MTG might as well have added the color purple to mana pool.
>Fuck the wastes...
The art's dank tho
>h8ers gonna h8
>>43978011
So when do we start referring to this pseudocolorless as "Skub color"
>>43978033
You mean the scummiest color.
>Not Colorless
>Not Colored
>Forever awkward turrle
>>43978011
>waste
>not fucking bismuth
You had one job people.
>>43978130
That would've ruled out all non-Bismuth wastes.
We might see Wastes in sets that aren't Eldrazi themed.
>>43978033
Pretty sure its 'anti-skub' colour.
>>43978163
No Sir, I quite disagree, by calling it Bismuth it will enforce that only bismuth lands should be created,
And for golly sakes, could some one be a chap and photoshop OP's image to say bismuth instead of waste while were here.
>captha, select all pictures of flowers, pick them all and failing, IT WANTED ME TO ADD A Bowl of fruit.
>>43978011
>I'm a retarded faggot who cannot grasp the difference between generic and colorless mana
>>43978052
>too dumb to understand new concepts
>>43978011
I don't understand what you're not understanding here. It's a basic land. It lacks a subtype. It taps for (1). When Oath comes out, the Templating will be updated so that colorless mana no longer uses the same symbol as generic mana. Meaning that what is now written when produced as (1), will be written when produced as <>. This also allows costs to specify needing to be paid in colorless mana.
The only real rules change needed to make sense of wastes is an update to the section of the comprehensive rules that associate basic land types with colored mana production. The most likely change will be that Basic Lands without a subtype tap for one colorless mana.
>>43978011
>purple
yeah i read that issue of inquest, too.
funny stuff back in the day.
>>43979759
This exactly. Sure, other options are 'possible', but this is by far and wide the most likely out of any. I don't understand why so many people do not see this.
Bismuth land is best land.
>>43978011
>purple
>not anusmana
>>43978220
The autism.
>>43979759
>Meaning that what is now written when produced as (1), will be written when produced as <>. This also allows costs to specify needing to be paid in colorless mana.
I'd like to believe this, but then there is the problem of that blocks are planned years in advanced so why doesn't anything in the first set use that mana?
Hell, it would work perfectly for devoid creatures, it would allow you have colored effects with wastes costs ( assuming wastes is "must be paid with colorless" ) to prevent everyone splashing it instead of the retardation of giving them colored mana costs then saying they are colorless.
It's actually a special variety of blue mana.
>>43980874
Wizards unfortunately has a bad habit of sending a finalized set design over to development right as they're getting into the real meat of design for the following set. They probably didn't figure out that they wanted to do <> until BFZ had hit early development playtesting.
>>43979759
>The most likely change will be that Basic Lands without a subtype tap for one colorless mana.
Probably not, I think wastes will get the explicit text: {T}: Add <> to your mana pool. (but not on this card because full-art), rather than implicit on no types, because otherwise basic lands with types that lose those types will be able to produce colorless.
>>43981145
Genuine question, is there any effect in the game that causes land to lose all subtypes?
>>43981145
I don't think there's more than like one or two ways max for a basic land to lose all subtypes in the game yet. Shit, they might print stuff that does it to explicitly exploit that.
>>43980874
It's probably a combination of set design marching on and a way to differentiate Ulamog and Kozilek Eldrazi.
And <> will 99% only be used for production, not costs, to simplify the idea.
>>43981961
True. Especially since it looks like Colorless Requiring cards are ordered first, and Kozi checks in at cn #4.
>>43979759
Are they actually calling it Generic mana now, and not calling the new stuff Void Mana or something?
>>43982406
(1) in a cost has always been called generic mana, as it can be paid with mana of any color, or colorless mana.
The reason this confuses people is because when something taps to produce one colorless mana, the same symbol is used: (1).
So the new templating should clear that up. <> is colorless, and can only pay for colorless or generic costs. if a cost has <> in it, <> can only be paid with <>. So, for example, the new Kozilek, costs (8)<><>, which is Eight Generic and Two Colorless.
>>43982406
grey numeral mana costs are generic mana, and can be paid with any color of mana
hypothetically, the <> reperesents a colorless mana cost
generic mana cannot be produced, but it can be paid
colorless mana has not previously been a cost, but it can be generated
>>43982406
No, the fucking thing is still a speculation. Just wait for 2 more weeks when the spoiler / magic is ded season begins
>>43982521
It is ALWAYS "magic is deeeeeeeead" season.
>>43982506
>Generic mana cannot be produced
LOOK AT HIM! LOOK AT HIM AND LAUGH!
>>43982558
it's true, despite RAW autists still being allowed to speak
any old card that said "add n generic mana to your mana pool" now says "add (n) to your mana pool"
>>43982406
Generic mana is {1} in costs, and represents a cost that can be paid with any colour of mana.
Colourless mana is currently {1} in mana generation, and represents colourless mana.
The main theory is that <> is the new symbol for colourless mana, which clarifies the difference between colourless and generic mana (which has been shown by the reveals to be fairly difficult for a lot of players), as well as adding the ability for costs to require colourless mana (ie costs that could be paid with Boreal Druid but not Llanowar Elves).
>>43982580
now i want Snow Covered Wastes
and some horrible phyrexian artifact creature that costs like <><><> and says "cast ~ with only snow mana"
>>43982558
Technically you could do it, the same way you can technically generate hybrid mana, but there's no symbol for it. When they do it they instead say 'Add one mana of any color to your mana pool'. (I am assuming you are not mixing up generic and colorless mana.)
>>43982497
>>43982506
You guys are fucking idiots. It's a specialty mechanic that's not going to persist past Gatewatch.
>>43982602
I would highly doubt the addition of a basic land to every legacy format would be done for a single set mechanic, but all of this is speculation at this stage, so oh well. I would personally weep for the loss of design space - colourless only allows a lot of pushed cards without formats degenerating into 3-5C goodstuff.
>>43982600
>(I am assuming you are not mixing up generic and colorless mana.)
why on earth would you ever give someone the benefit of the doubt?
also, you specifically cannot generate hybrid mana, so each thing that could generate both colors says (A) or (B) instead of (A/B)
mana in the mana pool is always one of five colors or colorless, and either snow or nonsnow
>>43982632
Colorless mana is mana that can be paid by any mana.
I have no idea what this "generic" mana you're talking about is.
>>43982693
Sol Ring costs one generic mana to cast
It taps to produce two colorless mana
>>43982800
It costs one colorless.
>>43982825
The distinction is that you can cast sol ring with one mana of any color or colorless, whereas it produces strictly colorless mana
>>43982632
There are provisions in the comprehensive rules for the generation of hybrid mana, though they've never been used. It covers the Elemental Resonance edge case, along with others, I expect.
>>43982693
The relevant rules sections are 107.4b and 107.4c. Magic's english comprehensive rules can be found here: http://magic.wizards.com/en/gameinfo/gameplay/formats/comprehensiverules
>>43982848
The distinction doesn't need to be made.
>>43982860
But yet it has existed since alpha edition
>>43982860
I disagree. more pertinently, the design team disagrees.
>>43982860
The designers of the game apparently disagree with you.
http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/133764358703/rules-wise-is-there-a-practical-difference
http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/42052634149/why-are-the-colorless-mana-symbol-eg-add-1
>>43982855
>It covers the Elemental Resonance edge case
The exception is printed on elemental resonance
If a mana symbol has more than one color, choose one
It would be possible to have a mana ability templated as "add (A/B)" but it would be necessary to state that the mana produced is either A or B, not both
>>43982929
Reminder text has no actual rules meaning, and is only used to call attention to rules that would not be known by many players. Specifically, the rule the reminder text of elemental resonance calls attention to is 106.8.
>>43982989
My point was that the rule wasn't something they came up with after they printed elemental resonance
>>43982860
You're patently retarded then.
You have the same numbers mean different things when they're on different parts of the card or different sides of the colon.
This is a formatting change that allows an extra sliver of design space specifically for Eldrazi and Kozilek.
No cards will function differently than intended.
We won't get (8)<><> costs anywhere but Eldrazi (and likely just Kozilek to make him unique), and production will be simple as it's always been.
Will Wastes be printed in every set? No. They'll likely bring it back for any set with an Eldrazi presence.
>>43982627
It's entirely possible that Wastes and <> mana will only exist in Gatewatch, especially since the Eldrazi are the only ones able to create Bismuth lands. Also, if they only print things with <> in their costs/text in Oath, then regardless of the new basic land, it'll only ever exist in Oath. I wouldn't put it past them to create a basic land for one set, what pisses me off is that they didn't do it for the entire block. This should have come out in Battle for Zendikar (assuming it works the way you say it does).
As for Legacy is a different thing altogether, since it's an eternal format players can take one-set mechanics and use them.
>>43983016
Ah, fair, my bad. I didn't mean that the rule was made for Elemental Resonance, though I can see my phrasing was ambiguous.
>>43983025
I really like the design space and kind of hope they'll print a bunch of the cards. I want to see more eternal playable artifacts that aren't just equipment or affinity.
>>43982693
>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.
>>43983050
Wow someone being reasonable and admitting fault in an argument about magic on 4chan
Be my Lama, oh calm one
>>43980793
Welcome to Magic: the Gathering
>>43978645
well seeing as they're currently the same thing that's understandable
>>43979759
I understand what's happening. I'm simply of a position that it's a laughable mistake that will eventually be looked back at with some cringe. I'm sure they've got some very natural feeling mechanics involved. But we've finally got purple mana and the timing is a little strange so the instant reaction is to make fun of it, it's an idea worth making fun of.
>>43983981
>But we've finally got purple mana
It's not purple mana, it's Eldrazi/Devoid mana and it's only going to appear in one set.
Snow mana was not "purple", it was a type of colored mana, just like this is not "purple" it's eldrazi flavored colorless mana.
>>43983939
Except they're not at all, faggot. They're expressed with the same symbols, but they're two separate ideas.
>>43983981
Dear GAWD it's not fucking purple mana. I swear some people can barely read and understand basic concepts.
We know exactly how it'll be used and what it means. There's no conversation there.
The real issue is whether Wastes and <> costs will show up in other sets. Personally, it's most likely that Wastes and <> in costs will stay connected to Eldrazi, and <> in production will be a formatting cleaner.
>>43984097
>We know exactly how it'll be used and what it means.
No, we don't.
There are multiple theories and yours happens to be a really convoluted one with lots of holes in the logic. Fuck off.
i really wish it's just a fake even though it looked interesting so it will btfo all the pretentious neckbeards.
>>43984191
By thinking you're better than pretentious neckbeards make you a pretentious neckbeardy?
>>43984225
by not getting foamy mouthed over an unconfirmed piece of card.
>>43980442
Kek'd
>>43984256
But you're getting foamy in the mouth over being told you're a pretentious neckbeard. Which is arguably worse than just energetic about a potential major change to their favourite game
>>43984355
try again. i'm not the one writing an essay on how a fake card is right or wrong.
>>43984377
But you're going out of your way to say how much better you are than people that are doing that
>>43978032
Dank as in good or bad?
>>43978011
<> is now purple. It is written.
>>43984637
Nice try, you're missing your trips
>>43978011
>there's a basic land thatakes colorless now?
>REEEEEEEEEEEEE
>wotc ruined the game!
>this is so different and unexpected, even though it's changed very little from a practical stand point and the game has been trending towards this for more than ten years!
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Die in a house fire.
why are people so angry about snow mana: not retarded edition?
it even interacts with stuff outside of its own block
>>43985108
It's not "snow mana," quit calling it that.
>>43985120
It's filling a similar role to snow, though. It's just that <> interacts with things outside of its own block.
It is:
>A resource available to all colors
>A way to make aggressively costed, but difficult to cast cards*
*WotC will fuck this up, but it's the thought that counts
>Doesn't require too much deck modification to work in
>>43985189
You don't pay snow as part of a spells cost for one.
>>43985252
simply because they never did it
there are abilities that cost snow mana
>>43985252
They could have made a spell that costed snow mana
>>43984637
<> is now purple. It is echoed by the masses.
+OCD Color Distribution (Relevant, Kinda)
