I've always assumed that because Forest can tap for green mana, that its color identity is green. Upon further reflection, I'm beginning to doubt that assumption.
Quote from Official Commander Rules »
A card's colour identity is its colour plus the colour of any mana symbols in the card's rules text.
As far as I am aware, this is the only criteria for determining the color identity of a card. I've bolded the "rules text" portion of the rule above for emphasis because I am aware that cards with colored symbols in their reminder text do not affect color identity. This is why Crypt Ghast is a legal card in the Sworn to Darkness preconstructed deck; the hybrid mana symbol doesn't influence color identity while it's between parentheses. By the same token, wouldn't cards like Badlands also have no color identity? Even though the examples listed on the official Commander rules page explicitly state that Badlands is an illegal inclusion in a Phelddagrif deck, the Gatherer page for Badlands reveals its mana ability to rest between two parentheses, implying that it is reminder text and not actually rules text, thus not influencing its color identity. A Gatherer search for Forest reveals its rules text to be "G," whatever that means.
Badlands isn't the only land written this way though. Overgrown Tomb, Sapseep Forest, and Murmuring Bosk all have mana abilities written in reminder text. Murmuring Bosk is especially interesting to look at because its other mana ability (T: Add W or B...) isn't written in reminder text, only the ability which taps for green is. From these cards I deduced that lands with basic land types tap for colors not because they explicitly state "T: Add color to your mana pool," but because they contain the basic land type. This also helps explain why Prismatic Omen allows a player's lands to tap for any color of mana. If such is the case though, shouldn't Forest and its ilk technically have no color identity?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WUBRGMr. Bones' Wild RideGRBUW Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
From what you quoted from the rules, cards have the color identity of their color plus the color of any mana symbols in their rules text. So lands are colorless, except dryad arbor which is green. All cards have a color identity.
However, if a land has a basic land type, it has the rules text "tap: add 1 mana to your mana pool." That's one of the rules of the game. That's why murmuring boss doesn't have a printed line that says it can tap for green. The rules say because it's a forest, it has that rules text.
so a badlands has the basic land types of mountain and swamp, so there are two lines of rules text in it, which have a red and a black mana symbol on it. Therefore, its color identity is red and black.
305.6. The basic land types are Plains, Island, Swamp, Mountain, and Forest. If an object uses the
words “basic land type,” it’s referring to one of these subtypes. A land with a basic land type has
the intrinsic ability “{T}: Add [mana symbol] to your mana pool,” even if the text box doesn’t
actually contain that text or the object has no text box. For Plains, [mana symbol] is {W}; for
Islands, {U}; for Swamps, {B}; for Mountains, {R}; and for Forests, {G}.
An intrinsic ability is assumed to be rules text even when it isn't printed on the card. Shocks have the intrinsic ability listed out in reminder text, but it is still an ability the card has; the same way a creature with vigilance has "Attacking doesn't cause this creature to tap," even though that particular phrase might only be in reminder text if at all. So a Forest is a colourless card/permanent with green colour identity.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A polite player might call my card choices "interesting." At my budget, "interesting" is the only option.
Basic land types don't actually add rules text, note that in the oracle is in parenthesis on the non-basics with basic land types(because its just reminder text), and the oracle text for forest etc. is listed as just the mana symbol, tapping for mana is just an intrinsic ability of them not actually rules text. So basics, baseline, have colorless identity. Murmuring Bosk has a color identity of WB.
However, commander makes an exception for that, requiring that lands with basic land types can only be in your deck if they produce mana in your commanders identity.
An intrinsic ability is assumed to be rules text even when it isn't printed on the card.
No, it isn't. That's why rule 903.5d is needed.
There's actually a discrepancy between how the comprehensive rules and mtgcommander.net rules (which are quoted in the OP) handle cards with basic land types with respect to commander deckbuilding. You are correct that the comprehensive rules handle it using a special rule regarding basic lands, but mtgcommander.net handles it differently, treating the intrinsic ability as though it affects color identity.
If the OP had clicked "Details" for the rule they quoted, they would have found this:
Quote from mtgcommander.net »
Lands whose type includes swamp, island, plains, forest and/or mountain (e.g.: basic lands, shocklands, dual lands, Shadowmoor special-basics, etc) DO contain the corresponding mana symbol(s) as per CR 305.6. As such, while they are "colourless" they do have a colour identity and may not appear in a deck unless the Commander is of the appropriate identity.
Even if that isn't fully accurate from a pedantic reading of the comprehensive rules and the specific wording of the color identity definition, it makes it quite clear how they're defining color identity and what decks cards with basic land types can be included in.
If the OP had clicked "Details" for the rule they quoted, they would have found this:
Quote from mtgcommander.net »
Lands whose type includes swamp, island, plains, forest and/or mountain (e.g.: basic lands, shocklands, dual lands, Shadowmoor special-basics, etc) DO contain the corresponding mana symbol(s) as per CR 305.6. As such, while they are "colourless" they do have a colour identity and may not appear in a deck unless the Commander is of the appropriate identity.
Well, that's... embarrassing. Thanks for pointing this out to me.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WUBRGMr. Bones' Wild RideGRBUW Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
There's actually a discrepancy between how the comprehensive rules and mtgcommander.net rules (which are quoted in the OP) handle cards with basic land types with respect to commander deckbuilding. You are correct that the comprehensive rules handle it using a special rule regarding basic lands, but mtgcommander.net handles it differently, treating the intrinsic ability as though it affects color identity.
That portion of the mtgcommander.net website has not been updated since before the original Commander precons were released and the Commander rules were added to the CR. (I remember actually looking it up on the internet archive once.) At the time it was written on the website, 305.6 was the only means to handle basic lands, shocklands, and the original duals. (And Murmuring Bosk, which would otherwise be usable in a WB deck.) Now that specific rules for the situation have been added to the CR (903.5d), they are the correct rules to cite. Basic lands have a colorless identity, and the only thing restricting them from being put into arbitrary Commander decks is 903.5d.
In addition to what Lithl said, the relevant changes for the Commander format are always updated in the CR update immediately following the changes. As mentioned by various Wizards employees in several of their posts on the Wizards forums, aside from cases for which the CR has no answer, the CR is the ultimate authority for rules regarding the game.
Non-Wizards sites cannot be assumed to be regularly updated, and so cannot be the ultimate authority for game rules.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How to use card tags (please use them for everybody's sanity)
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format Minimum deck size: 60 Maximum number of identical cards: 4 Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
Basic lands have a colorless identity, and the only thing restricting them from being put into arbitrary Commander decks is 903.5d.
The problem with this type of pedantic argument is that it ignores the point of the rules. Commander has a special color identity rule, which is used solely to determine what cards can be put into which decks in that format. Whether a card with a basic land type has a color identity influenced by that type or not is irrelevant; the only thing that matters is what decks they can be included in.
It doesn't matter whether you say Mountain has a colorless color identity or a red one; nothing cares about it and it's unambiguous that you can only include it in a deck whose commander has red in its color identity.
Basic lands have a colorless identity, and the only thing restricting them from being put into arbitrary Commander decks is 903.5d.
The problem with this type of pedantic argument is that it ignores the point of the rules. Commander has a special color identity rule, which is used solely to determine what cards can be put into which decks in that format. Whether a card with a basic land type has a color identity influenced by that type or not is irrelevant; the only thing that matters is what decks they can be included in.
It doesn't matter whether you say Mountain has a colorless color identity or a red one; nothing cares about it and it's unambiguous that you can only include it in a deck whose commander has red in its color identity.
As illustrated by the fact that the rules forum continues to get questions about it years after the rule was created, it is not unambiguous to the Hypothetical Average User. It may seem intuitive that a Forest can only go into a green deck (and I'm sure that's intended), but it's also intuitive that Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth can only go into a black deck, which is incorrect. (Urborg + Kormus Bell is perfectly legal in an Elesh Norn, Grand Cenobite Commander deck.) There will also always be cases like someone wanting to try running Wild Nacatl in a mono-green deck and getting the bonus without relying on Prismatic Omen.
And, as this is the rules forum, it is important that when the Comprehensive Rules are cited, the correct CR is cited. In this case, 903.5d is the correct rule, and 305.6 is not. Prior to the creation of 903.5d, the EDH website made use of 305.6 as the most correct rule then in existence to determine deck construction with lands having basic land types, but that is no longer the case, and the rules on the website have not been updated on that point since.
As illustrated by the fact that the rules forum continues to get questions about it years after the rule was created, it is not unambiguous to the Hypothetical Average User.
Unambiguity isn't a subjective measurement. It is unambiguous because both the comprehensive rules and the rules on the official Commander site yield the same answer regarding which decks cards with basic land types can be included in.
It may seem intuitive that ...
Intuitiveness doesn't have anything to do with ambiguity. Again, the comprehensive rules and the Commander site both yield the same answers to your examples, with no room for misinterpretation.
Prior to the creation of 903.5d, the EDH website made use of 305.6 as the most correct rule then in existence to determine deck construction with lands having basic land types, but that is no longer the case, and the rules on the website have not been updated on that point since.
The rules on that site have, however, been updated as a whole (most recently in March of this year); have you considered that the fact that what apparently seems to you to be a glaring error hasn't been changed may in fact be evidence that it is not considered erroneous by the commander rules committee?
Moreover, consider the problem of origin. 903.5d restricts what decks a card with a basic land type can be included in. Why? Because that line of text in the comprehensive rules says so? The issue is that 903.5d and the provision I quoted previously from the Commander site are both expressions of the same rule, and it simply makes no sense to say something along the lines of "This is a rule for Commander, as per the rules for Commander," in a rules document for Commander.
As illustrated by the fact that the rules forum continues to get questions about it years after the rule was created, it is not unambiguous to the Hypothetical Average User.
Unambiguity isn't a subjective measurement. It is unambiguous because both the comprehensive rules and the rules on the official Commander site yield the same answer regarding which decks cards with basic land types can be included in.
While the result of the application of both rules is unambiguous, what remains ambiguous to what Lithl states as the hypothetical average user is which rule is the one with any official meaning. Because there are tow different rules that give the same end result, one of which is on the CR and one of which is not, one of them has to be non-official and carry no enforcement.
Prior to the creation of 903.5d, the EDH website made use of 305.6 as the most correct rule then in existence to determine deck construction with lands having basic land types, but that is no longer the case, and the rules on the website have not been updated on that point since.
The rules on that site have, however, been updated as a whole (most recently in March of this year); have you considered that the fact that what apparently seems to you to be a glaring error hasn't been changed may in fact be evidence that it is not considered erroneous by the commander rules committee?
While the Commander rules committee may not view the rule on their site as erroneous, that doesn't automatically mean that it isn't erroneous, even if those on the Commander rules committee are responsible for updating that page. As far as which rule actually enforces the deckbuilding restriction is concerned, the rule cited on the Commander rules page is incorrect.
Moreover, consider the problem of origin. 903.5d restricts what decks a card with a basic land type can be included in. Why? Because that line of text in the comprehensive rules says so? The issue is that 903.5d and the provision I quoted previously from the Commander site are both expressions of the same rule
They are not expressions of the same rule. The CR-relevant rule that's being quoted talks about basic land cards being ineligible in certain Commander decks due to the colors of mana they can tap for, whereas the MTGC-relevant rule that's being quoted talks about basic land cards being ineligible in certain Commander decks because their intrinsic mana abilities seemingly mean that the mana symbol exists in the rules text. The two rules note different reasons for basic land cards being ineligible in certain decks.
The conclusion of the MTGC rule is the same as that of the CR rule, but the methodology that is used is incorrect. The MTGC rule's methodology is wrong due to CR 108.1, where we know a card's Oracle text by looking on Gatherer. This incorrect methodology used by the MTGC rule cannot be disputed. It would be ridiculous to only consider the MTGC rules in isolation, and so we consider the union of the MTGC rules and the CR. But if we do so, pair-wise inconsistencies between CR rules and MTGC rules start to occur.
This also applies to the Commander "replacement effect" as well. I've inquired on this several times, and the only answer I've been given is that "the rules writers are able to write whatever they want on the rules page", but that justification neither means that the rules posted there are necessarily consistent or correct.
---
Ultimately, however, it's the result of the rule in question that matters. Since up to this point, there are no cases where the distinction between basic land cards being able to tap for a color of mana and basic land cards having a certain color of mana symbol in its rules text matters, the consequences the respective rules give rise to can be considered to be synonymous. Once the distinction exists, the CR will get updated to accommodate that distinction (and MTGC's likely won't until after a certain delay).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How to use card tags (please use them for everybody's sanity)
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format Minimum deck size: 60 Maximum number of identical cards: 4 Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
Lands are colorless unless something makes them otherwise(Dryad Arbor, Life and Limb). This thread is about color identity which is different than color. Bosh, Iron Golem is colorless but has a red color identity(because he has R in his oracle text.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I've always assumed that because Forest can tap for green mana, that its color identity is green. Upon further reflection, I'm beginning to doubt that assumption.
As far as I am aware, this is the only criteria for determining the color identity of a card. I've bolded the "rules text" portion of the rule above for emphasis because I am aware that cards with colored symbols in their reminder text do not affect color identity. This is why Crypt Ghast is a legal card in the Sworn to Darkness preconstructed deck; the hybrid mana symbol doesn't influence color identity while it's between parentheses. By the same token, wouldn't cards like Badlands also have no color identity? Even though the examples listed on the official Commander rules page explicitly state that Badlands is an illegal inclusion in a Phelddagrif deck, the Gatherer page for Badlands reveals its mana ability to rest between two parentheses, implying that it is reminder text and not actually rules text, thus not influencing its color identity. A Gatherer search for Forest reveals its rules text to be "G," whatever that means.
Badlands isn't the only land written this way though. Overgrown Tomb, Sapseep Forest, and Murmuring Bosk all have mana abilities written in reminder text. Murmuring Bosk is especially interesting to look at because its other mana ability (T: Add W or B...) isn't written in reminder text, only the ability which taps for green is. From these cards I deduced that lands with basic land types tap for colors not because they explicitly state "T: Add color to your mana pool," but because they contain the basic land type. This also helps explain why Prismatic Omen allows a player's lands to tap for any color of mana. If such is the case though, shouldn't Forest and its ilk technically have no color identity?
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
However, if a land has a basic land type, it has the rules text "tap: add 1 mana to your mana pool." That's one of the rules of the game. That's why murmuring boss doesn't have a printed line that says it can tap for green. The rules say because it's a forest, it has that rules text.
so a badlands has the basic land types of mountain and swamp, so there are two lines of rules text in it, which have a red and a black mana symbol on it. Therefore, its color identity is red and black.
An intrinsic ability is assumed to be rules text even when it isn't printed on the card. Shocks have the intrinsic ability listed out in reminder text, but it is still an ability the card has; the same way a creature with vigilance has "Attacking doesn't cause this creature to tap," even though that particular phrase might only be in reminder text if at all. So a Forest is a colourless card/permanent with green colour identity.
However, commander makes an exception for that, requiring that lands with basic land types can only be in your deck if they produce mana in your commanders identity.
There's actually a discrepancy between how the comprehensive rules and mtgcommander.net rules (which are quoted in the OP) handle cards with basic land types with respect to commander deckbuilding. You are correct that the comprehensive rules handle it using a special rule regarding basic lands, but mtgcommander.net handles it differently, treating the intrinsic ability as though it affects color identity.
If the OP had clicked "Details" for the rule they quoted, they would have found this:
Even if that isn't fully accurate from a pedantic reading of the comprehensive rules and the specific wording of the color identity definition, it makes it quite clear how they're defining color identity and what decks cards with basic land types can be included in.
Well, that's... embarrassing. Thanks for pointing this out to me.
Trap your friends in an endless game with this 23-card combo!
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Non-Wizards sites cannot be assumed to be regularly updated, and so cannot be the ultimate authority for game rules.
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format
Minimum deck size: 60
Maximum number of identical cards: 4
Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
The problem with this type of pedantic argument is that it ignores the point of the rules. Commander has a special color identity rule, which is used solely to determine what cards can be put into which decks in that format. Whether a card with a basic land type has a color identity influenced by that type or not is irrelevant; the only thing that matters is what decks they can be included in.
It doesn't matter whether you say Mountain has a colorless color identity or a red one; nothing cares about it and it's unambiguous that you can only include it in a deck whose commander has red in its color identity.
And, as this is the rules forum, it is important that when the Comprehensive Rules are cited, the correct CR is cited. In this case, 903.5d is the correct rule, and 305.6 is not. Prior to the creation of 903.5d, the EDH website made use of 305.6 as the most correct rule then in existence to determine deck construction with lands having basic land types, but that is no longer the case, and the rules on the website have not been updated on that point since.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Unambiguity isn't a subjective measurement. It is unambiguous because both the comprehensive rules and the rules on the official Commander site yield the same answer regarding which decks cards with basic land types can be included in.
Intuitiveness doesn't have anything to do with ambiguity. Again, the comprehensive rules and the Commander site both yield the same answers to your examples, with no room for misinterpretation.
The rules on that site have, however, been updated as a whole (most recently in March of this year); have you considered that the fact that what apparently seems to you to be a glaring error hasn't been changed may in fact be evidence that it is not considered erroneous by the commander rules committee?
Moreover, consider the problem of origin. 903.5d restricts what decks a card with a basic land type can be included in. Why? Because that line of text in the comprehensive rules says so? The issue is that 903.5d and the provision I quoted previously from the Commander site are both expressions of the same rule, and it simply makes no sense to say something along the lines of "This is a rule for Commander, as per the rules for Commander," in a rules document for Commander.
While the result of the application of both rules is unambiguous, what remains ambiguous to what Lithl states as the hypothetical average user is which rule is the one with any official meaning. Because there are tow different rules that give the same end result, one of which is on the CR and one of which is not, one of them has to be non-official and carry no enforcement.
While the Commander rules committee may not view the rule on their site as erroneous, that doesn't automatically mean that it isn't erroneous, even if those on the Commander rules committee are responsible for updating that page. As far as which rule actually enforces the deckbuilding restriction is concerned, the rule cited on the Commander rules page is incorrect.
They are not expressions of the same rule. The CR-relevant rule that's being quoted talks about basic land cards being ineligible in certain Commander decks due to the colors of mana they can tap for, whereas the MTGC-relevant rule that's being quoted talks about basic land cards being ineligible in certain Commander decks because their intrinsic mana abilities seemingly mean that the mana symbol exists in the rules text. The two rules note different reasons for basic land cards being ineligible in certain decks.
The conclusion of the MTGC rule is the same as that of the CR rule, but the methodology that is used is incorrect. The MTGC rule's methodology is wrong due to CR 108.1, where we know a card's Oracle text by looking on Gatherer. This incorrect methodology used by the MTGC rule cannot be disputed. It would be ridiculous to only consider the MTGC rules in isolation, and so we consider the union of the MTGC rules and the CR. But if we do so, pair-wise inconsistencies between CR rules and MTGC rules start to occur.
This also applies to the Commander "replacement effect" as well. I've inquired on this several times, and the only answer I've been given is that "the rules writers are able to write whatever they want on the rules page", but that justification neither means that the rules posted there are necessarily consistent or correct.
---
Ultimately, however, it's the result of the rule in question that matters. Since up to this point, there are no cases where the distinction between basic land cards being able to tap for a color of mana and basic land cards having a certain color of mana symbol in its rules text matters, the consequences the respective rules give rise to can be considered to be synonymous. Once the distinction exists, the CR will get updated to accommodate that distinction (and MTGC's likely won't until after a certain delay).
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format
Minimum deck size: 60
Maximum number of identical cards: 4
Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall