This is stupid.

File: 1450938662638.gif (900KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

900KB, 300x300px

Cool story bro xDDD

>>45031307
Only stupid part was making things tap for <> instead of just having <> be just a cost

File: philosopher.jpg (56KB, 338x480px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 338x480px

it's fucking nothing

well, almost

>>45031307
I agree. Phyrexian mana was cool but Eldrazi mana is lame.

The last few set gimmicks were pretty badly executed.

>>45031696

Things have always tapped for "<>," but they used generic mana (which a source cannot and never has produced) as notation for that because they didn't have a colorless mana symbol back then.

This whole thing would be causing 0 confusion if we'd gone straight from "colorless mana" the words to "<>" the symbol, but a compromise decades ago is fucking up attempts to fix the original problem now. Just like everything else in Magic's design.

>>45031696
It clarified the difference between colorless (◇) and generic mana.
However, anyone that's played the game for more than a week probably knew that difference anyways.
Still, how else are you supposed to force a colorless cost on a spell without making the entire cost colorless? You have to invent a new symbol.

>>45031729
what about... Phyrexian Eldrazi mana?

<|>

>>45031773
Don't be too sure. I have lost faith in the general MtG playerbase's ability to comprehend simple shit since the change was announced. I now understand why the new world order is a thing that needed to happen.

File: 222.png (158KB, 265x370px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 265x370px

it just made lands that give colorless mana better,i think its good,we will see this beyond OGW believe me

I for one welcome our new goatse mana overlords

there is a new terrain ?

>>45031835
These decisions are being made by people who believe that 90% or more of players do not understand a concept as basic as the stack, and are trying to coddle that part of the playerbase. All this in spite of the fact that kitchen table players routinely don't give a fuck how to play the cards according to the rules anyway.

Are the colorless lands like snow lands or is it a new symbol to represent generic mana?

>>45032063
The latter

>>45031729
It's not Eldrazi mana. It's colorless mana. It's literally always existed since the beginning of the game, they just finally gave it its own symbol. The only Eldrazi gimmick here is using it in costs.

>>45031696
Showing how needed it was.

>>45032285
so following this logic this card

>>45031888

Cost 2 mana and i can use any terrain to cast it ?

>>45031996
>90% of players
>coddle them
well yes, I would like 90% of my customer base to want to continue to buy my product.

>>45032391

A forest produces green mana.

Now anon tell me, is green a color?

Colorless means "without color" this is so fucking simple I still can't believe people don't get it.

>>45032391
No. It costs 2 mana, one of which must be colorless and the other can be any color.

>>45032391
it's a new symbol to represent mana that has no color.
generic mana is mana that can any color or no color.
you need to use one mana that has no color, and 1 mana that can be from any source.
and the term is Land. Assuming english is a second language, but it is land not terrain.

>>45032063
>>45032129
>is it a new symbol to represent generic mana?
Literally the opposite. "Generic" refers to a cost that can be paid with mana of any type--white, blue, black, red, green, or colorless. "Colorless" refers to mana that is not one of the five colors--like that produced by Basalt Monolith. Snow mana is its own thing--it's any mana produced by a snow permanent. Mana can be both red and snow, but it cannot be both red and colorless. Mana cannot be only snow--it must be a type of mana as well as having the snow quality.

In other words, you have six types of mana:
>White
>Blue
>Black
>Red
>Green
>Colorless

And one possible quality:
>Snow

In contrast, there are something like twenty-eight mana costs. You have your eight basic costs:
>Generic (Can be paid with mana of any type or quality)
>White (Can be paid for with with mana of any quality, but only the white type)
>Blue (Can be paid for with mana of any quality, but only the blue type)
>Black (Can be paid for with mana of any quality, but only the black type)
>Red (Can be paid for with mana of any quality, but only the red type)
>Green (Can be paid for with mana of any quality, but only the green type)
>Colorless (Can be paid for with mana of any quality, but only the colorless type)
>Snow (Can be paid for with mana of any type, but only the snow quality)

Five variants on:
>[TYPE] Twobrid (Can be paid for with mana of any quality, but only the [TYPE] type / OR / with two mana of any type or quality)

Five variants on:
>[TYPE] Phyrexian (Can be paid for with mana of any quality, but only the [TYPE] type / OR / with two life)

And ten variants on:
>[TYPE A]-[TYPE B] Hybrid (Can be paid for with mana of any quality, but only the [TYPE A] or [TYPE B] types)

Technically, Colorless Twobrid, Colorless Phyrexian, and five Colorless-[TYPE B] Hybrid costs are possible, but I don't think we'll see them.

>>45032416
The point is that they underestimate the intelligence of their players and overestimate the ability of casual players to give a fuck.

>>45032568
Shit, man, I've been playing for 13 years, and have never been to an FNM. Just because you like to relax while playing doesn't mean you don't understand the game.

>>45032488
colorless costs strike me as something that won't become evergreen.
While switching to the new symbol will technically change future cards that produce colorless mana, which we will certainly see, the cost thing is something that's easily self contained to the set, and would eat up too much design space if they keep it around.

So those last costs while technically possible, are unlikely.

Like devoid, people are making a big deal out of it, when it actually slots into the existing rules structure without causing trouble.

>>45032391
No. <> does not represent generic mana. It represents colorless mana.

Example.
Card costs 2WW:
You can pay the 2 with Any mana source, but the W must be white.

Card costs 2 <><>
Again, you can pay the 2 with any mana source. That's generic mana. But <> is specifically colorless.

The new basic land 'wastes' taps for colorless, represented by <>. Also, any card that taps for (text specific) "colorless" mana has been retroactively ruled to mean it taps for <>.

>>45032568
true, but that doesn't actually cost costumers, because keeping the rules clear and easily understood doesn't hurt more advanced players.

The new colorless symbol for producing mana doesn't actually hurt the game, so the cost/benefit still comes out in their favor even if it's only helping a very small percent of players.

>>45032599
It's not a question of "evergreen" or not--the cost type exists. Snow, hybrid, twobrid, and Phyrexian aren't evergreen, either.

>>45031996
>These decisions are being made by people who believe that 90% or more of players do not understand a concept as basic as the difference between colorless mana and generic costs, and are trying to coddle that part of the playerbase. All this in spite of the fact that kitchen table players routinely don't give a fuck how to play the cards according to the rules anyway.
Funny, how right they would have been.

>>45031996
The threads that have popped up in the wake of C have proven them completely right. And not just about C.

>>45032687
different usage of the word 'exist'.
You used it as in 'exists within the structure of the rules', ie there are rules for this possibility.
I was using it as in 'exists on an actual legal card'.

No really disagreeing, just supporting the idea that we aren't going to see these cost on cards, even if the rules exist for them.
That said, the twobrid actually create rules space for any amount of generic cost/colored cost hybrid. At least I'm pretty sure the official rule will refer to the number listed on the card, and not specify two.

>>45031714
Just dripping with flavor

>>45031307
>I don't like this.

>>45032828
What? I never said that colorless hybrid, colorless twobrid, or colorless Phyrexian exist. Just that colorless exists on the same level as hybrid, snow, twobrid, and Phyrexian do, so discussing whether it is "evergreen" is meaningless.

The colorless hybrid, twobrid, and Phyrexian costs are possible, but currently do not exist.

>>45032285
Depends if they use it past this set or not.

If they don't, Eldrazi mana will probably stick.

And, honestly, they probably won't, because the only group it fits with is the Eldrazi.

It's just WOTC trying to pretend they are adding depth to the game by adding a quasi-sixth color.

Except the color has always been there and all they are doing is adding a really weak gimmick to this set.

>>45032615
So if a land taps for (1), does that count as colorless?

>>45032967

Yes. It always has. Every land that taps for (1) has always produced colorless mana; it just used the same notation as generic mana because they didn't have a colorless mana symbol.

From here on out, they'll tap for <> to make that explicitly clear, because that's the colorless mana symbol.

>>45032967

Fucking ask yourself this, does that mana have a color?
If no then what fucking else could it be.

"Colorless" isn't a attribute, it describes the lack of an attribute, color.
This is so easy to understand, fuck.

>>45031729
Phyrexian mana was super retarded.

>>45032991
Thanks!
I'm okay with this mechanic. I don't see anything wrong with a sorta-sixth color. It's sorta like artifact spells that don't count as artifacts. And can only be cast with colorless. Why is everyone crying?

>>45032955
whatever, we aren't really disagreeing with each other about what the rules are and what exists on cards.

>>45032959
if you mean will there be things that produce colorless mana, then almost certainly it will exist. We've had cards that produce colorless mana forever.

If you mean if it's specified in costs, probably not. But it doesn't need to. There are enough things that incidentally produce it so that they might show up in other formats. It works in standard (of course), and in modern combines with existing cards from Rise to make a really powerful deck.

It doesn't need to have a larger role to be a successful mechanic, even good sets have some mechanics that are self contained.

you're stupid

>>45033076
You're not very nice.

>>45033084
I think that if they didn't used a symbol but instead put a little line of text "This card mana cost must be payed with colorless mana" it would be much quiet around here.

>>45033148
It'd also be a fucking mess, given the way the anus got used.

>>45033113

But it's self fucking explanatory!

What is colorless mana? = Mana that is no color
How can this be interpreted any other way?

>>45032967
No

<> can only be paid with <>

It is exactly like a sixth color, but WOTC is stupid so they called it colorless.

>>45033172
Because <>, you anus.

>>45033241
Why are people giving me two different answers on this?

>>45033076
well now you're getting into some tricky philosphical territory.

Or would be if we were actually taking about physical color, not the mechanic in magic.
Since mana color, while in the pool, it strictly exclusive (mana cannot be both blue and green while in the pool for example), not having one of the five attributes is actually a well defined attribute in it's own right. It plays exactly as if it was a 6th color.

for a quality of a card, colorless is different because the colors are not exclusive, so colorless is different from colors, as it is exclusive.

>>45033267
for the memes

>>45033148
that wouldn't work, because only part of the mana cost had to be paid with colorless mana. so they'd need something in the cost area to indicate this. And since they don't put text there, they needed a symbol.

>>45033267

Because one answer is correct and the other answer is filled entirely by douchemobiles. Ignorance is not an excuse anymore.

<> is colorless. They are exactly synonymous. The only reason colorless mana produces (like Sol Ring) used the generic mana notation (1) was because they didn't have a colorless mana symbol. Now they do.

How it was before:
(1) is generic mana in costs, colorless mana in producers.

How it is now:
<> is colorless mana, always.
(1) is generic mana, always.

>>45033267
because some people are trolling.
anything that produced mana without a color produces <>.
or, better, stop looking at this tread and go to the official website where there is a video, articles, forum posts, ect. that details this and you can be sure it correct.

>>45033248
>Because <> = your anus.

ftfy

>>45033337
What about (2)?

>>45033453
<><>

>>45033453
<><>

I think a lot of confusion comes up in the draft environment currently. With drafting oath and battle together it really takes a lot for people to realize that there are more than just the lands in oath that make colorless.

For example, the blighted cycle. I informed a guy at FNM who was bitching about not getting enough Wastes to make colorless mana that his blighted gorge would work just fine.

>"Yeah but I'm playing UB colorless"
>"It taps for colorless. It's just a glorified waste land."
>holyshit.jpg

If this new symbol had come out in battle it would have made things a whole lot easier. Wizards says it was to late to change the set when they developed the idea but a mistake this big should not have happened.

>>45033453
))<>((

>>45033474
honestly, it's not as bad as what happened in mirrodin.
Mirrodin is when they brought out the new card fram, and the first version of the artifact frame was very difficult to distinguish from white. and Mirrodin was a set with a heavy artifact theme.

File: 18858.jpg (40KB, 200x285px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 200x285px

>>45032488
Reaper King actually used hybrid generic/color costs

>>45034388
Reaper King is twobrid, which is mentioned in the post you quoted.

File: hedron.png (184KB, 265x370px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 265x370px

so this card produces <> <>?

>>45034834
Yes, faggot.

File: Screen Shot 2016-01-26 at 5.01.18 PM.png (367KB, 748x666px) Image search: [Google]

367KB, 748x666px

>>45034834
For fuck's sake, you can look up the goddamn Oracle text.

>>45031805
After SOI. We're probably going back to Phyrexia here before too long. I hope we go back to Lorwyn or Alara first though

File: Chrome+Mox.jpg (55KB, 229x310px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 229x310px

>>45034900

So chrome mox can produce colorless now?

>>45035050

No, because colorless still isn't a color.

Again: nothing MECHANICALLY has changed whatsoever. All the anus mana is, is a change of notation.

>>45031307
Yes. The only thing worse are the people who defend its retardation.

>>45033080
It was very balanced (mental misstep has other issues) and very flavorful, everything for a cost.

>>45035505

Was it balanced? I don't think so

But more importantly, was it flavorful?
Definitely not

Right as the phyrexians stopped being about black mana and joined the other colors, that's when they give them this mechanic that essentially steals blacks primary Schtick and gives it to the other colors

Anus mana rules!

File: 1451449389211.jpg (11KB, 173x169px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 173x169px

>>45033080
take that back

>>45035416
It's not our fault you don't know how long colorless mana has been a thing.

>>45033148
but they also did that, in addition to using the symbol.

>>45035953
Colorless mana has never been an important thing, though. Before, for example, Sol Ring produced two mana that can only be used to pay (X), and can't be used to pay any of the color costs. Now, it produces two Gray-colored mana that can be used for Gray spells or paying (X) costs just like any other color. Call it colorless all you want, that's a big change.

>>45036326
>Before, for example, Sol Ring produced two mana that can only be used to pay (X), and can't be used to pay any of the color costs
Because it produced colorless mana, yes.

>Now, it produces two Gray-colored mana that can be used for Gray spells or paying (X) costs just like any other color.
No, not "now." It could always do that. If a spell said "pay only colorless mana for this spell," that's absolutely equivalent to just having a string of buttholes across the top, or "you must pay at least 2 colorless mana for this spell" == two buttholes.

>>45035756
>Phyrexia invades a plane and compleats everything, even its mana
>A black mechanic bleeds into every color
>not flavorful

>>45036326
nothing about Sol Ring has changed, they just added colorless only requirements to mana costs

>>45034834
No, unless it produces <>, it cannot pay costs that specifically require that symbol.

>>45035050
Yes but the exiled card has to be able to produce colorless.

>>45037393
No. Chrome Mox will only be able to produce a color. Colorless is not a color.

>>45037572
<> acts like a color though when a cost requires it.

>>45037637
Irrelevant. It is not a color. You cannot select colorless when the game says "pick a color" or any other situations where colors are called into play.

>>45037717
<> =\= colorless

>>45037717
It's an endless debate WotC has brought upon us with the honestly retarded decision to make the new symbol.

The eldrazi are supposed to be some all consuming world ending shit. And now they're fucking picky about what is used to power them.
And this ugly ass symbol is going to -maybe- continue on from the set.

>>45033091

what if you're both right?

>>45037752
Yes it does you idiot.
>>45037881
It's not a "debate". It's idiots being wrong.
It's colorless mana. That's all it is. The Eldrazi are weird colorless things.

>>45033474
It wasn't too late.
A large number of them decided it would be 'more confusing' and 'would tip their hand' if they put <> in Battle.
Surprisingly, for once, Maro was one of the people saying to use <> in Battle and lost that argument.

File: Screen Shot 2016-01-26 at 7.38.39 PM.png (18KB, 174x28px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 174x28px

>>45037752
Can you fucking read?

>>45031996
You're aware that the idea of a stack is pretty alien to anyone who hasn't taken computer science, right? And that the game is for 13-and-up?

Repeat after me.
Colorless is not a color.
Colorless is not a color.
Colorless is not a color.

>>45037637
It doesn't. Go to the fucking website. They have a dozen articles and resources for you to stop being a total flaming retard. <> is colorless mana.

Yeah. Nothing but eldrazi shit uses it. It's the first (and definitely not he last) time a specific creature type has earned its own card color(less).

>>45038262
Colorless isn't a color by definition, but it IS implemented as a 6th color functionally

QED

My little sister understands <> perfectly fine.
She's EIGHT.
Some of you here are worse at Magic than an EIGHT YEAR OLD LITTLE GIRL.

>>45038440
Except in terms of literally anything that refers to color, including Chrome Mox and Iona.

>>45038440
Just like Basic Lands and Creatures are also functionally colors, because there's things that require mana from Basic Lands and Creatures, right?
You can't pick colorless when you're told to pick a color. 'Protection from all colors' or similar abilities ignores colorless. Colorless is not a color identity. Colorless has no defined philosophy.
Having colorless costs does not make colorless a sixth color, it just means there are cards that have costs that are colorless.

>>45038628
colorless obviously lacks color but <> functions as a color as it requires a specific type.

What you, my friend need to understand is that colorless generic and <> are fundamentally different things.

/tg/ is full of argumentative pedants.

File: 146[1].jpg (59KB, 312x445px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 312x445px

>>45038727
Not really. They're both colorless. Unless, again, Creatures and Basic Lands are colors as well.

>>45031996
>people who believe that 90% or more of players do not understand a concept as basic as the stack

That's true though.

>>45038253
>Stack
>Computers

What? Its literaly reffering to the stack tha builds as you play cards.

>Player one plays spell A
>Places the card on the table
>Player two plays spell B
>Places it on top of spell A on the table
>Player one plays spell C
>Places it on top of spell B on the table

Its a literal stack of three cards. The spells trigger from top to bottom form C to B to A.

How the fuck is this hard to understand?

>>45039071
It surprises me most magic players explain the stack like a coding stack as oppose to what you just said.

>>45038803
>>45038727
>>45038628
>>45038524
>>45038440
Jesus Christ, "color" doesn't even look like a WORD anymore.

File: brain_hurting_more.jpg (10KB, 126x134px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 126x134px

>>45031307

It's novel and I like it.

Monogreybros where are we at?

File: X17puIB.gif (534KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

534KB, 500x281px

>this thread

>>45039071
>>45039159
To be fair the MtG stack was created at a time when R&D had a mostly computer science background and was, as far as I know, directly inspired by computational stacks. That said I wouldn't use it as an explanation except for people familiar with computer science.

>>45038727
Generic is not "colorless", generic is a mana cost and ONLY a mana cost.
You can't have a generic permanent.
<> is colorless. Everything that produces colorless mana produces <>. There is no such thing as producing generic mana.

>>45039891
It's a needless complication for a gimmick that will likely never be used again.

That being colorless as a casting cost.

>>45041049
This isn't a complication, though. It's always been true. No rules changed.

>>45039071
>What? Its literaly reffering to the stack tha builds as you play cards.
I have literally never seen people put cards on top of each other.

Threads like this explain why it was fucking needed, also quit being so fucking bad at magic please /tg/.

>>45041269
/tg/ is worse at magic than an eight year old girl

>>45041205
Have you not seen a counterspell war in a 4+ Ux multiplayer game? It's the easiest way to track it when >10 responses occur.

>>45038889
There has to be a point where they say "fuck it" and stop dumbing down the game to cater to these mouth breathing retards

>>45041338
Each time they do, they get more money.
So, the bottom exists only when the mouth breathing retards hang up their shovels.

>>45041049
Did you bitch this hard at phyrexian mana too?
>Pay two life instead of mana?? What is this fucking complication!? They're never even gonna use this again!!