Have WotC put out any statements about the Colorless change?
Spoilers, Rumors, and Speculation forum
Posted on Dec. 15, 2015, 2:11 p.m. by brcap
I'm aware that confirmation of the Wastes came from the Magic World cup, but the only public statement i've found from WotC is from rosewater's Blogatog, where he says:
"The permanent change is how we represent colorless mana. The diamond symbol is now part of Magic. The colored mana matters part was a good way to justify the change and have it do something with all the focus, but its not something that has the design legs for evergreen status."
1) Has anyone seen anything else coming out of wizards, and if not
2) Do you find it strange they have introduced such a large change to the game without some accompanying announcement or explanation? Much like they did for the recent changes to blocks/standard rotation. Why wouldn't they?
Note: please save your internet raging against wastes for another forum.
The thing is that it's not actually a large change to the game. They gave a symbol to produced colorless mana and are printing a handful of cards as part of a one-set mechanic that, first time ever, require colorless mana in their costs.
December 15, 2015 2:21 p.m.
Well... i'd say a change that requires 312 cards receiving errata to be a large change on it's own. list
But, is there confirmation this is a one-set feature? It doesn't appear to be at face value.
thanks @greyninja, i'll check those out during non-work hours.
December 15, 2015 2:32 p.m.
Honestly, I think it will help differentiate casting costs for spells. It will require a player to be very observant and aware of what he taps for X. I think it's going to help and I'm looking forward to see how this will effect other formats.
December 15, 2015 2:35 p.m.
Rhadamanthus says... #6
I don't find it strange that they haven't made any announcement or explanation yet. The leak occurred well outside Wizards' planned schedule for publishing information related to Oath of the Gatewatch. The fact that there hasn't been any big official announcement or detailed explanation means they've chosen to stick to their original plan.
December 15, 2015 2:37 p.m.
of the two links i provided, i've only watched the first one. it's kinda long and kinda corny but it's good info for folks looking for it
honestly, i'm kind of surprised it took this long for a change like this. in an Animar, Soul of Elements deck, you can successfully cast all three (legal) eldrazi titans for free by turns 4-6. now they're making you work for it with newKozilek by requiring two colorless mana, which in a 3-color deck is a challenge
December 15, 2015 2:41 p.m.
TheDuggernaught says... #8
I don't think it is a big change at all. Yes 312 cards need to be erratad... but errated to pretty much read exactly the same. They have just have a fancy symbol now. I don't think it really changes the game too much more than phyrexian mana, and I don't remember outrage and mass panic for phyrexian mana. I don't think it will take any extra time to really explain this to new players... I just think "experienced players" that don't get the change are over thinking it. The only thing I find odd about it is that they didn't introduce it in bfz.
December 15, 2015 2:45 p.m.
@Rhadamanthus, was the confirmation at Magic World cup unplanned?
In any event, there's a lot of hate brewing for this decision (most of it unjustified, in my opinion - but the point of the thread is not aimed at debating this), the prudent business move would be to address it head on. Rigidly sticking to an original plan in the face of change seldomly works well. It is unthinkable that a detailed explanation doesn't exist - so what is to be gained by holding it back?
December 15, 2015 2:55 p.m.
"Well... i'd say a change that requires 312 cards receiving errata to be a large change on it's own."
I disagree; it's a simple change. While it may be affecting a large amount of cards, nothing is fundamentally changing about the rules or game. All they're doing is updating and streamlining how cards look, much like when they redesigned borders with M15. That, and errata on cards happens constantly.
December 15, 2015 2:58 p.m.
The biggest thing to note about the errata of the 312 cards, is that it does not functionally change any cards already printed. It's simply swapping one symbol for another (or multiple in cases like Basalt Monolith or Ancient Tomb).
December 15, 2015 3:05 p.m.
@TheDuggernaught, I do agree its crazy-town that the change wasn't introduced in BFZ. Aprox 32 cards in the most recent set now need errata - what was the logic behind this? Why the second set of a block? This is a large part of why i'm so interested in a statement from Wizards.
It seems so hap-hazard without an explanation otherwise.
December 15, 2015 3:05 p.m.
They decided to make the change in OGW instead of BfZ because BfZ was about Ulamog and OGW is about Kozilek.
Ulamog is all about Devouring and Destroying. Hence the Ingest/Process Mechanics.
Kozilek is all about Distorting and 'Colorless Matters'. Hence the introduction of a 'colorless required' cost as a Mechanic. - It seems to make some sense to introduce the <> as a cost at the same time as <> as a mana production.
December 15, 2015 3:13 p.m.
MaRo released a statement just before BFZ landed that said design of Battle was expedited and the team felt the set shipped out incomplete. This (the whole colorless symbol thing) is likely what MaRo was referring to in part.
December 15, 2015 3:14 p.m.
@zandl, I see you point, and @JWiley129 im aware of the nature of the errata.
I do disagree that the change is unworthy of a statement. New players will have to be explained that, for example Beastcaller Savant cannot tap for C, and that C is different from Generic. I dont believe this is particularly complicated, but it is a notable change, and Wizards has consistently put out statements in comparable circumstances.
At the very least, answer the why now?
If youre not curious about this, or dont feel it's big enough to warrant explanation, fair enough. Im not really interested in debating the relative size of events in MTGs history. I am certainly curious though - I think many people are as well.
December 15, 2015 3:19 p.m.
@zandl and zandl, do you have the links for those statements - that's the kind of stuff i'm looking for.
December 15, 2015 3:22 p.m.
... Colorless mana and generic mana have always been different. You've never been able to create generic mana.
Also, you shouldn't have to explain Beastcaller Savant not being able to make <> since the card itself says "color" and <> is "colorless".
December 15, 2015 3:22 p.m.
Blogatog - LINK
"deviangel asked: What makes you put ingest in the first set but not colorless cost?
The first was an Ulamog thing and the second a Kozilek thing. Ingest was for the insatiable titan and colorless mana matters was for the physics warping one."
December 15, 2015 3:26 p.m. Edited.
Too busy (at work) to dig around the depths of the internet and find it, but here is MaRo's blog where he explains another part of why <> wasn't in BFZ:
December 15, 2015 3:27 p.m. Edited.
@Rayenous interesting... the natural questions that follows is:
Why not go with Kozilek's set first?
December 15, 2015 3:29 p.m.
In a few Uncharted Realms stories, we heard how Kozilek was always 'tricking' Ulamog into doing things for him. and how Kozilek was the superior of the two.
It would then become anti-climatic to introduce Kozilek first, then Ulamog.
A little like trapping a Tiger that was stalking you, then being attacked by an house cat.
December 15, 2015 3:32 p.m.
Ha! I would love a house cat sized Ulamog. It couldn't be any more of an asshole than a normal house cat.
Flavour makes sense...i guess. Still feels off to me. Hungry for info.
December 15, 2015 3:39 p.m.
Personally, I would have introduced <> in Origins on the Pain-Lands.
Introduce the player base to the new symbol for 'colorless mana' 2 sets before introducing them to 'colorless costs'.
Right now, there are many people confused and/or taking issue with the <> symbol in general.
December 15, 2015 3:43 p.m.
Rhadamanthus says... #26
@brcap: The only evidence of the new symbols before the World Cup confirmation were the leaks from unofficial channels. It doesn't make sense for there to have been a plan to confirm something that was never revealed.
That being said, they haven't been "rigidly" sticking to the original plan. The World Cup confirmation and the MaRo posts linked by others are official concessions to the fact that the plan is now off-track. However, they must have also decided that there's no compelling reason for moving up the date of whatever big reveal they already had scheduled.
December 15, 2015 4:33 p.m.
BlastercoolWeird says... #27
@rayenous point of order, I wouldn't call the power level difference between Kozi and Ulamog in lore comparable to a tiger and a housecat.
it's more like, ulamog is a tiger, and kozilek is a slightly larger that knows how to use a gun
December 15, 2015 5:37 p.m.
A last thanks to everyone that provided links / insight.
Though feel free to post anything Wizards puts out on the topic as it comes. I'll certainly be interested.
December 16, 2015 9:26 a.m.
Rhadamanthus says... #30
Here's a good article posted today by an Official source. It looks like I was wrong about exactly what they had planned for the World Cup stream (I didn't watch it, so I shouldn't have been making those guesses about it).
December 16, 2015 12:01 p.m.
Thanks @Rhadamanthus.
Apart from the specific info, that article reminds me of one Rosewater put out after the Wizards - Rancored Elf lawsuit from 2006. (For those unfamiliar, there was a lawsuit following the posting of leaked pictures of certain cards from Time Spiral, it was settled out of court, but the googles will have more info if you're curious).
I take Trick's point about how the tailored release of information leads to a better customer experience. Maybe I would have had less of a what the hell is going here? feeling had the leaks not preempted WotC's plans. Though i'm still curious as to why nothing substantial has been released since.
To wrap up some other points from the thread, if you don't believe the change warrants some announcement, that's all well and good. Perhaps WotC agreed with you, and figured they'd just include the information in the set release notes, like with Menace or Strive or other set specific introductions. Who knows.
I would be surprised if that were the case. I doubt very much they would not foresee the great many who are labeling this as the introduction of 6th colour of magic (again, i have no interest in debating the truth of that statement here) or the likelihood of at least some fan-rage above the typical grumbles that come with any change. But even if it were the case that they had no plans to make some significant announcement, it is all the more surprising that those plans didn't change when social media et al erupts with hatred for your plan/idea. Wizards is a smart business, and the smart business move is to act promptly to put their consumers at ease.
Personally, I'm not angry in any way about the change, and I feel any strong feelings one way or another are premature until the set is substantially revealed or you've tested it out. But I am curious about the decision making, thus my search for more info. Keep er' coming if you got it.
December 16, 2015 4:17 p.m.
@greyninja You do realize that a source producing 
is technically producing <> (colorless symbol) after this change, right? So Animar, Soul of Elements can still pay for all of the original eldrazi as well as Kozilek, seeing as the will technically be changed to a <>.
December 19, 2015 9:32 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #33
@Cyb3rpunkPanda: That's incorrect. Animar, Soul of Elements does NOT produce mana; it has a cost reduction effect that applies a cost reduction of for each counter to creature spells you cast. Because the cost reduction is represented as a reduction to the generic mana required to cast the spell, it does not affect colorless requirements. Remember, the point of this new change is to help differentiate between colorless and generic mana.
December 19, 2015 9:43 p.m.
@ Epochalyptik: Thank you a lot for that. I understand it now. I retract my previous statement.
December 19, 2015 9:48 p.m.
Rhadamanthus says... #35
There's an interesting paragraph right below the image of Tarmogoyf in this article, MaRo's choice for the current "Best-of" week. He wished Magic started off with a separate colorless symbol, but in the article he suggests still also using the same symbols for colorless and generic mana. The suggestion acknowledges the problem with numbers larger than 4 or so in mana costs, and thankfully the new convention in Oath of the Gatewatch avoids the issue.
December 21, 2015 2:44 p.m.
Named_Tawyny says... #36
It's not a big change at all - yes, it means errating 312 cards, but by that logic, then the biggest change magic ever made was changing the 
symbol - that probably effected more cards than that!
December 21, 2015 6:28 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #37
@Rhadamanthus: It's interesting that he would make that comment about generic mana costs when, given the choice between generic and colorless, colorless is clearly the more pragmatic choice for a change. (I don't see a reason to change both and have individual symbols for literally everything.)
As far as I know, the highest amount of colorless mana produced by a single, non-scaling effect (as in not "
for each [something]") is 
by Su-Chi. It's very simple to denote 4 or less using individual pips, whereas it would be entirely too tedious and unreadable to write out the individual symbols on something like Treasure Cruise.
And if you did have different sizes of mana symbols to represent different quantities (i.e., introduce the scaling banknote/coin principle to mana pip design), you'd now face problems with players' ability to read information at a glance and with players' ability to intuit the exact difference between the symbols.
On top of that, card design would have to be altered so that mana cost didn't compete with name for real estate (although his comment was framed in the context of other frames, such as those from Future Sight).
I feel, dare I say it, that MaRo didn't put a whole lot of thought into that one.
December 21, 2015 6:46 p.m.
Rhadamanthus says... #38
To his credit, the new colorless symbol would have been long-known to insiders at the time his article was written/published, so I appreciate him not editing his own "worse" version of the idea.
greyninja says... #2
i've found a few here and here
December 15, 2015 2:16 p.m.