Color identity is too important to just toss aside for the Devoid cards. I get you think the property means they can just go where ever, but I can't put a mountain in a deck without red CI for a reason: It does not mix flavorfully with the CI rules. But you could make the same argument about Mountain as you could with Devoid. Mountain has no intrinsic CI and the rules have to specifically add one to keep them out of non-red decks.
They do this because EDH is more about the flavor than just about any format. Things that don't 'look right' often get fixed, despite not actually breaking any current rules. Making Devoid work just because it may make sense from a game play standpoint isn't good enough to upend the flavor portion.
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
Great so you want to play without CI or Commanders. Sounds like a lot of fun, but it isn't EDH.
So 903.5d A card with a basic land type may be included in a Commander deck only if each color of mana it could produce is included in the commander’s color identity should be removed?
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
When someone asked Maro why devoid was a thing, the answer was that it was created in order to put more 'colorless' matters cards in the block while not harming the integrity of the color pie. Thus, the idea was that Eldrazi Displacer could be a relelvant card to showcase story-line purposes, and thematic consistency, while triggering color-less matters cards for the eldrazi feel, which would also works backwards with morph spells for cross set compatibility (that's why they did colorless matters, rather than eldrazi typing), while remaining mechanically white in a play style, and adhere and limit to a white color pie.
This to me sounds like a good reason to keep Devoid cards in their color identities. These were directly mechanically designed to remain within their colors and color pies.
Honestly, casting an Eldrazi Displacer in a non-white EDH deck would feel very wrong to me.
But that feeling of wrongness is also kind of the point with Eldrazi is it not, as people arguing for flavor the formless other of Eldrazi coming up where you least expect them actually seems to work well.
I just wanted to make a Kozilek deck and was bummed all his kids couldn't come along.
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
But that feeling of wrongness is also kind of the point with Eldrazi is it not, as people arguing for flavor the formless other of Eldrazi coming up where you least expect them actually seems to work well.
I just wanted to make a Kozilek deck and was bummed all his kids couldn't come along.
I get it. Thematically and flavourwise it makes sense that the Eldrazi are colorless and thus should be able to be played in a colorless deck. What is unfortunate is that the cards are designed in such a way, that the first thing people notices is the colored sympols in the mana cost. This was intentional from RnDs perspective for players to recognize that you need colored mana to cast it, while the bottom half or 75%-ish don't have a color to show their status as devoid. This first, eye-catching part of those cards will always be the first impression a player gets of the card despite it saying devoid in the rules text and as such majority will likely find it weird if those cards were classified as having colorless color identity.
I get your pain, but it is likely an uphill battle of perception of the cards, which I assume would be very hard to win. They were designed to convey this message to people in a way people understand and fighting this understanding of a message is likely not going to be succesful.
This is where you should absolutely try to "house rule" it, as many of the eldrazi aren't that powerful and likely wouldn't be minded in a deck if the flavour/theme was explained.
This is a slippery slope when you start to leave the mechanical for the flavor or design intent. Just as you can justify why devoid cards ought to be allowed outside of their respective color identity, you can justify:
Hybrid mana
Phyrexian mana
Reanimation effects
Show and Tell effects
and probably more which I can't think of at the moment. All of these things were designed with with flavor in mind or mere design intent to bypass the traditional "you need X mana to cast this spell".
This is a slippery slope when you start to leave the mechanical for the flavor or design intent. Just as you can justify why devoid cards ought to be allowed outside of their respective color identity, you can justify:
Hybrid mana
Phyrexian mana
Reanimation effects
Show and Tell effects
and probably more which I can't think of at the moment. All of these things were designed with with flavor in mind or mere design intent to bypass the traditional "you need X mana to cast this spell".
It is actually worth noting that Maro and Sheldon disagree on hybrid manas color identity in commander. Maro says that hybrid mana does things inside the color pie that eiether part could do and as such should be allowed eg. a G/R hybrid mana should be able to be played in a mono green or mono red deck. Sheldon and I assume the RC disagrees with this. This is not to start a discussion, but rather a fun fact regarding hybrid mana.
It is actually worth noting that Maro and Sheldon disagree on hybrid manas color identity in commander. Maro says that hybrid mana does things inside the color pie that eiether part could do and as such should be allowed eg. a G/R hybrid mana should be able to be played in a mono green or mono red deck. Sheldon and I assume the RC disagrees with this. This is not to start a discussion, but rather a fun fact regarding hybrid mana.
I don't think Sheldon disagrees with MaRo on that. I think the RC has just drawn a line in the sand on how to define color identity in a manner that is the most consistent and clearest to grok.
It is actually worth noting that Maro and Sheldon disagree on hybrid manas color identity in commander. Maro says that hybrid mana does things inside the color pie that eiether part could do and as such should be allowed eg. a G/R hybrid mana should be able to be played in a mono green or mono red deck. Sheldon and I assume the RC disagrees with this. This is not to start a discussion, but rather a fun fact regarding hybrid mana.
I don't think Sheldon disagrees with MaRo on that. I think the RC has just drawn a line in the sand on how to define color identity in a manner that is the most consistent and clearest to grok.
I think having hybrid mana work in EDH like it does in real magic is easier to grok. It's not really a question with a clean answer as both sides have a point.
I think having hybrid mana work in EDH like it does in real magic is easier to grok. It's not really a question with a clean answer as both sides have a point.
At the risk of beating a dead horse that I know we've both gone through, why?
As I understand it, "groking it" means it is easier because hybrid is meant to be a spell which is castable by different methods. It does not change the color of the card as it is being cast, nor the color of the card while it is in any zone. Compare this to Phyrexian mana or twobrid cards. I could have replaced hybrid with either of those and the sentence would have been just as true. But yet for some reason people in this thread have acted like I'm the biggest idiot for daring to think such a thing.
I think having hybrid mana work in EDH like it does in real magic is easier to grok. It's not really a question with a clean answer as both sides have a point.
At the risk of beating a dead horse that I know we've both gone through, why?
As I understand it, "groking it" means it is easier because hybrid is meant to be a spell which is castable by different methods. It does not change the color of the card as it is being cast, nor the color of the card while it is in any zone. Compare this to Phyrexian mana or twobrid cards. I could have replaced hybrid with either of those and the sentence would have been just as true. But yet for some reason people in this thread have acted like I'm the biggest idiot for daring to think such a thing.
Honestly we'll just end up going in circles. I personally don't have much of an opinion on the matter anymore as it's been discussed to death.
I'm of the opinion that hybrid cards should be allowed in any deck that can run the colors, but if they were to make that a thing in EDH, a re-implementation of Rule 4 would have to come with it, maybe even change it a little so that the C cards aren't as easy to use.
I think having hybrid mana work in EDH like it does in real magic is easier to grok. It's not really a question with a clean answer as both sides have a point.
At the risk of beating a dead horse that I know we've both gone through, why?
As I understand it, "groking it" means it is easier because hybrid is meant to be a spell which is castable by different methods. It does not change the color of the card as it is being cast, nor the color of the card while it is in any zone. Compare this to Phyrexian mana or twobrid cards. I could have replaced hybrid with either of those and the sentence would have been just as true. But yet for some reason people in this thread have acted like I'm the biggest idiot for daring to think such a thing.
I'm another one who's also quite sick of going round in circles around this topic (I briefly thought of the chain of arguments and my mind "self-regulated-slapped" itself almost immediately for thinking that).
So instead of the typical long arguments I put about how a hybrid card is still mechanically two-colored and so on... let's put it this way:
I see Color Identity as the sum of all the parts of Mana Symbols (that are on the text, not including reminder text) and Color Indicators on a card. It can only be a sum and therefore cannot be "subtracted" by anything that would reduce the color(s) of a card, be it the flexibility of the mana cost, the uselessness of the ability in the text box, or devoid.
Well, put this way, it does sort of feel like a "large inflexible block of a rule", but it also feels simple and elegant (two sides of the same block), the way the Committee likes the rules of the format to be defined.
I think having hybrid mana work in EDH like it does in real magic is easier to grok. It's not really a question with a clean answer as both sides have a point.
At the risk of beating a dead horse that I know we've both gone through, why?
As I understand it, "groking it" means it is easier because hybrid is meant to be a spell which is castable by different methods. It does not change the color of the card as it is being cast, nor the color of the card while it is in any zone. Compare this to Phyrexian mana or twobrid cards. I could have replaced hybrid with either of those and the sentence would have been just as true. But yet for some reason people in this thread have acted like I'm the biggest idiot for daring to think such a thing.
I'm another one who's also quite sick of going round in circles around this topic (I briefly thought of the chain of arguments and my mind "self-regulated-slapped" itself almost immediately for thinking that).
So instead of the typical long arguments I put about how a hybrid card is still mechanically two-colored and so on... let's put it this way:
I see Color Identity as the sum of all the parts of Mana Symbols (that are on the text, not including reminder text) and Color Indicators on a card. It can only be a sum and therefore cannot be "subtracted" by anything that would reduce the color(s) of a card, be it the flexibility of the mana cost, the uselessness of the ability in the text box, or devoid.
Well, put this way, it does sort of feel like a "large inflexible block of a rule", but it also feels simple and elegant (two sides of the same block), the way the Committee likes the rules of the format to be defined.
To be honest I don't really care much about it myself, but I am not certain what the drawback would be other than granting certain colors a few extra cards to play with, besides being sticky with the rules.
To be honest I don't really care much about it myself, but I am not certain what the drawback would be other than granting certain colors a few extra cards to play with, besides being sticky with the rules.
For me, the drawback is that Commander has a clean rule which gives it a unique twist and flavor, one which can be seen just by looking at a playing field. In addition to the mess I discussed above, you lose that visual aspect. Plus, Wizards is constantly designing new ways to bend the way color works, so changing the rule not only leaves the RC wide open for a barrage of "why this but not that" questions, but there is no way of knowing what the future holds.
I have been thinking about it and I think Devoid should overwrite the symbols in the corner of the card in terms of commander color identity. It doesn't make any logical sense in my head that those cards are not colorless, especially with the change to how mana production works in Commander around that time.
To be honest I don't really care much about it myself, but I am not certain what the drawback would be other than granting certain colors a few extra cards to play with, besides being sticky with the rules.
For me, the drawback is that Commander has a clean rule which gives it a unique twist and flavor, one which can be seen just by looking at a playing field. In addition to the mess I discussed above, you lose that visual aspect. Plus, Wizards is constantly designing new ways to bend the way color works, so changing the rule not only leaves the RC wide open for a barrage of "why this but not that" questions, but there is no way of knowing what the future holds.
I am all about the flavour argument (Personaly like the visual aspect) and the restrictions this imparts on the player (Restrictions breed creativity), but I still think this is a case of us being sticklers about this rule. As I said I don't acre much about it myself, but like the visual aspect of it, which is also why I am A-ok with them only allowing on-color fetches as a possible rule to come. Even though a card like Wooded foothills don't have any mana symbols on it, then it is still color coded with half of it being red and the other green, which to me, ruins the whole visual cohesion and fidelity otherwise. As long as we allow this I don't think adding hybrid mana would be that far fetched, but again, don't care enough about it to start a riot.
The other big thing this change would solve is my personal pet peeve with the format. Hybrid cards have both mana symbols on them, meaning that you can't play a hybrid card unless you are playing both of its colors. This annoys me, as the entire point of hybrid cards was that they represented an "or" state rather than an "and" state. A mono-white deck in another format can play the card Mirrorweave. Why, then, can't a white commander?
I don't see why hybrid (as the bigger picture) gets compromised by the cards you mentioned. Color identity is one thing but Hybrid should be argued on its own. It should have its own standing.
Never quote MaRo on Commander. The man only cares about the format inasmuch as his bosses force him to because it makes Wizards money, and he only plays the format inasmuch as he assists in testing the precons. That's it.
Hell, the man doesn't even like multiplayer with regular decks. Why would he like a format specifically designed for multiplayer?
Does MaRo even help with any of the Commander sets, though? I don't recall ever seeing his name on any of the credits for a Commander set. I'm having trouble looking up the C13 and C11 announcements now because I'm at work, but he doesn't show up on C14 or C15.
Color identity is too important to just toss aside for the Devoid cards. I get you think the property means they can just go where ever, but I can't put a mountain in a deck without red CI for a reason: It does not mix flavorfully with the CI rules. But you could make the same argument about Mountain as you could with Devoid. Mountain has no intrinsic CI and the rules have to specifically add one to keep them out of non-red decks.
They do this because EDH is more about the flavor than just about any format. Things that don't 'look right' often get fixed, despite not actually breaking any current rules. Making Devoid work just because it may make sense from a game play standpoint isn't good enough to upend the flavor portion.
So 903.5d A card with a basic land type may be included in a Commander deck only if each color of mana it could produce is included in the commander’s color identity should be removed?
This to me sounds like a good reason to keep Devoid cards in their color identities. These were directly mechanically designed to remain within their colors and color pies.
Honestly, casting an Eldrazi Displacer in a non-white EDH deck would feel very wrong to me.
Retired EDH - Tibor and Lumia | [PR]Nemata |Ramirez dePietro | [C]Edric | Riku | Jenara | Lazav | Heliod | Daxos | Roon | Kozilek
I just wanted to make a Kozilek deck and was bummed all his kids couldn't come along.
I get it. Thematically and flavourwise it makes sense that the Eldrazi are colorless and thus should be able to be played in a colorless deck. What is unfortunate is that the cards are designed in such a way, that the first thing people notices is the colored sympols in the mana cost. This was intentional from RnDs perspective for players to recognize that you need colored mana to cast it, while the bottom half or 75%-ish don't have a color to show their status as devoid. This first, eye-catching part of those cards will always be the first impression a player gets of the card despite it saying devoid in the rules text and as such majority will likely find it weird if those cards were classified as having colorless color identity.
I get your pain, but it is likely an uphill battle of perception of the cards, which I assume would be very hard to win. They were designed to convey this message to people in a way people understand and fighting this understanding of a message is likely not going to be succesful.
This is where you should absolutely try to "house rule" it, as many of the eldrazi aren't that powerful and likely wouldn't be minded in a deck if the flavour/theme was explained.
Hybrid mana
Phyrexian mana
Reanimation effects
Show and Tell effects
and probably more which I can't think of at the moment. All of these things were designed with with flavor in mind or mere design intent to bypass the traditional "you need X mana to cast this spell".
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
It is actually worth noting that Maro and Sheldon disagree on hybrid manas color identity in commander. Maro says that hybrid mana does things inside the color pie that eiether part could do and as such should be allowed eg. a G/R hybrid mana should be able to be played in a mono green or mono red deck. Sheldon and I assume the RC disagrees with this. This is not to start a discussion, but rather a fun fact regarding hybrid mana.
I don't think Sheldon disagrees with MaRo on that. I think the RC has just drawn a line in the sand on how to define color identity in a manner that is the most consistent and clearest to grok.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
I think having hybrid mana work in EDH like it does in real magic is easier to grok. It's not really a question with a clean answer as both sides have a point.
At the risk of beating a dead horse that I know we've both gone through, why?
As I understand it, "groking it" means it is easier because hybrid is meant to be a spell which is castable by different methods. It does not change the color of the card as it is being cast, nor the color of the card while it is in any zone. Compare this to Phyrexian mana or twobrid cards. I could have replaced hybrid with either of those and the sentence would have been just as true. But yet for some reason people in this thread have acted like I'm the biggest idiot for daring to think such a thing.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Honestly we'll just end up going in circles. I personally don't have much of an opinion on the matter anymore as it's been discussed to death.
I'm another one who's also quite sick of going round in circles around this topic (I briefly thought of the chain of arguments and my mind "self-regulated-slapped" itself almost immediately for thinking that).
So instead of the typical long arguments I put about how a hybrid card is still mechanically two-colored and so on... let's put it this way:
I see Color Identity as the sum of all the parts of Mana Symbols (that are on the text, not including reminder text) and Color Indicators on a card. It can only be a sum and therefore cannot be "subtracted" by anything that would reduce the color(s) of a card, be it the flexibility of the mana cost, the uselessness of the ability in the text box, or devoid.
Well, put this way, it does sort of feel like a "large inflexible block of a rule", but it also feels simple and elegant (two sides of the same block), the way the Committee likes the rules of the format to be defined.
To be honest I don't really care much about it myself, but I am not certain what the drawback would be other than granting certain colors a few extra cards to play with, besides being sticky with the rules.
For me, the drawback is that Commander has a clean rule which gives it a unique twist and flavor, one which can be seen just by looking at a playing field. In addition to the mess I discussed above, you lose that visual aspect. Plus, Wizards is constantly designing new ways to bend the way color works, so changing the rule not only leaves the RC wide open for a barrage of "why this but not that" questions, but there is no way of knowing what the future holds.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
Ah, but those cards count towards Devotion and Chroma. Eldrazi Displacer benefits from Light from Within, and Catacomb Sifter adds B to your Gray Merchant of Asphodel trigger. The colours in their CMCs contribute to their colour identities, in spite of any abilities in their text box.
I am all about the flavour argument (Personaly like the visual aspect) and the restrictions this imparts on the player (Restrictions breed creativity), but I still think this is a case of us being sticklers about this rule. As I said I don't acre much about it myself, but like the visual aspect of it, which is also why I am A-ok with them only allowing on-color fetches as a possible rule to come. Even though a card like Wooded foothills don't have any mana symbols on it, then it is still color coded with half of it being red and the other green, which to me, ruins the whole visual cohesion and fidelity otherwise. As long as we allow this I don't think adding hybrid mana would be that far fetched, but again, don't care enough about it to start a riot.
Does MaRo even help with any of the Commander sets, though? I don't recall ever seeing his name on any of the credits for a Commander set. I'm having trouble looking up the C13 and C11 announcements now because I'm at work, but he doesn't show up on C14 or C15.
EDH Decks:
G Jugan
U Budget Jalira Battlecruiser