Anyone ever thought about why we color and not the name of the mana
General forum
Posted on Nov. 27, 2013, 8:54 a.m. by Some1TookMyName
I mean we're tapping plains, islands, swamps, mountains, and forests to use stuff; its not that much harder than saying white, blue, black, red, green (just 1 less syllable in 3 of the 5, excluding colorless/artifact). Then I started thinking that we refer to CMC by the colors WUBGR, and what if it were PISMF, it looks like piss and the word mf stands for.
Maybe that's why
The lands are called what they are because it's flavourful and a lot more interesting than just referring to them by colour. I don't know why we refer to cards by colour instead of the land that they require to be cast. Maybe because the borders of spells are the respective colour it takes to cast them?
November 27, 2013 9:02 a.m.
fluffybunnypants says... #4
But that's just it. Mountain is a basic land type, red is the color of mana it produces. Two different things.
November 27, 2013 9:05 a.m.
Some1TookMyName says... #5
I definitely agree that having lands is better, other than the colors of lands, I wonder if it were just something people started doing or was promoted that way. either way, i wonder which came first , the lands and their designated colors or the color and their designated lands, and what were other ideas, like could mountains have been volcano or islands as sky or ocean (even though not land), or a 6th color ever considered.
November 27, 2013 9:08 a.m.
Because that's actually how the rules require us to refer to them. Enough cards specifically mention generation of say, coloured mana, regardless of the type of land that generated them (like Caged Sun ) and enough cards specifically mention tapping of a type of land rather than the colour that land will generate (like Crypt Ghast ) that it is actually important to make the distinction.
You tap a swamp for black mana. You can tap a Bayou for either black or green mana. Bayou is both a swamp and a forest. You could say of bayou "I'm tapping this forest for black mana" which you can't shorten to "I'm tapping this forest" but you -can- shorten it to "I'm tapping for black mana"
Since I can get black mana from all kinds of sources that aren't swamp-type land cards, referring to the casting cost of Victim of Night as "Two swamps" is almost never accurate. But "Two black" always is.
You could actually run Victim of Night in a deck that contained no actual swamp cards at all, so even referring to its blackness as it being "a swamp card" instead of "a black card" is also not accurate.
November 27, 2013 9:09 a.m.
Some1TookMyName says... #8
Too bad this wasn't in Q&A or I'd pick your answer Devonin. good stuff :D
November 27, 2013 9:13 a.m.
Rhadamanthus says... #10
I don't know if I can find any hard evidence to back this up, but the impression I've gotten from stories I've heard and articles I've read about the earliest playtest versions of the game is that the colors of Magic came first, characterizing the different major "factions" of the game. The names of the basic lands associated with each color were chosen by the designers and playtesters because they seemed to make the most sense at the time.
There have been a few times in Magic's history when a 6th color was considered, most recently during the design of Planar Chaos and Future Sight. The idea was always discarded because of the way it screwed up the balance of the game, and it was very difficult to figure out what the unique character of the 6th color would be and what kinds of unique effects it would be known for.
For a period of time during the design of Invasion block there was a 6th basic land type, nicknamed "Barry's Land" after one of the designers/developers. It made colorless mana, and its only purpose was to essentially make the Domain cards present in the block (Tribal Flames , Allied Strategies , Gaea's Might , etc.) "go to 11". It was eventually taken out because it made all those effects slightly too strong during playtesting.
November 27, 2013 9:58 a.m.
From my understanding. Color is determined by Casting Cost. Since land has no casting cost they are colorless permanents that 'tap' to add color specific mana, they dont tap for the name of the card.
November 27, 2013 10:11 a.m.
Some1TookMyName says... #12
Ravnica would be a mess if there was a 6th color ._.
November 27, 2013 10:13 a.m.
RussischerZar says... #13
Actually a friend of mine (that doesn't play that regularly) usually announces 'forest mana' and 'swamp mana' etc. mixed with the actual colours (he likes to play 5 color decks).
Sometimes he also says yellow mana instead of white. Rather hilarous :D
November 27, 2013 12:18 p.m.
Well, the icon is a sun. Everybody knows the sun is yellow.
November 27, 2013 12:34 p.m.
Of course, really, the proper answer to the question is we ARE using the name of the mana. Mana is only identified by its colour, and nothing else. What type of land (if any) it came from is completely ignored by the game for the purposes of identifying mana in the pool. Once it is in there, all it has is an amount and a colour.
November 27, 2013 12:37 p.m.
either way my gf still refers to it as "sun" "swampy" and "red" so yea...... lol
i think things llike search for a plains card would be heavily reworded if it was search for a white card, bc then you be grabbing any white card
November 27, 2013 12:40 p.m.
strange to refer to them by picture, name, color all 3 being different metrix.
sun, skull, flame...white, black red... plain, swamp, mountain... would make more sense
November 27, 2013 1:57 p.m.
megawurmple says... #18
If mana were referred to by the name of the card that produced it, could you theoretically add one Elvish Mystic to your mana pool? It would create a lot of confusion, such as if a card says "add one swamp to your mana pool", would you get a land? A lot of newer players stuggle with the distinction between lands and mana as is, and that system would make the problem a whole lot worse.
November 27, 2013 4:07 p.m.
HarbingerJK says... #19
thank god they didn't introduce a 6th color lol a friend of mine thought that would be cool, I wanted to slap him and say "this ain't Pokemon, bitch!"
November 27, 2013 4:52 p.m.
omnipotato says... #20
Exactly TitansFTW. I remember first learning to play and thinking that Elvish Mystic 's ability meant you had to search your deck for a "forest mana" and add it to your "mana pool," which I thought meant the place on the field where the lands were. I think they should go back to that wording on the lands themselves, like a forest would actually say "T:add G to your mana pool." It might look less appealing to look at but it would help people just starting out a lot.
Some1TookMyName says... #2
yes I know the title is messed up, I always do that :/
November 27, 2013 8:55 a.m.