorless spell would hardly have any room for its name.
Why would that be the case? Ulamog doesn't cost colorless mana. It costs generic mana.
>>43938980
Pic related shows a large Eldrazi that costs 8 generic mana and 2 colorless (AKA, 2 that can't be paid for with colored mana)
>>43940032
>>43939678
then who's to say that Sol ring or the painlands produce colorless or generic mana?
>>43940796
You can't produce generic mana, just like you can't add hybrid mana to your mana pool.
>>43940796
The Comprehensive Rules do.
They make colorless mana. Generic mana can't be made, it's only used in costs.
>>43940796
If the 1 shows up as cost, it is generic. If the 1 shows up in a mana ability, it is colorless.
The comprehensive rules are pretty clear about this.
>>43938980
You seem to have missed the point entirely, and are also unable to tell the difference between Colorless mana and Generic mana.
That cost is: Eight mana of any type, plus two additional mana that MUST be colorless.
>>43940796
That is ALREADY in the rules, even without this change. Someone posted the relevant rulings a few posts above you.
>>43940796
>there are still people who don't understand the difference
>tfw MaRo was right about game's complexity the whole time
>inb4 Magic dies because of complex mana symbol
>inb4 We play on the streets with rocks because society got into a dumb downwardspiral and abandoned every game which required a minimum sense of intelligence
