I don't understand how <> can be the new symbol for colorless mana when Kozelik has both the <> and 10 (or whatever it is) in its cost.
Numbers in a grey circle (like 1) are currently used for both colorless mana in your mana pool and generic mana in costs, even though those things are almost opposite. A new symbol for colorless mana would fix that.
- A mana cost of 10 (ten generic mana) means you can cast the card by paying ten mana of any kind (white, blue, black, red, green or even colorless) and in any combination.
- A mana cost of 8<><> (with <> being the new symbol for one colorless mana, so that it would be eight generic mana and two colorless mana) means that you can cast the card by paying eight mana of any kind and in any combination, plus two more mana that must be colorless and nothing else.
I don't understand how <> can be the new symbol for colorless mana when Kozelik has both the <> and 10 (or whatever it is) in its cost.
<> would be colorless mana when it's PRODUCED. You can spend it as 1 or <>. Colorless mana symbols in a COST would remain the same.
Technically, the last sentence should read: Generic mana symbols in a COST would remain the same.
Colorless mana symbols in a cost would be the new <> symbols.
Edit: To answer your first question: Colorless mana in the mana pool and in a mana cost would use the same symbol: <>
Just like white mana in the mana pool and in a mana cost uses the same symbol, W.
Why does colorless mana in a cost or in your pool need to look different when colored mana uses the same symbol for both generation and costs?
But both will look the same: <>
What you're calling "colorless cost" is actually "generic cost". Magic didn't had actual "colorless costs" up until someone came with the <> symbol. Generic =/= Colorless, we just spent about 12 years using the same symbols for both.
From Alpha to Eight Edition, 1 and such was only ever used in costs. It was designed by Richard Garfield to mean "generic mana cost", and only that. Everything that produced colorless mana had to say, "add colorless mana to your mana pool", because colorless mana had no symbols.
Then when designing 8E or thereabouts someone had the idea to start using the generic mana symbols to also meant colorless mana when used for mana producers (but not costs, because we didn't had "this costs colorless mana" as a game concept). Now they were called "number symbols" that could mean either "colorless mana" or its direct opposite, "generic mana", and we had to know which was which by context.
And that change did require massive errata on the same level as will happen again in January. And it did work well enough that way, really, but different symbols for different concepts is just better overall.
The Eldrazi Scion argument really solidifies <> being able to be produced by anything that makes 1 in my mind, otherwise the two sets would be really weird to play together and there would be basically no backwards compatibility. Assuming this is true, does anyone think Mirrorpool is playable with the currently available colorless mana rocks and colorless utility lands (i.e. excluding Wastes). I'm in the habit of proxying cards up for testing as soon as they are spoiled and Mirrorpool seems like a ton of fun.
As a side note, if <> can be paid for with colorless mana and there are a bunch of good cards in the set worth cubing, Darksteel Citadel could be a viable non-basic option to test out. It would work well with the artifact deck, Trinket Mage, the Tezzerets, ect.
From Alpha to Eight Edition, 1 and such was only ever used in costs. It was designed by Richard Garfield to mean "generic mana cost", and only that. Everything that produced colorless mana had to say, "add colorless mana to your mana pool", because colorless mana had no symbols.
Then when designing 8E or thereabouts someone had the idea to start using the generic mana symbols to also meant colorless mana when used for mana producers (but not costs, because we didn't had "this costs colorless mana" as a game concept). Now they were called "number symbols" that could mean either "colorless mana" or its direct opposite, "generic mana", and we had to know which was which by context.
And that change did require massive errata on the same level as will happen again in January. And it did work well enough that way, really, but different symbols for different concepts is just better overall.
Interesting. Didn't know that. But this point actually makes me think that they could change it retroactively (if the cards aren't fakes anyway).
Thanks for the explanation willdice. I never considered colorless mana and generic mana to be different things. And for all intents and purposes they were the same, until <> (if that's in fact what that stands for). It could still be Eldrazi mana or Depleted mana and be separate from colorless mana entirely, but we'll have to wait and see.
The land is certainly good. It'll get better the more playable <> stuff we get, because it'll become easier to justify splashing a few Wastes into the deck if you have at least 2-3 cards in there that can take advantage of the <> mana. And more importantly, it'll gain value with other <> spells in the deck because it'll help you cast them instead of being just another colorless land.
But again, that's assuming that <> means colorless exclusive mana, and not some kind of new Devoid/Eldrazi mana. If we can't use existing colorless sources to cast/activate them, the whole mechanic is likely dead for our format.
Doesn't seem very good. Currently, the only ETB tapped in my cube are manlands (and the placeholder temples that are there until they print the last 3) and perfect fixers Evolving Wilds and Terramorphic Expanse. This one costs you tempo but instead of fixing your mana actually makes it worse, and the upsides are more conditional than the manland's activations.
It is a land that can create a creature which is pretty strong. It can also be a pretty good/big creature, better and bigger than the 3/4 flyer from Gargoyle Castle, for example. However, you do need such a creature on the board in the first place (note that it says "you control"), so that is a strike against it. It does nothing if your side of the board is empty.
And jeez, I always assumed that seasoned Magic players know the difference between colorless and generic mana, but apparently, many don't. It seems that half the people who dismiss the "<> is a symbol for one colorless mana" theory do so because they aren't aware of this difference. You can't imagine how often I have read "But then Kozilek's 8<><> cost would be just the same as a cost of 10!" in the last two days. Also, they claim that such a change would be super confusing for new players. I can see how this seems confusing to them, since they learned the game differently, but seriously, for a new player, colorless mana having its own symbol would be really helpful. Gargoyles Castle tapping for <> would be just as natural as Treetop Village tapping for G and Shelldock Isle tapping for U.
I can see how this seems confusing to them, since they learned the game differently, but seriously, for a new player, colorless mana having its own symbol would be really helpful. Gargoyles Castle tapping for <> would be just as natural as Treetop Village tapping for G and Shelldock Isle tapping for U.
Agree and I think it would look really cool too Also, if our assumptions are true and cube gets some <> goodies, Pain lands become WAY better.
I probably will not be including any <> cards in my Cube, regardless of how great they are.
They will likely be like Snow lands, in that you can tap a basic for <> or 1, but you cannot tap 1 for <>, in the same way you can tap a red for R but you cannot tap R for The casting cost of Kozilek is making a statement by saying that 1 is generic and <> is colorless, and allowing generic mana to tap for <> seems very unlikely, because it adds a lot of unecessary complexity to a largely unecessary addition to mana.
If I am wrong, and 1 can tap for <>, then I may include them. I just do not see it happening, and I certainly do not think Kozilek, the Great Distortion or Mirrorpool are good enough for 450.
I am glad that I get to explain to new players that when you tap a land for colorless mana it is colorless mana, until it isn't colorless mana - but instead, colorless mana because there is colorless mana, and then there is colorless mana.
I think it's important to note that if errata takes place, it would only be cosmetic errata rather than functional errata, like the change from "unblockable" to "can't be blocked". The cards will work as they always have, only now there are new cards where explicitly differentiating generic mana from colorless mana makes a difference.
Yep. If there are a few strong cards with only one or two colorless mana symbols in their costs, I am going to include the full ten painlands as my sixth dual land cycle. Plus, 10 Wastes in my basic land section. I think that should be enough, even if two players need some colorless basics.
I can see how this seems confusing to them, since they learned the game differently, but seriously, for a new player, colorless mana having its own symbol would be really helpful. Gargoyles Castle tapping for <> would be just as natural as Treetop Village tapping for G and Shelldock Isle tapping for U.
Kinda. Except that the G symbol that the Village creates is seen all over the place, and it's an easy correlation to make. 99.99% of the uses for <> will be to pay for 1. So when it also produces 1, it's easier to visualize.
Nobody's saying it's too hard to understand, only that keeping colorless mana and generic mana the same is simpler.
I can see how this seems confusing to them, since they learned the game differently, but seriously, for a new player, colorless mana having its own symbol would be really helpful. Gargoyles Castle tapping for <> would be just as natural as Treetop Village tapping for G and Shelldock Isle tapping for U.
Kinda. Except that the G symbol that the Village creates is seen all over the place, and it's an easy correlation to make. 99.99% of the uses for <> will be to pay for 1. So when it also produces 1, it's easier to visualize.
I mean, 50%+ of G produced is probably used to pay 1-type costs also.
I had just assumed that 8<><> meant 8 of any color and two of this new Waste mana. The thought of it being 8 of any color and two colorless is interesting, though. I don't think they'll use the <> symbol for colorless outside of this set, however. As in, I don't think future reprints of pain lands will have "T: Add <> to your mana pool" as the first line.
I kind of feel disappointed about this return to Zendikar block. It feels like an Eldrazi block than a Zendikar block. Mtg villain tends to be bad in cube, like Phyrexian with their infect and now this. I wish Phyrexian mana come back the next time Phyrexian come back.
I don't understand how <> can be the new symbol for colorless mana when Kozelik has both the <> and 10 (or whatever it is) in its cost.
This confused statement is why I beleive that <> is the new symbol for Colorless Mana. Because Generic Mana (seen in the in the casting cost of spells) and Colourless Mana (seen in your mana pool) have always shared the same symbol of 1, people confuse the two for the same thing. They are, however, very different. Generic Mana (1) can be of any color including colorless while Colorless Mana (<>) is colorless mana. In this scenario, the two different types of mana will be differentiated from each other, ending any confusion between Generic and Colorless, while additionally adding a sixth color to the color pie. Allowing Colorless to have it's own mana symbol opens up the design space of a sixth color in a much more elegant fashion then adding purple to the equation. Players know and are comfortable with colorless spells already. Now colorless spells (and eventually gold or devoid spells) can take on more of an identity while their power level can be pushed a little further by including <> in the CC rather then just x. Because Sol Ring needed to be better
An argument for <> being strictly Eldrazi mana that I have not seen in this discussion yet is that the new symbol of <> physically looks like Eldrazi mana. It's a freaking hedron for crying out loud. Compare it to Kozilek's brood sign. It's very strange that WOTC would give the colorless mana symbol such as specific look.
Oh and Koz 2.0 seems terrible for cube while Mirrorpool seems busted.
My High Octane Unpowered Cube on CubeCobra
- A mana cost of 10 (ten generic mana) means you can cast the card by paying ten mana of any kind (white, blue, black, red, green or even colorless) and in any combination.
- A mana cost of 8<><> (with <> being the new symbol for one colorless mana, so that it would be eight generic mana and two colorless mana) means that you can cast the card by paying eight mana of any kind and in any combination, plus two more mana that must be colorless and nothing else.
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
Why does colorless mana in a cost or in your pool need to look different when colored mana uses the same symbol for both generation and costs?
<> would be colorless mana when it's PRODUCED. You can spend it as 1 or <>. Colorless mana symbols in a COST would remain the same.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 50th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from OTJ!
Colorless mana symbols in a cost would be the new <> symbols.
Edit: To answer your first question: Colorless mana in the mana pool and in a mana cost would use the same symbol: <>
Just like white mana in the mana pool and in a mana cost uses the same symbol, W.
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
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 50th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from OTJ!
But both will look the same: <>
What you're calling "colorless cost" is actually "generic cost". Magic didn't had actual "colorless costs" up until someone came with the <> symbol. Generic =/= Colorless, we just spent about 12 years using the same symbols for both.
From Alpha to Eight Edition, 1 and such was only ever used in costs. It was designed by Richard Garfield to mean "generic mana cost", and only that. Everything that produced colorless mana had to say, "add colorless mana to your mana pool", because colorless mana had no symbols.
Then when designing 8E or thereabouts someone had the idea to start using the generic mana symbols to also meant colorless mana when used for mana producers (but not costs, because we didn't had "this costs colorless mana" as a game concept). Now they were called "number symbols" that could mean either "colorless mana" or its direct opposite, "generic mana", and we had to know which was which by context.
And that change did require massive errata on the same level as will happen again in January. And it did work well enough that way, really, but different symbols for different concepts is just better overall.
As a side note, if <> can be paid for with colorless mana and there are a bunch of good cards in the set worth cubing, Darksteel Citadel could be a viable non-basic option to test out. It would work well with the artifact deck, Trinket Mage, the Tezzerets, ect.
Interesting. Didn't know that. But this point actually makes me think that they could change it retroactively (if the cards aren't fakes anyway).
My Tribal cube
My 93/94 old school cube
My Artifact cube
My Hearthstone Quiz App for iOS
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 50th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from OTJ!
Assuming <> is equal to 1 colorless mana
What do you guys think of mirrorpool?
thats my cube
But again, that's assuming that <> means colorless exclusive mana, and not some kind of new Devoid/Eldrazi mana. If we can't use existing colorless sources to cast/activate them, the whole mechanic is likely dead for our format.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 50th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from OTJ!
And jeez, I always assumed that seasoned Magic players know the difference between colorless and generic mana, but apparently, many don't. It seems that half the people who dismiss the "<> is a symbol for one colorless mana" theory do so because they aren't aware of this difference. You can't imagine how often I have read "But then Kozilek's 8<><> cost would be just the same as a cost of 10!" in the last two days. Also, they claim that such a change would be super confusing for new players. I can see how this seems confusing to them, since they learned the game differently, but seriously, for a new player, colorless mana having its own symbol would be really helpful. Gargoyles Castle tapping for <> would be just as natural as Treetop Village tapping for G and Shelldock Isle tapping for U.
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
Agree and I think it would look really cool too Also, if our assumptions are true and cube gets some <> goodies, Pain lands become WAY better.
They will likely be like Snow lands, in that you can tap a basic for <> or 1, but you cannot tap 1 for <>, in the same way you can tap a red for R but you cannot tap R for The casting cost of Kozilek is making a statement by saying that 1 is generic and <> is colorless, and allowing generic mana to tap for <> seems very unlikely, because it adds a lot of unecessary complexity to a largely unecessary addition to mana.
If I am wrong, and 1 can tap for <>, then I may include them. I just do not see it happening, and I certainly do not think Kozilek, the Great Distortion or Mirrorpool are good enough for 450.
I am glad that I get to explain to new players that when you tap a land for colorless mana it is colorless mana, until it isn't colorless mana - but instead, colorless mana because there is colorless mana, and then there is colorless mana.
Cubetutor Link
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
Kinda. Except that the G symbol that the Village creates is seen all over the place, and it's an easy correlation to make. 99.99% of the uses for <> will be to pay for 1. So when it also produces 1, it's easier to visualize.
Nobody's saying it's too hard to understand, only that keeping colorless mana and generic mana the same is simpler.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 50th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from OTJ!
I mean, 50%+ of G produced is probably used to pay 1-type costs also.
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 50th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from OTJ!
MTGS Average Peasant Cube 2023 Edition
Follow me. I tweet.
My cube
My cube on Cube tutor
I'm OP_Forever. I'll be putting this in my signature for a while so everyone know I change my nickname.
This confused statement is why I beleive that <> is the new symbol for Colorless Mana. Because Generic Mana (seen in the in the casting cost of spells) and Colourless Mana (seen in your mana pool) have always shared the same symbol of 1, people confuse the two for the same thing. They are, however, very different. Generic Mana (1) can be of any color including colorless while Colorless Mana (<>) is colorless mana. In this scenario, the two different types of mana will be differentiated from each other, ending any confusion between Generic and Colorless, while additionally adding a sixth color to the color pie. Allowing Colorless to have it's own mana symbol opens up the design space of a sixth color in a much more elegant fashion then adding purple to the equation. Players know and are comfortable with colorless spells already. Now colorless spells (and eventually gold or devoid spells) can take on more of an identity while their power level can be pushed a little further by including <> in the CC rather then just x. Because Sol Ring needed to be better
An argument for <> being strictly Eldrazi mana that I have not seen in this discussion yet is that the new symbol of <> physically looks like Eldrazi mana. It's a freaking hedron for crying out loud. Compare it to Kozilek's brood sign. It's very strange that WOTC would give the colorless mana symbol such as specific look.
Oh and Koz 2.0 seems terrible for cube while Mirrorpool seems busted.
merge post
-Luffy
Draft my cube!
Watch me stream!