So I'm Confused
Spoilers, Rumors, and Speculation forum
Posted on Dec. 12, 2015, 10:19 a.m. by NobodyPicksBulbasaur
(This post assumes that the current unofficial OGW spoilers are accurate)
So just last night I realized that the spoiled Mystic Gate expedition uses the new "Wastes" colorless mana symbol (1), which leads me to believe that Wizards has decided to make a dedicated colorless mana symbol. This is neat.
What I'm confused about, is what the hell is going on with the new Kozilek's mana cost (2),(3)? If you're going to make a new colorless mana symbol, why would you put the old version on a card right beside it?
My first thought was "maybe it's mana spent from 'Wastes', but that doesn't make sense if they use the same symbol on the colorless portion of Mystic Gate.
I get that this way saves space because CCCCCCCCCC sucks to print, but it seems like they could have done something better in that spot if that's the only reason they printed it like that.
VampireArmy says... #3
Because kozilek cost 8 generic mana (as in it doesn't matter what color you use to pay) and 2 specifically colorless
December 12, 2015 10:23 a.m.
The 
on Kozilek can be paid using any color of mana, such as 
or 
, but <> <> must be paid with mana that was created specifically using a colorless source such as Sol Ring or the first ability on Mystic Gate
December 12, 2015 10:23 a.m.
NobodyPicksBulbasaur says... #5
Yeah I also just now realized that the relevant spoilers have become "official" and important people are answering these questions on their blogs. I am just slow today, apparently. Such is life.
December 12, 2015 10:24 a.m.
I'm pretty sure maro explained that the numbers refer to generic mana, while the new symbol refers to specifically colorless mana. In the new Kozilek's case, he costs 8 mana of any kind and two colorless mana.
December 12, 2015 10:26 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #8
This has already been discussed at length in other threads (particularly an overreactive one calling OGW a failure out of the gate).
means generic mana. A cost of can be paid with mana of any color or type.
<> means colorless mana. An effect that adds <> to your mana pool adds colorless mana to your pool. A cost that requires <> may be paid only with colorless mana.
December 12, 2015 10:30 a.m.
I don't like the new mana symbol at all. The whole notion of required colorless mana is just plain stupid to me. I liked the Phyrexian mana, and the mixed mana from like Shadowmoor and ravnica, so maybe I'll warm up to it in time, but for now, I think it's stupid.
December 12, 2015 10:31 a.m.
MindAblaze says... #10
I actually really like the distinction. It doesn't actually complicate the game much as we're already used to paying specific mana for color saturated costs. I remember people being confused about Eldrazi during RoE thinking they were artifacts because they didn't have colored mana in their cost. This is a flavourful way to show they're truly Colorless
December 12, 2015 11:16 a.m.
I agree with MindAblaze. At first, I was hesitant to let myself enjoy the concept because it's such a radical change to Magic (and, really, it's not). But I realized that the only change is making colorless mana mandatory on a specific few cards and the easiest way to do that is give "colorless mana" a symbol. This actually helps with distinction between "generic mana" and "colorless mana"; again, two things that always existed. Forcing players to pay with strictly colorless mana adds another layer of depth to deck-building and gameplay.
I feel that the only people who dislike the new system are either so resistant to change that anything new pisses them off, or they simply don't understand it. Personally, I think it's genius because you get all the perks of adding a new color without the god-awful shitstorm that comes from actually doing it, while refining something that already existed in the first place.
December 12, 2015 1:44 p.m.
"you get all the perks of adding a new color without the god-awful shitstorm that comes from actually doing it."
Well no, theoretically a new color would get it's own fresh and unique playstyle/flavor. Colorless cards have already been established and defined, all they've done is make specific colorless cards slightly harder to cast. I don't like it because it doesn't change much at all. It further complicates the game for new players without doing anything significant or cool.
I don't hate it, I just think it's silly and annoying. If they do something more with it in the future (or within OGW, we still have cards to spoil) I'd be happy to change my mind, but for now I'm left asking what the point of this is.
December 12, 2015 1:57 p.m.
I disagree. I think it makes the game easier to understand for new players. Colorless mana has always been the only mana type without a symbol. With the new symbol, we have a way to differentiate between that and generic mana (mana of any type). Now, numbered mana like 
represent 3 of any type of mana, where the new colorless symbol shows colorless, much like does for blue mana.
It sounds like you're trying to judge the mechanic based on one card from a set with ~four spoiled thus far. Surely, that can't be the case.
December 12, 2015 2:02 p.m. Edited.
Serendipitous_Hummingbird says... #14
it really isn't that radical a change. It forces people to pay more attention to their mana use which is always good, and it rewards those who plan their resources ahead.
Flavor wise it also makes sense. There's a difference between colorless and colored mana, so why shouldn't that difference matter (at least occasionally) on some cards?
December 12, 2015 2:09 p.m.
It's one more symbol that needs to be explained so by definition it complicates things. The point is that we didn't need a distinction between generic and colorless mana. What does it add to the game?
Remember that I'm looking at it from a teaching perspective. These things bother me because I love introducing new players to Magic. Problem is every time they add something that looks hard to grasp from a beginner's perspective, it puts them off of the game. Again, I don't hate it - it just seems unnecessary.
As I said we still have a lot to spoil so who knows, maybe they'll do something really cool with it that totally justifies the addition. If that ends up being the case I'll be happy to say I was wrong. But going off of what we have right now it looks pointless.
December 12, 2015 2:36 p.m.
Again, I disagree. It's just a symbol to represent something that you already had to teach before. You've always had to teach people what colorless mana was. However, I've always had trouble with new players seeing colorless mana given from something as 
and then assuming you need all colorless mana to cast something like Sands of Delirium because it says . Now, teaching with something like a newly errata'd Sol Ring with the new symbols on it will be "This makes two colorless, so you could cast Mind Stone with it because it just needs 2 of anything."
Like I said, the people who don't like it just don't fully understand it or the implications.
December 12, 2015 2:49 p.m. Edited.
Fair enough. I don't agree with your point of view but I can respect it.
December 12, 2015 2:52 p.m.
VampireArmy says... #18
Speaking as someone who's teaching an entire group of people to play right now, this new mana symbol isn't going to take me any more time than any other mana symbol would.
Diamond = no tapping anything that makes color for it
Number = tap whatever you want for it.
It doesn't need to be complicated
December 12, 2015 2:54 p.m.
Yeah this has actually made the game EASIER in some respects. It distinguishes between a land that taps for specifically colourless and the numbered symbol in a cast which can be met with any colour. It's a really elegant system and does define the eldrazi as strictly colourless beings which is distinct from any of the 5 colours.
December 12, 2015 4:43 p.m.
MindAblaze says... #20
One thing MaRo said recently, in his own way, is that you have to be prepared to break your own rules to push what design is capable of. Colorless spells haven't ever had an identity, because there's never been something that defined them as Unique. Now that we have Colorless non-artifact permanents they have to find some space in the color pie and I find the processors to be an elegant way to do something MaRo previously held as off limits; interact with the exile zone. I'm stoked to see what else Oath brings us.
December 12, 2015 5:42 p.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #21
I really do not like this, because it is a change that is being made simply for the sake of change, and not for any substantial reason, such as a game-crippling error. The game has functioned perfectly well for twenty-two years with five basic lands and five specific mana symbols, so I believe that it is far too late to make such a drastic change, now.
Also, is WotC really going to change the wording for every single mana-generating permanent in the game? That will be a major task, and it shall also make the cards look worse, in my mind: for example, "add to your mana pool" is much more elegant and streamlined than is "add (<>)(<>) to your mana pool." Hopefully, this new mana symbol and new basic land shall be used only sparingly, because they do not fit flavorfully in most sets, only those that involve the Eldrazi.
December 12, 2015 11:11 p.m.
MindAblaze says... #22
Maybe they should make all mana symbols just use numbers in different colored circles then nobody has to be confused by fancy symbols.
Nobody gets confused by Greenweaver Druid do they?
December 12, 2015 11:23 p.m. Edited.
Epochalyptik says... #23
@DemonDragonJ: I believe the clarification of the differences between colorless and generic mana—and the ability to require colorless mana to pay a cost—qualifies as a substantial reason. If you want to advance the claim that there's no substantial reason, you need to prove that the reasons given so far are insubstantial.
Further, the fact that the game has functioned thus far without this feature is not a reason for opposing it. Almost every product introduces something new to the game.
And if <><> better represents the fact that something produces colorless mana, then why shouldn't it be used? The highest quantity of colorless mana produced flatly by an effect, as far as I'm aware, is 
from Su-Chi. And that's hardly unwieldy to represent as individual pips. Not any more unwieldy, in any case, than something like Geosurge.
December 12, 2015 11:53 p.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #24
Epochalyptik: I am not saying that there is not a good reason for this change (expect that I do, in fact, believe that there is no good reason for it); I simply do not like change, as I have the belief that "if it is not broken, do not fix it" (at least most of the time, because I do also believe that there is often room for improvement, as well, as nothing can ever truly be perfect). If WotC has a survey for Oath of the Gatewatch, as they do for most sets, I shall definitely express my displeasure at this change, in a mature and intelligent fashion, of course.
December 13, 2015 midnight
Epochalyptik says... #25
So in this paradoxical system of not fixing things that aren't broken and actually improving the game, where does this fall? And why? And how can your answer be anything other than arbitrary?
December 13, 2015 12:18 a.m.
NobodyPicksBulbasaur says... #26
I suggest that anyone who has any issues or confusion on the implementation of C have a look at the most recent few pages of MaRo's blog. Hes been talking about colorless mana for the last day or two, and covers most of why/how they're implementing the change.
December 13, 2015 7:38 a.m.
Femme_Fatale says... #27
Is the symbol for it C now? We can use that as the proper code identifier for our databases?
December 13, 2015 4:54 p.m.
Named_Tawyny says... #28
The symbol remains the diamond shape, but the letter-code for colourless is now 'C', yes.
cosmokai2000 says... #2
With the new Kozilek, it cost ten mana to play but two have to be colorless specifically. The other eight can be any combination of any colors/ colorless. The <> symbol is how they're going to show colorless mana from now on, AFAIK
December 12, 2015 10:22 a.m. Edited.