Colourless is very clearly colourless and therefore not a colour. MaRo even says so himself.
It's an extra cost like colours but isn't a colour because it's colourless.
Even though I know this is the official stance, I still don't agree.
You can create an entire deck that uses nothing but colorless cards, using lands that generate nothing but colorless mana. While it doesn't get an official piece of the color pie, and is officially "not" a color, for all intents and purposes, it may as well be.
except the only cards that will ever require
is Kozilek's Brood. calling
a color is the same as trying to call
a color
back on topic though, Pain Lands are generally better then Check Lands. UNLESS your deck already has fetch and shock lands (see
Misty Rainforest and
Breeding Pool)
I should point out that this discussion has been going on since well before
was a thing, when "colorless" wasn't defined the way it is now and was synonymous with generic colorless mana (
).
Again, it is possible to create a deck running nothing but "generic colorless" cards, running lands that produce nothing but "generic colorless" mana.
As I said, it doesn't get an official piece of the color pie, and I understand that, because it isn't a color (which is why things with generic colorless costs can be payed with any color, and generic colorless itself isn't specifically needed to cast cards with generic colorless costs).
The fact that there are such a large amount of "generic colorless" cards out there (enough so that you could create multiple entire decks, including land bases) means that we have to at least be willing to consider their existence sort of like a pseudo-color, even if they don't entirely function as such.