The colorless mana symbol is GOOD for Legacy

[Finn]

I am as surprised as anyone at the high power level of the spells that require colorless mana. (I also think it needs a better name, such as "unaffiliated" or "transparent", or even just "uncolor" for short.) Anyway, my faith in this product has taken a turn upwards from this innovation - and it is absolutely an innovation. There are some interesting side effects that I think are good for Legacy specifically because they decided to go very strong on no color. I have listed them in order of increasing scope.

1. Karplusan Forest has a real actual advantage over Taiga. Gheizen64 has Scrublands and Marsh Flats in his versions for the BW Eldrazi deck. I think that these cards are not as good as simply Caves of Koilos.
2. Ancient Tomb, Wasteland, Blighted Fen, Cavern of Souls, etc are all exceptionally powerful as long as the colorless "color" continues to get support.
3. This entire enterprise has potentially huge consequences. All of the uncolor lands were created with the understanding that producing generic mana was a lesser thing than mana of a specific color. Compare Blasted Landscape and Drifting Meadow for a stark example. I actually can not find anything beyond the stuff you guys are already into with Cloudposts and City of Traitors and whatever. And I suppose they will not be printing powerful colorless lands in the future because of this. But there is the danger of printing powerful uncolor spells in the higher mana zones just with the lands we already have.
4. What does this mean for Legacy? I feel that the more uncolor spells they print, the better it is for us. It forces hard design decisions (Brainstorm decks basically can not use this stuff at all). It reduces the strain placed upon limited traditional land supplies on the Reserved List (duals suck). And it opens up entirely new spheres of decks (I haven't the vaguest guess what the strengths are of decks that have never existed before).

What do you think?

[Cire]

I agree with all of the above, but the problem is that they stated that colorless mana will not be evergreen and will not get support in a long time if ever.

(source: http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/135263925618/hey-maro-i-just-have-one-question-on-why-exactly).

I don't think anyone was ever upset at the mana symbol. . . people were upset at:

1) Changing the production of colorless mana to the mana symbol.
2) Changing the mana symbol in the second set of a block where you now have to errata cards within that block to the new symbol.
3) Not using the mana symbol as an evergreen mechanic.

I think everyone got over the first two, but the third is annoying. As you said this change is actually GOOD, and its a shame that they won't explore it more.

[Teluin]

I already wrote to Mark Rosewater saying something similar. Despite hating the vast majority of what they've been doing for the past several years, I do think this was a neat innovation that opens more avenues without drastically changing what has been done in a negligible way. The symbol itself is ugly as shit though, and does not at all fit with the other symbols.

[Ace/Homebrew]

I agree with all of the above, but the problem is that they stated that colorless mana will not be evergreen and will not get support in a long time if ever.

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 it’s not something that has the design legs for evergreen status.
Where does it say it won't get support in a long time if ever? It just says "not enough support for evergreen status".
If you are referencing other information, provide the source and I'll shut up. :cool:

Morph, Kicker, Protection, Cycling, Convoke, and Buyback have all been printed in multiple sets despite not being evergreen.
I believe the colorless requirement as a cost (it does need a name, but I don't think Uncolor is it...) will be printed very soon in a supplemental (RE: not-standard) product and will appear again in the next Artifacts Matter block.

How about calling it Ghost Mana (homage to Ghostfire)?
Or Waste Mana... I'm gonna guess that's what Wizards will want us to call it.

[iamajellydonut]

It just says "not enough support for evergreen status".

This is technically what they say, but I don't think that's necessarily a good thing either because I can't see them getting creative with the D. More likely than not, if and when they do return to the D, it'll be because "THE ELDRAZI ARE BACK (again)!"

[Cire]

I would be very surprised and happy if they include Colorless mana in non-edlrazi blocks, I just felt them saying non-evergreen status seemed to belay their intention of saving it only for eldrazi sets (and only for Koz's brood right?). That said, I hope that they will print some in any core sets (do they still make core sets?), or any commander products, or generally anywhere.

[Ace/Homebrew]

This is technically what they say, but I don't think that's necessarily a good thing either because I can't see them getting creative with the D.
I'm putting my money on seeing it again and frequently (but sporadically).
Requiring colorless mana to cast or activate allows them to push power levels. I don't see WotC getting creative with this, just that it will allow them to make strong cards cost less mana.

[Raystar]

Totally agree Finn. This expansion has brought some needed fresh air with it.

[iatee]

I agree with all of the above, but the problem is that they stated that colorless mana will not be evergreen and will not get support in a long time if ever.

(source: http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/135263925618/hey-maro-i-just-have-one-question-on-why-exactly).

I don't think anyone was ever upset at the mana symbol. . . people were upset at:

1) Changing the production of colorless mana to the mana symbol.
2) Changing the mana symbol in the second set of a block where you now have to errata cards within that block to the new symbol.
3) Not using the mana symbol as an evergreen mechanic.

I think everyone got over the first two, but the third is annoying. As you said this change is actually GOOD, and its a shame that they won't explore it more.

It's very hard to get this to work in Standard/Limited without constructing the set around it and ensuring that people can actually find C mana. If you toss in a 20/20 for C into a normal set's cardpool, it's an unplayable or almost unplayable card for limited. If you just toss Wastes into every set, then this is just 'another color' and it's not that interesting in the long term.

These cards are so interesting for Legacy and to a certain extent Modern because there are so many interactions built in with older cards - there are tons of ways to produce C, and making that an upside rather than a downside makes a lot of older cards potentially more playable. But if it becomes a regular feature, it's just another color, one that in Legacy doesn't have dual lands but does have sol lands.

[PirateKing]

It's very hard to get this to work in Standard/Limited without constructing the set around it and ensuring that people can actually find C mana. If you toss in a 20/20 for C into a normal set's cardpool, it's an unplayable or almost unplayable card for limited. If you just toss Wastes into every set, then this is just 'another color' and it's not that interesting in the long term.

I logged in to type this, so I'll just quote it instead. Beyond the rules nature of the new Basic land, I don't actually know the pool availability of it. Are they unlimited access in Draft like the other 5 basic lands? Are they going to be perpetually legal in Standard once BFZ rotates? Because unless the answer is yes to both, maintaining D as a cost becomes unsustainable without keeping Pain Lands and the like reprinted.

I agree that for the next batch of supplemental sets that have produced fun Legacy cards, D mana costs and activation costs could really be explored, I'm more excited for that over whatever these "in flavor" cards are. Thinking about it, I feel like Shardless Agent is the most interesting Cascade card; Flusterstorm is the most interesting Storm card. I wouldn't be supprosed if D got its best example out of a future summer set.

[Gheizen64]

Just a correction, i shyed away from duals in my lists, i just play all colorless. If i were to play more colored cards again, i'd definitely use painlands thoughts.

Also i agree, colorless mana is a great concept, too bad wotc seems fixated on it being linked to eldrazi only which is pretty MEH if you ask me. Lots of artifact could use some D tbh.

[Barook]

While I agree that C is a great addition to Legacy, I wouldn't get my hopes up for various reason:

- They want to use it only rarely, iirc from Maro's blog, even less often than hybrid mana.
- The initial cards were pushed as hell - I wouldn't expect that much the next time around "when they have learned from their mistakes" aka making everything suck again. It reminds me of the equipment situation of Mirrodin where most of the powerful equipments were the first ones (and Jitte a block later). Sword of Feast and Famine/Sword of War and Peace are so-so and Batterskull is only playable due to SFM. The rest we got since then is jank. I fear we might go into the same direction here.


Lots of artifact could use some D tbh.
Equipment - Fleshlight? :laugh:

[Echelon]

I'm excited. People are starting to develop a BGC Nic Fit list already. Veteran Explorer has already conquered the Wastes!

Silliness aside it opens up new design space, which is never a bad thing. I'm curious to see where WotC is going with this, but even if they abandon it after 2 sets we still don't lose the design space we gained with this set. We just wouldn't get any extra, that's all.

[Megadeus]

Where does it say it won't get support in a long time if ever? It just says "not enough support for evergreen status".
If you are referencing other information, provide the source and I'll shut up. :cool:

Morph, Kicker, Protection, Cycling, Convoke, and Buyback have all been printed in multiple sets despite not being evergreen.
I believe the colorless requirement as a cost (it does need a name, but I don't think Uncolor is it...) will be printed very soon in a supplemental (RE: not-standard) product and will appear again in the next Artifacts Matter block.

How about calling it Ghost Mana (homage to Ghostfire)?
Or Waste Mana... I'm gonna guess that's what Wizards will want us to call it.

Pretty sure it's just called colorless mana. What we used to call colorless to cast spells is technically generic mana.

[Tylert]

True-Colorless mana?

[TsumiBand]

If you just toss Wastes into every set, then this is just 'another color' and it's not that interesting in the long term.

These cards are so interesting for Legacy and to a certain extent Modern because there are so many interactions built in with older cards - there are tons of ways to produce C, and making that an upside rather than a downside makes a lot of older cards potentially more playable. But if it becomes a regular feature, it's just another color, one that in Legacy doesn't have dual lands but does have sol lands.

By codifying C as a specific cost requirement, it's essentially already "just another color". Strictly comparing spells to spells - what at this point actually makes C distinctly different from other colors? Not talking onboard interactions with like protection from XYZ or Fear/Intimidate junk like that - just talking about actually casting things.

Now they just have to decide how often they will print cards that are C. If they do not revisit it often, it'll be like a forgotten creature type, like if they up and quit printing Goblins or something.

Really the smart thing to do here is make sure that separation is maintained at the mana base level. If they ever print a CX dual land, like say Ravnica gets randomly invaded by Eldrazi or some junk and we get Eldrazi Stomping Grounds that taps for RC and has land types so it works with The Good Fetchlands, then C is a little too easily splashed and it really becomes that much less special.

Really if they can keep it so thay colorless is really self-involved regarding its mana production and doesn't end up as just another Blue dual*, that's going to be its most defining and useful factor.

* really any color pairing would be bad, but specifically mentioning Blue since time has consistently shown in multiple Eternal formats that Blue decks adopt new technology incredibly easily

[H]

While I agree, for the most part Tsumi, I feel like Wastes-duals are a natural progression and would add a certain tension to mana-bases that is necessarily a bad thing.

I do feel that they should hammer out more of a real identity for C though, rather than just have it be a mish-mosh of seemingly random effects.

[Cire]

I do feel that they should hammer out more of a real identity for C though, rather than just have it be a mish-mosh of seemingly random effects.

From this latest set, colorless mana gives you:

Kozilek, the Great Distortion - Countering (U)
Spatial Contortion - Flowstone Kill (+/-) (B/R)
Warping Wail - Removal for weenies, Countering, Tokens (B/W, U, G)
Matter Reshaper - Random Permanents (G/R)
Reality Smasher - Haste Beats with Psuedo-hexproof (R/U/G)
Thought-Knot Seer - Discard (B/U)
Deceiver of Form - Copying (U)
Walker of Wastes - Pump (G)
Endbringer - Psuedo-Vigilance, Ping, Draw, Cease-fire (W/U/R)

There are other colorless cards, but they have a dominating color and only use colorless as a balancing cost instead of an identity.

From the above it seems that finding an identity is impossible as colorless is just like generic - it can do anything if the cost is right.

Edit - If anything C is not Black . . . most of the black effects share a color identity with U or R. It is also probably not Green, as the green effects are mostly tokens or pump which most colors get. Which makes C a weird combination of WUR. It would be interesting if C is the domain of all exile effects and if takes away countering from Blue - making it THE control "color" with exile and countering. This would almost force legacy decks to account for new cards (i.e. requiring miracles to splash a third "color").

[GundamGuy]

We didn't get any cards with mixed colorless mana costs did we? Stuff like {R}{C} etc. is what I'd like to see them push in future set... I'm afraid that we are only going to get {C} = Eldrazi though...

[Barook]

We didn't get any cards with mixed colorless mana costs did we? Stuff like {R}{C} etc. is what I'd like to see them push in future set... I'm afraid that we are only going to get {C} = Eldrazi though...
http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/137064672798/was-the-choice-to-not-mix-colorless-costs-with#notes

[rufus]

While I agree, for the most part Tsumi, I feel like Wastes-duals are a natural progression and would add a certain tension to mana-bases that is necessarily a bad thing.

Legacy mana bases seem too easily solved for most decks. More meaningful decisions seems like a good thing.

[MaximumC]

Legacy mana bases seem too easily solved for most decks. More meaningful decisions seems like a good thing.

Complete agreement. Having to make actual choices and trade-offs is what prevents us from all running the same deck.

I welcome our new Pain-Lands-Are-Tri-Lands overlords.

[GundamGuy]

http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/137064672798/was-the-choice-to-not-mix-colorless-costs-with#notes

I'm hoping it's more that it was at odds with the story then it was confusing...... because it's not that confusing to have a card that is 1UC that requires 1 Generic Mana, 1 Blue Mana, and 1 Colorless Mana...

How is that anymore complicated then the fundimental understanding of the game...

I'm going to take this as... as long as {C} is reserved exclusively for Eldrazi we won't get cards with combined color and colorless costs...

[Cire]

I'm hoping it's more that it was at odds with the story then it was confusing...... because it's not that confusing to have a card that is 1UC that requires 1 Generic Mana, 1 Blue Mana, and 1 Colorless Mana...

How is that anymore complicated then the fundimental understanding of the game...

I'm going to take this as... as long as {C} is reserved exclusively for Eldrazi we won't get cards with combined color and colorless costs...

There's no way it was that confusing because they have colorless kicker costs for on color cards that already basically explore this dynamic.

And yes - I have the feeling the C is an Eldrazi only thing, and we won't see it again unless it is a one off card for a commander set or three blocks down the line when its Emrakul vs. Phyrexia :tongue:

[MaximumC]

Nah, you guys are pessimistic. Now that they've defined the symbol, I bet we see <> just as often as we see Hybrid mana, if not more often. It is not thematically linked to any plane in particular and it gives them a finer gradient to make casting costs larger or smaller.

The gradient issue is CRITICAL to them in design because there are some effects that seem to be very broken at one cost, but unplayable at another. Consider counter-magic. Wizards considers Mana Leak to be broken at 1U. Is it still broken at <>U? That kind of thing. More Shades of Grey are good when it comes to fine-tuning a set.

[T-101]

I bet we see <> just as often as we see Hybrid mana, if not more often.

That's exactly what I'm thinking. I expect to see it every 2 or 3 blocks, plus maybe some special cases.

[GundamGuy]

Nah, you guys are pessimistic. Now that they've defined the symbol, I bet we see <> just as often as we see Hybrid mana, if not more often. It is not thematically linked to any plane in particular and it gives them a finer gradient to make casting costs larger or smaller.

The gradient issue is CRITICAL to them in design because there are some effects that seem to be very broken at one cost, but unplayable at another. Consider counter-magic. Wizards considers Mana Leak to be broken at 1U. Is it still broken at <>U? That kind of thing. More Shades of Grey are good when it comes to fine-tuning a set.

I'm not sure MARO agrees with you on the bolded part.

Call me pessimistic, I'm just going by what info we get from MARO... which seems to imply that we should be prepared to be disapointed.

[Gheizen64]

In legacy, splashing for C is harder than splashing for a color. There are no fetchable duals that give C, and while it's true that land that give C are in general better with other abilities, they also rarely ALSO give colored mana if ever. There are only a few, like the painlands, the filterlands (which still require colored mana), tendo's ice bridge... then what? The no-untap lands sucks ass i would never consider running those. The tainted lands are cute but still require you to have other lands to work properly. The talismans are pretty good cards which give both colorless and color, but they're artifact which not every deck would like to run and are only in allied colors too. The new land that give one of any color as it ETB then give only C is also pretty good i think, it's a slightly worse Tendo.

As of now, the only way C work is as a splash in a monocolor deck, or as main color with a splash. Which i think is great for the diversity of mana bases and decks since current mana bases are so liberal that you can easily play 4-color decks consistently. Hell, if it weren't for non-basic hate, you'd never have consistency problems in those decks with fetches essentially being choose 2 colors when it ETB with no drawbacks.

[TsumiBand]

The other thing to think about regarding just how "mixed" C mana should or should not be with a lot of lands, spells, and so on is that C mana does have a couple of interactions that are different or absent, which colored mana does have.

Unlike other types of mana the quality of "colorless" is not additive. A spell costed at CG is not colorless and Green; it's Green. If there were an 'Elemental Blast' for colorless spells, it wuld whiff on a CU spell whereas REB would work. (i guess they could make Devoid evergreen but that sounds stupid af)

That's one example but basically the idea of mixing a lot of C and non-C mana symbols just undermines the whole concept of colorless mana and its qualities and effects on objects. If C doesn't exist as a means to subvert being colored, then it really is a total waste of time.

[barcode]

I don't know about you suckers but my Lands deck has 16 colourless mana sources.

I, for one, welcome our colourless overlords.

[Dice_Box]

I don't know about you suckers but my Lands deck has 16 colourless mana sources.

I, for one, welcome our colourless overlords.
Don't forget Riftstone.

[MaximumC]

I'm not sure MARO agrees with you on the bolded part.

Call me pessimistic, I'm just going by what info we get from MARO... which seems to imply that we should be prepared to be disapointed.

He might not see it that way today, but take the long view.

"Urborg Volcano" is thematically linked to Dominara.
"Hallowed Fountain" is not thematically linked to Ravnica.

Does it mean they print <> without it being on Eldrazi? Nope; see the shocklands, above. But it does mean they certainly can when it makes sense to do so. Remember, they have to think of 1/3 again as many gimmicks each year now, with the new set rotation.

[Cire]

That's one example but basically the idea of mixing a lot of C and non-C mana symbols just undermines the whole concept of colorless mana and its qualities and effects on objects. If C doesn't exist as a means to subvert being colored, then it really is a total waste of time.

It could be used as a balancing factor.

For example would Top still be too powerful if it costed C? What if it's activated ability also cost C? Would Goyf be played as much if it costed CG instead of 1G?

C could be used as making mono-colored spells harder to cast without making them multicolored (as that doesn't work, since multicolored in legacy is just as easy to cast) or more expensive.

[MaximumC]

It could be used as a balancing factor.


Great minds think alike, but fools seldom differ!



The gradient issue is CRITICAL to them in design because there are some effects that seem to be very broken at one cost, but unplayable at another. Consider counter-magic. Wizards considers Mana Leak to be broken at 1U. Is it still broken at <>U? That kind of thing. More Shades of Grey are good when it comes to fine-tuning a set.

Which are we? We shall see!

[square_two]

Isn't colorless magic what Ugin's specialty is? I don't see the reason why <> being a colorless restriction has to de facto be tied to Eldrazi. Could just as easily have Ugin romp around with the avengers on their next exciting adventure and have some colorless spells available.

[Gheizen64]

Warning : a rant on colorless mana identity, how to justify C outside of this set, some card examples that mix coloured and C mana, and key aspect of a C card in my humblest possible opinion.

Honestly i don't think colorless mana should be linked to eldrazi flavor only. It could be linked in general to "otherworldy" flavor, where some spells are colored but also have kind of special attributes that link them to colorless mana. We've used colorless mana for 25 years and no one ever told us it was special. Now that it is in mana costs, i don't see it at particularly controversial if it was treated as just another way to cost things with a more refined approach. Like GC is harder to cast than GG, GX or 1G. It can also express a sort of purity of color of the spell without having to cost like GGGG. Ugin in lore use colorless magic but it has not been defined by C in cards so i'm not sure it counts.

I think Theros with their Nyx theme would have worked perfectly for C +colored costs spells instead of a vague "enchantment theme", to indicate their otherwordly nature, and with its fixation on the "purity" of mana (devotion). Theros scrylands would've been actually good if they gave C too. Also, Shadows over Innistrad with its "corrupted by Emrakul" theme in the next expansion could also give us some mixed colored-C cards, with emrakul slowly seeping in the world of innistrad represented by said cards. I imagine Emrakul's theme could be to hate on colored spells, maybe self-color as to represent madness of self-hating after being touched by Emrakul's presence. It also differentiate it nicely from Kozilek (effects based on colorless costs), and Ulamog (exiling things and using exile as a resource)

This is a card we could see in SoI imho:

Tormented Geist http://hydra-media.cursecdn.com/mtgsalvation.gamepedia.com/thumb/7/79/Manac.png/15px-Manac.png?version=1570a948298d87c92bbc506529e3655b:w:
Creature - Spirit
Flying, protection from white spells
2/2

Spirits and otheworldy creatures would be touched first by the influence of Emrakul , but some sentient evil creatures could volountarily search for its influence as a mean to gain power over worldy magic or simple curiosity mixed with arrogance, like vampires:

Mind-Torn Vampire :1:http://hydra-media.cursecdn.com/mtgsalvation.gamepedia.com/thumb/7/79/Manac.png/15px-Manac.png?version=1570a948298d87c92bbc506529e3655b:r:
Creature - Vampire
Intimidate.
Colored spells that target this creature cost :2: more to play.
4/3

Artifacts and spell could easily be made researching Eldrazi magic by blue mages and artificers in general, like:

Search Beyond http://hydra-media.cursecdn.com/mtgsalvation.gamepedia.com/thumb/7/79/Manac.png/15px-Manac.png?version=1570a948298d87c92bbc506529e3655b:u:
Sorcery
Exile the top three cards of your library, then choose a exiled card you own and add it to your hand.

Eldritch Tome :2:
Artifact
http://hydra-media.cursecdn.com/mtgsalvation.gamepedia.com/thumb/7/79/Manac.png/15px-Manac.png?version=1570a948298d87c92bbc506529e3655b, T: exile target card from a graveyard.
http://hydra-media.cursecdn.com/mtgsalvation.gamepedia.com/thumb/7/79/Manac.png/15px-Manac.png?version=1570a948298d87c92bbc506529e3655b,T: put a card your opponent own from exile into their own graveyard. If you do, draw a card.
Power that you can't comprehend.

As of now, i think those are the key identities of Colorless mana:

- usage of exile as a resource and exiling things both in play, hand or library. Exiling graves hasn't showed until now iirc and i like it as a sorta defining characteristic
- creation of drone/scions
- hate on colored things (emrakul, all is dust, Ugin)/affinity for non-colored things (kozilek and a tons of other cards) , or just hard to target with spells in general (reality smasher)

Less common but still seen:

- card draw (Sea-Gate ruins, both Kozileks, EndBringer) and creature P/T manipulation (Eldrazi Mimic, spatial contortion) or destruction based on P/T (warping wail)
- cheating cards into play (this was literally only on matter reshaper and it had more of a flavor of exchanging "forms").

Finally an idea for lands to fix this mana if it ever were to be a theme in a future set.

Desolated Chapel (cycle of Desolated X)
Land
T: add C to your mana pool
T: add W or B to your mana pool. Use this ability only if you control 3 or less permanents.

Yeah those are essentially tri-lands. It's a bit harder to desing C-colored lands since they'd be so close to actual basic lands in term of power level already. I definitely don't want those to be fetchable, fetches are already way too good in every format. Also as a final point, Wastes were printed with a-generically-as-possible name for a reason, we're gonna see them again.

[Cire]

Great minds think alike, but fools seldom differ!


Hey! I do think it's a great idea, I am just way more pessimistic than you on whether Wizards will follow through on it.

[TsumiBand]

It isn't so much that :c: is special mana, but it's special to be a :c: spell or permanent imho.

It's never about the mana with :c:, getting hung about generating colorless mana is a total side issue. The deal with colorless objects is that they can't also be colored, they can only be one or the other.

I know that :c::g: is harder to generate than :1::g: but when it comes to establishing the identity of :c: castables - not even Eldrazi ones, just colorless objects - including colored mana in its cost makes that object cease to be colorless. We already have ways of making colored spells harder to cast - we add more colored mana symbols.

It is, in my opinion, less about the fact that :c::g: is harder to cast as a fact, than it is as a practice and as a means of establishing why a card is what it is. Any other multicolored combination of mana symbols typically means that the card has qualities from all involved colors and is more aggressively costed because of it. Colorless mana is just overwritten when colors are introduced, and the card loses its "colorless" status entirely, so the only thing it can do is make the card arbitrarily hard to cast when the better option is probably always just going to be costing the card with double or triple mana symbols.

[barcode]

Don't forget Riftstone.

I'm on the RUGb version so there's no place for Riftstone.

[Gheizen64]

It isn't so much that :c: is special mana, but it's special to be a :c: spell or permanent imho.

It's never about the mana with :c:, getting hung about generating colorless mana is a total side issue. The deal with colorless objects is that they can't also be colored, they can only be one or the other.

I know that :c::g: is harder to generate than :1::g: but when it comes to establishing the identity of :c: castables - not even Eldrazi ones, just colorless objects - including colored mana in its cost makes that object cease to be colorless. We already have ways of making colored spells harder to cast - we add more colored mana symbols.

It is, in my opinion, less about the fact that :c::g: is harder to cast as a fact, than it is as a practice and as a means of establishing why a card is what it is. Any other multicolored combination of mana symbols typically means that the card has qualities from all involved colors and is more aggressively costed because of it. Colorless mana is just overwritten when colors are introduced, and the card loses its "colorless" status entirely, so the only thing it can do is make the card arbitrarily hard to cast when the better option is probably always just going to be costing the card with double or triple mana symbols.

Yeah i guess having C costs on colored permanents would make little sense because said permanents are COLORED in the first place. Differently from other colors you don't can't have a permanent that is both colorless and colored, unlike said, a permanent that's both red and black. In that way, a colored permanent with a colorless mana requirement would make little sense. However, when you consider that there are colored mana cards that are colorless (we just came out of a set full of them) then you could say that you can easily find a flavor justification for colorless mana cards that are colored. You just can't have both at the same time, but you can have a colored card with devoid or simply a colored card with colorless mana costs too.
They just have to be "justified" flavorfully in different ways.
Honestly, artifacts having colours strike me as a worse flavor offender than colorless mana simbol appearing on coloured cards, for a variety of reasons, mostly because artifacts were defined at birth by being outside color but definitely worse than in-color effects (rod of ruin vs prodigal sorcerer in alpha), while the colorless mana simbol was already born as something that also use other colors of mana (even if on technically colorless cards). I honestly find your point of view compelling, however for the good mechanical implications that this simbol could have on the game , moving us aside from 3-colored everything decks, decreasing the power of duals/fetches etc... i think it'd just be too much of a wasted opportunity to stop ourselves for some flavor implications after colored artifact enchantments and enchantment creatures - god. Think of it in this way, if you had colorless mana introduced in Theros as a way to define otherworldy creature/spells from the Nyx instead of simply making them enchantments, wouldn't you have agreed it was a perfect flavor justification for the colorless simbol? You wouldn't have thought "but wait this is COLORLESS on a colored card" but just, "this is colorless instead of generic which could ALSO be colorless but it's more strict".

[Valtrix]

The filter lands are what I'd be more interested in over the pain lands honestly. They're quite powerful in a lot of situations (but obviously don't work with other colorless sources!)

[GundamGuy]

He might not see it that way today, but take the long view.

"Urborg Volcano" is thematically linked to Dominara.
"Hallowed Fountain" is not thematically linked to Ravnica.

Does it mean they print <> without it being on Eldrazi? Nope; see the shocklands, above. But it does mean they certainly can when it makes sense to do so. Remember, they have to think of 1/3 again as many gimmicks each year now, with the new set rotation.

I'm just with Cire on this. I think it's a wonderful think if it gets used. I'm just skeptical that we'll see it used in any meaningful way because of the way Maro has been answering questions about it.


It isn't so much that :c: is special mana, but it's special to be a :c: spell or permanent imho.

It's never about the mana with :c:, getting hung about generating colorless mana is a total side issue. The deal with colorless objects is that they can't also be colored, they can only be one or the other.

I know that :c::g: is harder to generate than :1::g: but when it comes to establishing the identity of :c: castables - not even Eldrazi ones, just colorless objects - including colored mana in its cost makes that object cease to be colorless. We already have ways of making colored spells harder to cast - we add more colored mana symbols.

It is, in my opinion, less about the fact that :c::g: is harder to cast as a fact, than it is as a practice and as a means of establishing why a card is what it is. Any other multicolored combination of mana symbols typically means that the card has qualities from all involved colors and is more aggressively costed because of it. Colorless mana is just overwritten when colors are introduced, and the card loses its "colorless" status entirely, so the only thing it can do is make the card arbitrarily hard to cast when the better option is probably always just going to be costing the card with double or triple mana symbols.

I hear what you are saying... but then I think about Devoid, and cards like Pact of Negation... and i'm not sure that "establishing why a card is what it is" is that big of a problem for Wizards.