Out of many changes wizards has made over the years this one doesn't even come close to being the most confusing, which I believe is "Play" on so many old cards, mostly on playing spells, becoming casting spells, or the much forgotten "successfully cast spell" Though looking at just the new cards it all becomes much clearer and easier to learn and players can find the old cards with different words and symbols after they "get" magic.
Though many are missing the point, are you teaching players with a mix of old and new cards? If you are then I think we've encountered the biggest problem with your teaching method.
-
- Devil's Advocate
- Registered User
-
Member for 15 years, 9 months, and 3 days
Last active Sun, Oct, 1 2017 17:01:58
- 4 Followers
- 1,403 Total Posts
- 83 Thanks
-
Dec 7, 2015
2
user_938036 posted a message on [OGW] Kozilek, the Great Distortion and New Basic Land - Wastes???Posted in: The Rumor Mill -
Dec 1, 2015
1
InsipidSepiid posted a message on The Sportsmanship of Concedingif the other players were fine with the Insurrection ending the game they could've just conceded also.Posted in: Commander (EDH)
if they kept playing that means they wanted to continue the game and they appreciated your conceding and the only player who didn't was the one who cast the Insurrection. -
Nov 30, 20152
tgambitg posted a message on Relevant Comprehensive Rules Governing the Possible <> mana symbolReposted from another threadPosted in: New Card Discussion
Here is what I think will be the relevant rules changes if <> is the new symbol for colorless:
Current:
107.4. The mana symbols are W, U, B, R, G, and X; the numerals 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and so on; the hybrid symbols (W/U), (W/B), (U/B), (U/R), (B/R), (B/G), (R/G), (R/W), (G/W), and (G/U); the monocolored hybrid symbols (2/W), (2/U), (2/B), (2/R), and (2/G); the Phyrexian mana symbols (W/P), (U/P), (B/P), (R/P), and (G/P); and the snow symbol S.
New: (bolded change)
107.4. The mana symbols are W, U, B, R, G, <>, and X; the numerals 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and so on; the hybrid symbols (W/U), (W/B), (U/B), (U/R), (B/R), (B/G), (R/G), (R/W), (G/W), and (G/U); the monocolored hybrid symbols (2/W), (2/U), (2/B), (2/R), and (2/G); the Phyrexian mana symbols (W/P), (U/P), (B/P), (R/P), and (G/P); and the snow symbol S.
Current:
107.4c Numeral symbols (such as {1}) and variable symbols (such as {X}) can also represent colorless mana if they appear in the effect of a spell or ability that reads “add [mana symbol] to your mana pool” or something similar. (See rule 107.3e.)
New: (bolded change)
107.4c The <> symbol is used to represent colorless mana, and also to represent colorless mana in costs. Colorless mana in costs can be paid only with colorless mana. See rule 202, “Mana Cost and Color.”
Current:
202.1a The mana cost of an object represents what a player must spend from his or her mana pool to cast that card. Unless an object’s mana cost includes Phyrexian mana symbols (see rule 107.4f), paying that mana cost requires matching the color of any colored mana symbols as well as paying the generic mana indicated in the cost.
New: (bolded change)
202.1a The mana cost of an object represents what a player must spend from his or her mana pool to cast that card. Unless an object’s mana cost includes Phyrexian mana symbols (see rule 107.4f), paying that mana cost requires matching the colored or colorless mana symbols as well as paying the generic mana indicated in the cost.
New:
305.6a A basic land without a basic land type has the intrinsic ability “T: Add <> to your mana pool,” even if the text box doesn’t actually contain that text or the object has no text box. See rule 107.4c. Also see rule 605, “Mana Abilities.”
-
Nov 23, 201515
Sphynx posted a message on Apparent Clarification of <> What will be, and what always has been.http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/133764358703/rules-wise-is-there-a-practical-differencePosted in: Speculation
I think it should be quite apparent by now that <> is to be new new expression of 'Add 1 to your mana pool,' to distinguish it from the very different 'Pay 1: [effect].'
There is now clear distinction between 'colorless' and 'generic.' The first typically concerns a resource type (like White/Blue/Black/Red/Green) and the second concerns cost. (like 2U)
There are two facets to the colorless type resouce <> and generic cost X symbol which can cause confusion unlike WUBRG
These two facets, followed by their interrelationship, is what I would like to compile a clarified understanding for.
First is that although <> is now clarified to be, and bear in mind always has been the sixth type of mana, it is unique from the other types (White/Blue, etc) in that it has no 'color.'
This is, and has always been, that you could have one of six types of mana floating in your mana pool. WUBRG, and 1.
Now that floating colorless type 1 has been redefined as <>.
There are, and have always been, 6 types of mana in Magic. 5 of which are the five colors of Magic, one of which is colorless.
Secondly, the other source of confusion is generic mana as it appears in the costs cards. X, 8, etc like Hangarback Walker or Ulamog's Crusher.
This is not, and has never been, a specific type of mana. Not white, not blue, not green, not even colorless.
It is basically an expression of 'CMC,' which is made up of whatever types you wish.
However, and this is the wonky part, if a card cost is entirely generic mana like Amulet of Vigor or Ulamog's Crusher, it is not 'generic' or undefined, but defined as colorless.
The problem has been that Wizards has left it implied that colorless type and generic cost are related the same way G is green type and pays for Birds of Paradise.
Bear in mind that as far as the game's rules are concerned, the G in your mana pool is a resource value, and the G in Birds of Paradise is a cost.
The game rules further, must (and do) separately define that G in your mana pool can be used to pay for Birds of Paradise.
Compare Elvish Mystic. It features both the green type resource in its ability, and G in its cost.
Now look at Myr Moonvessel.
Up until now, this card would be considered a kind of colorless parallel to Elvish Mystic. Yes the death trigger is less convenient, but it's basically a mana dork in its own right.
The problem is that even if the card looks colorless, and adds colorless mana, its 1 symbols don't have quite the same relationship as the G symbols in Elvish Mystic.
The 1 in the cost is not 'colorless type' - it is generic, or 'any.'
The 1 in the ability is not generic, however, and it certainly isn't 'any.'
Generic, or 'any' mana doesn't exist as a resource. Birds of Paradise can pay for any colored cost or generic cost, but the ability itself still makes you choose a colored mana type.
Note that Birds of Paradise up until now could pay for any cost, because all costs were generic or colored. But Birds of Paradise cannot pay for <>. <> is not among 'one mana of any color.'
Birds of Paradise cannot pay for the <> in Kozilek, the Great Distortion.
Neither can Elvish Mystic, but Myr Moonvessel can.
The 1 in Myr Moonvessel's ability is now defined as <>. The mana type is still the same, colorless. It merely has been given as symbol now.
Myr Moonvessel's cost however remains 1, or 1 generic mana. Entirely generic mana costs still leave a card with no color in their identity, they default on colorless.
As far as the game's operation is concerned, there is basically no change other than the colorless type resource 1 now being represented with the <> symbol.
But, there is one new thing.
That's <> as a cost. Previously, nothing in the entire game has specified colorless type for a mana cost, even though it technically could have. Think about that.
How? Without a mana symbol? Well, just look at Soul Burn to bridge that mechanical gap.
But of course, featuring the rules text 'spend only colorless mana to pay for 8' on stuff like Ulamog's Crusher would be very messy.
It's even messier when you only want part of the total cost to be colorless, and the rest to be generic. 'Spend only colorless mana to pay for 2 out of 8' Huh?
Defined mana symbols for each colored mana type avoids this mess for WUBRG. So giving colorless its own defined mana symbol in <> saves all the messy business.
This allows for future colorless designs like Kozilek, the Great Distortion to be defined colorless by <>.
-You must use colorless type mana to pay for <>. 'Add 1 to your mana pool.' now looks like 'Add <> to your mana pool.'
-You can use Myr Moonvessel to pay for it.
-You cannot use Elvish Mystic to pay for it.
-You cannot use Birds of Paradise to pay for it.
-There is a lot of potential design space. We may see a future mana dork completely analogous to Elvish Mystic that costs <> and produces <>.
Contrast to stuff like Ulamog's Crusher being colorless by default due to a completely generic mana cost.
-You can use pretty much any mana to pay for it.
-It is colorless in its identity by default, even if you use entirely colored mana to pay for its cost.
-There is very little design space that doesn't result in breaking the color pie.
Discuss what implications you might feel are brought about by the added design space of <>. - To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
1
1
I said that in my first post, yeah. It's not technically a color (because it doesn't interact with any color matters mechanics), but it's otherwise functionally like a color, so it could accurately be described as "like cheating a 6th color into the game." Fortunately, they've done it in a way that I like.
1
Because it's untapped design space. The game is over 22 years old, and showing no signs of stopping any time soon. This train runs on design space, if there's some sitting there, it's got to be used eventually.
4
3
What rules headaches? This change barely touches the comprehensive rules, and has no effect on the functionality of any previously printed cards.
2
I mean... You're describing the fundamental system of balance built into the design of colors. If you want to use this powerful card, you have to build your mana base to accommodate it. This creates a natural risk vs. reward factor in deck building where you have to weigh the benefits of running more colors against the risks of a greedy manabase. Thus far, colorless cards have sidestepped this issue. Which is great, it's important to have some cards anyone can use. But the colorless symbol will open design space for them to make colorless cards that are a bit more pushed because considering including them is essentially like considering including another color in your deck.
1
2
That wording is not without precedent. See Blazing Shoal.
2
Err, other basic lands don't have rules text. Their subtype is what gives them the ability. Since Wastes doesn't have a basic land type, obviously that's not how it will gain it's ability. It could either have oracle text that says it taps for <>, or a rule could be added to the game that makes all basic lands with no type tap for <>. I think it would be a strange choice for the first printing of a new card to not have its rules text written on the card, but then, I guess others thought it was a strange choice to change the colorless symbol mid-block, so I'm not going to write off the possibility. But I'm inclined to suspect that they'll do it through the comprehensive rules rather than text on the card, because that's how the other basic lands work.
2
Wastes has no rules text, and no basic land type. By the current rules, it doesn't actually do anything. In order to make Wastes actually tap for <>, they will have to add a rule saying "basic lands with no type have T: Add <> to your mana pool" or something similar.