Magic: The Gathering (Unreleased Sets)

Nope. If the Diamond was meant to just be 1 Colorless, then there wouldn't be a casting cost of (8)(Diamond)(Diamond).

Context, Tobias. I meant that in relation to a land producing <>. It means something different on Kozilek because it's actually specific.

The problem is, that still leaves us with a Sixth Color. Picture this:

A <> Mana symbol on a cost means this is mana that can only be paid with <> and not by any other type of mana. This is fundamentally different than a (1) because a (1) can be paid with any color, including <>.

A <> Mana symbol on a generator means that this produces mana that can only be used to pay <> or (1), no other cost.

Now, with that summarized, tell me how <> is fundamentally different from (W) or (G).

edited 19th Nov '15 10:51:08 AM by TobiasDrake

Because you can pay <> with the mana you get from, say, a Reliquary Tower, or any other permanent or spell that gives you colorless mana.

EDIT: Never mind, misunderstood the question. It could still be a Phyrexian-mana style thing.

edited 19th Nov '15 10:55:33 AM by Durazno

Well, I'm assuming that <> costs would be an eldrazi-only thing, so even it is a sixth pseudo-colour it would only be so for this set. But aside from that, if the only thing that stops colourless mana from being a colour is that nothing actually requires it, how is it not already a sixth colour, really? There has been six types of mana from the very beginning. It's just that until now one of them could only be used for generic costs.

The only thing that's changed is that a single reality devouring Eldritch Abomination treats colourless mana as if it were a colour. I'm ok with that.

If it's just for one set, it's the very definition of a parasitic mechanic. <> as a cost can probably be paid with {1}, and only {1}, while <> on something like Waste it's just a fancy way to represent {1}. That's all I can assume.

edited 19th Nov '15 11:55:09 AM by Anura

As far as I'm concern, if a new mana cost requires me to screw around with my land ratios, it's a 6th color. For snow mana, if I add a snow card to my deck, I could simply replace all my basic lands with snow basic lands and everything would work fine. I don't have to recalculate land ratios to accommodate the new snow mana requirement. If <> mana is colorless-only, I'm gonna have to figure out how many colored lands to replace with colorless lands. That to me would pretty much be a 6th color.

edited 19th Nov '15 2:05:45 PM by nightwyrm_zero

It's not parasitic. A certain number of cards potentially require a specific form of mana that has existed since forever, but just hasn't been required for anything before now. What's parasitic about that?

The fact that colorless mana can only be used for colorless costs is a deliberate drawback to cards that produce it. This is an important part of the power curve.

Lands that produce colorless mana also have another effect that is the real reason why you would run that land. Nobody runs colorless lands just to generate colorless mana. Because colorless mana is less useful than colored, those lands are less powerful than they would be if they generated colored mana, which allows their other effects to be stronger.

Likewise, mana generators that produce colorless can get away with producing more colorless than an equally-costed card might produce in colored mana, because colorless mana is inherently weaker than colored mana.

This is why colorless is not a sixth color: because it is, by nature, inferior to colored mana. Creating cards that require colorless mana to cast would be devastating to their position on the power curve, either making colorless generators too powerful or, more likely, automatically being too useless to ever see play by virtue of entering the game very low on the power curve by default.

Remember that these cards do not only exist for this set. They will exist forever. They interact not only with these cards, but with every card that Wizards has ever printed.

edited 19th Nov '15 2:21:39 PM by TobiasDrake

Wizards doesn't balance for every card ever printed though.

Point is, it's super parasitic if it absolutely requires mana generated by a card that only exists in this set and super problematic for the power curve if it turns Colorless into a legitimate sixth color. Either of those options is terrible design.

That's why I think there's got to be a trick to it, like an alternate cost that keeps it from being parasitic and might even make it usable in decks without Wastes. Like if it means, "Pay 1 Diamond mana OR Put a card from your hand into the Graveyard," you might run cards with Diamond costs in a deck with Haakon and forego the Wastes land.

Or, thematically, it might be similar to digest. Pay 1 Diamond mana OR return an exiled card to an opponent's graveyard.

edited 19th Nov '15 3:05:22 PM by TobiasDrake

It may not be a coincidence that 26 cards in BFZ generate colourless mana. For comparison, Origins has 8 and Dragons of Tarkir only had 3.

edited 19th Nov '15 3:51:21 PM by MrShine

I would agree with your argument if we didn't already have artifacts and colourless creatures that cost colorless that are as powerful if not more so than coloured spells. This would hardly be any different, and as far as Kozilek goes, at least, he's in such a weird place in the curve that that factor hardly even matters. If you're ramping into Kozilek, you're probably going to have at least some colourless mana anyway, and if so, it's the same cost as for any other eldrazi. As long as they don't overdo the theme or continue it in other sets (which I imagine they wouldn't, given that this is a small set), I doubt it would have such a significant effect on anything beyond flavor.

edited 19th Nov '15 3:59:50 PM by ImperialSunlight

An alternate answer came to me today about what the answer might be surrounding the mystery of * Mana - Multiplayer.

I admit it's a long shot, especially with what we've seen on Mirrorpool, but if I'm not mistaken, Oath of Gatesomething (which I still contend is arguably one of the worst names for a Magic set ever) is confirmed to have a heavy element surrounding the Two-Headed Giant format, so much so that it's highly advised that all pre-releases have at least one 2HG event.

So what if the way * works is that - as previously suggested - when it's in a casting cost, it means that cost can only be paid for with colorless mana. But when * mana is added to your mana pool via the likes of Mirrorpool or Wastes, it's the same as colorless mana but with one unique feature - it's colorless mana that you can give to another player to let them spend. For example, if you tapped a Wastes for mana, you would effectively get 1 colorless mana that you could either keep to spend on your own things, or you could then give that 1 mana to your 2HG partner.

Or, looking even beyond 2HG, it would then also be a tool that Wizards could theoretically use for formats like EDH and Conspiracy where you might occasionally want to share your mana with someone else as a political tool.

I'm not yet willing to accept that the preview cards we've seen are real, and I again admit there's certainly flaws in my theory, but if the genuine defining factor of * Mana is that it's mana you can let other people spend as well, I think it would certainly go a long way towards the cards we've seen actually making sense.

That strikes me as a good mechanic...for a supplemental set, rather than a regular Standard-legal expansion. Like, I could see that happening if they ever did a 2HG special along the lines of Planechase or Conspiracy. I just don't see it happening in a regular set for the same reason that we didn't get will of the council in one.

I'm looking forward to reading the Oracle entry for all of these cards. I think {<>} might be a little much for my eyes after a little while though. (Or would the Oracle version be {o<>}?}

It'll probably get a letter. I've seen {D} for Devoid suggested.

My prediction on how they'll appear in Gatherer remains "Your search returned zero results; click here if you would like to refine it. Please check your search terms and try again."

That's mostly how I feel too, but then I tend to be skeptical about out-of-season spoilers in general. Whether or not they're real will become clear in due time.

You know, before reading some of the theories on other boards about what the diamond could mean if real, it never occurred to me that the fact that (1) can mean either colorless mana or any color of mana would be confusing, but I can see the point now: it is using the same symbol to mean two completely different things.

Huh, I wonder how I got over that way back when I first learned to play? Probably because back then, they wrote out the words "colorless mana". (Yes, I've been playing for a while.)

I think it's also such an integral part of the game that people tend not to be confused about it for long before being corrected. Plus the correct interpretation of what the symbols (1, 2, etc.) mean is the only one that makes any sense with the other rules.

edited 22nd Nov '15 9:26:55 PM by ImperialSunlight

I think it's sort of intuitive because the mana cost is a requirement, rather than mana you're actually getting. This mana you got? It doesn't have any color. This number in the mana cost? It doesn't require any color.

Ayli, Eternal Pilgrim

And now I'm less sure about making that Daxos deck I was planning... Mainly because I've wanted a WB cleric commander for a while.

edited 1st Dec '15 11:34:04 PM by ImperialSunlight

Ok, so there's now a picture floating around of a reprint◊ of Mystic Gate with the <> symbol where the original's {1} is, so it looks like the card format change theories were right.

I'll admit, I find the idea of decoupling colorless and generic mana interesting.