Why are you guys bitching so much about this?
It's not that fucking hard to understand.
>>44147614
because it's an incredibly boring conceptual space being explored in a set that was specifically designed to be as neutered as possible. it is the nu-est of nu magic. looking forward to paying 3 asshole mana and 3 generic to get a 6/6 with ingest and trample.
>>44147614
it's shit
>>44147614
I've never seen an asshole anon, it's hard to understand
>>44147823
Properly defining colorless after having it's symbol slapped together with generic for so long is shit? The latest set might be shit, but colorless needs to become more independent to allow for future design space.
>>44147614
because
MAGIC
IS
DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDDDDDDDD
I'm only complaining about how weak Battle for Zendikar and now Oath of the Gatewatch are. So few cards worthy of use in Modern, the general ruleset me and my friends play.
Kozilek, the Great Distortion doesn't seem anywhere near as viable as Kozilek, Butcher of Truth. Except maybe some graveyard shenanigans because he doesn't come loaded with anti-mill.
As somebody who has played magic for less than half a year I can say I had no idea generic mana was a thing. I just thought generic cost was called colorless
These threads were kind of funny at first, but watching idiots constantly sperg out about/misunderstand the difference between colorless mana and generic mana costs has grown stale. No its not very exciting design space, and no it won't be executed well, but how about instead of having the exact same thread for the thousandth time, we pick apart the hypocrisy in this gem:
http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/feature/125b
Plenty of relevant goodies in there
>>44148509
I thought generic mana was called raw mana. Still call it raw mana though.
>>44147896
It seems the folks at wizards find it hard making cards for extended formats that are 1)not complete shit, and 2)not broken. They just can't find the right balance.
>>44148581
>We've messed around with this mechanic in the past and as I'll spell out through my notes on the @ cards, it's splashy but it doesn't have great play value.
man, nosewater, what happened to you in these five years
>>44148581
Why is it that everything that MaRo says makes me angry?
>>44148581
>Your art description has a key problem. I don't know how easy it's going to be to show fire without light. There are two opposite problems that could happen. One, without the visual cues to represent fire it's possible that there's no way to make it clear that what you're drawing is fire.
What is ghost fire blade
>Various rules managers have drummed into my head that you are not allowed to get nonpermanents onto the battlefield. Something about the collapse of the Space/Time Continuum. Basically this card opens up a can of worms.
What is the manifest mechanic
>>44148581
>MR: I'm curious why you chose to go the basic land route rather than just having a bunch of common lands that tap for colorless mana. One of the major reasons Barry's Land's never made it to print has to do with its basic land status. The problems don't all just go away with your one rule addition.
>This card makes me feel you were drawn to the forbidden design fruit more than you were trying to pick what best serves your set.
Jonathon Loucks deserves a design credit for Oath of Zendikar.
>I do not think the set you hinted at in your booster would actually be fun for most Magic players. That's a big problem.
>>44148877
https://adayintheloucks.wordpress.com/2014/07/12/leavingthedream/
That's so thoughtful anon, I'm sure he'd appreciate it
>>44148581
>http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/feature/125b
>We don't like C and don't think it is useful/wanted/anything good.
>2015
>Look guyz, C is here, finally, like we've always wanted!!!1!!1!
Ok, Wizards, what the fuck you bastards? Just... just go fuck yourselves.
>>44147879
Colorless becoming it's own pseudo color was not necessary
>>44149220
Actually, Maro says it has some good space, but it isn't what the set needs. Also, sometimes people--shockingly--change their minds and realize something they hadn't realized before. Not to mention the fact that during spoiler season OF COURSE they're going to hype their new cards. It would be fucking moronic not to. Magic is a business. The fact they go back later and actually evaluate how well things did and went is really nice and hardly something they have to do--they aren't going to shit on their newest mechanic.
Besides, they have all of /tg for that.
>>44149263
It hasn't. Literally nothing about it has changed except that it has its own symbol, which distinguishes between colorless and generic.
>>44149263
Colorless has been a pseudo color forever. You just were not able to generate it with basic lands until now.
>>44149277
>>44149299
And it was never required to cast spells or activate abilities
>>44149486
Colorless was not necessary because there was nothing (besides artifacts) with a colorless identity.
There are now cards with a colorless identity and a specific keyword to signify that, hence the necessity for a common colorless mana source,
>>44147614
So, colorless is a color these days?
>>44149778
Having a symbol =! Having a color
>>44147614
I actually like that. Nothing ground breaking but it's neat, I would even dare to say elegant.
>>44147896
I dunno, the Great Distortion is really good imo. Sure it doesn't have Annihilator, but it does protect itself really well.
>>44148581
>Part of the fun of adding a new "color" is making it have some quality that you aren't finding in other colors.
I dunno, seems pretty consistent. Eldrazi are rather unique.
>>44149778
Read again what you just wrote. And then strongly consider removing yourself from the gene pool.
>>44149778
Yes, despite what these pedantic autistic retards are baying. Colorless is now a color in almost every sense of the word
>>44148767
Because you're expecting it to? Because you only look at it in search of something, anything, to be angry about?
>>44150022
Except that it's still not a color
>>44150022
It really isn't.
>>44149604
>>44149818
>>44149974
I really don't understand why you morons don't get this.
For all of magic up to now:
>All of the colors of mana can pay either for generic mana or their color of mana
>all colorless mana can only pay for generic mana
And now what they're doing is.
>All colorless/colored mana can pay either for generic mana or their type of mana
This effectively eliminates the difference between colorless and colored mana and turns 'colorless mana' into another color.
>b-but they're not actually changing how the rules function
I know, that is entirely irrelevant. Colorless mana only being able to pay for generic costs was the obvious and understood essence of it.
>>44150174
Just because you repeat it doesn't make it true. From either a design or mechanical standpoint.
>>44150187
>strawmannig this stupidly
Giving colorless mana mana costs is what people were complaining about, no one thinks that this is changing the effect of brave the elements.
You don't even have to admit that you were wrong about how things worked in magic, you just have to admit you blatantly misinterpreted what people were actually about.
>>44150022
except if you have any card that talks about colors. In those cases, colorless is not a color
>>44150240
>no one thinks that this is changing the effect of brave the elements.
>Colorless is now a color in almost every sense of the word
It's a color in only a MINORITY of senses of the word. If all it took was being in costs, that would make Phyrexian a color, snow a color, and basic lands a color.
>>44150340
Not even him, but semantic arguments are bullshit, and you should feel bad.
>>44150340
OK, sure, whatever.
Phyrexian is different due to it not requiring its own mana source, but basically yes.
>>44150367
It's almost impressive how you keep on digging.
>>44150362
Mr. "It's totally a color now" is basically making a semantic argument himself, though.
Hell, any argument over whether or not colorlessness is a color is definitionally a semantic argument.
>>44150397
I literally do not understand where we are disagreeing at this point.
Colorless is not a color
"Colorless is not a color" is a color
![1445871657-20151026[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/3mXebZ7.png "1445871657-20151026[1].png")
>>44150414
You're not drawing me in. You're retarded.
informal offensive
very foolish or stupid.
"in retrospect, it was a totally retarded idea"
>>44150421
Colorless isn't a color. Nor is phyrexian mana, or snow mana. It's simply a type of mana. A color comes with a slice of the COLOR pie, a thematic, and a whole slab of mechanical things tied to it. Such as color identity, for example.
Colorless is mana that is specifically LACKING color. Or you know, devoid.
>>44150487
>the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. There are a number of branches and subbranches of semantics, including formal semantics, which studies the logical aspects of meaning, such as sense, reference, implication, and logical form, lexical semantics, which studies word meanings and word relations, and conceptual semantics, which studies the cognitive structure of meaning.
In what way is a debate over whether something is "colored" or "colorless" in the context of Magic not one of semantics?
>>44150174
I think people are conflating the new colorless symbol and the new Kozilek mechanic.
The colorless symbol is just an aesthetic change. It is about as significant as when they changed sol ring from
Tap: Add 2 colorless mana to your mana pool. This ability is played as an interrupt.
to
Tap: Add {2} to your mana pool
Now its Tap: Add <><> to your mana pool. They've probably wanted to make this change for a while.
The Kozilek thing is kind of like them making a sixth color, but I feel very confident in saying that it's not going to stick. Its a weird eldrazi mechanic that won't make it out of this set, just like processing. Things costing <> specifically is a representation of how fundamentally strange the Eldrazi are, if anyone but the Eldrazi could do it, it would lose a lot of impact.
Now if wizards actually runs with <> as a cost, fuck everything I just said, but I'm fairly certain they won't.
>>44150532
>Nor is phyrexian mana
I said it wasn't.
>or snow mana
Obviously technically not, but it has similarities, people have called snow a sixth color for years.
>A color comes with a slice of the COLOR pie
Colorless has a slice of the color pie, so that is another similarity, there was an article in (origninal) mirrodin where maro talks about how artifacts (then the only nonland colorless cards) had their own color pie. Snow arguably has its own (effective) color pie as well.
In any case, I know it isn't a color (as do most people here), it just has some of the aspects of colors.
>>44150563
The issue is that the term semantics as he was using it was implying that you understood exactly what I meant but you disagreed with my words anyway despite them being reasonably understandable.
We understand and agree to what extent the new colorless is effectively a color, the discussion should be effectively over.
>>44151031
I think I've heard the new costs are supposed to happen slightly less frequently than hybrid mana, but I don't have a source. I don't know how often the 'conflating' is happening, but I agree with you other than that.
>>44151031
<> in the casting cost doesn't change anything about the card itself; it's still just colorless, and therefore still not a color.
>>44151277
>>44151075
Well, if the new <> costs are supposed to appear again, I would put my money on that meaning the Eldrazi are going to appear again. With Emrakul becoming a new multi-block villain.
>>44151107
Right, it won't function like a color, but it looks like a sixth color and arguably 'feels' like a sixth color. Which I think is entirely appropriate for the Eldrazi, they aren't just draining the color from everything, they're inverting it into a different thing.
>>44151031
>but I feel very confident in saying that it's not going to stick. Its a weird eldrazi mechanic that won't make it out of this set
That's naive. This opens the door for them to do another artifact themed set that isn't broken as fuck like Mirrodin was. I agree this won't be treated like some 6th color that's here to stay, but I think we'll be seeing it utilized more often than you think.
>>44151277
So they're retemplating every colorless mana producing card ever made for the benefit of one probably shitty set, and "maybe" a bit more in the future?
>>44151655
Change is good, anon. It's an elegant solution to the generic vs colorless problem that's existed for years.
>>44151741
When was generic vs colorless ever a problem?
>>44151762
When you want to make cards you have to spend colorless mana on as a requirement.
>>44151762
Two distinctly different elements that used the same symbol. Even if it wasn't always a problem I've still seen it cause plenty of confusion even before Oath spoilers.
>>44151784
You're not describing a problem, you're describing the new mechanic. As if the absence of that mechanic was inherently a problem in Magic. It's like saying: "Tribute fixes the problem of your opponents not deciding what your creatures come in as."
>>44147614
>>44147614
it's so half assed
they also did it in ONE set of ONE block
like if you want to make a game changing rule change why do it in a small set?
WOTC = poorly run grabbing all the cash as the fledgaling physical card market dies to games like hearthstone
>>44147614
TAP FOR ANUS
>>44151908
>game changing rule change
Okay, so, can you clarify something for me?
{C} is a distinct thing from {1}, right?
But I can pay a {1} cost with {C}, yes?
Can I pay a {C} cost with {1}?
Can I choose to generate {C} when I tap a Birds of Paradise?
>>44152044
>But I can pay a {1} cost with {C}, yes?
Yes.
>Can I pay a {C} cost with {1}?
Nothing produces {1}, they're retemplating everything. Your Sol Ring now taps for {C}{C}.
>Can I choose to generate {C} when I tap a Birds of Paradise?
No, {C} is not a color.
>>44152076
>>Can I choose to generate {C} when I tap a Birds of Paradise?
>No, {C} is not a color.
Exception: in Commander, you can tap your Birds of Paradise to produce a mana outside your color identity (eg. tap for blue when you're playing mono-green). This will make your Birds produce {C} unless they change how color identity works in an upcoming rules update.
>>44152044
>Okay, so, can you clarify something for me?
Sure, buddy.
>{C} is a distinct thing from {1}, right?
Yes. (C) is an actual type of mana whereas (1) is only used in mana costs.
>But I can pay a {1} cost with {C}, yes?
Yes.
>Can I pay a {C} cost with {1}?
No, because you can't have (1) in your mana pool.
>Can I choose to generate {C} when I tap a Birds of Paradise?
No, because the colors are W, U, B, R, and G. C is not a color of mana.
>>44151075
>We understand and agree to what extent the new colorless is effectively a color, the discussion should be effectively over.
Right. "Not at all."
>>44149778
I almost added "practically" or "almost as if" to this post. Looking back, I totally should've because you are ridiculously autistic.
>>44155133
And it still would have been false.
>>44155133
There's much, much more to what makes a color a color than mana requirements.
>>44156486
Yes, but mana requirements are by far the most important feature of a color.
>>44156637
You have that entirely backwards, anon.
>>44156783
Are you telling me that the purpose of colors isn't to put deck restriction via mana requirements?
Because that is the exact purpose of the color system from a design perspective.
>>44155592
>>44156486
Autism has such levels, oh wow.
>>44151031
/thread.
Everyone else is just whining. It's only special here because eldrazi.
>>44148581
>I know that you like to add these types of tensions to deck building, but it is only popular with a narrow band of players. The majority of players won't understand the risk of adding too much colorless mana and will have a bad play experience unaware that they are the cause of it.
>>44147614
having watched the video now i have this to say
i think the idea of having spells that need colorless mana instead of just generic is an interesting concept but i cant see it working in non eldrazi sets for now the symbol is fine because its in use next set without spells that need colorless a symbol for it will just look retarded.
they cant have a colorless mana symbol in costs without one in sources though they will have to abandon it for other sets and it will just look jaring when 1 printing of a card uses a different symbol.
gameplay wise it should be fine for a set though
>>44151610
i think if they were to use colorless costs outside of eldrazi it would be in an artifact set but i dont think they will do it.
>>44151741
what colorless v generic before this the difference didn't even matter (well there are probably a few cards floating around that it matters for but still)
>>44162392
>though they will have to abandon it for other sets
Why?
>>44162652
because things costing colorless specifically is not going to work outside of eldrazi and without colorless costs the symbol just looks stupid.
eh maybe i will grow to like it.
>>44162695
It's going to be like the Modal spell update in Khans - "T: Add 1 to your mana pool" will be "T: Add C to your mana pool" from now on, regardless of the presence of things that cost C.
They've actually stated in the past that they wish they hadn't combined colorless mana generation and generic costs back in Odyssey, now, due to it causing confusion amongst some players (mostly new ones, mind you), and that they'd rather not have the two share symbols when they aren't the same thing.
>>44147879
Sadly, this design space will be largely unexplored, unless MaRo changes his tune.
This is a one set gimmick.
>>44147631
THIS IS A FUCKING GOOD THING.
Now they dont have to neuter colorless. They dont have to over cost colorless cards because they can be slotted into every deck.
>>44163402
>This is a one set gimmick.
No; his only quote in that regard is that "Kozilek's thing is anus mana" which does not imply exclusivity.
That or I guess Kozzy could invade Mirrodin. They can call it New Phyrexia Besieged.
>>44152102
Wait. "You cant have (1) in your mana pool"?
What about all the lands that produce colorless?
>>44170441
They produce colorless. So <>.
>>44170480
So if you produce (1) then you produced a (C)? So a reprint of Homeward Path would be "Add (C) to your mana pool?
>>44148767
Is it that you read it in his voice and he sounds like a cartoon chipmunk?
>>44170543
yes, and it would be depicted with the little diamond symbol
>>44170745
That's kind of cool.
>>44162695
They already said that the symbol is going to be used going forward, so...
>>44151741
It's really the opposite, an inelegant change to a problem that never existed.
>>44170802
>If its not a problem for me, its not a problem, because I'm the entire audience for Magic the Gathering.
>>44170829
>>44150174
Yes, but imagine if they hadn't made a new symbol and just added the text of "must be paid with colourless mana" what would be wrong with that?
>>44171376
It gets pretty wordy when you start specifically requiring two of the six generic mana in the casting cost to be colorless.
>>44171376
Did you already forget how everyone hated on Devoid for a month before BFZ came out?
Why the everloving fuck did they decide to call it 'colorless mana?' Like now when I say "Sol Ring costs 1 colorless" what do I actually mean? Am I saying it costs 1C or 1? Why the fuck didn't they call it raw, unrefined, or pure mana? Like seriously, this just makes communicating mana costs impossibly stupid. New Kozilek costs 8 Colorless colorless colorless? Is that 10 or 11?
>>44152102
>You can't have (1) in your mana pool
What about in EDH when you make a color that you can't produce? It would make sense that it makes generic mana, not colorless mana.
>>44172792
Sol Ring costs one generic mana and produces two colorless mana.
New Kozilek costs eight generic mana and two colorless mana.
>>44172792
People like you are the reason they had to make this change
>>44172912
But it does produce colorless, as per the rules
>>44172970
Up until now colorless mana and generic mana have been the same thing. Who knows, maybe they'll change it.
I'm excited you can now possibly make a colorless EDH deck without it costing a shit ton of money just for the mana.
>>44173017
C'mon anon people are having a hard enough time with the concept without you throwing b8 in to the mix
>>44172912
Currently, in EDH, when you add mana that's not in your color identity (such as from a city of brass/darksteel ingot, or when someone's got urborg out and you have a nonblack commander), you add one colorless mana to your mana pool.
They have, because The Rules Committee Is Retarded, decided not to change this rule in the least in the wake of colorless costs, so unlike anywhere else in magic those Mana Confluences and Rupture Spires can be used to pay the CC in Kozilek, because The Rules Committee Is Retarded.
>>44173017
The opposite, actually. Colorless mana was always a separate thing from generic costs in the rules, they just used the same symbol until now (you can go look up the comprehensive rules). There's never been such a thing as generic mana, just generic costs - you can't add generic mana to your pool.
>>44149583
>dies to removal
wat?
>>44173072
I would have been really surprised if they did change the rule so soon. Oath isn't even out yet, they can afford to wait a little.
>>44173161
As in, it's already been decided they won't be changing the rules.
>>44173127
People saying that any creature that isn't hexproof or indestructable is automatically bad, because it can die to removal. Siege Rhino is bad, because it dies to removal, etc.
>>44150187
i believe what matters is the color of the card, and not what mana you paid for it. I don't see why this would change.
>>44173209
"die" is going to the graveyard, no?
can anyone explain to me what exactly change with the new land?
<> can only be paid with <> mana now? or can it be paid with 1 or G, for example?
>>44173209
>As in, it's already been decided they won't be changing the rules.
Oh.
Somehow I haven't been able to get that from your post. Probably because it's absurd.
Fuck.
The entire point of colorless mana is that it is generic and therefore it comes with its own set of pros and cons that are unique to itself. Making colorless its own distinct type of mana just makes it like every other color now, plus the fact that they are errating nomenclature that goes back to the beginning of the game for a mechanic that will see very limited play, which is silly.
>>44173333
In this case, it's any form of Not Being In Play, rather than the game term 'dies'
The point is that basically EVERYTHING dies to removal, so saying something 'dies to removal' and is bad because of that is fucking stupid., yet people say it anyways.
>>44173348
<> is the new symbol for colorless mana.
(1) used to be the symbol for generic mana cost, and colorless mana production.
so if you see <> in the cost, it means the card requires colorless mana to cast.
what isnt changed is if you see (1) in the mana cost. That means it costs generic mana which can be paid for with any color, or colorless mana.
Lands/artifcats/whatever that used to produce colorless (1) will now show the appropriate symbol <>
Sol ring costs (1) generic mana to cast and can be paid with anything
Sol ring itself will produce <> <> (two colorless mana)
>>44153142
You're retarded if you think it's not at all like a color. This is trivially true. There's nothing to even argue here.
Phyrexian mana indicates an alternative cost. That's a wholly different subject, no different from cards that say, "You may [do x] instead of paying [card y's] mana cost." The new colorless mana symbol is not an alternative cost. It is a cost that functions identically to any color cost.
>>44173521
>It is a cost that functions identically to any color cost.
This is true.
Still not a color.
>>44173435
so if they show <>, it can ONLY be paid with <> and not with 1?
also, with the old cards, if they read add. 1, does that mean it can also add. <>? or is this only for the ones that gets changed?
>>44173544
That's why everyone has said it's like a color or effectively a color within this context. But sure, keep pretending we're talking about anything else so you can post useless rebuttals.
>>44173552
Yep if the cost is <> you have to pay <>
All old cards that show (1) are errated to show <>
its a symbol change, functionally its the same thing, it has always been colorless
>>44165757
The whole point is that colorless is there to fill out holes and be a costlier, but more flexible tool to slot into a deck of any color. By changing this, they change what colorless cards are all about. How is this a good thing?
>>44173571
It's no more a color than it used to be.
>>44173683
By definition, it is. Are you even paying attention?
Ironically enough, a number in a circle wasn't always synonymous with colorless mana. Back before Odyssey block, every card that produced colorless mana used no symbol for it and just called it "one colorless mana."
Man, you guys are really salty about this. If you guys don't like it, don't buy this set.
>>44173609
they basically added a new color by reclycling stuff instead of only introducing new cards. Well, i don't think it's a mechanic that will stick anyway, but it will probably be annoying to explain.
>>44173748
yes, how dare they voice opinions
>>44173696
By definition, colorless is the lack of a color, and cannot be chosen when asked to choose a color, and is unaffected by things that affect colored permanents/spells/mana. The seperation of colorless mana symbols and generic costs, and the introduction of colorless costs, does not change this.
Are YOU even paying attention?
I think most of the confusion comes from an inability to differentiate the mana from the symbol that represents it. Colorless mana is the same as it's always been; they're just using a new symbol to represent it, instead of (ab)using the generic mana symbols that were originally only used in mana costs.
Using a new symbol also allows them to write "colorless-only" mana costs like on the new Kozilek, but that's a whole other can of worms.
>>44173790
Colorless costs do change things. Because there are now some costs that must be paid in colorless mana, it's acting like a color, except for the purposes of rules that specifically mention color. Kind of like how a card with Devoid is technically colorless but nobody really treats it as such.
>>44173790
Then it's great we are not talking about cards that ask you to choose a color or cards that affect specific color permanents.
A defining characteristic of a colorless card was that is made no mana demands. You could pay it's cost with any mana in your pool. A defining characteristic of a color card was that it did require specific mana to pay it's costs. By incorporating the latter into colorless cards, you are, by definition, making it more of a color than it used to be.
Would you like to modify your earlier statement?
>>44173748
After BfZ i was pretty sure i wasnt gonna buy any
I will do the pre-release and trade/sell those cards to tards before they are released for way too much
>>44173807
This. There is basically no change actually: a visual change and the equivalent of creating a mechanic that would have look like:
> Diamond X: you must use at least X colourless mana when paying this spell cost.
>>44173676
>The whole point is that colorless is there to fill out holes
Correct
>and be a costlier
Wrong
Colorless is generally more expensive for two reasons.
To protect the colorpie. Say an artifact that gives a creature -1/-1. That is very black. They cost it higher so other colors dont have easy access to black like abilities.
And because of balance. 1 generic mana is worth about 0.66th of a colored mana because of its accessibility. If they aggressively cost it every deck will use it.
With the new colorless symbol they completely remove the second factor which is what normally kills the card. Holes need to be fill out in a deck as best as possible but you still have to make sure its worth it.
To fix the first issue is easy. Add more colorless to the cost instead of generic. This helps protect the color pie while still letting it be slotted into any deck. Tool lands that produce colorless are mostly always there anyways. Now they dont have to fully splash a color to get just one effect they want.
>>44173870
>>44173877
Imperiosaur requires mana from basic lands. Basic Lands are more of a color than they were prior to Future Sight, according to this logic.
Myr Superion requires mana from creatures. Creatures are more of a color as well, by the same logic.
This is the same thing, only with a fancy symbol instead of them saying 'You must spend at least two colorless mana to cast Kozilek, the Great Distortion'
>>44173790
>By definition, colorless is the lack of a color, and cannot be chosen when asked to choose a color
semantics, it acts like a color in that it is a requirement for manacosts (the #1 reason to have colors)
>>44174316
Those were both one-offs, one of which was from a set trying to be intentionally weird. This is the theme of a whole set, with its own symbol. It wasn't worth complaining about before, but now it is.
>>44174316
>Basic Lands are more of a color than they were prior to Future Sight, according to this logic.
That's right. Two creatures have a similar requirement. And if there were only two cards with this cost requirement in the new set, you'd see a similar level of not giving a shit. Any more false equivalencies you'd like to throw out?
>>44174260
If a card released under the previous system was too costly to be viable or worthwhile, then the issue was not the existence or non-existence of a dedicated colorless mana symbol.
Is it just me, or is Expeditions a thing because they realized this block would be a snoozer, so they had to literally bribe people to buy packs with the promise of valuable reprints? Because so far there's been nothing else in the block I actually want. I at least thought there would be some fun enormous creatures in this era of Creatures: The Tappening, but somehow even those have been nerfed.
>>44174578
Did you just not read my post? 1 colorless mana is worth about 0.66th of a colored mana. So something that should cost 3 mana costs 4 mana. They always round up as well so if something is only worth 1 mana it costs 2 generic mana.
With the new colorless only symbol that problem is fixed. There is now need to over cost it.
>>44148581
Changing your mind after half a decade =/= hypocrisy.
>>44176886
It is if circumstances haven't significantly changed and there is no new evidence available.
I like it.
>>44176886
Sets are in development for years before we see them, so in all likelihood wotc changed its mind a year or two after this was published.
> half a decade
Just say 5 years anon
>>44148581
>Various rules managers have drummed into my head that you are not allowed to get nonpermanents onto the battlefield
Hahaha well lads guess KtK isn't legal anymore, sell your morph cards stat.
>Muh 6th color
Omg pls kill yourselves
>red mana is totally just an arbitrary distinction that makes the cards more difficult to cast than artifacts
>definitely doesn't have anything to do with passion or impulse
>but even though the colors are PURELY arbitrary distinctions, there can't be more than 5 or I'm going to quit magic
Can just one person please explain to me how this new formatting change is a bad thing? So far I've got a billion posts saying how colorless is now a 6th color, and exactly 0 explaining why I'm supposed to be butthurt like you about it
Isn't this just the weird gray colored mana from Mirrodin all over again? The thing that was so minor that nobody even noticed?
>>44178411
- they have basic(ish) lands
- they have their own mana symbol
- can only be cast if you have the right mana
In all honesty, it's actually okay design as far as what I expect from Eldrazi. What's not okay is errataing dozens of cards for maybe... What, three cards printed? Generic and colorless has always been a problem, but such an easy to ignore problem.
This is the exact opposite of a band-aid solution. It's like using a nuke to take out a scarecrow armed only with a spear in Antarctica. It's overkill for something that really wasn't even a problem.
>>44178411
>Can just one person please explain to me how this new formatting change is a bad thing?
Isn't just a formatting change but OK. There has been a problem for years for there not being enough design space to spread across 5 colors. A large part of getting rid of combo decks (in standard at least) was due to only 3 of the colors having much interaction against them. Red is famous for having nothing competitive but burn and burn accessories, adding another color seems dubious in such a circumstance.
A huge issue is with how the color is going to be costed, the issue is is that colorless mana was valued below colored mana for years and colorless mana sources tend to be way better than their colored counterparts ignoring the fact that their mana is worse. The set designers have an incentive to push the new 'colorless' cards because otherwise people will accuse them of changing something big with little upside. This means either the cards are going to suck, or the cards are going into tron/cloudpost/stax/shops decks with no effective downside.
Then there's the fact that I have no idea what they will even supposedly gain out of it, more deck variety in standard? Limited? So far it doesn't seem like there is anything defining colorless (fittingly enough I suppose) so the design of an effective color which is capable of doing basically anything in the game and is likely (considering what has been spoiled) pushed seems excessively stupid.
The retarded aesthetics are what people are hung up on but I have absolutely no idea what this is supposed to accomplish functionally.
>>44178208
But a 2/2 creature is a permanent, anon.
>>44178947
>But a 2/2 creature is a permanent, anon.
Well apparently Maro figured that out in the last few years.
>>44178808
This is a bad post that doesn't answer the question it purports to answer
>>44178411
I've been out of the game for a decade now. Was there this much bitching when Eldrazi cards were released? Because that's when the real change took place. Are people actually so retarded that they didn't notice until they changed the formatting?
>6th
I take issue with this idea also. "Has a corresponding basic land/symbol" is a TERRIBLE way to define "color." Artifacts are the real 6th color in any meaningful sense, and as >>44151075 said, snow behaved like a color in many ways. Non-artifact colorless is at least the 7th color, possibly 8th, maybe even higher depending on how you define it. But that doesn't make it sound like as much of a massive change worth freaking out over, does it?
>>44178898
Holy shit, please somebody just answer the goddamn question instead of detouring into meaningless speculation
The only problem you've identified with the new colorless-only spells is that they MIGHT be over or undercosted. Literally no evidence whatsoever for this claim, you are just being negative and claiming only extremes are possible (it's either shit or auto include, never mind that this doesn't apply to any of the cards that've been spoiled and I'm pulling it entirely out of my ass)
And then the rest of the post is just you saying "things were fine before, therefore change is bad" which is dumb
What does it accomplish? Filling out Eldrazi flavor. Making a colorless matters set. Introducing a formatting clarification
It accomplishes all those things perfectly, only literal retards are upset with the change
>>44178898
Yeah no, they're not gonna print: <><> counterspell or a <> bolt. They'll keep the <> costing Eldrazi cards big or situational like the processor/ingestor cards. Basically things that do weird shit that doesn't fit any color.
And regardless, none of that has anything to do with the (1) to <> change. The change and having <> in the cost are completely separate issues that had to be done in the same set.
>>44179250
> "Has a corresponding basic land/symbol" is a TERRIBLE way to define "color."
This line of reasoning is stupid and pedantic, people have been clear in what ways mana restrictions are and are not a color.
>snow behaved like a color in many ways.
A TON of people didn't like snow, to be fair some of the people who bitched complain about the 'parasiticness' which the new mana avoids.
>Are people actually so retarded that they didn't notice until they changed the formatting?
>I-it's just a change in formatting
NO IT ISN"T. It's like there are two fires blazing and I call one dangerous because it's next to explosive materials and you complain 'there isn't any physical difference between the two fires'. Yes colorless mana has not had a change in and of itself but its relation to the rest of magic has implicitly changed.
>>44179319
>The only problem you've identified with the new colorless-only spells is that they MIGHT be over or undercosted
Not that they might be over or undercosted, it's that they have no capabilty of being costed properly at all. If they cost the effects properly for standard they will be OP in other formats and if they cost them properly for other formats they will feel underpowered for standard, they have to be priced as if colorless mana is harder than other colors when that isn't actually the case.
>And then the rest of the post is just you saying "things were fine before
Except how I talked about how that this in blatant defiance of previous problems?
>Filling out Eldrazi flavor
Meaningless
>Making a colorless matters set
This doesn't improve the game at all.
>Introducing a formatting clarification
You meant 'Forcing' that's as retarded as saying a mechanic with confusing rules application is good because it forces people to memorize archiac sections of the rules.
>>44179200
Yeah just realized I misread the question.
Oh well fuck it, I'll leave it so you can bask in my idiocy.
>>44152100
Good catch anon
I wonder if the rules committee for edh will care enough about this to do something
>>44180506
I feel that doing so would just enforce everyone thinking that (O) is another color, and would be treated that way mechanically.
As it is now you're just finding a creative way to produce colorless mana, something most EDH decks can easily do anyways.
>>44180506
They've already made their ruling.
Namely, that the rules are not changing.
Ezuri can tap a Birds and a City of Brass for Red, get colorless, and play Kozilek off of that. Cromat can't, of course, because you're a tryhard faggot for running nothing but colored mana sources in fivecolor, but anything that's less than all five colors can just make an off-color with a rainbow mana source and get colorless in defiance of how colorless costs work. Once again missing the entire point of a mechanic.
At least they didn't decide that C is a color identity, either overall or just when used as a cost. Only mildly retarded instead of full retard.
>>44180711
It's weird to me that the same cards you'd use for rainbow mana also serve as a colorless source outside of five color decks.
The official EDH rules are getting weirder and less useful as time goes on. Not too happy bout that banlist either.
>>44148594
You WOULD like it raw.
>>44147614
the fuck is the differance between the losange symbol and the default (1)?
>>44182260
Nothing.
1 is being replaced with ◇ when it comes to adding mana to your mana pool, so that colorless mana and generic costs no longer share a symbol.
◇ is the new colorless symbol, generic costs will continue to use numbers and X.
No card printed after Oath will say 'T: Add 1 to your mana pool', instead it will say 'T: Add ◇ to your mana pool'. Or 2 and ◇◇. Or 3 and ◇◇◇. Again, generic costs will remain as they are - Mind Stone will cost 2, Sol Ring will cost 1 (and tap for ◇◇), Karn will cost 7, Oran-Rief Invoker will cost 1G and its ability will cost 8.
>>44173870
You wouldn't say this kind of stupid shit if they had used "Use at least two colorless mana to cast Kozilek."
Probably about how it's too hard for casuals. And how it would kill Magic.
>>44174531
Well. We only have two cards right now.
>>44181748
And that's why I play French!
>>44181748
You wouldn't believe how much more enjoyable our meta is when the prophet of Kuphrix is left at home
>>44179786
>Not that they might be over or undercosted, it's that they have no capabilty of being costed properly at all. If they cost the effects properly for standard they will be OP in other formats and if they cost them properly for other formats they will feel underpowered for standard, they have to be priced as if colorless mana is harder than other colors when that isn't actually the case.
this is so fucking retarded. you have no evidence for this claim, it could apply to literally any mechanic.
>>44182260
In costs, quite a bit.
The lozenge, anus, goatse, (O), (C) whatever you want to call it, colorless symbol represents something that MUST cost colorless mana, rather than something like (5) which would mean five mana of ANY color (and colorless).
Effects that add colorless mana will use the new symbol as well, from what I gather.
So Sol Ring would read
T: Add (C)(C) to your mana pool.
>>44179786
FUCKING KILL YOURSELF
you dont get to decide that filling out eldrazi flavor is meaningless you fucking shit eating faggot. just because you personally dont care about flavor doesnt mean its not a perfectly justifiable reason for introducing a colorless-matters themes to MTG
you also dont get to just say "colorless matters doesnt improve the game"
what if i want to play a colorless matters set? it improves the game for me.
YOU DONT GET TO DECIDE YOU SHIT-EATING FAGGOT
FUCKING KILL YOURSELF
if you are upset about the new colorless mana symbol
KILL YOURSELF
if you are upset about cards that require colorless mana to cast
KILL YOURSELF
PLEASE
do us the favor of removing yourselves from /tg/ and the mtg world at large, because you and your opinions are disgusting and worthless, respectively
>>44183386
>>44183421
On one hand, I like how you don't jump on the "it's new therefore I hate it" bandwagon, but you didn't need to hitch a ride on the other hate-bandwagon going the other direction.
>>44173127
Leave while you still can
>>44183386
>>44183421
>telling people to kill themselves over a card game
Calm the fuck down, son.
>>44183386
i'd assume you're a troll but this is /tg/ so you're either fairly ordinary around these parts or the entire board has been poe's lawing itself for the last couple of years
funny as hell, i can't tell which is likelier
>>44183386
>what if i want to play a colorless matters set?
I like this, fucking pussy-ass wizards should have made ALL Eldrazi colorless, even the drones. But nooo "it'd ruin standard boo hoooo"
>>44147896
Zendikar weak ? Not in standart my friend, not in standart.
>>44183490
NO I WONT CALM DOWN REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
i fucking hate everybody who disagrees with me!!!!
>>44173209
>Siege Rhino is bad, because it dies to removal, etc.
Except the reason siege rhino isn't bad is because it generates automatic value on ETB, and it has a body fat enough only kill spells kill it ( usually 3cmc, with NWO it's probably going to be able to attack at least once because lol no more instant kill spells ) while only costing 4cmc.
If you removed it's drain 3 it wouldn't be played nearly as much.
They've already established that Wastes cards are only going to appear in this set.
That means we probably won't be seeing much of the diamond symbol many actual cards beyond the lands that produce them going forward. It's only going to be a new thing for the upcoming Standard season and then it's going to fuck off just like Phyrexian mana.
I don't think anybody thinks it's a big deal. It's just some temporary 6th color that will show its head every now and then.
>>44185008
It's not even a sixth color. It's still just doing what the Eldrazi did before, just with a harder requirement instead of fuckhuge costs
>>44170802
well your right about the problem never existing but its not so much an inelegent solution as the only solution.
>>44185316
He's not right about the problem not existing - I've seen quite a few new players stumbling on it. Just because you haven't doesn't mean they don't exist.
>>44183386
>FUCKING KILL YOURSELF
whew lad
>>44173789
Don't you know that any opinion that isn't mine is whining?
>>44185008
Wastes might only appear in this set, but the symbol is definitely here to stay. You're in denial if you think otherwise.
Pointless.
>>44187281
we'll probably still get anus symbols in every set after this, though
>>44187281
>Blocks are planned years in advance
>Decide to add a new basic land type
>make it so it's in only used ONE block of ONE set
Why the fuck isn't Kozileks Channeler adding 2 anus mana?
Something is going on, a lot of people at Wizards have no idea what they are doing.
>>44187281
LMAO
Parasitic confirmed
>>44187762
What makes you think it isn't? Sol Ring will be changing. I don't see why Kozilek's Channeler wouldn't.
Do you have any proof or is this just you speculating?
>>44183386
I can smell youre disgusting sweaty odor through my screen.
>>44178807
That was a print error.
>>44188134
No it wasn't. The printing company told them that if they didn't have to color in the mana symbols in the text box, it'd reduce costs drastically, and they though that it'd be alright with just the shapes. When it turned out that no, it looked like ass, they reversed their decision ASAP despite the increased cost.
>>44187762
Kozilek's Channeler DOES add ◇◇ to your mana pool.
If you mean why it doesn't use the SYMBOL, well, apparently there were two camps in R&D - one wanted to start using ◇ in Battle for Zendikar, since it's the large set and has a fairly large number of ◇-mana producers as-is, while the other camp wanted to hold off ◇ for Oath so it'd be a surprise with Kozilek (who would be the only one using ◇ as a cost) so as to avoid tipping off what they were doing.
The second camp won out in the end.
Guess which camp MaRo was inThe first one, he thought it should be taken care of as soon as possible
>>44188201
Set isn't even out yet and I'm bored with it. Thank god it's only two in one black, they're so out of ideas they have to resort to this confusing clusterfuck nonissue to make just one new idea for just one card that isn't even that interesting. I wonder what bullshit they would have to resort to just to put out a third set.
>>44187762
Except it's not a new basic land type
It's a new basic land
>>44149778
From a deck building point of view, colorless will the 6th color. From a rules point of view, it won't.
>>44148788
Manifest turns your nonpermanents into permanents. But you still don't have nonpermanents on the field, numbnuts.
>>44188177
Huh. Well I just always assumed it was a print error. Welp that story makes more sense.
Guys
guys what if
listen
what if they introduced a sixth color
ok
and then they made an entire set of just that color and colorless
would that be awesome y/n
>>44190885
I don't think they'll ever do a sixth color.
>>44190902
Just imagine lad
>>44190924
i want to believe
>>44147614
It's an unnecessary change.
Does {c} interract positively in "may spend mana is of it was mana of any color" effects / scenarios?
>>44196637
If you mean "Can I spend {c} as though it was R/W/B/G/U?" Then yes.
If you mean "Can I spend R/W/B/G/U ad though it was {c}?" Then No.
>>44196753
So I would still need explicitly colorless mana to cast a new Kozi I intruded on?
>>44196864
Yes. because {c} is not a colour.
>>44196958
I had assumed, and hoped for, as much, but just wanted to be certain.
