Hey Nostradamus, enough with the quatrains, those are hard to read. I also disagree with most of your thoughts. Adding complexity is one thing, making cards that were printed in the same block obsolete is inane and I hope they were not that dumb. Also, I disagree that changing all colourless mana producing to <> would be a small change. If this was to happen, there is nothing stopping Wizards from changing the mana costs of artifacts to <><> rather than 2 etc. so you can just imagine the even larger amount of errata and headaches that would cause. Again, hope they were not that dumb.
Once again, you are illustrating exactly why a dedicated symbol for colorless mana is desperately needed (wether or not <> ends up being that symbol). Changing the (2) that Sol Ring produces to {c}{c} would not be a functional change. Changing the (1) that Sol Ring costs to {c} would be a functional change. That's what would stop them from changing artifacts that cost (2) to costing <><>. It would change the card from being castable with mana of any kind (colored or colorless) to only being castable with colorless mana.
So the Black/White legend was spoiled and has a regular 1 as an activation cost.
No new templating, no errata needed. <> is a specialized mana type that is produced by the Wastes and probably a few more non-basics.
How are people still having a problem between 1 as a generic mana cost and 1 as part of a mana generation ability?
<> wouldn't be used in most activation costs. It's not used in every cost - look at Kozilek.
Your assertions are incorrect - the new legend gave no new evidence either way.
I still find it amusing though how Wizards is trolling this thread now by spoiling this new Legend. I mean, her activation could have easily been <> instead of 1 for this new set. Even if that was true, it still wouldn't solve the ongoing debate since <> could still be either a new mana type or just a new symbol for colourless. What we really need is a new mana rock that either produces <> or 1 to finally help settle this nonsense.
A new mana rock that tapped for <> wouldn't settle it, because it could still be argued that it's producing mana of a new type, not colorless. What would settle it is a reprinted old mana rock that taps for <>, or anything at all that taps for (1).
If it were "eldrazi mana" it would solve no issue they would want to solve with an actual new basic. Still no colorless basic, a sixth color identity for commander, cards that can go in no commander deck at all (except for decks with the new Kozilek as commander).
Nothing suggests that a new type of mana would have to have a color identity at all. It has the same background as 1, so if it is a new type of mana, it probably would simply also have no color.
But then it would be functionally identical to the proposed "<> is the new symbol for colorless mana", but without the benefits of being backwards compatible, clearing up the ambiguity between colorless mana and generic costs, and opening up future design space.
The issue with dual or fetchland wastes is that the designers would have to envision Eldrazi working with colored allies and story-wise they aren't doing that.
Given that the basic land is Wastes and not city, I have difficulty envisioning colorless focus existng outside of the Oath of he gatewatch set.
You could easily put Wastes in a city, just make the artwork show the city landfill. Or even an empty lot. Or the site of a Magic battle that left the land scarred and it's mana ties severed.
There are so many ways you could put Wastes into any setting. The name could literally go in any setting.
They don't even need to keep the name. Unlike other basic lands, Wastes doesn't have a subtype. They just say "Basic Land" instead of "Basic Land - Wastes". So, assuming the new rule is that Basic Lands with no subtype have {T}: Add <> to your mana pool, they could print subtypeless basic lands in any set they want, with any name they want to match the set's flavor.
If Magic had the generic/colorless differentiation throughout its history then it would be simpler than the current rules, this I do think is true. If they make the differentiation now though, new players would be confused when you cast Kozilek using an old Sol Ring to pay for <>. At which point you'd probably have to not only explain the difference, but also the convoluted history. Just because it's only a 'cosmetic errata' as people have been saying, doesn't mean that it doesn't have practical implications.
The same can be said of any errata. When a card's printed text doesn't match its oracle text, it will cause some confusion with anyone not familiar with the oracle text. That didn't stop the grand creature type update ("what do you mean, your Dwarven Warriors gets the +2/+2 from Lovsia Coldeyes? It clearly says its creature type is 'dwarves'!"). That change affected a lot more cards than this one would, and in a way that actually affected their functionality, unlike this one. Fortunately, there's this nifty thing called the gatherer where you can look up any card's oracle text on your smartphone (which were not a thing when the grand creature type update happened, by the way) and clear that confusion right up.
I wonder if that might be why the reminder text on Devoid says ([CARDNAME] has no color.) as opposed to ([CARDNAME] is colorless.) Maybe they're changing the templating of "colorless", the color identity to help further distinguish it from "colorless", the type of mana.
Choose target creature, then choose another target creature for each time ~ was kicked.
Each of them gains +1/+1 and "T: this creature fights another target creature" until end of turn.
Is this so different from the original text and so much more difficult to grab? I understand the reasoning behind (unifying set mechanics etc), but I still feel it's an unnecessary inflation of keywords that complicates the rules for nothing. Some of those keywords become (semi-)redundant with other existing ones and/or become forgotten (was there ever a fateful hour archetype?). When I see the effort put into trying to explain how devotion was something else than chroma, I come to think that those new narrow keywords are just a marketing effort, to say there's something new in the set.
Dude, almost every mechanic in the game is a variant of Kicker. This is nothing new.
You know what's been eating all my time? Sorting all my financials out and moving into my own place, buying a new computer, and generally getting everything sorted
Here's a pic of me christening my new place
That was us having a random peasant deck building sesh, but we've been having EDH nights and everything and having an actual place that's mine is kinda awesome for doing things. How is everyone?
That's awesome, congratulations! Unless its a lost-my-old-place kind of new place, in which case that sucks, and my sympathies.
In the sweres, the only things that sleep never wake back up.
I just assumed you all were awake all the time.
Eh, it's a sort of trance-like state, where I am mostly inactive, but remain aware of my surroundings on an unconscious level. If I sense danger I reflexively return to full consciousness.
I'm against this personally. Play the game. As others have said, you may be helping the person in front of you but you're hurting someone else just as much.
As a competitive person, I don't understand why you would even want someone to do that. I've certainly never asked someone to let me win anything nor would I. If I don't earn it then it doesn't mean anything. That's what feels good about winning something, knowing you worked hard and earned it. I wouldn't give that to someone else either. I don't care if you're 5-0 and I'm 0-5, I'm still going to give you my best game and try to win and I expect the same if the situation is reversed.
As an example on a minor level, I was at FNM two weeks ago and sitting next to two guys in round 3. One guy was 0-2, the other 2-0. They went to time and it was about to draw. The 0-2 guy asked the 2-0 player his record and when he said 2-0, he said okay, you can take it and said he lost. He wasn't offered anything to do so, though the guy did say thanks and if he won any prizes he'd throw him a pack or two to which he was told "if you think that's fair". It wasn't a condition but it worked out better for the player.
Might not seem like much but he ended up winning 1 and losing 1 of his last matches to go 4-1. There was a four way tie at 4-1 for 1st. On tie breakers he got 2nd. I got 4th. Yet ultimately he should have been 3-1-1 and he cost both me and the person who got 3rd extra packs. Not the end of the world, 3-1-1 would have likely gotten him 4th or 5th or something which isn't bad but his friend trying to be nice cost some of us prizes we actually earned.
Wait, how did 0-2 get paired against 2-0? That's not how pairings Are supposed to work.
Whether or not IDs are "fair" or "ethical" is certainly debatable, and honestly there are valid points to be made for both sides of that argument. But when it comes down to it, people will intentionally play the game to a draw ANYWAY, so there being a provision for it in the rules is really just a time saver. Assuming it is unethical (which I personally do not think it is, but I will make that concession for the sake of argument), how would you propose such a thing be policed? It's easy when someone offers "I'll give you $20 if you draw with me" to ascertain their intention. But when two people observe that both's standing is guaranteed if they draw, and only one's is at risk if they play it out and they mutually agree just to make it a draw, with no actual exchange of anything tangible... How do you prove there was any devious intent? This gets even stickier when you try to disallow intentional drawing. How can you prove that the game went to a draw because of conscious game play choices and not just because, you know, games go to time sometimes?
No, I've seen them when fully rested before. But sleep deprivation can cause hallucinations. Varies from person to person, but it usually starts around day 3, and shadow people is one of the commonly reported "hallucinations"
Once again, you are illustrating exactly why a dedicated symbol for colorless mana is desperately needed (wether or not <> ends up being that symbol). Changing the (2) that Sol Ring produces to {c}{c} would not be a functional change. Changing the (1) that Sol Ring costs to {c} would be a functional change. That's what would stop them from changing artifacts that cost (2) to costing <><>. It would change the card from being castable with mana of any kind (colored or colorless) to only being castable with colorless mana.
A new mana rock that tapped for <> wouldn't settle it, because it could still be argued that it's producing mana of a new type, not colorless. What would settle it is a reprinted old mana rock that taps for <>, or anything at all that taps for (1).
But then it would be functionally identical to the proposed "<> is the new symbol for colorless mana", but without the benefits of being backwards compatible, clearing up the ambiguity between colorless mana and generic costs, and opening up future design space.
They don't even need to keep the name. Unlike other basic lands, Wastes doesn't have a subtype. They just say "Basic Land" instead of "Basic Land - Wastes". So, assuming the new rule is that Basic Lands with no subtype have {T}: Add <> to your mana pool, they could print subtypeless basic lands in any set they want, with any name they want to match the set's flavor.
The same can be said of any errata. When a card's printed text doesn't match its oracle text, it will cause some confusion with anyone not familiar with the oracle text. That didn't stop the grand creature type update ("what do you mean, your Dwarven Warriors gets the +2/+2 from Lovsia Coldeyes? It clearly says its creature type is 'dwarves'!"). That change affected a lot more cards than this one would, and in a way that actually affected their functionality, unlike this one. Fortunately, there's this nifty thing called the gatherer where you can look up any card's oracle text on your smartphone (which were not a thing when the grand creature type update happened, by the way) and clear that confusion right up.
Someone would like a word with you.
I wonder if that might be why the reminder text on Devoid says ([CARDNAME] has no color.) as opposed to ([CARDNAME] is colorless.) Maybe they're changing the templating of "colorless", the color identity to help further distinguish it from "colorless", the type of mana.
Dude, almost every mechanic in the game is a variant of Kicker. This is nothing new.
That's awesome, congratulations! Unless its a lost-my-old-place kind of new place, in which case that sucks, and my sympathies.
Eh, it's a sort of trance-like state, where I am mostly inactive, but remain aware of my surroundings on an unconscious level. If I sense danger I reflexively return to full consciousness.
Wait, how did 0-2 get paired against 2-0? That's not how pairings Are supposed to work.
No, I've seen them when fully rested before. But sleep deprivation can cause hallucinations. Varies from person to person, but it usually starts around day 3, and shadow people is one of the commonly reported "hallucinations"