>Adds <>
>>44027521
Well, it's confirmed then. <> is the new symbol for (1), and any mana cost of <> can only be paid with colorless mana.
>>44027521
Well, of course it was the most reasonable thing it could be.
>>44027564
how will this change (2)+ colourless mana costs? should we expect to see (GG) or (UUUU) as singular symbols?
>>44027588
Absolutely. But does Hedron Archive give <> <>? This does raise a few more questions.
>>44027609
This seems so silly, why even make anything produce <>? It would be like if they made sources that produced phyrexian mana, and used the phyrexian mana symbol, but all it did was give you 2 life that can only be used to play phrexian costs.
>>44027666
The difference is that now some things will REQUIRE colorless mana. Seems logical to me.
>>44027609
Nothing. Look at Kozilek for the example.
He's 8 mana, plus <> <>. That means you can pay for him with 8 mountains and any 2 lands that produce colorless.
All the <> symbol does is make it so there can be colorless cards that require colorless mana specifically without making a clause on the card to say 'X colorless mana must be spent to cast ~'
>>44027609
Colorless=/=generic. Why are so many people struggling with this incredibly simple concept?
>>44027645
>But does Hedron Archive give <> <>?
Yes
>This does raise a few more questions.
No, that's pretty self explanatory
>>44027666
>This seems so silly, why even make anything produce (1)? It would be like if they made sources that produced phyrexian mana, and used the phyrexian mana symbol, but all it did was give you 2 life that can only be used to play phrexian costs.
>>44027521
Boo.
"Adds <><>" is not the better template.
>>44027666
Its a way to make colorless matter, which always felt like a flavor failure.
>Mina and Denn 2RG
>Legendary Creature - Elf Ally
>You may play an additional land during each of your turns.
>RG, Return a land you control to its owner's hand; Target creature gains trample until end of turn.
4/4
>Flavor text roughly translates to: Mina and Denn are twins and the last of the Mul Daya tribe.
Is landfall going to be Tier 1 now? New budget deck?
>>44027609
>how will this change (2)+ colourless mana costs?
It won't, because those costs weren't "colorless" in the first place, they were generic.
>>44027746
Thran dynamometer adds <><><>. What a nice templating
>>44027746
>>44027852
How is the templating any worse than something like Dark Ritual?
>>44027746
>>44027852
It's way better. Now at least things are consistent between colored and colorless mana.
>>44027852
>Dark ritual
>Elvish Aberration
>>44027893
Because Dark Ritual is old. This is new, and therefore literally the worst thing to happen to MtG ever
>>44027893
We didn't have an alternative, batter way to reprint 3 black mana. We had a better template for colorless previously. At least this might open some new design space, hope it gets pushed a bit.
>>44027521
Woah.. that's a lowryn filterland reprint, no?
>>44027949
I suppose expeditions are technically reprints.
>>44027949
Yep. Filterlands being reprinted as full arts for expeditions. No reason for them to do it, almost nobody uses them, but fuck it.
>>44027967
Ah... it's a bullshit expedition land? That's a bummer.
I was hoping for it to be the land cycle of the set.
>>44027931
But this way they're consistent, and we now also have a way to denote mana costs that can only be played with colorless mana, opening up new design options.
>>44027521
>>44027645
What I don't understand is why do this change in the second set of a block? In a small set? Why not just do it in the first set?
>>44028012
Because they didn't come up with it yet.
>>44027931
The problem isn't that they're printing colorless mana in a worse way. The problem is that the way colored mana is printed has always been terrible. This is an improvement- if you're going to be stupid, at least be consistently stupid.
>>44028012
This is the first set following the 2 block system. I wouldn't be surprised if development was a mess.
>>44028012
It IS the first set of a new year.
My biggest issue with <> is aesthetics.
It's too close to Zendikar/Eldrazi and too different from the classic mana symbols.
Is this going to be an evergreen thing from now on? If it's this set only then I don't care, it's like phyrexian mana.
>>44027998
Well it still could be.
There are expedition variants for the BFZ land cycle.
>>44028131
Why would there be anything good in this block? Unless they decided to put everything good in one set instead of spreading it out evenly, you can expect it to be mostly the same shit as BfZ but with a different expansion symbol.
>>44028223
They could get away with putting these in Standard. It wouldn't even be too great with all the fetchlands not being able to grab them.
They aren't incredibly sought after either.
>>44028012
As a surprise for when they officially reveal Kozilek, much like the last time they officially revealed Kozilek and SURPRISE COLORLESS NONARTIFACT CREATURES
>>44027521
Of course Wizards goes with the most retarded thing they could think of, why did I even bother hoping they had an iota of sense?
>>44029120
Strange days.
>>44027976
EDH is the 3rd biggest format after standard and draft
>>44027893
>Thinks dork ritual is bad
hahaha
>>44029120
Were you hoping that <> was a snow 2.0? This is the least retarded thing that <> could have been.
>>44029381
this card is as bad as it gets and you can still pretty easily see that it gives you 8 red mana
i think thats evidence in favor of this change being an okay idea
the real issue for me is that the benefits to this change seem so small they are hardly noticeable, and it entails one of the biggest errata's ever done by mtg, comparable to the creature type overhaul
>>44029432
>this card is as bad as it gets and you can still pretty easily see that it gives you 8 red mana
>8 red mana
HAHAHAHA.
IT'S FUNNY.
BECAUSE IS WRONG.
>>44029432
I think you're overblowing the errata thing. It's mostly just an aesthetic change. The only rules change is a distinction between generic and colorless mana in the casting costs.
>>44029617
And, assuming everything spoiled so far is real, the basic land change.
>>44029458
I think you might want to count those symbols again, there, son.
>>44029649
But wastes lacks a type, so none of the cards that read "basic land type" would need to be changed. Wastes just wont count towards domain or any rules text that requires basic land type. So Sundering Titan for instance, would not allow you to choose wastes because it lacks a "type".
Of course this is just speculation, I could be completely wrong.
>>44029617
>its mostly just an aesthetic change
what im worried about is ENTIRELY an aesthetic change
i just think its awkward to aesthetically change thousands of cards from the history of magic
not a disaster, not a catastrophe for magic.
im just saying its awkward that every old card that produced colorless mana is going to have new oracle text that looks different
im not "overblowing" anything, im just saying there's very little benefit in my eyes that we are getting out of this change that makes all my colorless producing cards "out of date" so to speak
overall i SUPPORT the change, and wish it had always been this way, i just think its awkward
>>44029417
>This is the least retarded thing that <> could have been.
As it stands it's a 6th color, which is a jump-the-shark level of event.
I sincerely hope this it's snow mana, and not a massive braindead errata.
>>44029381
I actually had acasualflamekin deck based around that guy and shit like smokebraider and grinning Ignis.
Was fun
>>44030051
It's not a sixth color any more than Imperiosaur or Vedalken Engineer or Eldrazi Temple or Ancient Ziggurat or Ally Encampment or Sliver Hive or snow or any of a billion other things were a sixth color.
>>44030268
This. Snow lands were closer to a 6th color than this is.
>>44030051
>As it stands it's a 6th color
>hope its snow mana
>not an errata
you make zero fucking sense whatsoever you shit-licking piece of garbage
explain to me how snow mana was less of a "6th color" than this, which is purely making a standardized notation for cards that can only be cast using colorless mana, and a standardized notation for colorless mana production
>>44027746
It is though, you just don't like change. Of course the superior option is to have colored mana display as numbers but that's just too big a change, so we get this instead to make things as consistent as possible across the board.
>>44027521
Time to fiinally sells everything MtG related I own, no point in continuing anymore.
>>44027521
>colorless is gonna be represented by C, if the change of the Chaos symbol from {C} to {CHAOS} recently is any evidence
>first Oath expedition spoiled depicts C-Gate
>>44030405
Colored numbers is a bad idea though, since if it's symbol with number it's cluttered, and if it's just colored numbers it's kinda fucked for people who are colorblind
>>44029981
Wizard's has changed "in play" to "the battlefield" which is longer and less intuitive. This current change isn't even errata, it's literally how you write colorless mana being produced.
Here's my question, can <> costs be reduced to 0?
If I for example have an Animar with 10 +1/+1 counters in play. Does the new Kozilek cost 0? Or does it cost <><>?
>>44030516
And to expand on that question.
Say my Animar has TWO +1/+1 counters on it.
Can I use colored mana to cast Kozilek, since his casting cost is reduced by <><>?
>>44030516
No, because Animar only reduces generic costs.
>>44030516
>>44030551
Honestly, we probably won't know that until A) there is an article about it or B) when the updated comp rules comes out and someone looks through them
>>44030516
If you have an Animar with 10 +1/+1 counters out and you cast a Dragon Tyrant, does it cost 0 or RR?
>>44030551
If your Animar has TWO counters on it, can it reduce the Dragon Tyrant by RR?
>>44030509
errata doesnt imply a functional change, hence the term "functional errata"
its any change whatsoever in the text box of a card
>>44030574
>>44030593
How do you know that it only reduces generic mana?
Mystic Gate generates <> mana.
Here's a picture of Mystic Gate.
>>44030501
Then pick a selection of colors that works for colorblind people. If you're going to cater to that subset of a population there are less stupid ways to do it than "some portion of the cost will be symbols and another portion will be numbers." It looks terrible and it makes almost no sense at first blush.
>>44030645
generic mana cannot exist in your mana pool, there are 6 colors of mana that can be in your mana pool, the 5 colors and colorless
generic mana is a feature of a card's mana cost. it doesn't describe a type of mana that can be added to your mana pool. a card can cost, for instance, 2 white 2 generic mana, which means 2 white mana, and 2 mana of any color or no color
>>44030645
Because there's already a seperation between generic mana costs and colorless mana production in the rules.
Animar reduces generic mana costs. Mystic Gate produces colorless mana. Kozilek's ◇◇ are colorless mana symbols, not generic mana cost symbols, thus those do not get reduced by a generic cost reducer.
They shared symbols before, and won't from now on. If something would reduce Kozilek's ◇◇, it would say it reduced the cost by ◇ or ◇◇, but nothing has COSTED ◇ before due to the sharing of symbols between colorless and generic, so they've never printed something that reduces colorless costs.
>>44030653
>pick colors that colorblind people can see
>>44030759
>>44030824
Yes, but we're not talking about colors in the pool here.
For all we know, Animar might say "reduce costs by <> for each +1/+1 counter on Animar".
There is no way to distinguish <> and {1} in the textbox.
>>44030874
except now there is, Kozilek fucking has both symbols in his mana cost, as in they are distinct. How fucking dense can people be?
>>44030874
>for all we know...
umm maybe retards like you are still up in the air about it, but nobody who has critical thinking skills believes that animar's ability reduces mana costs by <>
>>44030874
Everything that add (1) to your mana pool is necessarily adding <>, everything else stay as it is.
Actually, you don't even need errata for anything but clarification.
>>44027521
that's not gatewatches symbol
Holy shit.
They finally added purple huh?
>>44031172
NO YOU STUPID FUCK
damn /tg/ i didnt know i could get triggered this hard by wrong opinions
>>44031161
expedition lands have their own set symbol
>>44031172
If by purple you mean colorless, and if by added you mean brought it's notation in line with all the other types of mana, then sure, yeah, purple.
>>44030874
Yes there is.
If it's a cost or a reducer, it's a generic cost, because there have been no colorless costs before Oath - and thus there are no colorless costs to reduce.
If it's adding to the mana pool, it's colorless, because you can't add generic mana to your mana pool. There's no such thing as generic mana.
>>44030268
Those are one off effects, this could be used to make a colorless 6th color.
>you make zero fucking sense whatsoever you shit-licking piece of garbage
Maybe if you're clinically retarded.
>>44030874
Cards that reduce the mana cost by 1 refer to generic mana costs, because colorless mana cost was not a thing until now.
If you advocate the the they refer to colorless mana cost, cards like Urza's Incubator and their like were more or less blank until now because no cards with colorless mana costs were printed. So they could reduce nothing.
Colorless and generic mana are very different things and share nor similarities besides the same icon they used unit now, but the context in which these symbols were used makes is absolutely clear if they mean colorless and generic mana.
It is seriously not that hard. Just read the 1 as colorless or generic and think which of these two can't work, before this expansion.
>>44031306
>brought it's notation in line with all the other types of mana
But there's no precedent for colorless mana is costs, so it's a big deal if they change it as it makes a 6th color of mana.
>>44030874
It is actually quite easy to distinguish: If it is the effect of mana ability, it is colorless. All other cases are generic.
>>44030874
Y-You just typed the differences...
>>44030867
Do you not know how colorblindness works? Everything isn't gray, there are different types of colorblindness with problems telling a few colors apart. It is possible to make a game with colored components that colorblind people can easily tell apart regardless of their type, companies do it all the time in the board game industry.
>>44031349
lets go through what you said again, you fucking piece of animal shit
>as it stands, it's a 6th color
absolutely wrong. what the leak in the OP proves is that <> is just the new symbol for normal colorless mana, and the only NEW mechanic introduced is in the mana COSTS of cards like new-kozilek
>i sincerely hope its snow mana
snow mana is more like a 6th color than this is, except that mana can be both a color and snow
>>44027521
Are you fucking kidding me. I can understand adding colorless mana as a cost like with the new Kozi but going back and errata'ing every single fucking mana rock and colorless land in existence is just fucking stupid. In only a year a two we're going to be overwhelmed with new and old players alike asking "wait does my Sol Ring add two generic mana or colorless? It says 2 right here"
>>44031506
>what the leak in the OP proves is that <> is just the new symbol for normal colorless mana
And it looks stupid.
>except that mana can be both a color and snow
At least pseudo-snow mana is limited to BFZ so we don't have to look at ugly anus mana for the rest of time.
>People in this thread actually think <> is a 6th color/purple
>>44031404
>But there's no precedent for colorless mana is costs
right, that's why they are introducing it as the culmination of their colorless themed flavor event: the eldrazi
>so it's a big deal if they change it as it makes a 6th color of mana.
wrong, there has always been a "6th color" of mana, there has always been colorless mana. i.e. read sol ring's alpha text
what's new is COSTS that can't be paid with colored mana
>>44031568
noobs are gonna noob
where's the chandra and liliana version of that image?
>>44031573
>what's new is COSTS that can't be paid with colored mana
Yes, which gives it every thing that colored mana has, making it a defacto 6th color.
It's fine to have colorless mana that is restricted to paying generic mana, that's healthy for the game. A 6th color is 100% not healthy for the game, and is a jump-the-shark moment.
But why not introduce this LAST set? Seems pretty fucking retarded not to.
>>44031638
it always existed.
idiot.
>>44031543
im not saying you're wrong about the amount of people confused by this
but its really quite simple:
mana, as it becomes added to your mana pool by mana abilities, exists in 5 colors and colorless. thats it. there is no generic mana. it doesnt exist
a card can have generic mana in its costs, however. whether thats for an ability or to cast it, doesn't matter. generic mana only makes sense in terms of cost. a card requires a certain AMOUNT of mana to play, but doesnt specify a color because the effect is not specially designed to fit a single color
its real simple guys, the only issue is the fact that all the old cards use the same symbols for generic mana costs, colorless mana costs, AND colorless mana in your mana pool
>>44027793
they look pretty hot t
>>44027521
Where did you find this?
>>44031349
Considering that we now have a new basic land coming, simply called Wastes, it's entirely possible that they're planning to implement colorless as a "sixth color" going forward, with the caveat that it's simply adapting a previous "color" of cards instead of introducing a bunch of new ones. The lore has been all about the Eldrazi and Ugin specifically mastering colorless magic as well as both of them being associated with colorless spells, which didn't exist before Zendikar. The only colorless cards in the past were artifacts/artifact creatures and one planeswalker. Now we have colorless creatures, devoid which makes creatures act *as* colorless, colorless spells, a colorless land and just generally it's been expanded a fair bit into new territory. It also tends to act in a similar manner, making it more of a uniform "non-color" type thing.
The biggest argument for the case is that there is now a basic land. Snow lands were called "basic snow lands". Wastes is specifically called a Basic Land. We haven't seen any more lands of a similar type to see if they share the same name or have different artwork, but so far the only difference between them an other basic lands is that they don't have the land type at the bottom of the card. It could be that way so that future sets can have their own different name for colorless lands so we aren't locked forever into Wastes, but either way, it's a basic land that produces the equivalent to colorless mana with it's own symbol.
I like the idea that going forward, colorless will have it's own specific designation and numbered mana will just be generic "whatever color you wanna use" cost. The biggest implication is for Commander. If colorless will now be it's own mana type then your commander will have to be a newer card with the colorless symbol unless you don't want to use any new cards featuring it. Beyond that, it just makes things a bit more interesting for future play. I'm hoping it sticks around.
>>44031638
>Yes, which gives it every thing that colored mana has, making it a defacto 6th color
really? thats all it takes to be a color? just have a mana cost symbol?
the reason a 6th color is unhealthy for the game is because there's no design space for a 6th color, the 5 colors have it covered. any new color would end up as a hodge-podge that steals from the other colors.
introducing cards that require colorless mana in no way causes the same issues that a 6th color would
goddamn you might the stupidest motherfucker on /tg/ and thats saying something
>>44031551
And you were the one who decided a diamond looked like an anus instead of a diamond.
>>44027521
>So there are five colors that are each produced by a different basic land type
>Then there's colorless, which is produced by another basic land, but it doesn't have a basic land type
>It's not a color, but it has its own mana symbol and there are cards you have to use colorless on
Once again R&D complicates things by "simplifying" a non-existent problem with the rules. As if it wasn't hard enough to teach the game to new players.
>>44028012
Because Maro is an idiot. As if there was still any doubt about that.
>>44027793
>allows fetches to be reused and gives a fucker trample
Why? I don't play it but this looks like it makes R/G landfall.
>>44027751
There is no particular reason why colorlessness should matter. The game went through 22 years without needing anything of the sort. It's just a gimmick they invented, nothing more.
Magic is fucking over, everybody commit suicide I'm going first
I'm coming home
>>44030268
>Its actually nearly identical to eldrazi temple, except the possible future occurence of other things than eldrazi costing <>.
its certainly identical til we leave BfZ
>>44029981
A bunch of them already have different oracle text to printed text. A shit-tonne of cards still say "Add one colorless mana to your mana pool"
>>44027521
>Adds Anus
WHy does the symbol have to look like a puckered butthole
>>44031869
Fetches are sacrificed as part of the cost, you can't reuse fetches.
>>44031900
>There is no particular reason why colorlessness should matter
sure there is. the eldrazi and ugin represent flavor-related reasons for colorlessness to matter
>The game went through 22 years without needing anything of the sort. It's just a gimmick they invented, nothing more.
everything was new once, and everything is a gimmick you stupid fucking piece of shit.
goddamn i hate /tg/ so much
>>44029381
>pay 6 generic, get 8 red and free trample
>cmc2
why was this allowed past the drawing board?
>>44031954
>land you control
My bad, I can't read. I thought it said land from graveyard.
>>44030350
>explain to me how snow mana was less of a "6th color" than this
Because snow mana appeared in literally one set ever, and thematically cannot appear again unless they want to make a second Ice Age block for some weird fucking reason. Meanwhile this shit can appear fucking ANYWHERE.
>>44030653
>Then pick a selection of colors that works for colorblind people
You can't pick different colors than the ones we have.
>>44031969
bruh its not even a powerful card, in any format. its only playable in edh
look at evlish mystic. you pay 0 mana and get 1 green
>making more mana than you paid? how was this allowed past the drawing board?
soulbright flamekin is at best, a neat way of granting trample to your team, its awful as purely mana producing/filtering creature. it does no ramping or filtering at all until you have 6 mana!
This isn't really introducing a new colour - all-brown and shops are already successful decks.
So to sum this up for even the most retarded motherfucker to understand:
Sunburst and converge exist. Both say they need a 'color' for their effects. If counts as (1) for paying a cost, that means it counts as colorless. Have you ever been allowed to cast a converge/sunburst spell with more than 5 triggers because you used your Mind Stone's (1) mana to pay for it? No, you haven't.
Another thing: there is a big difference, and always was, between mana as a cost and mana as a currency. Cost-mana, the generic (2) or (1) or whatever on a card, can be paid with anything. Going by the logic that the new (1) created now would be the same as the 'pay whatever the fuck you want' from a cost would imply that we've been playing the game wrong forever and that somehing giving (2) mana when tapped could just as well give you any mana you want, which is obviously also wrong.
TL;DR color-related mechanics never counted colorless things used with them so it's not a new color AND learn the difference between mana as a cost and mana as a resource.
>>44031991
i understand your point now, in the sense that this change could last for longer than a block
however, i still think its stupid to consider this change to be antyhing like a 6th color at all
stories of the dev team producing the 6th color purple can be found on the internet. you should read them and tell me if that resembles whats happening here
>hint: it fucking doesn't resemble it at all
>>44030350
Because mana's snowness is independent of its color. Snow mana can be any color or colorless. What you said is like saying there are instants, sorceries, and arcanes.
>itt: dipshits who don't understand the difference between colorless and generic mana
Generic mana: Always a cost, never added by anything. Any kind of mana, meaning white blue black red green or colorless, can be used to pay generic mana costs.
Colorless mana: A type of mana that can be produced by many things. Until now, has only ever been something added, not a cost.
Literally the only difference now is they are making colorless mana a cost, rather than something that gets added, so they are introducing a new mana symbol to clarify the difference between colorless and generic mana.
Christ you people are retarded.
>>44031962
>sure there is. the eldrazi and ugin represent flavor-related reasons for colorlessness to matter
That is not remotely important in any way. They didn't have to invent either of those things. They didn't need to have this block.
>>44031962
>everything is a gimmick you stupid fucking piece of shit.
Nope. Early rules are valid rules, because they are early and needed to define the game. Rules added 22 years into the game's life are bullshit gimmicks, unless they are smoothly compatible with the valid (early) rules. This right here is a bullshit gimmick. Same rule invented in 1994 would have been a valid rule.
>>44031253
I'm too unlucky to have drafted one (though a friend got two in one box. I suppose I could have looked at them), and too poor to buy one.
thanks anon. I would have likely never known that.
>>44032110
i wish this post was enough to clarify things for the retards out there but i dont think it will do
good try though
>>44031969
You may think it's a one card infinite mana combo. It's not. It can only give you mana once per turn.
>>44031433
sssshhh, anon. you're blowing his cover.
>>44032115
thats a good point sir, i will concede that snow mana isn't really like a 6th color at all
however i still think that the current spoilers imply nothing resembling a 6th color
>>44032124
That's a nice opinion, grandpa - you can go jack off over your phasing and banding casual deck while the real players talk about mechanics that add about a sentence to the comprehensive rules rather than paragraphs.
>>44032110
>Another thing: there is a big difference, and always was, between mana as a cost and mana as a currency. Cost-mana, the generic (2) or (1) or whatever on a card, can be paid with anything. Going by the logic that the new (1) created now would be the same as the 'pay whatever the fuck you want' from a cost would imply that we've been playing the game wrong forever and that somehing giving (2) mana when tapped could just as well give you any mana you want, which is obviously also wrong.
Funny how literally nobody has ever had that problem in the entire history of the game. People KNEW the difference between mana you get from a Sol Ring and mana you pay for a Gray Ogre's "2". They knew because it was explained in the rules, and it didn't matter at all that they had the same symbol, 'cause it turns out very simple things are possible to learn by humans just fine.
>>44032233
>That's a nice opinion, grandpa
Not an opinion. Fundamental rules of game design.
>>44032056
No, you pay tapped creature and get one green.
its an opportunity cost. Now the elf can't attack, block, or be used for some other tap to activate situation.
For Soulbright, there is literally no reason ever not to do its ability if you have the startup mana, because it will give you more mana than you spend at no opportunity cost.
>>44032124
>They didn't have to invent either of those things. They didn't need to have this block.
they dont HAVE to do anything, its their fucking game you stupid fuck
>Nope. Early rules are valid rules, because they are early and needed to define the game
sure whatever you say
>Rules added 22 years into the game's life are bullshit gimmicks, unless they are smoothly compatible with the valid (early) rules.
yeah whatever, sounds great, but what is incompatible about the new colorless symbol (which doesn't involve a rule change at all, by the way) with the old rules ??
also how do you feel about the 6th edition rule changes, and also the 2010 rule changes
many cards have been given functional errata's in magic's history, where those errata's just gimmicks that should not exist?
>>44032256
Your application of it is an opinion. Banding's rules, a mechanic from Alpha, will be objectively 4-5x the size of the comprehensive rules text these cards will involve, many of which are small notation changes. Tbf you probably think that black knight survives wrath of god so ah well the discussion is a lost cause
>>44032234
You underestimate how dumb the average Magic player is, anon. Just look at this thread.
I'm glad that these threads have established that only the most stubborn, obstinate retards don't understand <> still.
>>44032266
the fact remains that elvish mystic is more powerful than soulbright flamekin
>For Soulbright, there is literally no reason ever not to do its ability if you have the startup mana, because it will give you more mana than you spend at no opportunity cost.
this is just wrong, because not every deck that runs soulbright flamekin is mono-red, so there is, in fact, opportunity cost
but that doesn't really matter
my point is just that soulbright flamekin isnt remotely overpowered
>>44032124
Holy shit you sound like a fucking genwunner you piece of garbage.
>"It didn't exist when the game was made so it's not an actual rule!"
Except that colorless mana always existed and the only single difference is that they finally added it as a cost in addition to a resource and also added a new symbol for (1), which makes it even easier to explain what the difference between colorless and generic is, something you apparently never learned.
>>44032234
Anon, literally the only thing they need to add is
><> counts as 1 colorless mana
Nothing else changes.
>>44032349
If you want to cast a card in your main phase and then a combat trick or an instant in your opponent's end phase when they're tapped out then you can't use the ability.
Colorless mana in the mana pool and generic mana in a cost are two completely different things. In a way, they're exact opposites. They've just been using the same symbol.
Now they are going to be actually differentiated between, making understanding colorless mana and generic costs a lot easier. It only seems weird to some people because we've gotten used to the fucked up system that makes less sense.
>>44032428
no i get it dude
there are cases where soulbright flamekin's mana production can help you and elvish mystic cant
the fact remains: soulbright flamekin is not overpowered
>>44032124
So if you don't make a game perfect from the start, later rules improvements are just 'gimmicks'? Fuck off
>>44032166
its converting cheap generic to colored, specifically the color you use to fuel burn spells, and giving you two extra free for doing so, and trample, though trample on a 2/1 is pretty useless.
Firebreathing could make it pretty fun though, if you could find a way to get around that toughness.
>>44032283
>also how do you feel about the 6th edition rule changes, and also the 2010 rule changes
all bullshit gimmicks. obviously.
>>44031949
It looks like a square you weirdo.
>>44032517
soulbright flamekin is an awesome card, i love using it in EDH to give my board trample, then cast Bogardan Hellkite off the mana
its just not THAT strong, all things considered
>>44032497
I bet he thinks the type updste also was bullshit.
>>44032588
>square
>weird
wait what shape is YOUR butthole ??
>>44032283
I miss my mana burn deck. it made people so salty...
I want an enchantment that brings it back...
>>44032199
>Unique mana symbol
>Cannot be paid with mana of a different color
>Its own flavor fluff and card frame
>Its own basic land card
Sounds like a color to me.
>>44031776
Mystic Gate is a reprint. They're errataing all cards that had "T: Add 1 to your mana pool" to "T: Add â—‡ to your mana pool".
They aren't going to make every single one of those cards require Kozilek to be included (unless the Rules Committee is fucktarded, which...okay nevermind there's a chance that might happen, the Rules Committee is always fucktarded)
>>44032704
>doesn't count as a color for converge and similar spells
>can be produced by dozens of artifacts
>is allowed in any and all commander decks
Doesn't sound like a sixth color to me.
I can't stop preaching this enough:
Peopöe, learn the fucking difference between generic mana as a cost and colorless mana as a resource.
One can be anything; the other can be nothing. They are complete opposites and finally got something to properly separate them.
>>44030516
Read Helm of Awakening's printed and oracle text.
Now look at new!kozilek's casting cost.
Do you realize just how stupid you sound?
If the <> symbol just replaces the (1) symbol, it's ok. Not a big deal. But if a card strictly requires a <> as part of its mana cost, then it is functionally a 6th color, and that's heavy shit. It messes up with the fundamentals of MtG, and it will be shit to have it in just one set for a whole standard set, making it unreliable for constructed play and even difficult for sealed.
>>44032820
Just because it's a new symbol for the cost doesn't make it a color, just a new restriction.
A card with <> still has no color identity and doesn't count as a color for effects that specify it, like All Is Dust, Sunburst or Converge.
Stop being this retarded.
>>44032704
it doesn't have its own card frame, and the fluff is specifically non-colored
>>44032517
oh wait, I just realized its trample on target creature.
oh yeah, no. Moonviel dragon and this clean house. Better have some fatties or its game as I swing for at minimum 27 trample or so.
>>44032820
I have a feeling <> will be pretty rare for costs. For one of the big eldrazi it's fitting.
>>44032752
>Peopöe
?
>>44032820
>But if a card strictly requires a <> as part of its mana cost, then it is functionally a 6th color
ummmm, almost, but really that doesnt matter
it feels like /tg/ thinks that the color wheel is nothing more than just a way to arbitrarily separate mtg into 5 groups
the colors are supposed to have identity and their identities exist in relation to each other
white is about social order and the greater good
black says fuck the greater good, ill bring the greater good to its knees for my own gain
colorless says nothing. artifacts have no color because they have no ethos, they are tools to be put to any end
the eldrazi are colorless because they simply do, they have no motivation
>that's heavy shit. It messes up with the fundamentals of MtG
explain further
people in this thread keep repeating that, and i actually think its true, but it is not enough to just say that this new mana symbol is like a 6th color and that a 6th color is bad, you have to prove that the new mana symbol is like a 6th color IN SUCH A WAY as would cause problems, which nobody has fucking done once
becuase it cant be done
because the new symbol isnt really like a 6th color at all
>>44032941
*pepe
Of course.
>>44032927
sorta
blocking is like the last thing i think of to stop trampling fatties
try path to exile, doom blade, and unsummon
>>44032933
I wish they'd kept it JUST as something to denote colors. (x) was perfectly fine, and (x)<> as specifying that at least ONE mana needed to be colorless would have been fine. But now Grim Monolith produces <><><> instead of (3) and Thran Dynamo produces <><><><> instead of (4). Even though those two cards will probably never see a meaningful reprint that still bugs me a little.
>>44033149
that's fine. you just unsummoned a bunch of 1/1 goblin tokens. I'll get more later, and make them 9s again the next turn.
>>44033152
thran dynamo only produces 3 colorless mana, for the record
but yeah, this was kinda what bugged me about whats happening
sure there have been lots of notational changes throughout magic's history, but this one somehow seems more serious than others
all in all i still support the change though
Just imagine if they made another type overhaul to separate Race and Type. Because a virus targting all warriors of all races would make barely any sense.
Now THAT would be a huge mess.
>>44033180
i thought the scenario was strictly soulbright flamekin and moonveil dragon
if you also have an army of 1/1 goblin tokens you don't need soulbright flamekin, moonveil is plenty
>>44032887
>it doesn't have its own card frame
Oh really? So what non-colorless cards use this frame?
>fluff is specifically non-colored
The fact that there's fluff at all means it's acting like a 6th color.
>>44032752
Fun fact: Darksteel Ingot is legal in any EDH deck along with every other "any color mana" producing rock. EDH is also an unofficial format run by a terrible rules committee that doesn't work for Wizards.
>doesn't count as a color for converge and similar spells
Which goes back to my original point of it being a dumb pseudo color and these new rules being a terrible decision. Don't forget the new type of basic land that isn't a basic land type.
>>44031595
>>44033219
R&D is not remotely competent enough for an overhaul of that magnitude. They are one small step above the EDH RC at this point.
>>44033320
oh my bad, i guess it has a new card frame
>The fact that there's fluff at all means it's acting like a 6th color.
why? you never justify this
>Which goes back to my original point of it being a dumb pseudo color and these new rules being a terrible decision. Don't forget the new type of basic land that isn't a basic land type.
you havent made any argument proving why this is a bad decision
this thread has yet to provide a single good argument against the new state of affairs
>>44033320
Can Iona prevent Kozi from being cast? No? Then it's not a 6th color.
>>44033152
>>44033197
The notational change for mana generation is entirely inconsequential. It literally does absolutely nothing to the actual functionality of cards that produce colorless mana. It's the same as when they changed the tap symbol from the tilted "T" to the tilted card with a curved arrow in it for 4th edition, or when they changed it again to just the curved arrow in 8th edition.
>>44033227
well, I mean soulbright is flimsy as heck, and moonviel, while decently sturdy and with a good starting power to really ramp it up, i want protected. its doing all the heavy lifting.
So ideally, I want weenies. Not necessarily an army of weenies, I'm not winning through numbers. but enough to keep chumpblocking til I get the combo off and swing for game (Johnny stalling in red? Is that allowed? Feels too blue.).
Though I suppose one copy of gift of immortality on soulbright would work just as well as weenies to chump block and eventually power up. Well, except in such case as I end up with two or more of them. After all, I'm getting three free tramples a turn. Might as well put all three to use, since everything on my field is getting firebreathing.
>>44033397
>Iona gets rekt by Eldrazi
FLAVOR
L
A
V
O
R
>>44033320
explain how this new "color" is different from what colorless has been throughout the history of magic
you are a worthless piece of shit, please leave /tg/ forever and maybe kill yourself
>>44033415
i gotchu
the thing is soulbright flamekin + moonveil is already >20 damage trampling so i thought the point was just to mention their synergy, which is indeed quite strong, but i wanted to mention thats its not a guaranteed win at all regradless of their blocking situation
>>44033320
How is colorless mana new in any way? It ALWAYS existed, it just never mattered. The only property it shares with the colors is that it can be a casting requirement. That's it.
If you cast a spell with Radiance on Kozilek it won't have any effect on any other creatures. Likewise, using <> ona converge spell won't give you another trigger.
>>44033427
>>44033492
by the time I'm doing this combo its turn 6 at minimum.
Its definitely not a guaranteed win. But it is a fun one.
>>44027521
So it's gonna be filterlands. It's okay i guess. I was hoping for Horizon Canopy cycle.
>>44033557
well that was foolish, since its not really a land cycle
GW-Horizon Canopy. too strong to be made into a cycle for standard
RG-Grove of the Burnwillows, way way too strong to be made into a cycle for standard
UB-River of Tears, this one is actually fine power-level wise, but im not sure we'll ever get the full cycle
UW-Nimbus Maze, this one is similar to the new BFZ lands in some ways, so i could see them getting a cycle
BR-Graven Cairns, this one was actually made into a cycle, see the Shadowmoor Filterlands
>>44033320
The fluff and cardframes have been around since original Zendikar block. And "Basic" is simply a land supertype indicating that the card is exempt from the usual 4-copy limit in deckbuilding.
There is literally no new rule here whatsoever. The only new thing introduced at all is a symbol to avoid having to write out "X amount of this card's cost must be paid with colorless mana" on all the various cards that would have such an effect in this colorless-matters set. Much the same way they introduced the color indicator bubble in Innistrad to avoid having to write out "This card is <color>" in the text box of every colored card without a mana cost on it to reference for the card color. It's purely a shorthand symbol to save lines of text, nothing new whatsoever. It's the same as when they turn a recurring ability into a keyword (like they just did with Menace), except instead of a word it's a symbol. Same shit, different typography.
You're making mountains out of molehills here. Ask yourself: Would you be bitching like this at all if Wastes just had the old (1) instead of the new <> symbol, and Newzilek there had mana cost (10) with a rules text line stating "You must pay at least 2 colorless mana to cast Kozilek, the Great Distortion."?
>>44033393
Read the fucking thread. >>44031856
>>44033397
My point this entire time has been that it's an unintuitive pseudo color that's inconsistent with the basic structure of the game. The fact that colorLESS is doing things only a new color should be able to do is the main beef that I have with it.
>>44033434
>explain how this new "color" is different from what colorless has been throughout the history of magic
Flavor: Colorless has always been raw energy. Raw materials, machines, things of that nature. RoE was the first time they bent that, but extremely expensive cards have been getting unique and pie breaking effects since 93/94. Unique card frame is one thing, but a mana symbol and pseudo basic is too far, and offends the basic rules of the game.
>you are a worthless piece of shit, please leave /tg/ forever and maybe kill yourself
Go home. >>>/reddit/
Just to clarify: if I have Celestial Dawn out, I can use my Plains to cast WUBGR mana and all my other lands to cast <> things, right? Whereas Mycosynth Lettuce effectively instantly shuts down any <> costs, since they can then produce WUBGR but no longer <> with their Wastes?
>>44033713
>Read the fucking thread. >>44031856
no you stupid fucking faggot, i read that post, and im still looking for an argument against these new developments that isn't totally retarded
>Colorless has always been raw energy. Raw materials, machines, things of that nature. RoE was the first time they bent that, but extremely expensive cards have been getting unique and pie breaking effects since 93/94. Unique card frame is one thing, but a mana symbol and pseudo basic is too far, and offends the basic rules of the game.
this is it folks, this is his big argument
fucking embarrassing
>>44033685
Expedition lands are not standard legal.
Anyway they probably thinking of average demand. Only Canopy and Burnwillow are in high demand from that while i think all filterlands are of average demand.
I still think it's better if they do Canopy expeditions though.
>>44033730
>Just to clarify: if I have Celestial Dawn out, I can use my Plains to cast WUBGR mana and all my other lands to cast <> things, right?
yes
>Whereas Mycosynth Lettuce effectively instantly shuts down any <> costs, since they can then produce WUBGR but no longer <> with their Wastes?
no, what makes you think that Wastes are effected by mycosynth lattice ??
>>44029432
>the real issue for me is that the benefits to this change seem so small they are hardly noticeable, and it entails one of the biggest errata's ever done by mtg, comparable to the creature type overhaul
Meanwhile, Matt Gotltlieb wishes [Instant]s were [Instant Sorcery]s and that [Creature]s with Flash were [Instant Creature]s, but isn't willing to make the change.
>>44033783
>fucking embarrassing
magic players calling anyone embarassing
funny joke
>>44033730
>Whereas Mycosynth Lettuce effectively instantly shuts down any <> costs, since they can then produce WUBGR but no longer <> with their Wastes?
their wastes still produce colorless mana
they can spend that mana as though it were mana of any color
or they could... not, and just spend it as colorless mana
>and all my other lands to cast <> things, right?
whaddayamean all your other lands
all your lands are plains
if you mean shit like fire diamond yeah that sounds about right
although celestial dawn might change as the rules get updated
>>44033713
>colorless has always been raw energy
Are you forgetting what Eldrazi are? They are probably the single purest form of mana, straight from the Eternities, without any influence of nature's colors at all. Kozilek having a <> requirement entrails that you need abdolutely pure, destiled, raw mana to cast him. It makes sense in every way you described.
To explain it with your own words: Wastes represent what the world would be like if the mana in it were cleansed and the <> symbol denotes that it is mana without any color's influence.
>>44033823
no no my point was not that they wouldnt reprint horizon canopy because its too strong for standard, im saying they wont reprint it because they need the whole cycle first, the whole cycle of ally colored lands that sac to draw a card i mean
the cycle of cards from future sight is confusing because its actually not a cycle, its a glimpse of 5 different cycles, one of which has already been realized
it would be strange for them to print Graven Cairns as part of an expedition land cycle that wasnt the filter lands, considering Graven Cairns is part of the filter land cycle
you're just gonna have to wait for Horizon Canopy to make its actual comeback (muraganda??)
>>44033557
Still a slight chance, but it's probably battle, filter, and man lands.
>>44033783
>fucking embarrassing
No you dumb fucking redditor, explain what's wrong with my position or admit that you're wrong and R&D is fucking up.
>>44033839
Well, I was thinking that because I was for some reason thinking it'd be obligatory to spend it as "mana of any color", but after rethinking, it obviously is not.
>>44033730
>Celestial Dawns
all your lands are plains.
>mycosinth cabbage
where did it said your lands produce wubrg?
>>44033886
i thought they were mana EATERS not mana themselves.
>>44033886
>Wastes represent what the world would be like if the mana in it were cleansed and the <> symbol denotes that it is mana without any color's influence.
That really, really, really sounds like something that should be a color and have a distinct basic land type.
>>44033730
You're right on Celestial Dawn, but not Mycosynth Lattice.
Mycosynth Lattice doesn't prevent you from paying <> costs, because it only lets you spend mana AS IF IT WERE any color, which is not the same as the mana actually being every color at once. So you can still use your Wastes to pay for <> costs, because the colorless mana is still colorless. But you can also use the <> produced by Wastes to pay for any colored mana costs you may have.
Exactly the same as if Wastes produced (1) instead of <>, because "Add (1) to your mana pool" and "Add <> to your mana pool" are literally the exact same thing.
>>44033937
plains that tap for colorless in some cases, and white that can be spent as any color in others, based on what they were originally.
>>44033899
I guess so. Oh well, waiting to see the expedition Celestial Colonnade then.
>>44033908
I hope it's manlands.
>>44033908
whats wrong with your position is your complaints against the new colorless mana symbol revolve around
A- Your personal confusion about generic and colorless mana
this is not a good argument because most people intuitively understand the difference and in fact despite 0 explanation from the devs of how these cards work, most of the people ive talked to have been able to surmise how they work, because its real simple, and not actually confusing at all
B-Flavor issues with emphasizing colorlessness
this argument is bad because you ignore the singnificant amount of work the devs have done exploring the colorless flavor of the eldrazi. check out this post here for an excellent summation of why you are stupid: >>44033886
3-mana symbol and basic is "too far"
this is a bad argument because it isn't fleshed out, its not an argument at all actually, its just an unqualified statement that im going to go ahead and dismiss
>>44033994
Plains tap for white mana, not colorless. Your lands do not retain it's original type.
>>44033713
>offends the basic rules of the game
No it doesn't. You have a basic without a type that only produces colorless. It seems like something that should have always been in the game honestly as a default land. Then you have an eldrazi that needs colorless mana to be cast. That's the flavor of the Eldrazi, they're colorless alien beings that exist outside of the standard magic multiverse. Of course they break some rules. They're a thing that lasts for a block, if you don't like them, ignore the block.
The only thing that will affect you is (1) is now printed as <>
>>44027521
>i tap this land for one Bismuth
yeeesssssss
>>44033963
>pure mana without any other input or relation to a color should be a color
What.
>>44033953
Obviously, they are not just that. They don't eat it and it disappears, they drain the colors and absorb them, leaving behind what is essentially clean, dead mana.
Source: every single Eldrazi drone with a colored symbol ever and Wastes being what they left behind: land that still holds some kind of mana, but mana without any life, soul or color in it.
>>44034038
"Lands you control are Plains.
Nonland cards you own that aren't on the battlefield, spells you control, and nonland permanents you control are white.
You may spend white mana as though it were mana of any color. You may spend other mana only as though it were colorless mana."
>You may spend other mana only as though it were colorless mana
Clearly, it gains the plains subtype. But its text would still read [T]: Add R to your mana pool
So its a plains that generates R. And then that R is spent as if colorless.
>>44034018
>Your personal confusion about generic and colorless mana
where the fuck are you getting that he's confused about generic and colorless mana, besides "he's on the other side and you want a reason to win"
>check out this post here for an excellent summation of why you are stupid:
>this is a bad argument because it isn't fleshed out, its not an argument at all actually, its just an unqualified statement
so that fanfic-level tripe about what the eldrazi really are can be accepted without question, but other anon's position on the flavor of Basic and the number symbol is obviously unqualified?
goddamn white nigger
>>44034139
>Clearly, it gains the plains subtype. But its text would still read [T]: Add R to your mana pool
I don't have the patience to explain the rules to newfags. I'll just wait till a judge came along.
>>44033963
It's not a color. It's colorless, exactly as colorless stuff has existed for the last 5 years since colorless non-artifacts were first introduced (or 8 years if you count Time Spiral block's sneak peeks at the idea in Ghostflame Sliver and Ghostfire).
And it's not a basic land type. It is a new basic land CARD. Which are two very different things. Wastes in fact has NO basic land type whatsoever. Learn the fucking difference.
The only thing Wastes changes about the game is letting people make decks with exclusively/predominantly colorless manabases without it being stuff like Tron or 8/12/16-Post that crank out huge amounts of mana.
>>44034124
>every single Eldrazi drone with a colored symbol
devoid
also, ghostfire and ghostflame sliver.
>>44034139
>Clearly, it gains the plains subtype. But its text would still read [T]: Add R to your mana pool
compare Blood Moon and Urborg Tomb of Yawgmoth for why that reasoning is flawed
more completely:
>305.7. If an effect sets a land’s subtype to one or more of the basic land types, the land no longer has its old land type. It loses all abilities generated from its rules text, its old land types, and any copy effects affecting that land, and it gains the appropriate mana ability for each new basic land type. Note that this doesn’t remove any abilities that were granted to the land by other effects. Setting a land’s subtype doesn’t add or remove any card types (such as creature) or supertypes (such as basic, legendary, and snow) the land may have. If a land gains one or more land types in addition to its own, it keeps its land types and rules text, and it gains the new land types and mana abilities.
>It loses all abilities generated from its rules text
>>44034177
FUCK YOU shit-eating faggot
>where the fuck are you getting that he's confused about generic and colorless mana
only people who are confused about it are confused about the new mana symbol. its pretty simple. he has expressed multiple times that this change is confusing.
>so that fanfic-level tripe about what the eldrazi really are can be accepted without question, but other anon's position on the flavor of Basic and the number symbol is obviously unqualified?
kill yourself dude, maybe that flavor stuff doesnt meet your standards but obviously it IS, in fact, an argument, compared to just saying " I DONT LIKE THAT ITS A BASIC LAND WITHOUT ITS OWN TYPE"
goddamn im so mad right now
why is /tg/ so fucking goddamn stupid? i dont get it, i just dont understand
>>44033730
>Lattice
Doesn't change the color of the mana, just allows you to spend it as if it were any color. Kozi basically ignores this
>Celestial Dawn
Your lands all produce W, which you may spend AS IF it were mana of any color. <> must be colorLESS. So you can't Kozi with mana from lands
Dumb psuedo color once again is a special snowflake that complicates everything.
>>44034018
>A- Your personal confusion about generic and colorless mana
Non-existent. I know the difference, my complaint is that R&D's implementation of Wastes is inconsistent with the structure of the game and is more convoluted than the colorless/generic distinction that people were making a fuss about up until Wastes got spoiled
>check out this post here for an excellent summation of why you are stupid
And you continue to act like a child about this.
>this is a bad argument because it isn't fleshed out
It was fleshed out in previous posts. The <> mana symbol behaves like the existing colored mana symbols. Wastes is a type of basic land, but not a basic land type. ColorLESS is behaving like a new, sixth COLOR. It preserves the pentagon on the back of the cards, but it needlessly complicates the game and creates rules inconsistencies. This is not the first time R&D has complicated things in the name of simplicity.
>>44034042
If the card read "Basic Land - Waste" and the rule on basic land types was updated that would fix one of the two problems, but the rumor mill is saying that Waste is a basic land with no basic land type.
>>44034139
The "You may spend other mana only as though it were colorless mana" line is meant to cover nonland mana sources like manarocks and such. Your lands are just plain Plains, because of the way basic land type changes work. Take a gander at sections 305.6 & 305.7 in the comp rules here:
http://media.wizards.com/2015/docs/MagicCompRules_20151113.pdf
>>44034183
>And it's not a basic land type. It is a new basic land CARD
How many god damn times do I have to explain to you idiots that THAT IS THE PROBLEM?
>>44034201
I didn't say that every drone suddenly became that color. They tookin enough of it to be physically changed by that color's properties (blue fliers/swimmers, red stompy things, black maggots etc) but are still very much colorless and "dead" Eldrazi.
Now, before you mention the first wave of drones: those were before the titans were completely freed. Nothing was keeping them supplied with pure mana through a direct connection and most drones were actually animals and different humanoid species taken over by the small brood from the tokens.
>>44034178
>10/4/2004: Celestial Dawn no longer changes mana symbols on cards.
>[T]: Add R to your mana pool
>R
>does not change mana symbols
seems pretty clear to me.
>>44033557
They did 3 sets' worth of expeditions in bfz. Maybe they'll do more than just these
>>44034241
>only people who are confused about it are confused about the new mana symbol
yeah, no
>why is /tg/ so fucking goddamn stupid?
You perceive /tg/ as stupid because you project your own stupidity, inability to understand others' perspectives, and poor impulse control outward. /tg/ is fine. A lot of people are fine with /tg/. You're the problem.
>>44034308
You can believe whatever you want anon-kun, but you're still wrong.
>>44034289
Well, you keep referring to it as a new "basic land TYPE", as if Wastes were to be added to the existing list of five land subtypes (Plains, Island, Swamp, Mountain, Forest) that carry intrinsic rules baggage. Which it's not.
So, if you do in fact grasp the distinction between a basic land CARD and a basic land TYPE, please, explain what the problem is. As I said, all this means is:
>letting people make decks with exclusively/predominantly colorless manabases without it being stuff like Tron or 8/12/16-Post that crank out huge amounts of mana.
What exactly is the problem with this?
Whats the point of this besides more needless rules bloating?
>>44034351
I for one am still waiting on an explanation what makes the new symbol that much of s problem.
The only inconvenience and rule mess-up I can see would be stuff like Celestial Dawn, especially with a Tidebreaker Leviathan in play, but things like that always were of the messy soet of ruling anyway.
>>44034258
you can just say that something causes inconsistencies, you have to demonstrate an inconsistency
which you cannot do
yeah im being immature, i like calling people faggots and stupid over the internet, its cathartic
my point stands though:
>Non-existent. I know the difference, my complaint is that R&D's implementation of Wastes is inconsistent with the structure of the game and is more convoluted
obviously you don't fucking know the difference. the new symbol is not inconsistent with anything, you stupid fucking fuck, so if you think it is, you must be fucking confused about the rules
does that make sense to you now?
>The <> mana symbol behaves like the existing colored mana symbols.
SO CONFUSING!?!? what will we ever dooooo!?!?!
>Wastes is a type of basic land, but not a basic land type.
wrong, wastes is a NAME of a card that happens to be a basic land (all of which also have names) but doesn't have a basic land type (which other basics do)
>ColorLESS is behaving like a new, sixth COLOR.
no, its fucking not. a 6th color would have its own mechanics tied to an ethos, separate and contrasting to the other colors, and likewise forbidden to share in the mechanics of the other colors
colorless already "behaves like a color" in many ways, this change doesn't introduce anything that would make it more so
>it needlessly complicates the game and creates rules inconsistencies
if there were inconsistencies (plural) i would expect you to be able to produce at least 1 of them. but you cannot, because they dont exist. your idea of "rules inconsistency" is "this new rule isnt how i want things"
>>44033335
thanks anon
>>44034241
>why is /tg/ so fucking goddamn stupid? i dont get it, i just dont understand
Because it's still 4chan
>>44034308
>Celestial Dawn no longer changes mana symbols on cards.
That affects Devotion, not the text of land cards.
>>44034371
>Well, you keep referring to it as a new "basic land TYPE", as if Wastes were to be added to the existing list of five land subtypes (Plains, Island, Swamp, Mountain, Forest) that carry intrinsic rules baggage. Which it's not.
That is LITERALLY what I have been complaining about since my first post ITT. >>44031856
>>44034349
There's 45 cards in Expeditions. 25 have been shat out on BFZ. That leaves 20 on OGW.
Filterlands means that 10 spot have been filled. The last 10 spots are most probably manlands.
>>44034439
What the fuck is there to complain about, though? What changes for anything other than a handful of new cards every now and then needing mana rock mana or one produced by lands?
>>44034439
right and its a stupid fucking complaint that only stupid fucking people have
there's nothing confusing about it
rather than create a new basic land TYPE, which would fuck with cards like pic related, they created a new basic land without a basic land type.
goddamn they were so careful about not causing confusion and they still eneded up with fucking retards like you that are confused
>>44034308
That errata is referring to how tCelestial Dawn originally changed colored mana symbols in COSTS of your cards to {W}, rather than letting you spend W as if it were any color. It never affected what mana your cards produced, except by the fact that it sets your lands to the Plains type:
>305.7. If an effect sets a land’s subtype to one or more of the basic land types, the land no longer has its old land type. It loses all abilities generated from its rules text, its old land types, and any copy effects affecting that land, and it gains the appropriate mana ability for each new basic land type.
>Note that this doesn’t remove any abilities that were granted to the land by other effects. Setting a land’s subtype doesn’t add or remove any card types (such as creature) or supertypes (such as basic, legendary, and snow) the land may have. If a land gains one or more land types in addition to its own, it keeps its land types and rules text, and it gains the new land types and mana abilities
>>44034439
I take it you're not a fan of snow lands and mana either, huh?
>>44034380
so they can put "at least _ amount of mana used to cast this spell must be colorless" without it taking up like a line and a half.
I'd imagine they would have just gone that way if this wasn't going to be used heavily in the next set. If it was kozilek and a few other titans only, it wouldn't be worth their time, legends always have lots of rules text.
I'm expecting it on sorceries and instants, mainly.
>>44034400
>I for one am still waiting on an explanation what makes the new symbol that much of s problem.
It's not a problem. I'm not the other guy, as evidenced by my consistent narcisstic namefagging. IMO in the end this change is worth making for the sake of continued novelty/growth. It does, however, have real impacts that can't be elided by "colorless literally isn't a color hurr look at the dictionary". Not in terms of literal rules inconsistencies, but in terms of managing players' reactions to and feelings about the nature of "color". I trust WotC to manage that risk effectively; most people are more hostile to the company than I am.
>>44034380
to troll manchilds and neckbeards :^)
So this whole thing is "evergreen" right out of the box it seems.
What I find weird is how this new anus mana is tied to eldrazi as far as flavor and name goes (with Wastes), so how will they justify making a colorless, anus-mana needing card that isn't eldrazi in flavor given that you need mana from eldrazi ruined lands to cast it (aside from colorless making dual lands). Or maybe they won't give a fuck about it in future sets? Or maybe only eldrazi cards will use it (which does seem pretty fucking stupid both by making such a big change in the small set and by limiting this whole new design space)?
>>44034401
I'll start from the beginning and restate my two main complaints. Don't worry, I'll dumb them down for you.
>Wastes is a type of basic land that is not a basic land type
>Colorless is not a color, but it is treated similarly to a color
>>44034481
>What the fuck is there to complain about, though?
I will have to explain all of this to beginners at FNM. I will have to draft wastes. I've been wanting Barry's Land for years and when they finally print it they fuck it up, when it would have been so easy to get it right. I would rather have my Than Dynamo tap for 3 than <><><>.
>>44034497
Coalition Victory is the only card that would need an errata. Domain would become marginally better. There would be fewer special snowflake, narrow, pointless exception to the rule bullshit cards that I have to deal with when playing with beginners.
>>44034520
I'm actually fine with snow. I don't know whether it's more nostalgia goggles or the fact that it rewards playing basics.
If I'm playing Commander, are cards with this mana symbol outside of my deck's color identity?
>>44034586
>Not in terms of literal rules inconsistencies
well shit, what do you know, progress
here we have a shit-eating faggot admitting that there are no actual inconsistencies with the new mana symbol
>>44028012
Because its for the next set. SOI will likely have a lot of shenanigans with Emy so they want to introduce this mechanic now so all the learning is over with so they dont have to baby the sets it really matters in.
>>44034623
Eldrazi mana that let you cast Kozilek's Sentinel with a forest and a Waste would have been a million times better IMO.
>>44028131
God damn that card is beautiful.
>>44031856
>oh god you mean there can be basic lands made for a single specific set that make COLORLESS mana instead of being one of the core five?
>and they can make cards that REQUIRE you to spend colorless mana on them?
>and they can use SYMBOLS instead of WORDS IN THE TEXT BOX to say that requirement?
>I AM SO CONFUSED MY WORLD IS CRUMBLING AROUND ME!
Seriously, fuck you and morons like you that keep dragging the game down to ever lower depths of dumbed-down simplicity. You are why we can't have nice things. Just go play a game that isn't fucking defined by its huge and ever-evolving web of complex interactions if you're this incapable of handling even the most simple and inconsequential changes.
>>44034625
>>Colorless is not a color, but it is treated similarly to a color
>>I'm actually fine with snow. I don't know whether it's more nostalgia goggles
Snow was not "treated similarly to a color" in the same way that colorless is now going to be. A mana can be both red and snow; a mana can be both green and snow. You can use green mana to pay for snow costs (assuming it's the right kind of mana). A mana can't be both green and colorless. You can't use green mana to pay for colorless costs. That's a type of mutual exclusion that we're generally used to seeing with colored mana (a mana cannot be both green and white).
>>44034633
>If I'm playing Commander, are cards with this mana symbol outside of my deck's color identity?
up to wotc or the rc
god i fucking hope not
>>44034638
>here we have a shit-eating faggot admitting that there are no actual inconsistencies with the new mana symbol
that's always been my position you goddamn rabid dog
it just seemed more pressing to emphasize how much of a drooling mongoloid you are
>>44034625
>I will have to explain this to beginners
Just fucking say "That means colorless". That's all there is to it. Literally.
>I will have to draft Wastes
Do we even have any confirmation if this'll be considered outside the basic lands you get to take from mana stations?
>Barry's Land
Well, that's just a personal problem.
>Thran Dynamo
At least now it's clear for beginners once and for all that it taps for 3 colorless mana and they will immediately learn the difference between colorless and generic.
>>44034625
>I'll start from the beginning and restate my two main complaints. Don't worry, I'll dumb them down for you.
instead of dumbing them down for me, you should expand on them, because as they are now, they are worthless and meaningless.
your little issue with "Wastes is a type of basic land" is purely because you are wording it that way, because you are a stubborn cunt and you are actively obfuscating the issue. there is nothing confusing here, basic lands have had 3 things for a long time now- a name, a basic land type, and the basic supertype.
the only difference is that it lacks a basic land type. is that really a problem for you? if so, then I have been completely justifed in this whole thread, you are just as big of a fucking shit-eating faggot as i said, if thats really the issue that you are butthurt about
>Colorless is not a color, but it is treated similarly to a color
we've been over this multiple times. colorless has always been treated "similarly to a color", but guess what? in other ways, its NOT treated "similarly to a color". funny how that works. something can be similar in one way, or in one context, but not similar in another context.
and now its being treated similarly in one more way: it has a mana symbol and cards that cant be cast without it. and yet, its still dissimilar to colored mana in many other ways such as converge and more importantly, flavor and mechanics
can you not fuckin grasp that? that colorless can be like a color in some ways, but not like it in others?
i mean where is your fucking threshold for "too much like a color REEEEEE" ???
you know fucking nothing about magic if you think that the new Wastes and the new colorless mana symbol are ANYTHING like the situation when an actual 6th color was being developed by WOTC
>>44034718
>a mana cannot be 2 manas at once
>what are dual mana symbols
>>44034779
those are costs
a dual mana symbol represents a cost that must be paid by mana of EITHER color, because no mana can be both colors, because mana cannot be two colors at once
real simple
>Mystic Gate expedition card clearly shows that the <> symbol represents COLORLESS MANA for a COLORLESS MATTERS BLOCK.
>243 replies.
Why?
>>44034623
Simple, my good man.
The Shadows Over Innistrad?
That's Emrakul.
Nicol Bolas hijacked him and is using his third of the hordes to try and take over every everything, starting with Innistrad.
Our heroes will eventually defeat the plan, post-multi-planar invasion, but remnant Eldrazi drones and their wastes will be a permanent scar on most/all planes from now on.
>>44034840
Because MUH SIXTH MANA and people trying to explsin those retards why it is not the case nor a problem.
>>44034840
goddamn man i have a problem
cant stop replying to retards :(
>>44034718
>that's always been my position you goddamn rabid dog
you have said the words legal/rules inconsistencies multiple times.
this isconsiderably false.
>>44034625
>Wastes is a type of basic land that is not a basic land type
This is like complaining that Snow-Covered Mountains only have the basic land type "Mountain" rather than "Snow-Covered Mountain". Seriously, where the hell are you getting this bizarre idea that a basic land card ought to have its own name as its basic land type?
>Colorless is not a color, but it is treated similarly to a color
Seriously, in what fucking way is this true now that it hasn't been for 5+ fucking years? The ONLY change -- the only fucking one! -- happening now is that they decided to require spending specifically colorless mana (in a colorless-matters set! The horror!) and represent that with a symbol rather than a line or two of text on every single card they want to do it with.
Would it make you happier if they made a new keyword instead of a symbol? Something like, "Pure N (you must spend at least N colorless mana to cast this card)"?
>I will have to explain all of this to beginners at FNM.
Heavens preserve us, the brain-damaged twelve-year-olds will finally have to be taught the difference between generic and colorless mana. Truly the end is nigh.
>I would rather have my Than Dynamo tap for 3 than <><><>
Why? Seriously, fucking WHY? This has got to be the single most ridiculous depth of sheer, obstinate grognardism I have ever seen. They're the same damn thing!
Do you also pine for the days when Plains had a text box with "T: add W to your mana pool," rather than just a big white mana symbol?
>I'm actually fine with snow. I don't know whether it's more nostalgia goggles or the fact that it rewards playing basics.
Given your irrational attachment to Thran Dynamo making (3) rather than <><><>, and the fact that this new colorless stuff is literally the exact same deal (albeit with perhaps more potential to be brought back out on occasion in future sets) I'm going to guess nostalgia goggles. It's a set-specific gimmick, don't count on it becoming an evergreen constant.
>>44034633
Probably not. That's ultimately up to the EDH RC, which is notorious for terrible decisions.
>>44034682
>I AM SO CONFUSED MY WORLD IS CRUMBLING AROUND ME!
No, fuck you. Don't even try to put those words in my mouth. I understand just fine how all this works, I am pissed off because I will have to explain it all a million times at FNM to people that don't. I am pissed off because of all the pointless five minute arguments that will break out every time someone uses a Hedron Archive to cast a <><> spell. I am pissed off because I KNOW some fucking noob player will put wastes in a five color deck and get mad at me when I say Matca Rioters is a 5/5. I am pissed off because Maro and his dumbass cohorts keep making fundamental changes in the name of simplicity that FUCKING COMPLICATE THINGS when I'm dealing with a new player.
>>44034718
I already dealt with the snow issue.>>44032115
>>44034758
>you are a stubborn cunt and you are actively obfuscating the issue
This is the last post with a childish insult that I will give a serious response to.
Waste is the only card that requires a distinction between type of basic land and basic land. If they wanted to add Barry's Land they should have just added Waste into the basic land rule. Instead we have a special snowflake that will cause a million unnecessary rules arguments with players that can't tell the difference
>we've been over this multiple times. colorless has always been treated "similarly to a color"
No, there is literally nothing supporting that precedent. Give me a list of cards that must be cast with colorless mana. Show me a premodern card that fits with the eldrazi/spriritdragon theme.
>>44034751
>outside the basic lands you get to take from mana stations
but anon, nobody will have gotten them in boosters or boxes yet.
there won't be nearly enough.
>>44034623
you dont need mana from eldrazi ruined lands to cast it
any land that produces colorless mana (i.e. add 2 to your mana pool) now produces <> mana. so they are perfectly free in the future to make cards that require <> costs so long as they have, like pretty much every set in the history of magic, a few lands and artifacts that produce colorless mana
its just that only the Eldrazi have a flavor reason to require <> mana be paid. artifacts are colorless too but their costs are generic, because artifacts are a blank slate, they are tools to be used by people of any color alignment, so they wouldn't have <> costs. it is purely for this colorless matters block that they have created cards which require colorless mana be paid
and it is during this block, and because of the convenient relationship with the colorless-matters theme, that they have decided to take the opportunity to reformat colorless mana.
>>44034751
>At least now it's clear for beginners once and for all that it taps for 3 colorless mana and they will immediately learn the difference between colorless and generic.
I've never seen anyone get confused by this though. It's even more of a non-issue than hexproof and shroud coexisting.
>>44034919
Doesn't mean it's impossible.
They could also slot them as both possible token slots and land slots, to get a lot of thm in there quickly.
Additionally, selling boxes of them to stores could help.
