Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[penguinofhonor]

There's a new symbol but it works the same as it always has. It's mana that can't be used in costs that require colored mana. The new rules thing now is that there are costs that require colorless mana, which was not easily done without a colorless mana symbol. So they decided to use the symbol for things that produce colored mana as well since that's how all the other mana symbols work. Costs like Endbringer's can be paid with colorless mana from new cards like Wastes or from things like a 1993 Sol Ring.

[Cruxador]

So... is colorless mana just another mana type then?

Functionally, yes.

It's mana that can't be used in costs that require colored mana.  The new rules thing now is that there are costs that require colorless mana

You never could pay colored mana costs with any mana other than that specific color, though. You could argue that they already made colorless into a sixth color by making "colorless only" requirements in the first place, and I do agree that this was a kind of odd design choice, but the solution is not to perpetuate it by making a symbol for the color.

[penguinofhonor]

I know mana has always worked that way. That's why I said "it works the same as it always has."

They're making it permanent because it makes the rules more consistent. Colorless mana generation is now represented the same way that colored mana generation is, and the same is true for costs. Also, numbers in bubbles originally represented both the least versatile mana type (colorless) and the most versatile mana cost (generic). Now these different concepts have different symbols.

[Culise]

It's still silly.  On another note, what the heck is up with these keywords?  Back in the day, cards said exactly what they did, and that was that.  I mean, defender?  All you had were walls, and rightfully so.  Lifelink?  Vigilance?  Pah.  And don't even get me started on this "stack" nonsense...what was wrong with interrupts or timing, anyways? 
^{I completely kid, but if I recall, Sixth Edition really did inspire some people to quit due to how it streamlined the rules.}

[Cruxador]

Colorless mana generation is now represented the same way that colored mana generation is, and the same is true for costs.

That it's represented that way is only logical because it works that way now; it is functionally no longer colorless, but a new color.

Also, numbers in bubbles originally represented both the least versatile mana type (colorless) and the most versatile mana cost (generic).

The relevance of the distinction is not really compatible with usage of the word "originally"; it's a quite modern thing.

It's still silly.  On another note, what the heck is up with these keywords?  Back in the day, cards said exactly what they did, and that was that.  I mean, defender?  All you had were walls, and rightfully so.  Lifelink?  Vigilance?  Pah.  And don't even get me started on this "stack" nonsense...what was wrong with interrupts or timing, anyways? 
^{I completely kid, but if I recall, Sixth Edition really did inspire some people to quit due to how it streamlined the rules.}

It's not just a matter of streamlining, it also got away from the playing for lore and just plain fun, and towards tournament and competitive play, which now dominates the game. They made some overtures of heading back in that direction since then, mostly by pushing the neowalkers but also when they changed a lot of names back (I wanna say this was in 2010 but now don't remember exactly) but and there's actually been some swing back that way again, but it's definitely not a major focus any more.

[penguinofhonor]

No, it's logical because it works similarly and it's represented similarly. Before, adding two green mana to your mana pool and two colorless mana to your mana pool were functionally very close but symbolized by two different things.

And "originally" is certainly applicable because the distinction has existed since the very beginning of the game. Sol Ring from 1993 produces mana of the least versatile type and has a mana cost of the most versatile type. Originally it said "Add 2 colorless mana to your mana pool" with no bubble because they knew colorless mana was not the same concept as a generic cost and therefore didn't want to represent it with the same symbol used in mana costs.

The number bubbles only got used for the both things after Wizards consciously decided to blur the lines between the two concepts on the card Nantuko Elder in 2001, primarily because colorless costs hadn't been a thing in the 8 years the game had existed. It wasn't decided based on the most consistent system, it was a decision based on how they didn't use part of the system that could technically exist (colorless costs). Now that colorless costs are getting used, they revisited the decision and decided to iron it out once and for all.

[Dutchling]

Yup, it makes perfect sense once you actually think about it, instead of just being angry something changed :^)

Colourless being an effective sixth mana has nothing to do with it. It's just a bunch of Eldrazi cards from a single set that use it as a colour, nothing we'll see again for a while I assume.

[Rolan7]

Uh...
So grey mana costs (numbers in bubbles) aren't colorless...
Colorless is a sixth mana type exactly the same as any colored mana, except that it has usually been unusual to generate?

That's dumb and confusing.  Even if they had to use the grey color, they should call it grey.  Not colorless, which obviously everyone will associate with unrestricted mana costs.

Frankly I thought that we manually converted colored mana into colorless mana in the process of paying a number-in-bubble cost.  I think I got that impression from playing the Shandalar video game...

[Cruxador]

No, it's logical because it works similarly and it's represented similarly. Before, adding two green mana to your mana pool and two colorless mana to your mana pool were functionally very close but symbolized by two different things.

Before, they were functionally identical for the purpose of anything that wasn't green.

And "originally" is certainly applicable because the distinction has existed since the very beginning of the game. Sol Ring from 1993 produces mana of the least versatile type and has a mana cost of the most versatile type.

It costs mana of no particular color and costs mana of no particular color. Yes, that functions differently if it's an input or an output, but it's still the same shit.

Originally it said "Add 2 colorless mana to your mana pool" with no bubble because they knew colorless mana was not the same concept as a generic cost and therefore didn't want to represent it with the same symbol used in mana costs.

Nope, that's just not how people thought back then. "Colorless" wasn't a key word but literally meant mana without color.

The number bubbles only got used for the both things after Wizards consciously decided to blur the lines between the two concepts on the card Nantuko Elder in 2001, primarily because colorless costs hadn't been a thing in the 8 years the game had existed.

I'm pretty sure that wasn't a conscious decision to make it not a sixth color, but merely a move towards more symbols and less wordiness, this was also when a great proliferation of keywords appeared.

Colorless is a sixth mana type exactly the same as any colored mana, except that it has usually been unusual to generate?

And unusual to use. In essence it's a new mana type cobbled out of bits of gameplay that previously existed.

[Leafsnail]

If you look at very old cards that generate colorless (eg alpha Sol Ring) they actually did specify "colorless mana" in words. We've basically gone back to that system except with a symbol to represent the words "colorless mana". Using the symbol for generic mana to represent colorless was an 8th edition mistake that they ran with for far too long.

It costs mana of no particular color and costs mana of no particular color. Yes, that functions differently if it's an input or an output, but it's still the same shit.

"Any color" and "No color" are distinct concepts.  The fact that so many people have trouble with it is evidence that the old system was confusing and needed change.

The issue with calling it "grey" is that there are cards in the game that care about the presence or lack of color, so you can't imply that colorless is a color.

[Cruxador]

It costs mana of no particular color and costs mana of no particular color. Yes, that functions differently if it's an input or an output, but it's still the same shit.

"Any color" and "No color" are distinct concepts.

Well, now they are. That's a thing that happened more or less since Eldrazi.

The fact that so many people have trouble with it is evidence that the old system was confusing and needed change.

You could just as easily call it a sign that it was dumb to make that distinction in the first place.

The issue with calling it "grey" is that there are cards in the game that care about the presence or lack of color, so you can't imply that colorless is a color.

When a recipe calls for a fruit, you don't use a tomato, and when it calls for a vegetable, you may. Nonetheless, a tomato is formed from a flower and contains seeds.

[Gentlefish]

I remember there being a metalcraft card that was "Immune to any color" meaning only colorless cards could target and kill it.

As far as I remember, most colorless cards (up until the eldrazi loving) were constructs and artifacts. Having no color was specifically a benefit because you could use any mana to play them and thus they fit into most if not all decks.

[Leafsnail]

Well, now they are. That's a thing that happened more or less since Eldrazi.

They always were 100% distinct. If a card had "1" in its cost that meant "pay this with any kind of mana".  If a card added "1" to your mana pool that meant "add a flavor of mana that can't be spent on colored costs to your mana pool".

There has been no functional change, the only difference is it's now a lot clearer how mana works.

When a recipe calls for a fruit, you don't use a tomato, and when it calls for a vegetable, you may. Nonetheless, a tomato is formed from a flower and contains seeds.

This is a weird analogy and I don't understand what point you are making with it.

[Cruxador]

Well, now they are. That's a thing that happened more or less since Eldrazi.

They always were 100% distinct. If a card had "1" in its cost that meant "pay this with any kind of mana".  If a card added "1" to your mana pool that meant "add a flavor of mana that can't be spent on colored costs to your mana pool".

If a card had a one in the cost, that meant it cost one mana of non-specific color. If a card added "1" to your mana pool it meant "add one point of mana of no particular color to your mana pool". It's the same shit, conceptually.

When a recipe calls for a fruit, you don't use a tomato, and when it calls for a vegetable, you may. Nonetheless, a tomato is formed from a flower and contains seeds.

This is a weird analogy and I don't understand what point you are making with it.

You can refer to it as different and, by classifying it differently, call on it in different situations because you're calling on the classification you've given it. But even if you choose to classify it counter to its nature, that doesn't change its actual properties.

[penguinofhonor]

That's like saying blue mana and red mana are the same shit because they're both "not green". You're just describing it in a way that's intentionally vague. Seriously, you could easily interpret "Add one point of mana of no particular color to your mana pool" as adding one mana of any color to your mana pool.

"No particular color" means either "no color" or "any color" depending on context. Yes, there is some conceptual similarity, which is why the system worked without any huge problems for 15 years, but it is still inconsistent. Colorless mana worked differently as an output or input while colored mana worked the same either way.