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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
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.
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.
>>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.
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
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.