I'm at work and not going to do the proper research but there have been times in the past where they make changes to the game or create a keyword out of a common term midway through the block.
From the top of my head, I can think of the introduction of "ability words" in the third set of the Kamigawa block. Then there are the darker artifact frames in the third set of Mirrodin block, but that was more like fixing a clear mistake than the introduction of something new.
The cards have been confirmed by a reliable source, so it is very, very likely that they are real. Only the mystery of how <> works remains.
If <> can indeed be produced by any colorless source than I am definitely going to be interested in testing Mirrorpool. If it's a sixth "color" that is different from colorless mana I might be kind of disappointed in Wizards.
A) all colorless mana producers in history produce <> mana now, OR
B) only sources that specifically produce <> can be used to play <> spells and abilities...
Setting aside how sweet it would be to have an all-foil, mono-diamonds deck, even if it is (A) I'm going to need some pretty compelling reasons to include these cards in cube. I am assuming that Wastes would be freely available, and I don't want to have 40 of these things junking up my cube box for only 1-2 cards. I'm conservative about adding mechanics to my cube though.
I suppose it's possible that they will use diamonds just for this set. As in "diamonds must be paid with colorless mana" but not errata anything, and in the future go back to the generic mana symbol. They might just use this opportunity to test the idea like Innistrad did with double-faced cards.
Well how deep the <> card pool is will be an important determining factor as to whether or not supporting it at all will be viable. Because for just 1-2 cards, they'd never see any play anyways. Since it plays much like its own color in the deck, it needs to provide enough cards to both help reach 23 playables and justify running a significantly colorless manabase.
I'm on the "Sol Ring will be errated to add <><>" camp. No worse than when that same Sol Ring lost its original "add two colorless mana" text to start using the 2 symbol that up until then meant only 'costs two generic mana'.
We just take using the same 'number' symbols to mean completely different things that we don't even think about it after learning what they mean when as a cost or when as mana. There'll be no real change to the game, just a small cosmetic change to some cards like many others that occurred through the last two decades.
If it works similar to snow mana and there's some interesting cube cards, I might mess around with having <> = colorless as a house rule for a little while (until the overhead outweighs the novelty).
I think you're crazy, but I suppose I don't know any better than anyone else here.
The way I see it, this game has so much comprehension complexity already. Have you ever reintroduced a lapsed player to the game? Planeswalkers are pretty much the only card that must be explained. Besides those cards, players can still read cards and understand what they do.
If they do the errata, now a huge swath of cards (most at rarities much lower than mythic rare) would have an unfamiliar icon that would need to be explained. I just don't see that happening, but as I said, I suppose none of us can know for sure.
If they do the errata, now a huge swath of cards (most at rarities much lower than mythic rare) would have an unfamiliar icon that would need to be explained. I just don't see that happening, but as I said, I suppose none of us can know for sure.
I mean, you just say "oh, that means it makes colorless mana." It's a pretty simple explanation.
At the end of us, 1/2 of us are going to feel smugly smart and 1/2 aren't, lol. And I have no idea which half is which.
The way I see it, this game has so much comprehension complexity already. Have you ever reintroduced a lapsed player to the game? Planeswalkers are pretty much the only card that must be explained. Besides those cards, players can still read cards and understand what they do.
If you're going to make the complexity argument, Planeswalkers is a bad decision to bring up. Look at the complexity a completely new card type brought to the game, yet they still did it and they've stuck with it. Giving colorless mana a visual representation doesn't affect how the game is played, just how some cards will be read.
I'm also in the <> equals colorless camp. The strongest argument I can think of against this interpretation is that <> will be a little confusing going forward if they don't regularly use it in casting costs and flavor-wise I don't see them doing that much outside of Eldrazi-related spells.
I'd rather have my guess be wrong and know right now than having to wait around speculating forever on how it'll work. It wouldn't necessarily need to be an errata to existing cards. There could just be a rule that says "<> costs can be paid by using <> or exclusively colorless mana from your mana pool" and "<> production can be spent as <> mana or 1" and it would be settled. I just want to see their official release about it.
If they do the errata, now a huge swath of cards (most at rarities much lower than mythic rare) would have an unfamiliar icon that would need to be explained. I just don't see that happening, but as I said, I suppose none of us can know for sure.
I mean, you just say "oh, that means it makes colorless mana." It's a pretty simple explanation.
This.
I swear the 'diamond' colorless mana symbol won't be more complex to explain than 'Battlefield' or 'Dies' or 'Vigilance' or the current Legend rule to a returning player.
I'd rather have my guess be wrong and know right now than having to wait around speculating forever on how it'll work. It wouldn't necessarily need to be an errata to existing cards. There could just be a rule that says "<> costs can be paid by using <> or exclusively colorless mana from your mana pool" and "<> production can be spent as <> mana or 1" and it would be settled. I just want to see their official release about it.
Yeah, in a way it kind of sucks that these specific cards leaked early, because we have basically no context for them and will just end up debating them endlessly until whenever they were supposed to officially be spoiled.
Are there any big events coming up where Wizards might have been planning to spoil these cards? I know they will never confirm rumors like these, but god I hope we aren't waiting till the new year.
I'd rather have my guess be wrong and know right now than having to wait around speculating forever on how it'll work. It wouldn't necessarily need to be an errata to existing cards. There could just be a rule that says "<> costs can be paid by using <> or exclusively colorless mana from your mana pool" and "<> production can be spent as <> mana or 1" and it would be settled. I just want to see their official release about it.
Yeah, in a way it kind of sucks that these specific cards leaked early, because we have basically no context for them and will just end up debating them endlessly until whenever they were supposed to officially be spoiled.
Are there any big events coming up where Wizards might have been planning to spoil these cards? I know they will never confirm rumors like these, but god I hope we aren't waiting till the new year.
Well the pre-release is January 16th, and usually we know all the new mechanics +2 weeks before the pre-release, so I think it's pretty safe to say we'll know what this new mechanic is before the end of 2015, probably something close to the middle of right now and the pre-release.
I have to say, I'm really not a fan of that diamond symbol. All the other mana symbols have a round-stylized look, and this just looks like a... glitch. Like the font isn't rendering the character properly.
A) all colorless mana producers in history produce <> mana now, OR
B) only sources that specifically produce <> can be used to play <> spells and abilities...
It's really hard to evaluate their value on the cube before we know that, lol.
For the sake of backwards compatibility (mana rocks, colorless lands, Eldrazi Spawns and Scions) option 1 is the only one that makes sense IMO.
I was in agreement before reading this particular argument but this seals it for me. If Eldrazi spawns and scions can't help cast the Eldrazi spells, that's a huge flavor fail. And Kozilek's Channeler
I do really wish they used this symbol on the scion tokens and other colorless mana producers last set though, to foreshadow the set in the same way Eye of Ugin foreshadowed ROE. That's the only thing throwing me off.
Its quite an elegant solution actually. So <> is a new mana cost (just like snow, hybrid or phybrid).
As a mana symbol, It is also equivalent to 1. There is no need to errate old cards with 1, the same way "cannot be blocked except by two..." Is not erratad to Menace.
Cube wise, I think there are not enough colorless sources to justify "splashing" the <> cards, especially if it is double cost.
The current mana base of dual, shock, fetch, man lands do not produce <>, so we have to rely on artifact mana, which is too few for cube. Adding basic wastes will make the mana bases too weak for the splash.
Verdict is: probably no <> in cube, or a major change in mana bases to accommodate the new "color"
A) all colorless mana producers in history produce <> mana now, OR
B) only sources that specifically produce <> can be used to play <> spells and abilities...
It's really hard to evaluate their value on the cube before we know that, lol.
For the sake of backwards compatibility (mana rocks, colorless lands, Eldrazi Spawns and Scions) option 1 is the only one that makes sense IMO.
I was in agreement before reading this particular argument but this seals it for me. If Eldrazi spawns and scions can't help cast the Eldrazi spells, that's a huge flavor fail. And Kozilek's Channeler
I do really wish they used this symbol on the scion tokens and other colorless mana producers last set though, to foreshadow the set in the same way Eye of Ugin foreshadowed ROE. That's the only thing throwing me off.
I'm leaning towards this interpretation as well.
My hypothesis is that they settled on the mechanic (of only being to pay with colourless mana) too late in the design/development of OGW for it to make it's way in BFZ. Alternatively, since they didn't have the payoff of calling colorless mana production <> in BFZ, they pushed it back to OGW to keep complexity down in BFZ.
This is all very intriguing. I've no idea which way the <> mana thing will go. It seemed to me that the 'all colorless mana produced is now <>' would be a pretty neat way to solve the age old colorless =! generic mana issue. If it turns out to be a sort of colorless sub-class of mana, it suddenly seems very gimmicky and clunky, and it would make it very insular as well (which they've gone on record saying they are trying to avoid doing). These things pushed me towards believing it will be option n°1, with all colorless mana producers being retro-actively templated with the new <> mana symbols.
On the other hand... that mana symbol. It reminds me an awful lot of a hedron. Which seems an odd choice for something intended to become a permanent part of magic, and makes it look more like something intended to stay tied to the Zendikar plane (like phyrexian mana - although that was super useful for cube, which eldrazi mana certainly won't).
Personally, I'd rather they go the route most useful for cube -> option 1. But I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
A) all colorless mana producers in history produce <> mana now, OR
B) only sources that specifically produce <> can be used to play <> spells and abilities...
It's really hard to evaluate their value on the cube before we know that, lol.
For the sake of backwards compatibility (mana rocks, colorless lands, Eldrazi Spawns and Scions) option 1 is the only one that makes sense IMO.
I would've agreed before the first set in the block dropped. If they were going to use depleted mana as a new replacement for all colorless mana symbols, wouldn't they make the cards in the same block consistent with one another? Full-art waste basics should've been available in the first set, they should've showed us the mana, or at least had Eldrazi Scions (and the other new Eldrazi-centric lands) sac to add <> to your mana pool.
From a flavor perspective, these new cards may be needing to draw a particular type of depleted mana energy from these wasted/depleted lands, and it's a different kind of energy than what is provided by generic colorless mana. Eldrazi Scions still help you reach the 8 in Kozilek's cost, but maybe not necessarily the <><> part of the deal.
Honestly, I could see it going either way, but it seems odd to print a bunch of Eldrazi Scion tokens that are about to immediately have obsolete text icons by the end of the same block. Not to mention every other card in the set that tapped for colorless.
Backwards compatibility isn't something you need to consider if they're trying to showcase a brand new type of mana that's never been used before.
And from a mechanical perspective, all colorless mana producers in history were balanced to produce colorless mana because they can't be used to help cast exclusive spells. Colorless mana and generic mana were designed from the get go to be the same thing. Now all the sudden that drawback turns into a huge advantage because it's the only useable mana in the game that can cast/activate an exclusive set of powerful new cards? Doesn't seem like something they'd want to do.
..........
Edit: I'm not saying they won't do it, or that they can't do it ...I'm just saying that if they were going to make a sweeping change to colorless mana production symbols, I wish they would've done it at the beginning of the block for consistency's sake.
BFZ block is unique in being the only block which went from 3 sets to 2 sets in the middle of them working on it. That is to say, they initially planned the block out as three sets, structured it as such, and started on the fall large set with that in mind. But the switch to two set blocks got officially approved early enough that BFZ block became the first which would use that model. So it's probable that either:
1) it was originally Large-Small-Large, and the spring large 3rd set introduced this mechanic
2) they originally planned to introduce it in winter and then have two full sets to use it in, solving the usual problem of running out of interesting things by set 3
Were it not for that, I would also find it's introduction in the last set of the block (a small set no less) a large strike against the idea that {<>} is a way to refer to colorless costs as distinct from generic costs.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I primarily play limited, so most of my spoiler season comments view cards through that lens.
I would've agreed before the first set in the block dropped. If they were going to use depleted mana as a new replacement for all colorless mana symbols, wouldn't they make the cards in the same block consistent with one another? Full-art waste basics should've been available in the first set, they should've showed us the mana, or at least had Eldrazi Scions (and the other new Eldrazi-centric lands) sac to add <> to your mana pool.
This is the only strong argument against the theory that <> is the new symbol for colorless mana. Having both the new symbol and the old symbol appear in draft and having the old symbol be part of standard for six more months is really awkward. Doing such a big change mid-block is weird. All other arguments against the colorless symbol theory are pretty weak though. I still think this one is a hundred times more likely than anything else that is thrown around.
Regarding the Wastes, Wizards would not have included them in BFZ either way. BFZ has no colorless costs, so a basic land that taps for one colorless would be useless. Colorless costs and Wastes would have been the big surprise in OGW either way.
Btw, I've counted 23 instances of using the generic mana symbol for mana production in BFZ. 12 of these are cards that produce Scions though. Wizards could simply put new versions of the Scion tokens with the new <> symbol into OGW boosters, to make their function clearer.
And from a mechanical perspective, all colorless mana producers in history were balanced to produce colorless mana because they can't be used to help cast exclusive spells. Colorless mana and generic mana were designed from the get go to be the same thing. Now all the sudden that drawback turns into a huge advantage because it's the only useable mana in the game that can cast/activate an exclusive set of powerful new cards? Doesn't seem like something they'd want to do.
Hm, I don't know about a huge advantage. Those cards simply become more useful when it comes to casting around two or three dozen new cards. For hundreds, no, thousands of other cards, producing colored mana is still much better than producing colorless. I think colorless mana costs are an interesting restriction for deck building. You can't just slam Kozilek and friends into any deck, you really have to consider your mana. For example, few of the current 3-4 color decks in standard run lands that produce colorless mana, because fetchlands + battle lands + basics is just so powerful. If they wanted to include some OGW cards with colorless mana costs, they would need to rework their mana bases.
OMG, writing the last paragraph, I just realized that Wastes work with battle lands! You can put some Wastes into your deck and still have battle lands etb untapped early.
The cards have been confirmed by a reliable source, so it is very, very likely that they are real. Only the mystery of how <> works remains.
Btw, I love the look of that textless Wastes.
Uril, the Miststalker RGW -- Ulamog, the Infinite Gyre C -- Vhati il-Dal BG -- Jor Kadeen, the Prevailer RW -- Animar, Soul of Elements URG
Kiki-Jiki, Mirror Breaker R -- Maga, Traitor to Mortals B -- Ghave, Guru of Spores BGW -- Sliver Hivelord WUBRG
So is it:
It's really hard to evaluate their value on the cube before we know that, lol.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 49th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from MKM!
My High Octane Unpowered Cube on CubeCobra
Setting aside how sweet it would be to have an all-foil, mono-diamonds deck, even if it is (A) I'm going to need some pretty compelling reasons to include these cards in cube. I am assuming that Wastes would be freely available, and I don't want to have 40 of these things junking up my cube box for only 1-2 cards. I'm conservative about adding mechanics to my cube though.
I suppose it's possible that they will use diamonds just for this set. As in "diamonds must be paid with colorless mana" but not errata anything, and in the future go back to the generic mana symbol. They might just use this opportunity to test the idea like Innistrad did with double-faced cards.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 49th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from MKM!
We just take using the same 'number' symbols to mean completely different things that we don't even think about it after learning what they mean when as a cost or when as mana. There'll be no real change to the game, just a small cosmetic change to some cards like many others that occurred through the last two decades.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 49th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from MKM!
Last Updated 02/07/24
Streaming Standard/Cube on Twitch https://www.twitch.tv/heisenb3rg96
Strategy Twitter https://www.twitter.com/heisenb3rg
The way I see it, this game has so much comprehension complexity already. Have you ever reintroduced a lapsed player to the game? Planeswalkers are pretty much the only card that must be explained. Besides those cards, players can still read cards and understand what they do.
If they do the errata, now a huge swath of cards (most at rarities much lower than mythic rare) would have an unfamiliar icon that would need to be explained. I just don't see that happening, but as I said, I suppose none of us can know for sure.
I mean, you just say "oh, that means it makes colorless mana." It's a pretty simple explanation.
At the end of us, 1/2 of us are going to feel smugly smart and 1/2 aren't, lol. And I have no idea which half is which.
375 unpowered cube - https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/601ac624832cdf1039947588
If you're going to make the complexity argument, Planeswalkers is a bad decision to bring up. Look at the complexity a completely new card type brought to the game, yet they still did it and they've stuck with it. Giving colorless mana a visual representation doesn't affect how the game is played, just how some cards will be read.
I'm also in the <> equals colorless camp. The strongest argument I can think of against this interpretation is that <> will be a little confusing going forward if they don't regularly use it in casting costs and flavor-wise I don't see them doing that much outside of Eldrazi-related spells.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 49th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from MKM!
This.
I swear the 'diamond' colorless mana symbol won't be more complex to explain than 'Battlefield' or 'Dies' or 'Vigilance' or the current Legend rule to a returning player.
Yeah, in a way it kind of sucks that these specific cards leaked early, because we have basically no context for them and will just end up debating them endlessly until whenever they were supposed to officially be spoiled.
Are there any big events coming up where Wizards might have been planning to spoil these cards? I know they will never confirm rumors like these, but god I hope we aren't waiting till the new year.
375 unpowered cube - https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/601ac624832cdf1039947588
Well the pre-release is January 16th, and usually we know all the new mechanics +2 weeks before the pre-release, so I think it's pretty safe to say we'll know what this new mechanic is before the end of 2015, probably something close to the middle of right now and the pre-release.
Also, follow us on twitter! @TurnOneMagic
For the sake of backwards compatibility (mana rocks, colorless lands, Eldrazi Spawns and Scions) option 1 is the only one that makes sense IMO.
I was in agreement before reading this particular argument but this seals it for me. If Eldrazi spawns and scions can't help cast the Eldrazi spells, that's a huge flavor fail. And Kozilek's Channeler
I do really wish they used this symbol on the scion tokens and other colorless mana producers last set though, to foreshadow the set in the same way Eye of Ugin foreshadowed ROE. That's the only thing throwing me off.
360-cube - Suggestions welcome!
As a mana symbol, It is also equivalent to 1. There is no need to errate old cards with 1, the same way "cannot be blocked except by two..." Is not erratad to Menace.
Cube wise, I think there are not enough colorless sources to justify "splashing" the <> cards, especially if it is double cost.
The current mana base of dual, shock, fetch, man lands do not produce <>, so we have to rely on artifact mana, which is too few for cube. Adding basic wastes will make the mana bases too weak for the splash.
Verdict is: probably no <> in cube, or a major change in mana bases to accommodate the new "color"
My hypothesis is that they settled on the mechanic (of only being to pay with colourless mana) too late in the design/development of OGW for it to make it's way in BFZ. Alternatively, since they didn't have the payoff of calling colorless mana production <> in BFZ, they pushed it back to OGW to keep complexity down in BFZ.
On the other hand... that mana symbol. It reminds me an awful lot of a hedron. Which seems an odd choice for something intended to become a permanent part of magic, and makes it look more like something intended to stay tied to the Zendikar plane (like phyrexian mana - although that was super useful for cube, which eldrazi mana certainly won't).
Personally, I'd rather they go the route most useful for cube -> option 1. But I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
I would've agreed before the first set in the block dropped. If they were going to use depleted mana as a new replacement for all colorless mana symbols, wouldn't they make the cards in the same block consistent with one another? Full-art waste basics should've been available in the first set, they should've showed us the mana, or at least had Eldrazi Scions (and the other new Eldrazi-centric lands) sac to add <> to your mana pool.
From a flavor perspective, these new cards may be needing to draw a particular type of depleted mana energy from these wasted/depleted lands, and it's a different kind of energy than what is provided by generic colorless mana. Eldrazi Scions still help you reach the 8 in Kozilek's cost, but maybe not necessarily the <><> part of the deal.
Honestly, I could see it going either way, but it seems odd to print a bunch of Eldrazi Scion tokens that are about to immediately have obsolete text icons by the end of the same block. Not to mention every other card in the set that tapped for colorless.
Backwards compatibility isn't something you need to consider if they're trying to showcase a brand new type of mana that's never been used before.
And from a mechanical perspective, all colorless mana producers in history were balanced to produce colorless mana because they can't be used to help cast exclusive spells. Colorless mana and generic mana were designed from the get go to be the same thing. Now all the sudden that drawback turns into a huge advantage because it's the only useable mana in the game that can cast/activate an exclusive set of powerful new cards? Doesn't seem like something they'd want to do.
..........
Edit: I'm not saying they won't do it, or that they can't do it ...I'm just saying that if they were going to make a sweeping change to colorless mana production symbols, I wish they would've done it at the beginning of the block for consistency's sake.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 49th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from MKM!
1) it was originally Large-Small-Large, and the spring large 3rd set introduced this mechanic
2) they originally planned to introduce it in winter and then have two full sets to use it in, solving the usual problem of running out of interesting things by set 3
Were it not for that, I would also find it's introduction in the last set of the block (a small set no less) a large strike against the idea that {<>} is a way to refer to colorless costs as distinct from generic costs.
Interested in Custom Card Creation.
My Cube:Cardinal Custom Cube
A custom version of a third modern masters: MM2019
(filter->rarity to see in set rarity).
Regarding the Wastes, Wizards would not have included them in BFZ either way. BFZ has no colorless costs, so a basic land that taps for one colorless would be useless. Colorless costs and Wastes would have been the big surprise in OGW either way.
Btw, I've counted 23 instances of using the generic mana symbol for mana production in BFZ. 12 of these are cards that produce Scions though. Wizards could simply put new versions of the Scion tokens with the new <> symbol into OGW boosters, to make their function clearer.
Hm, I don't know about a huge advantage. Those cards simply become more useful when it comes to casting around two or three dozen new cards. For hundreds, no, thousands of other cards, producing colored mana is still much better than producing colorless. I think colorless mana costs are an interesting restriction for deck building. You can't just slam Kozilek and friends into any deck, you really have to consider your mana. For example, few of the current 3-4 color decks in standard run lands that produce colorless mana, because fetchlands + battle lands + basics is just so powerful. If they wanted to include some OGW cards with colorless mana costs, they would need to rework their mana bases.
OMG, writing the last paragraph, I just realized that Wastes work with battle lands! You can put some Wastes into your deck and still have battle lands etb untapped early.
Uril, the Miststalker RGW -- Ulamog, the Infinite Gyre C -- Vhati il-Dal BG -- Jor Kadeen, the Prevailer RW -- Animar, Soul of Elements URG
Kiki-Jiki, Mirror Breaker R -- Maga, Traitor to Mortals B -- Ghave, Guru of Spores BGW -- Sliver Hivelord WUBRG