The more I play Commander, the more I believe that the color identity rule is the biggest problem in the format. The more colors you have access to, the better your deck will be, and there's no real downside. This is especially true for monocolored commanders; the difference between one and two colors is enormous. Because of this arbitrary imbalance, I'm arguing for the removal of the color identity rule entirely.
Let's talk about Jalira, Master Polymorphist, who I think is a good example of a handicapped commander. Jalira is by no means a bad commander, but being monoblue, she limits you to the same boring blue leviathans and giant golems. Wouldn't it be better if I could just play red Dragons and black Demons? "Well, of course," you might say. "But that's how commander works. That's the drawback of picking a monoblue general."
"Drawback!?" I say, incredulously.
Doesn't it seem weird to you that Jalira would be a much better commander if she cost 2GU? In normal Magic, being multicolored is a drawback because it means fewer decks can support that card. So in normal Magic, Rashmi, Eternities Crafter can only be played in decks that support at least both green and blue, while in commander, Rashmi restricts you to the cards that are no more than green and blue. In normal Magic, monocolored cards are flexible, only adding one color to the set of colors you have to support in your deck. In exchange, monocolored cards are usually narrower and relatively less powerful. But in Commander, we invert the superset-subset, or producer-consumer relationship, and all of a sudden, that "flexible" monocolored card you picked as your general made your color support extremely limited! Not only that, but you're probably working with a less interesting, less versatile commander. Meanwhile, the (generally speaking) more interesting, more powerful, and more versatile commanders, which in normal Magic would impose harsh deckbuilding restrictions, lend themselves to the most powerful commander decks!
Limiting color access can be a a way to rein in the power of a deck, but having those limitations based on the color of the commander seems like a weird way to do that, since there's a direct relationship between the number of colors a card is and its relative power level. If there was an inverse relationship, this would make sense (but then it wouldn't work in normal Magic, where being multicolored is a drawback). There's no reason Child of Alara "deserves" access to every color and Jalira doesn't. There's nothing to offset the disadvantage you work with by building around a monocolored general.
Now it's true that the more colors you support, the more difficult your manabase is to manage. But I'm not talking about five-color decks, necessarily; I'm mostly talking about the jump from one to two colors. The cost/benefit ratio of adding a second color to your deck is HUGE. Every color has weak spots, but color pairs generally don't have any big ones. The third, fourth, and fifth colors you add may deliver diminishing returns, but splashing a color or two won't screw up your manabase much at all. And a budget four-color manabase isn't that difficult, as the 2016 precons show. And anyway, EDH is generally about casting huge threats and game-altering effects, so you're probably going to be ramping. And it's not too hard to color-fix while you ramp.
I agree that making a monocolored deck workable can be a fun challenge. But you know what's also a fun challenge? Building a Minotaur tribal deck around Neheb, the Worthy. I want my deckbuilding challenges to be more like that, rather than, "Here's this really cool general, too bad most of the interesting effects that synergize with it are totally off limits because they're in a different color. Guess you're gonna have to get creative!" Maybe if around 10% of the available generals were restricted to one color, that would be cool and interesting. But over 60% of them are monocolored. Obviously there are some monocolored commanders that are very powerful, but so many are at a significant disadvantage, especially if they're red, or to a lesser extent, white. Again, the challenge of working within your color identity can be enjoyable, but you don't really get anything out of it other than playing the commander that you want. That might sound tautological, but what I mean is, if I really want to play Odric, Lunarch Tactician, and my friend really wants to play Atraxa, guess which one of us will probably have a better deck? Odric is a powerful card, but there's not much he can do to stand up against the versatility of four colors. There's a much lower and more firm ceiling in terms of power level that my Odric deck has to work under.
I think on some level, Wizards recognizes this issue, but they're dealing with it by going around the problem rather than addressing it. The four-color commanders are probably the best example. Atraxa, Breya, and Yidris are, according to EDHREC, all within the top six most popular commanders of all time. They came out half a year ago. Wouldn't it be nice if you saw four-color Muzzio, or four-color Kurkesh, instead of just four-color Breya over and over? It feels like Wizards is trying to allow players to get around the limitations of color identity, which makes me question why those limitations exist. It's like, you could make a fairly interesting but restricted deck built around a monocolored artifact legend, or you could just cheat and use Breya.
Nazahn, Revered Bladesmith is another great example. Why is he green? There's no reason whatsoever. They couldn't even bother to make his second ability green. The only reason he's green is because it's a hack to get around this broken system.
I realize color identity is a defining characteristic the the format, so maybe we can't change that. But I think there needs to be something to make up for the inverted color support relationship. Maybe it would be cool if there was something like, for each color you're not playing, you get some benefit. Maybe the commander tax should be the total number of colors in your commander's identity. Want to recast Atraxa? You have to pay 4WUBG. But I get to recast Odric for 4W. I actually kind of like that. Two-color commanders retain the usual tax of 2, which I think makes sense given two-color commanders are probably the most balanced. (Of course, this would make Karn invincible, so maybe we'd need a floor of 1.) Alternatively, just make most Legendary creatures multicolored, going forward, and it seems like this is sort of what Wizards is doing. After all, flavor-wise, being represented by more than only color of magic is fairly exceptional.
A few counterarguments I expect, and my preemptive rebuttals:
But there's nothing stopping your from making a Krenko, Mob Boss deck filled with nothing but Dwarves. So why can't Krenko team up with his black Boggart compatriots? Yes, you could argue that black boggarts are sufficiently different, but then what about the intelligent, diplomatic Kyren goblins? It just seems arbitrary. Besides, shouldn't flavor-based restrictions be left up to the deck's designer? If you want to make Xenagos deck where all the cards start with the letter X, that's on you.
For every powerful commander this might limit, there are probably several weak but interesting ones that are held back. However, it's possible there are some commanders that might be ban-worthy if they had access to more colors.
I think at first glance, removing color identity restrictions seems like it would turn every deck into five-color goodstuff. Maybe. But you can already play five-color goodstuff with certain commanders, so at the very least we'd have more diverse five-color goodstuff decks. But I think this change would promote diversity beyond just that. Obviously, commander diversity would increase. Staples would become less prevalent, as players would have the freedom to find cards that have more synergy with their commanders. We'd see a decrease in the over-reliance on artifacts to make up for colors' natural shortcomings. I don't know if anyone played Tiny Leaders, but my experience was it was just a bunch of high-powered three-drops (e.g., Mirran Crusader, Vampire Nighthawk) equipped with Sword of X and Y. I think regular Commander suffers from similar, but less acute symptoms.
I think this is probably true. Commander is basically the only format where monocolored decks are played; they're virtually nonexistent in every other constructed format. Even Burn in Modern usually splashes white and green. But everyone knows that playing a monocolored deck is a huge handicap, especially if that color is red. If you can find a two-color commander that fits your theme, even if there's a monocolored one that's better, you'll pick the two-color one most of the time. The prevalence of monocolored decks is really just an artifact of the color identity system forcing you to make bad deckbuilding decisions. Basically, this change would just elevate monocolored commanders to the status of multicolor commanders. And I don't think monocolored decks would go extinct, either. They'd just occur at the natural frequency.
This is apparently MaRo's mantra, and there is of course merit to it. But I think the color identity rule is a superflouous restriction: synergy with your commander is already a restriction! Think of it like this: if you're hosting a short story contest, for example, it makes sense to have a different prompt in each round. Currently, I feel like Commander is like a short story contest where the prompt is always something like, "Write a modern interpretation of a fairy tale. Oh, and don't use any words that contain the letter G!" Wait, what? I mean, the fairy tale thing sounds interesting, but why did you add that other rule? That seems totally unnecessary.
Note: I did extensive editing of the OP. The only thing of importance is that I originally highlighted Zada, Hedron Grinder, rather than Jalira, as my posterchild for "general that's held back by its color identity". I changed it because Zada is more popular than I thought, and because you can use General Tazri as a hack to make a 5-color Zada deck, making it maybe not the best example.
I know there have been arguments to ease up on some color restrictions (hybrid being the most vocal) but this is the first I have seen about removing color identity restrictions altogether. If you have specific opinions on Hybrid or Phyrexian Mana, feel free to voice those in the appropriate threads. And "a lot of people" wanting those to change is a meaningless statement. A lot of people think these should remain the same. "A lot of people" want a lot of different things.
Anyway, overall, this seems like a terrible idea. This isn't a simple matter of a obscure rule that makes the format worse/better (whatever). This is the foundation of the format. This is complaining that a motorcycle is awesome but would be so much better with 4 wheels and a roof. If you want that, just drive a car.
"Color Identity matters" is what makes EDH a format. There isn't anything inherently wrong with doing what you want to do, but then it is not EDH. Feel free to create your own format ad play it among your friends, but I see no reason to petition for this change to made to the current EDH format.
It's not like my whole argument hinges on my (admittedly dodgy) use of the phrase "a lot of people".
I think the whole thing where you pick a legendary creature and build your deck around it is more foundational than color identity, but I take your point. I just wish there was a format where we had the "build around a character" aspect but not the arbitrarily limited card pool.
I think your motorcycle analogy is good, but to continue it, the cars you're describing don't exist.
I've never once until now heard someone suggest to remove the color identity rule altogether. Hybrid mana yes, but not this. Seems like trying going to a shooting range and firing a bazooka at the target instead of a gun.
I've never once until now heard someone suggest to remove the color identity rule altogether. Hybrid mana yes, but not this. Seems like trying going to a shooting range and firing a bazooka at the target instead of a gun.
I'm not sure I understand your analogy. I'm also not sure if you're saying this sounds awesome or incredibly dangerous.
I didn't mean to suggest that the phrase "a lot of people" invalidates your entire argument so I apoligize if it seemed that way. I was just suggesting that saying a lot of people want something isn't really an argument for anything. My mention of it was meant to be a counterpoint that didn't really mean anything either. Basically, there are better arguments to be made (and I think you made some).
Sure, the idea of a "Commander" is a fundamental aspect of the format, but that doesn't necessarily mean Color Identity isn't also just as important. I can also understand that there is a desire to have a commander without the color identity restrictions. I guess my point is that I would have been more on board with your post and suggestions had it been framed in the way of suggesting a variant rather than changing EDH. Maybe this is what you are going for and I just read too much into it.
From that perspective, I think you have some solid ideas and arguments for this hypothetical format. Yes, building a multi-color deck around Zada will make it more powerful and potentially more fun. I do think there is a segment of the community that would enjoy removing the Color Identity restrictions. I personally enjoy the fact that my mono-green Titania deck needs to find "green" answers (even though a couple are pretty severe color pie breaks) so I don't know that I agree Color Identity is enough of a "flaw" as to move to a different format (for me personally).
Hopefully others who are more on-board with your idea chime in
I am getting a feeling of déjà-vu here, but for the sake of once more entertaining the topic, let us dive in:
1.) Flavor is not always the best reason. But I reckon I am not alone in enjoying flavorful takes, and would probably keep decks in-color even if it was changed.
2.) Playgroup social environment is usually what keeps powerful commanders in check. Competitive 'for-win' players will always find a way. But I do think access to all colours would have people play with more goodstuff than not, resulting (on average) in more powerful decks.
3.) Homogenity is a thing I would worry about a bit: goodstuff cards would likely become more prevalent, as it would be pretty easy to splash for whatever your color combo can't do but the deck would want (non-blue voltron having that Negate, for example). You would start to see a category of 'splash' instead of 'generally useful artifacts', I think. This would be depending on the player, but I think all of us can think of cards for our decks we would play if it was in-color. Something tells me that category would not be that wide, generally speaking.
4.) We see small enough amount of creative monocolors as it is. With monocolor deckbuilding, I think the fun is in finding how you can make it work when you only have access to (roughly) one-fifth of the card pool. Certainly, my monocolor decks are the ones I've rebuilt the most due to them not working as well, but that's the fun in my opinion; figuring and finding out what works and what doesn't. From my experience, even the artifacts used to 'fill in the holes' in monocolor aren't always the same.
5.) "Restriction breeds creativity" is the biggest reason I would keep the color identity as it is: it makes you consider a FAR wider category of cards when you can't just use the best effect for X available. The more colors my decks have, the more self-imposed limits they tend to have just for this reason; I enjoy going far and wide, and I tend to consider a deck a partial failure if I can't make my opponents pick up my cards for "what does this do then?". I can't say for others, but I'd like to think it's fun thinking what your color choice CAN do as opposed to what it can't. Also, restricting to certain set of colors (or what your commander does) is not truly that much of a restriction anymore, given just how much cards we have to work with. Every color can do at least to some degree darn near everything if you dig deep enough.
6.) Established part of the format. Well, yeah, it kind of is. It's part of what makes the format, and a rather fundamental aspect of deckbuilding.
Now then. I have a time or two thought about different commanders, wishing they had a different color identity. But that's on me to work around, I think; I've fiddled around a ton but I think I am nearing a point where I don't have a "filler" commander anymore, that's there just for colors.
In general, it'd take a degree of predictability out of the game (as you'd have no idea what could be coming) at first, but then it'd devolve into even more predictable as the same staples would be seen in every game regardless of color identity. People would start taking the shorter, easier route of putting Phyrexian Arena/Swords to Plowshares/Krosan Grip into every deck if they were even remotely competitively-minded.
But eh. I'd probably still keep brewing my strictly on-color decks anyway, just start losing more for doing so.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
X Hope of Ghirapur Swordpile W Ghosty Blinky Anafenza U Nezahal- Big, Blue and HERE! B Gonti Can Afford It R Etali, Primal 'Whatjusthappened?' G Polukranos Wants More Mana WU The Exalted Vizier Temmet WB Home, Athreos WR Basandra, Recursive Aggression WG Karametra, Momma of Lands UB Wrexial Eats Your Brains UR Arjun, the Mad Flame UG The Fable of Prime Speaker BR Hellbent, Malfegor Style BG Jarad, Death is Served RG Running Thromok WUB Varina and ALL the Zombies WUBYennett, the Odd Pain-Train WUR Zedruu the Furyhearted WUG Arcades' Strategy, Shmategy, Sausage and Spam WBR A Case of Mathas' Persistent F*ckery WBRLicia's League of Legendary Lifegain Layabouts WBG The Karador Advantage PackageWRG Gahiji Rattlesnake Collection UBR Jeleva... does... things UBG Damia's Just Deserts URG Yasova's Has More Power Than Sense BRG Wasitora, Bad Kitty WUBRBreya, Eggs, Breya'd Eggs WUBG Tymna and Kydele, Extended Borrowing WURG Kynaios and Tiro, Landfall Impersonations WBRG Saskia Pet Card EnchantressUBRG Yidris of the Chi-Ting Corporation WUBRG Tazri's Amazing Allies
I dont see it as a productive change to the commander environment on a whole. First of all, there's this:
1.) Flavor is not always the best reason. But I reckon I am not alone in enjoying flavorful takes, and would probably keep decks in-color even if it was changed.
I wholeheartedly agree. This is what separates EDH from other formats, and it's what drew me to the format in the first place. I don't really care how powerful most of my decks are - if they feel like they have flavour or tell a story I'm likely to keep them around. Some of my favourite decks to play lose a lot but are stacked with flavour. I'm not throwing that out the window in favour of powerful decks.
To my mind, there's a couple of points that are crucial in this argument. Firstly, power is not the be all and end all in a format that was designed as a primarily social format (and the EDH rules committee seem reasonably committed to keeping the main ethos of EDH going in this direction).
Secondly, this sort of change will likely result in the sort of environment you see in Legacy and Modern - sure there will probably be some card variation initally as colours are opened up, but inevitably you'll see the same staples come out of the woodwork, prices get driven up, social or casual players get priced out of the format and you're all of a sudden playing a different, far more cutthroat, far less inclusive ballgame. That's not something I want to see, as a primarily kitchen table weekend warrior. I enjoy this format too much to see it priced out of my reach.
This might be a personal thing for me, but I enjoy the brewing stage as much as I enjoy playing. And part of the challenge of that is working around restrictions; it keeps me engaged in the deck mentally, means I NEED to know it in and out to play it with any degree of success, and helps makes the deck MINE; not a staple deck that anyone with enough money can build, it is original to me and the way I want it to behave. And that, to me, is worth far more than having a higher degree of power available.
I'm not 100% sure I agree with the take that more colors always equals more power in EDH. Sure, having access to more options is extremely powerful, but it does ding the consistency of the deck somewhat. Top-end mana bases will somewhat make up for this, but not everyone has the kind of cash that ten fetches and ten ABUR duals (or whatever) requires. Also, those sorts of mana bases/requirements reduce the viability of colorless-producing utility lands and mana rocks. For example, you can't cast a T2 Atraxa, Praetors' Voice off a T1 Sol Ring, but you could absolutely run out a T2 Zada, Hedron Grinder on the same play.
Also, it seems to me from my experience that there are plenty of powerful mono-colored commanders - Yisan, Teferi, and Sidisi all spring to mind. Sure, they're in the more powerful secton of the color pie (BUG), but they're still all mono-colored.
Removing commander color restriction would be really bad for the game. A number of people at my lgs already just run 5 color good stuff using progenitus or child of alara. Removing that restriction would just let them play a hyper utility commander AND their 5 color goodness. I don't need to see a kiki jiki resto angel combo deck piloted by something like Azusa. No thank you. Removing restrictions would just punish people not willing to play 5 or 4 color decks that just run all the best cards. It just promotes the wallet arms race.
I am definitely in favor of the current color identity rules. As others before me have mentioned, it is primarily because of the creative options that have to be explored to delve into lesser explored strategies in various colors. Additionally, I will almost invariably build along a theme to restrict the deck in addition to color identity. A change like this would only impact a fraction of my own decks. A deck like my take on Zada, Hedron Grinder would not change under this ruleset because its theme is "mono-red, arcane storm", which is a tag-line that I very much enjoy in concept and execution. Conversely, a deck built around a more nebulous theme such as Tasigur "police into politics into monarchy" would be more likely to pick up more cards like utter end or swords to plowshares.
The problem that I would have with this change is a likely reduced variety from my opponents. While I don't expect everyone to agree with me, I dislike that I would not see a the more creative deck ideas as often. While hybrid would likely have minimal impact on decks, completely removing the restriction makes it less likely that I be as excited by my opponent's decks and their more strange synergies and obscure/corner case cards. I would be disappointed to see more goodstuff or generic cards displace less typical options that are used now.
I can't agree with this. One of my favorite things to do is build decks theme'ed after a legendary, and thus the color of that legendary.
I'm still annoyed at the removal of the old rule-4, and strongly feel that was a terrible decision that made little difference other than making a few sen triplets players happy while weakening the flavor/feeling of the format.
Theme and flavor are important to me, and if the color identity is completely removed, then we might as well be playing a completely different casual format.
All of the "competitive" decks would start to look exactly the same. There wouldn't be "every deck runs sol ring" complaints - it would be "every deck runs demonic tutor/farseek/mana drain/wheel of fortune/path to exile" complaints. The hierarchy of "strong" commanders would start to become far more annoying as the generic good-stuff ones would just be used, since any player could run whatever color they felt like.
If this is something that bugs you, then why not just play a 5-color legendary? Or ask your playgroup if they would allow you to play a legendary with fewer colors than what your deck has?
Long answer: This may sound harsh, but desiring to remove the color identity rule just so one can have an easier time with deck building is a very spoiled attitude.
1) The general is suppose to be the "face" and "personality" of your deck, removing identity rule destroys that.
2) Limits are there to encourage players to think harder and compensate accordingly. Why do you think most lands don't produce every color? Because this game is in itself encouraging people to play and strategize around color limitation. If every general have access to every color, then its color combo's innate weakness would be near nonexistent, and opponents would not be able to exploit those weakness to his/her advantage, i.e., instead of rewarding players for put effort into thinking and planning, the game would instead reward players for having "good stuff" in their deck.
3) Limits encourages social interactions where people could discuss and brainstorm together. Imagine a forum where someone asking for a good creature removal and Swords to Plowshares just pops up in every thread? Homogeneity can happen outside of the cards too, you know.
4) Limitation prevents homogeneity, because some cards are just so good in this game and/or in this format. Look at Vintage for numerous examples and you see the convenience of being able to splash blue in every deck, I see no reason to encourage that trend in EDH. Why should non-black combo decks gain access to black tutors?
I absolutely disagree that the color identity rule is the biggest problem. I'd call toxic players, multiple extra turn solitaire, or lockout combos "the biggest problem" long before I even considered the color identity rule to be even a tiny problem.
Zada is "silly or cute" in exactly the same way that thousands of points of combat damage to the face is cute. Would she be better with other colors? Yes. Does she need other colors to win? Nope.
You made a point that multi-color decks have an advantage over mono-color. I completely agree. That's the nature of playing with access to more cards and abilities. Anyone who plays mono-colored should understand that, and yet they choose to anyway.
Providing every commander with every color would off-balance the game in the extreme. Combo decks would take over, being able to run every tutor and every potential combo card rather than being limited to their colors. Sure, aggro and control would get more cards, too, but combo would be the main winner here. Oh, and reanimator, which would no doubt use it to bring combo or lockout cards out of the graveyard.
Color identity is closely tied to the roots of the format. If you do away with that, what do you have left? Legacy Highlander?
I get your point. It's about exceeding limitation, and that is perfectly understandable, and of course valid perspective. I think what you are encountering as far as resistance with EDH players may be a deeply psychological and emotional response. Some folks want restriction because they see it as challenge etc, but I can say even for myself I prefer unlimited potential and unlimited resources as opposed to limit. Its about how players see Themselves and the world. And of course habit, and Belief most importantly. Have no fear, they're people who can see things from your perspective, are curious and are willing to adopt your point of view to a new experience.
Just recently (right after Sheldon's last Ask Me Anything article) Mark Rosewater himself said that the hybrid mana issue in commander is the one rule he would change. However right after saying that he commented that hybrid cards do things that either color themselves cannot do according to the color pie, so while I do understand the want to loosen up on those cards, if the head designer says they do things that either color alone can't do, I'm good with leaving that restriction in place.
I feel that the color identity of a deck is part of what makes Commander a real format. Otherwise aren't we just playing 100 card singleton vintage with a different banned list and ready access to one card?
I could myself go as far as banning off color fetch lands, but that seems a different argument.
Recently? Maro has hated color ID for a long time. He doesn't matter.
Surprised this didn't come up sooner.
MaRo has nothing to do with how this format is run, it's all Rules Committee. Which I like, they obviously believe in the social element of EDH and are happy to keep it a 'by the people for the people' format.
The biggest issue with removing color identity that immediately comes to mind, is that if you were to do that then there would be so many different strategies available that you wouldn't know what to expect. If I see someone reveal, say, Ezuri, Renegade Leader then it could be anything, even though Ezuri's ability dictates to a certain degree to be an elf tribal deck. I would imagine people would take advantage of no color identity and just be trolly and make it be land destruction, discard decks, whatever. It would ruin the entire point of the format, which is to focus on the restrictions of playing a 99 card singleton in only the colors you can use in your Commander's color identity.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"People are the worst. The worst thing about music is that people play it." - Mike Patton
Removing commander color restriction would be really bad for the game. A number of people at my lgs already just run 5 color good stuff using progenitus or child of alara. Removing that restriction would just let them play a hyper utility commander AND their 5 color goodness. I don't need to see a kiki jiki resto angel combo deck piloted by something like Azusa. No thank you. Removing restrictions would just punish people not willing to play 5 or 4 color decks that just run all the best cards. It just promotes the wallet arms race.
It's true that, if there was no color identity, you could use your general slot basically just as an effect you always want access to, rather than something to actually build around. And I think we do want to discourage that. But limiting the colors you can play based on the color of the commander seems like a weird way to do that. Like, there's no reason Child of Alara "deserves" access to every color and Zada doesn't. Why couldn't it be the other way around? My point is there's nothing to offset the disadvantage you work with by building around a monocolored general. I admit it can be fun being forced to work within a particular color combination, but monocolor is always a drag. Maybe if the rule was just "monocolored generals can be played with an additional color," that would be fine. But certainly not very elegant.
Sure, the idea of a "Commander" is a fundamental aspect of the format, but that doesn't necessarily mean Color Identity isn't also just as important. I can also understand that there is a desire to have a commander without the color identity restrictions. I guess my point is that I would have been more on board with your post and suggestions had it been framed in the way of suggesting a variant rather than changing EDH. Maybe this is what you are going for and I just read too much into it.
Yeah, maybe that would have been a good idea. EDH is too old of a format to make a huge overhaul like this. Maybe I was just trying to be provocative. And people certainly have strong opinions on this, which is good!
4.) We see small enough amount of creative monocolors as it is. With monocolor deckbuilding, I think the fun is in finding how you can make it work when you only have access to (roughly) one-fifth of the card pool. Certainly, my monocolor decks are the ones I've rebuilt the most due to them not working as well, but that's the fun in my opinion; figuring and finding out what works and what doesn't. From my experience, even the artifacts used to 'fill in the holes' in monocolor aren't always the same.
While I agree that trying to make a monocolored deck workable can be a fun challenge, I'd like it if it was a rarer thing to attempt. You know, like trying to make Minotaur tribal EDH or something. Why can't the deckbuilding challenges be something more reasonable more like that? Maybe if around 10% of the available generals were restricted to one color, that would be cool and interesting. But over 60% of them are monocolored. That's way too many generals who basically amount to "a fun little challenge". (Obviously there are some monocolored commanders that are very powerful, but most are not.) And then there's the additional issue that monoblue is like three times as flexible as monored.
Long answer: This may sound harsh, but desiring to remove the color identity rule just so one can have an easier time with deck building is a very spoiled attitude.
Really? I write a long-form, thought-out series of arguments for my position, and your takeaway is that I'm spoiled? And it's not so I can have an easier time building decks, it's so certain commanders that are crippled by their lack of color access might actually be worth playing.
I absolutely disagree that the color identity rule is the biggest problem. I'd call toxic players, multiple extra turn solitaire, or lockout combos "the biggest problem" long before I even considered the color identity rule to be even a tiny problem.
Okay, fair enough. Maybe my title is a little too clickbait-y, haha. I think what I mean is it's my biggest complaint with the rules, not the emergent behavior of players who follow those rules.
You made a point that multi-color decks have an advantage over mono-color. I completely agree. That's the nature of playing with access to more cards and abilities. Anyone who plays mono-colored should understand that, and yet they choose to anyway.
And I find that totally arbitrary. It's like you have to "prove your devotion" to a monocolored commander that you like, for no reason other than it's monocolored. Doesn't it seem weird to you that Zada would be a much better card if it cost 2RU? Being multicolored is supposed to be a drawback because it means fewer decks can support it. But Commander turns the producer/consumer dynamic on its head: Now instead of requiring certain colors of mana, your commander allows you to play certain colors of mana. So the end result is more complex and powerful commanders lending themselves more easily to interesting decks, while monocolored commanders are generally simpler and less flexible.
Providing every commander with every color would off-balance the game in the extreme. Combo decks would take over, being able to run every tutor and every potential combo card rather than being limited to their colors. Sure, aggro and control would get more cards, too, but combo would be the main winner here. Oh, and reanimator, which would no doubt use it to bring combo or lockout cards out of the graveyard.
Color identity is closely tied to the roots of the format. If you do away with that, what do you have left? Legacy Highlander?
I'm not sure I get this. Can't you already do this by playing Child of Alara? I mean, yeah, it's possible that Sidisi, Undead Vizier would become a super annoying five-color goodstuff commander, but I don't think it would be that much worse than the decks that are currently out there.
If this is something that bugs you, then why not just play a 5-color legendary? Or ask your playgroup if they would allow you to play a legendary with fewer colors than what your deck has?
Because I want to run Temur-Jalira, Master Polymorphist or something. It's not that I want to play a five-color commander deck.
Going to disagree to this. Some of my most fun, and effective decks are mono coloured. In fact I'd put my Bruna, the Fading Light and Nissa, Vastwood Seer decks at the top of my pile of my best decks. Nissa creates a whole lot of crazy game states and can win in a multitude of ways that are fun and unconventional for mono green, and Bruna provides just enough soft lock to have a pretty successful deck and generate a lot of momentum without being overly griefy.
Really? I write a long-form, thought-out series of arguments for my position, and your takeaway is that I'm spoiled? And it's not so I can have an easier time building decks, it's so certain commanders that are crippled by their lack of color access might actually be worth playing.
I think maybe what you should do to alleviate this is talk to your meta about loosening their rules regarding this. I think the inital suggestions is opening the floodgates for abusing the most broken cards in the format at will; what you're suggesting certainly doesn't require anything quite so drastic.
And I find that totally arbitrary. It's like you have to "prove your devotion" to a monocolored commander that you like, for no reason other than it's monocolored. Doesn't it seem weird to you that Zada would be a much better card if it cost 2RU? Being multicolored is supposed to be a drawback because it means fewer decks can support it. But Commander turns the producer/consumer dynamic on its head: Now instead of requiring certain colors of mana, your commander allows you to play certain colors of mana. So the end result is more complex and powerful commanders lending themselves more easily to interesting decks, while monocolored commanders are generally simpler and less flexible.
As a counterpoint to this, just remember that playing mono I NEVER EVER have to worry about colour fixing, where as a pentacoloured commander requires significant manabase fixing. There are pros and cons to both mono and multi commanders. So, personally, I don't see that as a point in favour of multicolour commanders. Also, this is where a lot of the cost is attributed in building with all colours or multi colours.
The biggest thing for me is that Magic is a scaled game - not every card has to be good. Some are corner cases, some are downright terrible, and others are busted as hell good and require banning (case in point for edh - Griselbrand). If the design teams went about making every card as good as it could be, we'd have ban lists in every format as long as your arm, and no one wins in that case.
I think I get what you're trying to say though - there are definitely generals out there that I wish were stronger - I played Zada, Hedron Grinder myself at one point, and would have loved to see it as an RG creature. I think to me, it's part of a challenge to build around the weaknesses, and just see where the cards take me. Like I say, I think the way around it for you is to have a discussion with your meta and see what agreements you can come to. Even something like allowing partner commanders MIGHT be feasible - that being said, that's still something I'd approach with caution, as there are some crazy combinations available and it's a hell of a slippery slope.
The one final point I want to make is this: Once I've reached the pinnacle of what one of my decks can achieve, if there's no new territory for it to explore, I'm likely to take it apart. Losing an integral part of the structure of the game means I'm more likely to hit that point with much higher probability. Having a deck become completely omnipotent and undefeatable is probably a lot less fun than you might think it would be.
Overall... I completely disagree. Commander's color restriction IS ONE OF THE BEST THINGS ABOUT COMMMANDER. Some people like Flavor, and that is a huge draw to commander. Alot of spikes like constructed, so let people who like flavor and fun big things have their format. If you want to be die hard competitive, find a group that does that (but dont complain about how everyone uses the same strats) or play constructed.
Most people who play commander DO it for flavor reasons. I play scarecrows... because I like creepy things. I have a vastly too expesivive modern and legacy deck, where I dont care about flavor at all and just want to win, but with commander... Its about people having a good time. No stress, no prizes on the line. Commanders creative restrictions exist to encourage this.
I know you are saying this because "Zada could be better!" Its not wrong to feel that. I think thats natural magic deck building urges... But ya know what? Play zada if thats fun for you. Bet you could win sometimes too. Edh is for people to have fun, not stream line the deck that wins on turn 3 every time. I mean, those people exist too, but most Commander players arent like that and dont like that.
Commander is for playing a game to have fun, something people who play magic often forget. The rule is there SLIGHTLY for balance, mostly for fun flavor reasons. You might not care for that, but there are a vast number who do. Let those people have an aspect in a format they simply cant get from draft or constructed.
1. Flavor reasons: Your commander is in charge of the deck, right? So they demand that your deck conforms to their expectations. I get it. But there's nothing stopping your from making a Krenko, Mob Boss deck filled with nothing but Dwarves. So why can't Krenko team up with his black Boggart compatriots? Besides, shouldn't flavor-based restrictions be left up to the deck's designer? If you want to make Xenagos deck where all the cards start with the letter X, that's on you.
It still Makes sense flavor wise. Boggarts arent native to ravnica, and he is ravnican... and If I remember correctly, guild less, so yes, no whit ,black or blue.
2. It keeps certain powerful commanders in check: For every powerful commander this might limit, there are probably several weak but interesting ones that are held back. However, it's possible there are some commanders that might be ban-worthy if they had access to more colors. (Can anyone think of any?) I'm sure a lot actually. Restrictions breed creativity and diversity in a meta game. Otherwise everyone would be packing a few top 10s of the same thing.
3. It would increase homogeneity: I think at first glance, removing color identity restrictions seems like it would turn every deck into five-color goodstuff. Maybe. But you can already play five-color goodstuff with certain commanders, so at the very least we'd have more diverse five-color goodstuff decks. But I think this change would promote diversity beyond just that. Obviously, commander divserity would increase. Staples would become less prevalent, as players would have the freedom to find cards that have more synergy with their commanders. We'd see a decrease in the over-reliance on artifacts to make up for colors' natural shortcomings. I don't know if anyone played Tiny Leaders, but my experience was it was just a bunch of high-powered three-drops (e.g., Mirran Crusader, Vampire Nighthawk) equipped with Sword of X and Y. I think regular Commander suffers from similar symptoms, caused by color identity. Maybe not good stuff, but why would I run mystic tutor when I can run demonic? It would spike prices on a top 10 list, rather than the top 60 we have now.
4. It would basically remove monocolor decks from the format: I think this is probably true. Commander is basically the only format where monocolored decks are played; they're virtually nonexistent in every other constructed format. Even Burn in Modern usually splashes white and green. But everyone knows that playing a monocolored deck is a huge handicap, especially if that color is red. If you can find a two-color commander that fits your theme, even if there's a monocolored one that's better, you'll pick the two-color one most of the time. The prevalence of monocolored decks is really just an artifact of the color identity system forcing you to make bad deckbuilding decisions. Basically, this change would just elevate monocolored commanders to the status of two-or-more-color commanders. And I don't think monocolored decks would go extinct, either. They'd just occur at the natural frequency. I don't think I'd overhaul my Karn deck, but I might add in Phyrexian Metamorph. Pauper is largely mono colored. So theres one format. Look, some people LIKE mono colored anyways. EDH has always been a way to feel a commanders "flavor" and wear it like a badge.
5. Restrictions breed creativity: This is apparently MaRo's mantra, and there is of course merit to it. But I think the color identity rule is a superflouous restriction: synergy with your commander is already a restriction! Think of it like this: if you're hosting a short story contest, for example, it makes sense to have a different prompt in each round. Currently, I feel like Commander is like a short story contest where the prompt is always something like, "Write a modern interpretation of a fairy tale. Oh, and don't use any words that contain the letter G!" Wait, what? I mean, the fairy tale thing sounds interesting, but why did you add that other rule? That seems totally unnecessary. No one is telling you to build something with out the letter G. But if you want to write an engaging good story, yeah. Most people restrict themselves to a genre and make a story with "restrictions." I'm telling you this as a professional screenwriter. The metaphor doesn't stand. Restrictions in magic do create fun interactions... And honestly balance things out a bit. If you want to use different colors? Cool, go play other commanders. Play mono green and ache for blue? Make 2 decks. Its part of the game.
Its more like asking if you can use a super powers in call of duty. The game has rules, and they make things harder. They do that because with out those restrictions it wouldnt be a game... Games are literally things made of rules and restrictions. You can solve a rubix cube by pealing the stickers off too... but thats not the way to have fun.
6. This is an established part of the format: Okay, you got me. But that doesn't mean it's a good thing! Look, I'll even agree with you. Everything should be thought out. But this is one of the things that sets EDH apart from Modern. People want to play magic in different ways.
I don't think this is a good idea, the color identity rules are so fundamental to what makes commander commander that I feel this would just make it into somehting else. Which sounds fun, but I do think that it will inevitably be a more powered-up version of commander, with more optimized decks.
Personally I like the challenge of trying to make my deck to what I want within the color restrictions, even though some commander really suffer because of it (Noyan Dar would be SO MUCH better if he wasWUG instead of just WU ) I'm really in favor of allowing hybrid in mono color decks, but other than that I think the color identity rules are fine the way they are. As a matter of fact, I don't get why they removed the rule that turns off color mana into colorless in the first place.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The secret to enjoyable Commander games is not winning first, but losing last.
If my post has no tags, then i posted from my phone.
Initial Reaction: Hey! This is actually a pretty cool commander
Follow-Up Reaction: Ew, its only these colors.
Ending Reaction: I begrudgingly play it although I wish it had more color identity.
Example: I really love Ixidor, Reality Sculptor. He could actually be a real powerhouse with an extra color or two. Like would make him really good as a lot of good Morph-support cards are in and . But being stuck in mono blue, leaves me a bit salty.
I've heard it quite a few times. There have been ideas flung. A chip, a token, a pseudo-partner, etc. Something that increases your commander's color identity. Like I want to branch out into new color identities with existing commanders, not necessarily abolish the color identity restriction.
Example: I want a artifact-matters legend. Apparently that is like trying to find the holy grail or fountain of youth. Why? Because Wizards either intentionally or accidentally skips over it and I'm left wondering why I can't have it. Which is why I wish for instance something like Kurkesh, Onakke Ancient or Memnarch can't have a second color. Yet I feel like I'm taking crazy pills over here as I'm supposed to apparently be just content with my mono-red OR mono-blue artifacts unless I want to dance into Azorious or Esper WUB or Breya, Etherium Shaper.
If I want to I could brew to my heart's content and fulfil my brewing desires in highlander/singleton. Yet nobody wants to really play that format it seems. So instead I'm stuck with commander where I'm immediately wedged into preset color combinations based on a select amount of commander. It feels like I'm pushing a boulder up a hill each day when I just simply want an extra color for my mono-colored commanders. It could even be a mono-colored legend that partners with a legend of your choice that is otherwise just a "0/1 for G" for instance.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Let's talk about Jalira, Master Polymorphist, who I think is a good example of a handicapped commander. Jalira is by no means a bad commander, but being monoblue, she limits you to the same boring blue leviathans and giant golems. Wouldn't it be better if I could just play red Dragons and black Demons? "Well, of course," you might say. "But that's how commander works. That's the drawback of picking a monoblue general."
"Drawback!?" I say, incredulously.
Doesn't it seem weird to you that Jalira would be a much better commander if she cost 2GU? In normal Magic, being multicolored is a drawback because it means fewer decks can support that card. So in normal Magic, Rashmi, Eternities Crafter can only be played in decks that support at least both green and blue, while in commander, Rashmi restricts you to the cards that are no more than green and blue. In normal Magic, monocolored cards are flexible, only adding one color to the set of colors you have to support in your deck. In exchange, monocolored cards are usually narrower and relatively less powerful. But in Commander, we invert the superset-subset, or producer-consumer relationship, and all of a sudden, that "flexible" monocolored card you picked as your general made your color support extremely limited! Not only that, but you're probably working with a less interesting, less versatile commander. Meanwhile, the (generally speaking) more interesting, more powerful, and more versatile commanders, which in normal Magic would impose harsh deckbuilding restrictions, lend themselves to the most powerful commander decks!
Limiting color access can be a a way to rein in the power of a deck, but having those limitations based on the color of the commander seems like a weird way to do that, since there's a direct relationship between the number of colors a card is and its relative power level. If there was an inverse relationship, this would make sense (but then it wouldn't work in normal Magic, where being multicolored is a drawback). There's no reason Child of Alara "deserves" access to every color and Jalira doesn't. There's nothing to offset the disadvantage you work with by building around a monocolored general.
Now it's true that the more colors you support, the more difficult your manabase is to manage. But I'm not talking about five-color decks, necessarily; I'm mostly talking about the jump from one to two colors. The cost/benefit ratio of adding a second color to your deck is HUGE. Every color has weak spots, but color pairs generally don't have any big ones. The third, fourth, and fifth colors you add may deliver diminishing returns, but splashing a color or two won't screw up your manabase much at all. And a budget four-color manabase isn't that difficult, as the 2016 precons show. And anyway, EDH is generally about casting huge threats and game-altering effects, so you're probably going to be ramping. And it's not too hard to color-fix while you ramp.
I agree that making a monocolored deck workable can be a fun challenge. But you know what's also a fun challenge? Building a Minotaur tribal deck around Neheb, the Worthy. I want my deckbuilding challenges to be more like that, rather than, "Here's this really cool general, too bad most of the interesting effects that synergize with it are totally off limits because they're in a different color. Guess you're gonna have to get creative!" Maybe if around 10% of the available generals were restricted to one color, that would be cool and interesting. But over 60% of them are monocolored. Obviously there are some monocolored commanders that are very powerful, but so many are at a significant disadvantage, especially if they're red, or to a lesser extent, white. Again, the challenge of working within your color identity can be enjoyable, but you don't really get anything out of it other than playing the commander that you want. That might sound tautological, but what I mean is, if I really want to play Odric, Lunarch Tactician, and my friend really wants to play Atraxa, guess which one of us will probably have a better deck? Odric is a powerful card, but there's not much he can do to stand up against the versatility of four colors. There's a much lower and more firm ceiling in terms of power level that my Odric deck has to work under.
I think on some level, Wizards recognizes this issue, but they're dealing with it by going around the problem rather than addressing it. The four-color commanders are probably the best example. Atraxa, Breya, and Yidris are, according to EDHREC, all within the top six most popular commanders of all time. They came out half a year ago. Wouldn't it be nice if you saw four-color Muzzio, or four-color Kurkesh, instead of just four-color Breya over and over? It feels like Wizards is trying to allow players to get around the limitations of color identity, which makes me question why those limitations exist. It's like, you could make a fairly interesting but restricted deck built around a monocolored artifact legend, or you could just cheat and use Breya.
Nazahn, Revered Bladesmith is another great example. Why is he green? There's no reason whatsoever. They couldn't even bother to make his second ability green. The only reason he's green is because it's a hack to get around this broken system.
I realize color identity is a defining characteristic the the format, so maybe we can't change that. But I think there needs to be something to make up for the inverted color support relationship. Maybe it would be cool if there was something like, for each color you're not playing, you get some benefit. Maybe the commander tax should be the total number of colors in your commander's identity. Want to recast Atraxa? You have to pay 4WUBG. But I get to recast Odric for 4W. I actually kind of like that. Two-color commanders retain the usual tax of 2, which I think makes sense given two-color commanders are probably the most balanced. (Of course, this would make Karn invincible, so maybe we'd need a floor of 1.) Alternatively, just make most Legendary creatures multicolored, going forward, and it seems like this is sort of what Wizards is doing. After all, flavor-wise, being represented by more than only color of magic is fairly exceptional.
A few counterarguments I expect, and my preemptive rebuttals:
But there's nothing stopping your from making a Krenko, Mob Boss deck filled with nothing but Dwarves. So why can't Krenko team up with his black Boggart compatriots? Yes, you could argue that black boggarts are sufficiently different, but then what about the intelligent, diplomatic Kyren goblins? It just seems arbitrary. Besides, shouldn't flavor-based restrictions be left up to the deck's designer? If you want to make Xenagos deck where all the cards start with the letter X, that's on you.
Note: I did extensive editing of the OP. The only thing of importance is that I originally highlighted Zada, Hedron Grinder, rather than Jalira, as my posterchild for "general that's held back by its color identity". I changed it because Zada is more popular than I thought, and because you can use General Tazri as a hack to make a 5-color Zada deck, making it maybe not the best example.
Anyway, overall, this seems like a terrible idea. This isn't a simple matter of a obscure rule that makes the format worse/better (whatever). This is the foundation of the format. This is complaining that a motorcycle is awesome but would be so much better with 4 wheels and a roof. If you want that, just drive a car.
"Color Identity matters" is what makes EDH a format. There isn't anything inherently wrong with doing what you want to do, but then it is not EDH. Feel free to create your own format ad play it among your friends, but I see no reason to petition for this change to made to the current EDH format.
I think the whole thing where you pick a legendary creature and build your deck around it is more foundational than color identity, but I take your point. I just wish there was a format where we had the "build around a character" aspect but not the arbitrarily limited card pool.
I think your motorcycle analogy is good, but to continue it, the cars you're describing don't exist.
(Also known as Xenphire)
I'm not sure I understand your analogy. I'm also not sure if you're saying this sounds awesome or incredibly dangerous.
(U/B)(U/B)(U/B) JUMP IN THE LINE, ROCK YOUR BODY IN TIME
(R/W)(R/W)(R/W) RISING FROM THE NEON GLOOM, SHINING LIKE A CRAZY MOON
(U/R)(R/G)(G/U) STEALIN' WHEN I SHOULD HAVE BEEN BUYIN'
Sure, the idea of a "Commander" is a fundamental aspect of the format, but that doesn't necessarily mean Color Identity isn't also just as important. I can also understand that there is a desire to have a commander without the color identity restrictions. I guess my point is that I would have been more on board with your post and suggestions had it been framed in the way of suggesting a variant rather than changing EDH. Maybe this is what you are going for and I just read too much into it.
From that perspective, I think you have some solid ideas and arguments for this hypothetical format. Yes, building a multi-color deck around Zada will make it more powerful and potentially more fun. I do think there is a segment of the community that would enjoy removing the Color Identity restrictions. I personally enjoy the fact that my mono-green Titania deck needs to find "green" answers (even though a couple are pretty severe color pie breaks) so I don't know that I agree Color Identity is enough of a "flaw" as to move to a different format (for me personally).
Hopefully others who are more on-board with your idea chime in
1.) Flavor is not always the best reason. But I reckon I am not alone in enjoying flavorful takes, and would probably keep decks in-color even if it was changed.
2.) Playgroup social environment is usually what keeps powerful commanders in check. Competitive 'for-win' players will always find a way. But I do think access to all colours would have people play with more goodstuff than not, resulting (on average) in more powerful decks.
3.) Homogenity is a thing I would worry about a bit: goodstuff cards would likely become more prevalent, as it would be pretty easy to splash for whatever your color combo can't do but the deck would want (non-blue voltron having that Negate, for example). You would start to see a category of 'splash' instead of 'generally useful artifacts', I think. This would be depending on the player, but I think all of us can think of cards for our decks we would play if it was in-color. Something tells me that category would not be that wide, generally speaking.
4.) We see small enough amount of creative monocolors as it is. With monocolor deckbuilding, I think the fun is in finding how you can make it work when you only have access to (roughly) one-fifth of the card pool. Certainly, my monocolor decks are the ones I've rebuilt the most due to them not working as well, but that's the fun in my opinion; figuring and finding out what works and what doesn't. From my experience, even the artifacts used to 'fill in the holes' in monocolor aren't always the same.
5.) "Restriction breeds creativity" is the biggest reason I would keep the color identity as it is: it makes you consider a FAR wider category of cards when you can't just use the best effect for X available. The more colors my decks have, the more self-imposed limits they tend to have just for this reason; I enjoy going far and wide, and I tend to consider a deck a partial failure if I can't make my opponents pick up my cards for "what does this do then?". I can't say for others, but I'd like to think it's fun thinking what your color choice CAN do as opposed to what it can't. Also, restricting to certain set of colors (or what your commander does) is not truly that much of a restriction anymore, given just how much cards we have to work with. Every color can do at least to some degree darn near everything if you dig deep enough.
6.) Established part of the format. Well, yeah, it kind of is. It's part of what makes the format, and a rather fundamental aspect of deckbuilding.
Now then. I have a time or two thought about different commanders, wishing they had a different color identity. But that's on me to work around, I think; I've fiddled around a ton but I think I am nearing a point where I don't have a "filler" commander anymore, that's there just for colors.
In general, it'd take a degree of predictability out of the game (as you'd have no idea what could be coming) at first, but then it'd devolve into even more predictable as the same staples would be seen in every game regardless of color identity. People would start taking the shorter, easier route of putting Phyrexian Arena/Swords to Plowshares/Krosan Grip into every deck if they were even remotely competitively-minded.
But eh. I'd probably still keep brewing my strictly on-color decks anyway, just start losing more for doing so.
I wholeheartedly agree. This is what separates EDH from other formats, and it's what drew me to the format in the first place. I don't really care how powerful most of my decks are - if they feel like they have flavour or tell a story I'm likely to keep them around. Some of my favourite decks to play lose a lot but are stacked with flavour. I'm not throwing that out the window in favour of powerful decks.
To my mind, there's a couple of points that are crucial in this argument. Firstly, power is not the be all and end all in a format that was designed as a primarily social format (and the EDH rules committee seem reasonably committed to keeping the main ethos of EDH going in this direction).
Secondly, this sort of change will likely result in the sort of environment you see in Legacy and Modern - sure there will probably be some card variation initally as colours are opened up, but inevitably you'll see the same staples come out of the woodwork, prices get driven up, social or casual players get priced out of the format and you're all of a sudden playing a different, far more cutthroat, far less inclusive ballgame. That's not something I want to see, as a primarily kitchen table weekend warrior. I enjoy this format too much to see it priced out of my reach.
This might be a personal thing for me, but I enjoy the brewing stage as much as I enjoy playing. And part of the challenge of that is working around restrictions; it keeps me engaged in the deck mentally, means I NEED to know it in and out to play it with any degree of success, and helps makes the deck MINE; not a staple deck that anyone with enough money can build, it is original to me and the way I want it to behave. And that, to me, is worth far more than having a higher degree of power available.
Also, it seems to me from my experience that there are plenty of powerful mono-colored commanders - Yisan, Teferi, and Sidisi all spring to mind. Sure, they're in the more powerful secton of the color pie (BUG), but they're still all mono-colored.
The problem that I would have with this change is a likely reduced variety from my opponents. While I don't expect everyone to agree with me, I dislike that I would not see a the more creative deck ideas as often. While hybrid would likely have minimal impact on decks, completely removing the restriction makes it less likely that I be as excited by my opponent's decks and their more strange synergies and obscure/corner case cards. I would be disappointed to see more goodstuff or generic cards displace less typical options that are used now.
Kemba | Linvala | Talrand | Geth | Krenko | Zada | Patron of the Orochi | Medomai | Athreos | Gisela | Trostani | Nin | Silumgar | Kaervek | Jarad | Xenagos | Sydri | Narset | Roon | Zurgo | Ghave | Marath | Uril | Tasigur | Animar | Riku | Riku | Sek'Kuar | Cromat
I'm still annoyed at the removal of the old rule-4, and strongly feel that was a terrible decision that made little difference other than making a few sen triplets players happy while weakening the flavor/feeling of the format.
Theme and flavor are important to me, and if the color identity is completely removed, then we might as well be playing a completely different casual format.
All of the "competitive" decks would start to look exactly the same. There wouldn't be "every deck runs sol ring" complaints - it would be "every deck runs demonic tutor/farseek/mana drain/wheel of fortune/path to exile" complaints. The hierarchy of "strong" commanders would start to become far more annoying as the generic good-stuff ones would just be used, since any player could run whatever color they felt like.
If this is something that bugs you, then why not just play a 5-color legendary? Or ask your playgroup if they would allow you to play a legendary with fewer colors than what your deck has?
Links to my most current deck lists;
Primary EDH; Rakka Mar Token Perfection, Crosis Mnemonic Betrayal, Cromat Villainous, Judith Gravestorm, Rakdos Empty Storm, Exava Artifacts, Bant Trash, & Fumiko Voltron!
EDH kept at home; Ruzzian Isset & Rakdos LoR!
EDH (nostalgic/pimp/retired) in storage;
Latulla Burns, Akroma Smash, Jeska Voltron, Rakdos Storm, Bladewing Darghans, Lyzolda Worldgorger, Xantcha Steals your Heart, Jori Storm, Wydwen Permission, Gwendlyn Paradox, Jeleva Warps, & Sigarda Brick!
Legacy Showanimator and High Tide!
Long answer: This may sound harsh, but desiring to remove the color identity rule just so one can have an easier time with deck building is a very spoiled attitude.
1) The general is suppose to be the "face" and "personality" of your deck, removing identity rule destroys that.
2) Limits are there to encourage players to think harder and compensate accordingly. Why do you think most lands don't produce every color? Because this game is in itself encouraging people to play and strategize around color limitation. If every general have access to every color, then its color combo's innate weakness would be near nonexistent, and opponents would not be able to exploit those weakness to his/her advantage, i.e., instead of rewarding players for put effort into thinking and planning, the game would instead reward players for having "good stuff" in their deck.
3) Limits encourages social interactions where people could discuss and brainstorm together. Imagine a forum where someone asking for a good creature removal and Swords to Plowshares just pops up in every thread? Homogeneity can happen outside of the cards too, you know.
4) Limitation prevents homogeneity, because some cards are just so good in this game and/or in this format. Look at Vintage for numerous examples and you see the convenience of being able to splash blue in every deck, I see no reason to encourage that trend in EDH. Why should non-black combo decks gain access to black tutors?
Shu Yun, the Silent Tempest WUR Voltron Control
Temmet, Vizier of Naktamun WU Unblockable Mirror Trickery
Ra's al Ghul (Sidar Kondo) and Face-Down Ninjas
Brudiclad, Token Engineer
Vaevictis (VV2) the Dire Lantern
Rona, Disciple of Gix
Tiana the Auror
Hallar
Ulrich the Politician
Zur the Rebel
Scorpion, Locust, Scarab, Egyptian Gods
O-Kagachi, Mathas, Mairsil
"Non-Tribal" Tribal Generals, Eggs
Zada is "silly or cute" in exactly the same way that thousands of points of combat damage to the face is cute. Would she be better with other colors? Yes. Does she need other colors to win? Nope.
You made a point that multi-color decks have an advantage over mono-color. I completely agree. That's the nature of playing with access to more cards and abilities. Anyone who plays mono-colored should understand that, and yet they choose to anyway.
Providing every commander with every color would off-balance the game in the extreme. Combo decks would take over, being able to run every tutor and every potential combo card rather than being limited to their colors. Sure, aggro and control would get more cards, too, but combo would be the main winner here. Oh, and reanimator, which would no doubt use it to bring combo or lockout cards out of the graveyard.
Color identity is closely tied to the roots of the format. If you do away with that, what do you have left? Legacy Highlander?
2023 Average Peasant Cube|and Discussion
Because I have more decks than fit in a signature
Useful Resources:
MTGSalvation tags
EDHREC
ManabaseCrafter
I feel that the color identity of a deck is part of what makes Commander a real format. Otherwise aren't we just playing 100 card singleton vintage with a different banned list and ready access to one card?
I could myself go as far as banning off color fetch lands, but that seems a different argument.
(U/B)(U/B)(U/B) JUMP IN THE LINE, ROCK YOUR BODY IN TIME
(R/W)(R/W)(R/W) RISING FROM THE NEON GLOOM, SHINING LIKE A CRAZY MOON
(U/R)(R/G)(G/U) STEALIN' WHEN I SHOULD HAVE BEEN BUYIN'
Surprised this didn't come up sooner.
MaRo has nothing to do with how this format is run, it's all Rules Committee. Which I like, they obviously believe in the social element of EDH and are happy to keep it a 'by the people for the people' format.
It's true that, if there was no color identity, you could use your general slot basically just as an effect you always want access to, rather than something to actually build around. And I think we do want to discourage that. But limiting the colors you can play based on the color of the commander seems like a weird way to do that. Like, there's no reason Child of Alara "deserves" access to every color and Zada doesn't. Why couldn't it be the other way around? My point is there's nothing to offset the disadvantage you work with by building around a monocolored general. I admit it can be fun being forced to work within a particular color combination, but monocolor is always a drag. Maybe if the rule was just "monocolored generals can be played with an additional color," that would be fine. But certainly not very elegant.
Yeah, maybe that would have been a good idea. EDH is too old of a format to make a huge overhaul like this. Maybe I was just trying to be provocative. And people certainly have strong opinions on this, which is good!
While I agree that trying to make a monocolored deck workable can be a fun challenge, I'd like it if it was a rarer thing to attempt. You know, like trying to make Minotaur tribal EDH or something. Why can't the deckbuilding challenges be something more reasonable more like that? Maybe if around 10% of the available generals were restricted to one color, that would be cool and interesting. But over 60% of them are monocolored. That's way too many generals who basically amount to "a fun little challenge". (Obviously there are some monocolored commanders that are very powerful, but most are not.) And then there's the additional issue that monoblue is like three times as flexible as monored.
Really? I write a long-form, thought-out series of arguments for my position, and your takeaway is that I'm spoiled? And it's not so I can have an easier time building decks, it's so certain commanders that are crippled by their lack of color access might actually be worth playing.
Okay, fair enough. Maybe my title is a little too clickbait-y, haha. I think what I mean is it's my biggest complaint with the rules, not the emergent behavior of players who follow those rules.
And I find that totally arbitrary. It's like you have to "prove your devotion" to a monocolored commander that you like, for no reason other than it's monocolored. Doesn't it seem weird to you that Zada would be a much better card if it cost 2RU? Being multicolored is supposed to be a drawback because it means fewer decks can support it. But Commander turns the producer/consumer dynamic on its head: Now instead of requiring certain colors of mana, your commander allows you to play certain colors of mana. So the end result is more complex and powerful commanders lending themselves more easily to interesting decks, while monocolored commanders are generally simpler and less flexible.
I'm not sure I get this. Can't you already do this by playing Child of Alara? I mean, yeah, it's possible that Sidisi, Undead Vizier would become a super annoying five-color goodstuff commander, but I don't think it would be that much worse than the decks that are currently out there.
Because I want to run Temur-Jalira, Master Polymorphist or something. It's not that I want to play a five-color commander deck.
Going to disagree to this. Some of my most fun, and effective decks are mono coloured. In fact I'd put my Bruna, the Fading Light and Nissa, Vastwood Seer decks at the top of my pile of my best decks. Nissa creates a whole lot of crazy game states and can win in a multitude of ways that are fun and unconventional for mono green, and Bruna provides just enough soft lock to have a pretty successful deck and generate a lot of momentum without being overly griefy.
I think maybe what you should do to alleviate this is talk to your meta about loosening their rules regarding this. I think the inital suggestions is opening the floodgates for abusing the most broken cards in the format at will; what you're suggesting certainly doesn't require anything quite so drastic.
As a counterpoint to this, just remember that playing mono I NEVER EVER have to worry about colour fixing, where as a pentacoloured commander requires significant manabase fixing. There are pros and cons to both mono and multi commanders. So, personally, I don't see that as a point in favour of multicolour commanders. Also, this is where a lot of the cost is attributed in building with all colours or multi colours.
The biggest thing for me is that Magic is a scaled game - not every card has to be good. Some are corner cases, some are downright terrible, and others are busted as hell good and require banning (case in point for edh - Griselbrand). If the design teams went about making every card as good as it could be, we'd have ban lists in every format as long as your arm, and no one wins in that case.
I think I get what you're trying to say though - there are definitely generals out there that I wish were stronger - I played Zada, Hedron Grinder myself at one point, and would have loved to see it as an RG creature. I think to me, it's part of a challenge to build around the weaknesses, and just see where the cards take me. Like I say, I think the way around it for you is to have a discussion with your meta and see what agreements you can come to. Even something like allowing partner commanders MIGHT be feasible - that being said, that's still something I'd approach with caution, as there are some crazy combinations available and it's a hell of a slippery slope.
The one final point I want to make is this: Once I've reached the pinnacle of what one of my decks can achieve, if there's no new territory for it to explore, I'm likely to take it apart. Losing an integral part of the structure of the game means I'm more likely to hit that point with much higher probability. Having a deck become completely omnipotent and undefeatable is probably a lot less fun than you might think it would be.
Most people who play commander DO it for flavor reasons. I play scarecrows... because I like creepy things. I have a vastly too expesivive modern and legacy deck, where I dont care about flavor at all and just want to win, but with commander... Its about people having a good time. No stress, no prizes on the line. Commanders creative restrictions exist to encourage this.
I know you are saying this because "Zada could be better!" Its not wrong to feel that. I think thats natural magic deck building urges... But ya know what? Play zada if thats fun for you. Bet you could win sometimes too. Edh is for people to have fun, not stream line the deck that wins on turn 3 every time. I mean, those people exist too, but most Commander players arent like that and dont like that.
Commander is for playing a game to have fun, something people who play magic often forget. The rule is there SLIGHTLY for balance, mostly for fun flavor reasons. You might not care for that, but there are a vast number who do. Let those people have an aspect in a format they simply cant get from draft or constructed.
Is this a jabb at me?
Personally I like the challenge of trying to make my deck to what I want within the color restrictions, even though some commander really suffer because of it (Noyan Dar would be SO MUCH better if he wasWUG instead of just WU ) I'm really in favor of allowing hybrid in mono color decks, but other than that I think the color identity rules are fine the way they are. As a matter of fact, I don't get why they removed the rule that turns off color mana into colorless in the first place.
If my post has no tags, then i posted from my phone.
Initial Reaction: Hey! This is actually a pretty cool commander
Follow-Up Reaction: Ew, its only these colors.
Ending Reaction: I begrudgingly play it although I wish it had more color identity.
Example: I really love Ixidor, Reality Sculptor. He could actually be a real powerhouse with an extra color or two. Like would make him really good as a lot of good Morph-support cards are in and . But being stuck in mono blue, leaves me a bit salty.
I've heard it quite a few times. There have been ideas flung. A chip, a token, a pseudo-partner, etc. Something that increases your commander's color identity. Like I want to branch out into new color identities with existing commanders, not necessarily abolish the color identity restriction.
Example: I want a artifact-matters legend. Apparently that is like trying to find the holy grail or fountain of youth. Why? Because Wizards either intentionally or accidentally skips over it and I'm left wondering why I can't have it. Which is why I wish for instance something like Kurkesh, Onakke Ancient or Memnarch can't have a second color. Yet I feel like I'm taking crazy pills over here as I'm supposed to apparently be just content with my mono-red OR mono-blue artifacts unless I want to dance into Azorious or Esper WUB or Breya, Etherium Shaper.
If I want to I could brew to my heart's content and fulfil my brewing desires in highlander/singleton. Yet nobody wants to really play that format it seems. So instead I'm stuck with commander where I'm immediately wedged into preset color combinations based on a select amount of commander. It feels like I'm pushing a boulder up a hill each day when I just simply want an extra color for my mono-colored commanders. It could even be a mono-colored legend that partners with a legend of your choice that is otherwise just a "0/1 for G" for instance.