Color Identity has its own problems, yes (or if I want to be even nicer, those aren't exactly problems, just a lot of wasted potential). I can see where the frustration is coming from, I get it every time I see Iname, Death Aspect and imagined if I could play any colored spirits in it.
But at the same time, it's precisely because of this "problem" that gives Commander its distinct identity and allowed it to be popular in the first place. Casual is a format, Highlander itself is a format and those are formats you could run Zada/Iname with their wacky all-color-access combos.
I know I'm missing a very obvious example, a highlander format with a Commander and no Color Identity (which is basically what is being recommended here), but if you structure such a format from the other perspective (as in from highlander rather than from EDH), it becomes highlander plus "Choose a combo-tastic leader than grant it nigh-invulnerability". Yes, I know there are definitely ways to deal with Commanders effectively, but my point is from a design perspective the idea alone sounds rather ridiculous - might as well play Highlander rather than a "power-creeped-combo" version of it.
As restrictive as the Color Identity rule is (and one of the main defining pillars of the format), it isn't actually the root source of the format, it's a supporting pillar that permitted the Commander concept and rule to exist, because otherwise the format will simply be "combo-tuned Highlander". The "nigh invulnerability" the inherently "broken" Commander position provides demanded sacrifice and EDH payed accordingly, otherwise I could argue that we should introduce the same idea over to other formats (imagines and shudders at the thought of Modern with Commanders...)
It's mostly flavorful, yes, but the structural support it provides to keeping an otherwise "broken" mechanic in check cannot be understated. In fact, it could still be argued that it's still "broken" to some degree (seeing we occasionally get complaints of some cards as Commander and the whole debate over the removal of the Banned as Commander list) and the reason it's still around is because of the Color Identity Rule (without Commanders, there's nothing to base Color Identity restriction on).
Basically, remove it and there's no reason to keep the Commander Concept/Rule itself around either, because it is inherently a "broken" (or at the very least, unfun) concept. Maybe some groups can make it fun, but looking at the current state of Commander and complaints (and Primeval Titan), I doubt I can trust a majority of the format to keep itself together at that point.
Then youd have commanders youd never cast. And thats against what commander is. Fun and flavor.
The format you are discribing is draft or constructed, not commander. Commander is a soical game. Not a play to win as fast and efficently as possible.
People play EDH for different reasons. I appreciate your desire to use cool commanders with more colours. Zada with Shadow Rift would be awesome!
But lifting colour identity would destroy the format.
I think there should be more formats that use the command zone. What about 60 card magic with 4 ofs and a commander? I'm sure some people would prefer that. I wouldn't play it. I play commander because I like every game to be different. I love the singleton aspect. I love the restrictions and the creative work arounds. I don't play modern or legacy because I find those formats stale. You can do very powerful things, but it is very hard to be creative in the format. It punishes you for playing home brews. And I dislike having 4 ofs.
I sometimes play standard, because the card pool is so restricted that you have to find creative ways to do what you want. The power of the tier 1 decks is controlled enough that you can brew something and still win much of the time.
Commander is a format defined by colour identity. The restrictions are so important to the game. Do I wish I could play Jeskai Ascendancy in Phenax, God of Deception? Yes. But if I had access to all 5 colour, the deck would just become something else entirely. I like my Phenax deck because I found creative ways to deal with all kinds of situations. I don't play Jeskai Ascendancy, but I get to play other cards that would not make the deck otherwise.
That's the fun part to me. The restrictions are the format.
I have seen people play random generals, like Adun Oakenshield, for a deck built around a creature in the deck (could be Zada, for example). You would play a bunch of tutors to get Zada, and then the deck takes off when you find her. It's a tough way around the restriction, but it works.
There are so many interesting commanders who are only held back by their color identity. Zada, Hedron Grinder is probably one of the best examples. Currently, "cute" or "silly" would probably be the most common description of a Zada deck, and it seems rather unfair that Zada can never really compete with a powerhouse like Atraxa, simply because, as a deckbuilder, you arbitrarily start with only a fifth of the total card pool available (and arguably the worst fifth for Commander).
You've clearly never played against a competent Zada deck. If Zada is on the battlefield, expect the game to end.
Just yesterday I was in a game where Zada went from having 7 power on the board with no evasion to having 85 trample. Most games against Zada go similarly. Zada also regularly draws an absolutely ridiculous number of cards, and produces absurd amounts of mana.
People play EDH for different reasons. I appreciate your desire to use cool commanders with more colours. Zada with Shadow Rift would be awesome!
I don't play modern or legacy because I find those formats stale. You can do very powerful things, but it is very hard to be creative in the format. It punishes you for playing home brews. And I dislike having 4 ofs.
Not to derail the thread to hard, but this isn't all that true. Amulet bloom, eggs, Death's shadow, thing in ice, gifts storm, and even colorless eldrazi were all brewed. A lot of them even started out on mtgsalvation, before being showcased by pros then called "Tier 1 net decking" and even eventually got stuff banned. Grislebanned, lantern control, taking turns, small pox, are also decks that jumped between tier 2 and 3 and have been brewed at some point.
You diff can brew and be successful in modern at least, espeically with such a wide open field.
But again, it brings back to the point. If you want to brew and spike you're decks as much as you can and thats your fun, cool. EDH's appeal isnt that. Its to have fun in social and flavor. If you wanna brew, tweek and spike, the other formats exist for those reasons.
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.
[...]
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.
Sorry, "always a drag" was an unnecessary exaggeration, and I even contradict myself in the same post. Actually, my favorite EDH deck right now is Grenzo, Havoc Raiser, so I don't hate monocolored. But brewing with even a two-color general is significantly more enjoyable than monocolored.
Also, just to be clear: My argument comes from more of a Johnny perspective than Spike. I'm not looking to create insane, finely tuned decks that consistently win on turn 3. I just want to do cool stuff with Kamahl, Pit Fighter with access to blue/green untap effects and stuff like that.
I do think your description of "opening the floodgates" is accurate, though, and it may not really be what I want. The more I argue for my position, the more I realize my main problem is just monocolored generals. There's just so much wasted potential.
1. It still Makes sense flavor wise. Boggarts arent native to ravnica, and he is ravnican... and, If I remember correctly, guildless, so yes, no white, black, or blue. Really? It makes more sense for Dwarves to show up in a goblin deck than black goblins? Why aren't we restricted to only Ravnica cards, then? Why can we use the weird-looking Akki from Kamigawa, or the intelligent Kyren from Mercadia? Why are all those okay, but Mad Auntie is just a step too far? It feels arbitrary.
2. 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. I agree that restricted deckbuilding does encourage creative solutions, and I like that, but I don't think removing it would lead to rampant staples. I think it might raise the "stapliness" of the format by like 10%, while opening up the door for many new strategies.
5. 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. My analogy was that the commander of the deck is like a writing prompt, and the color restriction is like an arbitrary rule about avoiding certain words. I'm not saying it's a perfect analogy, but I wouldn't say it doesn't stand at all.
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. Does my suggestion seriously sound like it's equivalent to solving a rubik's cube by replacing the stickers? It sounds like you're reading my argument and hearing, "let's abolish the whole comprehensive rules and just throw cards at each other!"
I don't feel like you're really addressing my main argument, but that's partly my fault for having a bit of a confusing first post. My list of six items at the end was really only meant to be a preemptive rebuttal to some of the arguments I expected people would have (not saying these are airtight rebuttals, I just wanted to more fully explain my reasoning). Here's my main thesis, that I've kind of pieced together from my main post and my last one. (Maybe I should edit my original post.)
Having access to more colors when building a Commander deck is a huge advantage, and it's not really balanced out by anything else. This is especially true for monocolored commanders; the difference between one and two colors is enormous.
Doesn't it seem weird to you that Zada would be a much better card if it cost 2RU? In normal Magic, being multicolored is a drawback because it means fewer decks can support that card. But Commander turns the producer/consumer relationship on its head: Now instead of the card requiring certain colors of mana, it allows you to play those 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 agree that 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 Zada doesn't. There's nothing to offset the disadvantage you work with by building around a monocolored general.
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. That's way too much wasted potential. 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.
You've clearly never played against a competent Zada deck. If Zada is on the battlefield, expect the game to end.
Just yesterday I was in a game where Zada went from having 7 power on the board with no evasion to having 85 trample. Most games against Zada go similarly. Zada also regularly draws an absolutely ridiculous number of cards, and produces absurd amounts of mana.
Yeah, I realized after I posted this that Zada is actually a fairly popular deck, and probably wasn't the best example to bring up.
People play EDH for different reasons. I appreciate your desire to use cool commanders with more colours. Zada with Shadow Rift would be awesome!
I don't play modern or legacy because I find those formats stale. You can do very powerful things, but it is very hard to be creative in the format. It punishes you for playing home brews. And I dislike having 4 ofs.
Not to derail the thread to hard, but this isn't all that true. Amulet bloom, eggs, Death's shadow, thing in ice, gifts storm, and even colorless eldrazi were all brewed. A lot of them even started out on mtgsalvation, before being showcased by pros then called "Tier 1 net decking" and even eventually got stuff banned. Grislebanned, lantern control, taking turns, small pox, are also decks that jumped between tier 2 and 3 and have been brewed at some point.
You diff can brew and be successful in modern at least, espeically with such a wide open field.
But again, it brings back to the point. If you want to brew and spike you're decks as much as you can and thats your fun, cool. EDH's appeal isnt that. Its to have fun in social and flavor. If you wanna brew, tweek and spike, the other formats exist for those reasons.
I mean, maybe that's why you play EDH. I play EDH because I like singleton formats, I like every game to be different, because I like brewing and finding weird interactions. EDH allows you to say: "I want to try to make a Damia, Sage of Stone deck that is full of Spellshapers and symmetrical discard effects. It won't be better than Damia good stuff, but it could be fun!". This is why it is important to note that people play different formats for different reasons. I think there are many people who like the limitations of colour identity. For me, it makes me work to find that perfect synergy when I'm making a deck. For others, it is the flavour.
There are awesome brews in Modern, but I find it very hard to turn an original brew into a competitive deck. EDH is non-competitive, which encourages more brewing. So that is something I really like about EDH - you can brew a bad deck (I made Karador spirit tribal recently) and still have a blast.
Honestly, the concept makes it into a different format. What about just making a variant instead. I personally have been for playing with hybrid mana but full on color identity removal from commander is like removing the core rule that gives an identity to commander.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I have officially moved to MTGNexus. I just wanted to let people know as my response time to salvation decks being bumped is very hit or miss.
Personally, I think the color identity is a cool rule. It's one of those things that drew me to Commander, because limitations make for interesting dynamics.
But, the other thing I love about Commander is that...well, it's super casual. Have you run this idea of yours by your playgroup, and seen how they reacted? Tried playtesting it a few times with them? If not, give it a try! Maybe that bit of data will lead to a new fun time with your crew. Or maybe it will show you that the rule plays an important part of the game's structure. Who knows? That's the beauty of it!
I mean, yes. I agree with you. I blanket statmented that a bit. I'm not everyone. What I was getting at is the "I want all the tools available to make the most streamlined best deck possible" feeling aka "card optimization, not card limitation" the OP is describing exists in other formats. This type of playing exists in this format, and regardless of what drives people to edh, its the only place you can play this style. Taking away that restriction completely makes you playing one of the countless formats already existing... but just a 100 card skeleton version, which also already exists.
Honestly, the concept makes it into a different format. What about just making a variant instead. I personally have been for playing with hybrid mana but full on color identity removal from commander is like removing the core rule that gives an identity to commander.
Right. it's basically Vanguard. This format evolved from that too if I remember correctly. 100 skeleton vanguard. Its not like EDH suddenly replaced that format... it still exists. Just no one really plays it.
Another of these threads it seems. This all originally started for me way back in Aether Revolt and with a legendary named Kari Zev, Skyship Raider. I had wanted a larger color identity to include her with Ramirez Depietro. This was long before we even had an inkling that Ixalan would bring with it the legendary I wanted in the form of Admiral Beckett.
I have my pet card Aponi, the Great Guide. But this really shouldn't be an issue. In the past half hour, I designed five new legends whose goal is to help expand color identity. You may notice they do nothing for commanders with 3-colors or more, that is purposeful. Its avoid buffing generals like Atraxa or Narset. Yet we can't get these sort of generic partners for the commanders who are Mono or Dual colored is a massive headache. Would all the one and two-colored legends use them? Probably. But lets be quite honest here, red and white are considered extremely weak in the color wheel. Like the only way its been remedied for red in some way is to print more ridiculous commanders like Purphoros, God of the Forge or Krenko, Mob Boss and now Neheb, the Eternal just to make up for that color weakness. Yet even with the sort of power being created, anything a mono-colored commander could do, a multicolored commander could do much better by virtue of their expanded color identity. Like you could run Daretti, Scrap Savant, Arcum Dagsson or Sharuum the Hegemon by themselves, but you would be better off just running Breya, Etherium Shaper since her expanded color identity can have all of those planeswalkers, legends and other cards in the same deck rather than by themselves.
Bearer of the SunsW Legendary Creature - Spirit Minion
Shadow (This creature can block or be blocked by only creatures with shadow.)
Bearer of the Sun may partner with with any legendary whose color identity is equal to two colors or less.
Partner 1/1
Bearer of the OceansU Legendary Creature - Spirit Minion
Shadow (This creature can block or be blocked by only creatures with shadow.)
Bearer of the Oceans may partner with with any legendary whose color identity is equal to two colors or less.
Partner 1/1
Bearer of the NightB Legendary Creature - Spirit Minion
Shadow (This creature can block or be blocked by only creatures with shadow.)
Bearer of the Night may partner with with any legendary whose color identity is equal to two colors or less.
Partner 1/1
Bearer of the MountainsR Legendary Creature - Spirit Minion
Shadow (This creature can block or be blocked by only creatures with shadow.)
Bearer of the Mountains may partner with with any legendary whose color identity is equal to two colors or less.
Partner 1/1
Bearer of the WildsG Legendary Creature - Spirit Minion
Shadow (This creature can block or be blocked by only creatures with shadow.)
Bearer of the Wilds may partner with with any legendary whose color identity is equal to two colors or less.
Partner 1/1
Regarding the "access to all colours results in power creep" issue:
I definitely get the idea the OP is going for, and part of the issue is steeped in lore and design, and the interaction between those two - the example was given before of Krenko - it made sense from a lore POV that he would be mono, much as we might like him to be multi. To me it's enough (in most cases) to understand WHY the legends are built the way they are. That way I'm not stuck wishing they were different. Besides I'm more likely to build around a commander I enjoy the lore of, or can build around a theme, even if there are shortfalls in color identity or power level.
To be honest, I feel like the 4c generals released last year were as close to degenerate omnipotent multicolored commanders as I'd like to see. Breya is pretty obscene right out of the box, and 3 of the 5 can be built to a high level with minor tweaking (Yidris, Atraxa, Breya - I'm sure T&K and Saskia have their strengths too, but the other 3 seem on a much higher level to me).
This is not to mention the partners - the myriad options that opened up are ridiculous. And there are some very strong builds available with these guys too. I liked the idea that none of them are super broken on their own, as I think the idea of having 2 commanders available is already quite strong. I think this shows in terms of design, that WOTC are trying to acknowledge, as fairly as possible, that there may be a valid point in OP, but that the application of this point is FAR from black and white, and needs to approached with extreme caution - for the good of the format.
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 read your whole post, so I hope you did the same with mine, because I explained why I felt that way.
Commander in its essence centers around the chosen general, that is its limit as well as its charm, that's why the format was formed in the first place. Unlike ban or restrict list in tournaments, your suggestion is like saying "Modern players may start using Legacy cards, because certain deck type could benefit from older cards," it literally changes the foundation of EDH, all to gain an easier time on choosing whatever Legend you wish without having to worry about its drawbacks. Yes, it is lazy thinking.
What you proposed is not Commander, it's singleton with benefits.
To be honest, I feel like the 4c generals released last year were as close to degenerate omnipotent multicolored commanders as I'd like to see. Breya is pretty obscene right out of the box, and 3 of the 5 can be built to a high level with minor tweaking (Yidris, Atraxa, Breya - I'm sure T&K and Saskia have their strengths too, but the other 3 seem on a much higher level to me).
This is not to mention the partners - the myriad options that opened up are ridiculous. And there are some very strong builds available with these guys too. I liked the idea that none of them are super broken on their own, as I think the idea of having 2 commanders available is already quite strong. I think this shows in terms of design, that WOTC are trying to acknowledge, as fairly as possible, that there may be a valid point in OP, but that the application of this point is FAR from black and white, and needs to approached with extreme caution - for the good of the format.
Yeah, I kind of think the four-color generals are a good illustration of the problem: the "drawback" of requiring different colors of mana gets flipped on its head in EDH. Some people here have commented that more colors of mana mean more mana problems and fewer utility lands. This is true, of course, but the cost/benefit ratio of adding a second color to your deck is HUGE. The third, fourth, and fifth maybe not quite as much, 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 four-color precons show.
These four-color commander decks were basically just Wizards being all like, "Here, do whatever you want." 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.
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. Maybe that sounds silly, but 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.
Maybe it would be cool if it 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.
Of course, I'm a Reaper King player too, and I'd rather not have to pay 5WUBRG the second time I cast my general. I guess I might get around this by devoting some of my five-color versatility to reanimation effects?
But, the other thing I love about Commander is that...well, it's super casual. Have you run this idea of yours by your playgroup, and seen how they reacted? Tried playtesting it a few times with them? If not, give it a try! Maybe that bit of data will lead to a new fun time with your crew. Or maybe it will show you that the rule plays an important part of the game's structure. Who knows? That's the beauty of it!
I'd probably be willing to try that. The problem is, an EDH deck is a fairly big investment, of time if not money, so it would be difficult to do much serious testing. But it's true, it might demonstrate to me pretty quickly that it's a bad idea.
Another of these threads it seems. This all originally started for me way back in Aether Revolt and with a legendary named Kari Zev, Skyship Raider. I had wanted a larger color identity to include her with Ramirez Depietro.
Another one? The message I'm getting is that this is the most extreme argument against color identity that's been put forward (at least on this forum).
These four-color commander decks were basically just Wizards being all like, "Here, do whatever you want." 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.
I think they were a lesson to us all that having our wildest dreams come true isn't always what you expect or want - I'm not saying i frown on people who play these - I run with Yidris myself. That being said, part of your statement here I'd like to pull apart and focus on:
Wouldn't it be nice if you saw four-color Muzzio, or four-color Kurkesh, instead of just four-color Breya over and over?
While academically the answer is yes, I play Muzzio, Visionary Architect as a 2IC in my Sydri deck, and I can assure you he doesn't need 4 colours to shine. When I say 2IC I mean he comes up a lot, and he does fantastic work. I have every confidence that he would be a strong build on his own. That being said, I think artifact decks are a little different, they can be a strong build without any colours at all.
This is not to mention the partners - the myriad options that opened up are ridiculous. And there are some very strong builds available with these guys too. I liked the idea that none of them are super broken on their own, as I think the idea of having 2 commanders available is already quite strong.
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.
Interesting argument, but tribal is a whole other ballgame. (Especially since boggarts are from another plane, though Ravnica is generally anti-tribal. Actually, Tarkir's the only multicolor/tribal plane I can think of.)
There is a case for it. (If Commander was a thing back then, Captain Sisay would no doubt cost RGWU.) That's actually a better argument.
Flavor restriction does create other things. Like, right now I'm building a Nicol Bolas deck featuring the three gods, but I want only Bolas's pawns in it, so...no The Locust God/Niv-Mizzet, the Firemind as much (non-infinite) synergy as they have.
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?)
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.
"Synergy with a Commander" only goes so far. Otherwise, every BGX token deck would run Death Mutation. But none does because it's an eight-mana sorcery with that silly "nonblack" restriction.
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.
There is an argument on Phyrexian Metamorph because Phyrexian mana is a form of hybrid mana, and both colors should get a hybrid. (Or in the case of twobrids and phi mana, all five colors.) But the counterargument is, you get hybrids like Giant Solifuge, Privileged Position, Spitting Image, and Augury Adept that really shouldn't be hybrid. Of course, the counter-counterargument is that cards like Storm Seeker aren't banned despite being a "red" card in green.
Also, multicolor has two issues: First, you need mana fixing, and lots of it. Secondly, the most common way, dual lands, leaves you vulnerable to Blood Moon and Back to Basics.
As for Maro's opinion, he's irrelevant. And his opinion is primarily about hybrid. (He also has issues with multiplayer formats in general because of the political factor.)
I mostly end up waiting. Took forever for Mardu weenies, and I'm still waiting for Jeskai artifacts (and for that matter, Izzet artifacts) or Sultai Maros. I do have a Temur Maro deck piloted by Riku of Two Reflections, reflecting (c wut i did thar?) Maro's love for doubling, but that's it for Temur. Four-color was in really dire straits.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
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.
I think this is a particularly excellent point. Commander, as a format, can reward deep knowledge of the game. With some experience, you can reasonably guess what sort of strategy someone's playing when they reveal their commander. With enough experience, you can gauge what a deck's strategy isn't, based on their commander, because certain colours and colour combinations lend themselves to certain strengths and weaknesses.
Once Hybrid is accepted in monocolor decks, I think we're in a perfect place when it comes to color identity.
I'm not willing to go so far as to playing 5C in a monored commander. Restrictions breed creativity. Sometimes there're enough tools to build around, but that means your pitch to the designers for a future commander who does so-and-so have to be really persistent. Sometimes they don't get it, like our werewolf legend; I supposed we can't get homeruns all the time.
But at the same time, it's precisely because of this "problem" that gives Commander its distinct identity and allowed it to be popular in the first place. Casual is a format, Highlander itself is a format and those are formats you could run Zada/Iname with their wacky all-color-access combos.
I know I'm missing a very obvious example, a highlander format with a Commander and no Color Identity (which is basically what is being recommended here), but if you structure such a format from the other perspective (as in from highlander rather than from EDH), it becomes highlander plus "Choose a combo-tastic leader than grant it nigh-invulnerability". Yes, I know there are definitely ways to deal with Commanders effectively, but my point is from a design perspective the idea alone sounds rather ridiculous - might as well play Highlander rather than a "power-creeped-combo" version of it.
As restrictive as the Color Identity rule is (and one of the main defining pillars of the format), it isn't actually the root source of the format, it's a supporting pillar that permitted the Commander concept and rule to exist, because otherwise the format will simply be "combo-tuned Highlander". The "nigh invulnerability" the inherently "broken" Commander position provides demanded sacrifice and EDH payed accordingly, otherwise I could argue that we should introduce the same idea over to other formats (imagines and shudders at the thought of Modern with Commanders...)
It's mostly flavorful, yes, but the structural support it provides to keeping an otherwise "broken" mechanic in check cannot be understated. In fact, it could still be argued that it's still "broken" to some degree (seeing we occasionally get complaints of some cards as Commander and the whole debate over the removal of the Banned as Commander list) and the reason it's still around is because of the Color Identity Rule (without Commanders, there's nothing to base Color Identity restriction on).
Basically, remove it and there's no reason to keep the Commander Concept/Rule itself around either, because it is inherently a "broken" (or at the very least, unfun) concept. Maybe some groups can make it fun, but looking at the current state of Commander and complaints (and Primeval Titan), I doubt I can trust a majority of the format to keep itself together at that point.
The format you are discribing is draft or constructed, not commander. Commander is a soical game. Not a play to win as fast and efficently as possible.
But lifting colour identity would destroy the format.
I think there should be more formats that use the command zone. What about 60 card magic with 4 ofs and a commander? I'm sure some people would prefer that. I wouldn't play it. I play commander because I like every game to be different. I love the singleton aspect. I love the restrictions and the creative work arounds. I don't play modern or legacy because I find those formats stale. You can do very powerful things, but it is very hard to be creative in the format. It punishes you for playing home brews. And I dislike having 4 ofs.
I sometimes play standard, because the card pool is so restricted that you have to find creative ways to do what you want. The power of the tier 1 decks is controlled enough that you can brew something and still win much of the time.
Commander is a format defined by colour identity. The restrictions are so important to the game. Do I wish I could play Jeskai Ascendancy in Phenax, God of Deception? Yes. But if I had access to all 5 colour, the deck would just become something else entirely. I like my Phenax deck because I found creative ways to deal with all kinds of situations. I don't play Jeskai Ascendancy, but I get to play other cards that would not make the deck otherwise.
That's the fun part to me. The restrictions are the format.
I have seen people play random generals, like Adun Oakenshield, for a deck built around a creature in the deck (could be Zada, for example). You would play a bunch of tutors to get Zada, and then the deck takes off when you find her. It's a tough way around the restriction, but it works.
8.RG Green Devotion Ramp/Combo 9.UR Draw Triggers 10.WUR Group stalling 11.WUR Voltron Spellslinger 12.WB Sacrificial Shenanigans
13.BR Creatureless Panharmonicon 14.BR Pingers and Eldrazi 15.URG Untapped Cascading
16.Reyhan, last of the Abzan's WUBG +1/+1 Counter Craziness 17.WUBRG Dragons aka Why did I make this?
Building: The Gitrog Monster lands, Glissa the Traitor stax, Muldrotha, the Gravetide Planeswalker Combo, Kydele, Chosen of Kruphix + Sidar Kondo of Jamuraa Clues, and Tribal Scarecrow Planeswalkers
You've clearly never played against a competent Zada deck. If Zada is on the battlefield, expect the game to end.
Just yesterday I was in a game where Zada went from having 7 power on the board with no evasion to having 85 trample. Most games against Zada go similarly. Zada also regularly draws an absolutely ridiculous number of cards, and produces absurd amounts of mana.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Not to derail the thread to hard, but this isn't all that true. Amulet bloom, eggs, Death's shadow, thing in ice, gifts storm, and even colorless eldrazi were all brewed. A lot of them even started out on mtgsalvation, before being showcased by pros then called "Tier 1 net decking" and even eventually got stuff banned. Grislebanned, lantern control, taking turns, small pox, are also decks that jumped between tier 2 and 3 and have been brewed at some point.
You diff can brew and be successful in modern at least, espeically with such a wide open field.
But again, it brings back to the point. If you want to brew and spike you're decks as much as you can and thats your fun, cool. EDH's appeal isnt that. Its to have fun in social and flavor. If you wanna brew, tweek and spike, the other formats exist for those reasons.
Sorry, "always a drag" was an unnecessary exaggeration, and I even contradict myself in the same post. Actually, my favorite EDH deck right now is Grenzo, Havoc Raiser, so I don't hate monocolored. But brewing with even a two-color general is significantly more enjoyable than monocolored.
Also, just to be clear: My argument comes from more of a Johnny perspective than Spike. I'm not looking to create insane, finely tuned decks that consistently win on turn 3. I just want to do cool stuff with Kamahl, Pit Fighter with access to blue/green untap effects and stuff like that.
I do think your description of "opening the floodgates" is accurate, though, and it may not really be what I want. The more I argue for my position, the more I realize my main problem is just monocolored generals. There's just so much wasted potential.
Rebuttals to a few of your points:
I don't feel like you're really addressing my main argument, but that's partly my fault for having a bit of a confusing first post. My list of six items at the end was really only meant to be a preemptive rebuttal to some of the arguments I expected people would have (not saying these are airtight rebuttals, I just wanted to more fully explain my reasoning). Here's my main thesis, that I've kind of pieced together from my main post and my last one. (Maybe I should edit my original post.)
Having access to more colors when building a Commander deck is a huge advantage, and it's not really balanced out by anything else. This is especially true for monocolored commanders; the difference between one and two colors is enormous.
Doesn't it seem weird to you that Zada would be a much better card if it cost 2RU? In normal Magic, being multicolored is a drawback because it means fewer decks can support that card. But Commander turns the producer/consumer relationship on its head: Now instead of the card requiring certain colors of mana, it allows you to play those 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 agree that 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 Zada doesn't. There's nothing to offset the disadvantage you work with by building around a monocolored general.
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. That's way too much wasted potential. 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.
Yeah, I realized after I posted this that Zada is actually a fairly popular deck, and probably wasn't the best example to bring up.
I mean, maybe that's why you play EDH. I play EDH because I like singleton formats, I like every game to be different, because I like brewing and finding weird interactions. EDH allows you to say: "I want to try to make a Damia, Sage of Stone deck that is full of Spellshapers and symmetrical discard effects. It won't be better than Damia good stuff, but it could be fun!". This is why it is important to note that people play different formats for different reasons. I think there are many people who like the limitations of colour identity. For me, it makes me work to find that perfect synergy when I'm making a deck. For others, it is the flavour.
There are awesome brews in Modern, but I find it very hard to turn an original brew into a competitive deck. EDH is non-competitive, which encourages more brewing. So that is something I really like about EDH - you can brew a bad deck (I made Karador spirit tribal recently) and still have a blast.
8.RG Green Devotion Ramp/Combo 9.UR Draw Triggers 10.WUR Group stalling 11.WUR Voltron Spellslinger 12.WB Sacrificial Shenanigans
13.BR Creatureless Panharmonicon 14.BR Pingers and Eldrazi 15.URG Untapped Cascading
16.Reyhan, last of the Abzan's WUBG +1/+1 Counter Craziness 17.WUBRG Dragons aka Why did I make this?
Building: The Gitrog Monster lands, Glissa the Traitor stax, Muldrotha, the Gravetide Planeswalker Combo, Kydele, Chosen of Kruphix + Sidar Kondo of Jamuraa Clues, and Tribal Scarecrow Planeswalkers
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics by Xen
[Modern] Allies
But, the other thing I love about Commander is that...well, it's super casual. Have you run this idea of yours by your playgroup, and seen how they reacted? Tried playtesting it a few times with them? If not, give it a try! Maybe that bit of data will lead to a new fun time with your crew. Or maybe it will show you that the rule plays an important part of the game's structure. Who knows? That's the beauty of it!
I mean, yes. I agree with you. I blanket statmented that a bit. I'm not everyone. What I was getting at is the "I want all the tools available to make the most streamlined best deck possible" feeling aka "card optimization, not card limitation" the OP is describing exists in other formats. This type of playing exists in this format, and regardless of what drives people to edh, its the only place you can play this style. Taking away that restriction completely makes you playing one of the countless formats already existing... but just a 100 card skeleton version, which also already exists.
Right. it's basically Vanguard. This format evolved from that too if I remember correctly. 100 skeleton vanguard. Its not like EDH suddenly replaced that format... it still exists. Just no one really plays it.
I have my pet card Aponi, the Great Guide. But this really shouldn't be an issue. In the past half hour, I designed five new legends whose goal is to help expand color identity. You may notice they do nothing for commanders with 3-colors or more, that is purposeful. Its avoid buffing generals like Atraxa or Narset. Yet we can't get these sort of generic partners for the commanders who are Mono or Dual colored is a massive headache. Would all the one and two-colored legends use them? Probably. But lets be quite honest here, red and white are considered extremely weak in the color wheel. Like the only way its been remedied for red in some way is to print more ridiculous commanders like Purphoros, God of the Forge or Krenko, Mob Boss and now Neheb, the Eternal just to make up for that color weakness. Yet even with the sort of power being created, anything a mono-colored commander could do, a multicolored commander could do much better by virtue of their expanded color identity. Like you could run Daretti, Scrap Savant, Arcum Dagsson or Sharuum the Hegemon by themselves, but you would be better off just running Breya, Etherium Shaper since her expanded color identity can have all of those planeswalkers, legends and other cards in the same deck rather than by themselves.
Legendary Creature - Spirit Minion
Shadow (This creature can block or be blocked by only creatures with shadow.)
Bearer of the Sun may partner with with any legendary whose color identity is equal to two colors or less.
Partner
1/1
Legendary Creature - Spirit Minion
Shadow (This creature can block or be blocked by only creatures with shadow.)
Bearer of the Oceans may partner with with any legendary whose color identity is equal to two colors or less.
Partner
1/1
Legendary Creature - Spirit Minion
Shadow (This creature can block or be blocked by only creatures with shadow.)
Bearer of the Night may partner with with any legendary whose color identity is equal to two colors or less.
Partner
1/1
Legendary Creature - Spirit Minion
Shadow (This creature can block or be blocked by only creatures with shadow.)
Bearer of the Mountains may partner with with any legendary whose color identity is equal to two colors or less.
Partner
1/1
Legendary Creature - Spirit Minion
Shadow (This creature can block or be blocked by only creatures with shadow.)
Bearer of the Wilds may partner with with any legendary whose color identity is equal to two colors or less.
Partner
1/1
Image Gallery:http://imgur.com/a/9B6rO?
I definitely get the idea the OP is going for, and part of the issue is steeped in lore and design, and the interaction between those two - the example was given before of Krenko - it made sense from a lore POV that he would be mono, much as we might like him to be multi. To me it's enough (in most cases) to understand WHY the legends are built the way they are. That way I'm not stuck wishing they were different. Besides I'm more likely to build around a commander I enjoy the lore of, or can build around a theme, even if there are shortfalls in color identity or power level.
To be honest, I feel like the 4c generals released last year were as close to degenerate omnipotent multicolored commanders as I'd like to see. Breya is pretty obscene right out of the box, and 3 of the 5 can be built to a high level with minor tweaking (Yidris, Atraxa, Breya - I'm sure T&K and Saskia have their strengths too, but the other 3 seem on a much higher level to me).
This is not to mention the partners - the myriad options that opened up are ridiculous. And there are some very strong builds available with these guys too. I liked the idea that none of them are super broken on their own, as I think the idea of having 2 commanders available is already quite strong. I think this shows in terms of design, that WOTC are trying to acknowledge, as fairly as possible, that there may be a valid point in OP, but that the application of this point is FAR from black and white, and needs to approached with extreme caution - for the good of the format.
I read your whole post, so I hope you did the same with mine, because I explained why I felt that way.
Commander in its essence centers around the chosen general, that is its limit as well as its charm, that's why the format was formed in the first place. Unlike ban or restrict list in tournaments, your suggestion is like saying "Modern players may start using Legacy cards, because certain deck type could benefit from older cards," it literally changes the foundation of EDH, all to gain an easier time on choosing whatever Legend you wish without having to worry about its drawbacks. Yes, it is lazy thinking.
What you proposed is not Commander, it's singleton with benefits.
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
Yeah, I kind of think the four-color generals are a good illustration of the problem: the "drawback" of requiring different colors of mana gets flipped on its head in EDH. Some people here have commented that more colors of mana mean more mana problems and fewer utility lands. This is true, of course, but the cost/benefit ratio of adding a second color to your deck is HUGE. The third, fourth, and fifth maybe not quite as much, 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 four-color precons show.
These four-color commander decks were basically just Wizards being all like, "Here, do whatever you want." 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.
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. Maybe that sounds silly, but 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.
Maybe it would be cool if it 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.
Of course, I'm a Reaper King player too, and I'd rather not have to pay 5WUBRG the second time I cast my general. I guess I might get around this by devoting some of my five-color versatility to reanimation effects?
I'd probably be willing to try that. The problem is, an EDH deck is a fairly big investment, of time if not money, so it would be difficult to do much serious testing. But it's true, it might demonstrate to me pretty quickly that it's a bad idea.
Another one? The message I'm getting is that this is the most extreme argument against color identity that's been put forward (at least on this forum).
I think they were a lesson to us all that having our wildest dreams come true isn't always what you expect or want - I'm not saying i frown on people who play these - I run with Yidris myself. That being said, part of your statement here I'd like to pull apart and focus on:
While academically the answer is yes, I play Muzzio, Visionary Architect as a 2IC in my Sydri deck, and I can assure you he doesn't need 4 colours to shine. When I say 2IC I mean he comes up a lot, and he does fantastic work. I have every confidence that he would be a strong build on his own. That being said, I think artifact decks are a little different, they can be a strong build without any colours at all.
(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'
Interesting argument, but tribal is a whole other ballgame. (Especially since boggarts are from another plane, though Ravnica is generally anti-tribal. Actually, Tarkir's the only multicolor/tribal plane I can think of.)
There is a case for it. (If Commander was a thing back then, Captain Sisay would no doubt cost RGWU.) That's actually a better argument.
Flavor restriction does create other things. Like, right now I'm building a Nicol Bolas deck featuring the three gods, but I want only Bolas's pawns in it, so...no The Locust God/Niv-Mizzet, the Firemind as much (non-infinite) synergy as they have.
Ghave, Guru of Spores would really like to be friends with Purphoros, God of the Forge, Mana Echoes, Viral Drake, Sage of Hours, and Inexorable Tide, off the top of my head.
"Synergy with a Commander" only goes so far. Otherwise, every BGX token deck would run Death Mutation. But none does because it's an eight-mana sorcery with that silly "nonblack" restriction.
There is an argument on Phyrexian Metamorph because Phyrexian mana is a form of hybrid mana, and both colors should get a hybrid. (Or in the case of twobrids and phi mana, all five colors.) But the counterargument is, you get hybrids like Giant Solifuge, Privileged Position, Spitting Image, and Augury Adept that really shouldn't be hybrid. Of course, the counter-counterargument is that cards like Storm Seeker aren't banned despite being a "red" card in green.
Also, multicolor has two issues: First, you need mana fixing, and lots of it. Secondly, the most common way, dual lands, leaves you vulnerable to Blood Moon and Back to Basics.
As for Maro's opinion, he's irrelevant. And his opinion is primarily about hybrid. (He also has issues with multiplayer formats in general because of the political factor.)
I mostly end up waiting. Took forever for Mardu weenies, and I'm still waiting for Jeskai artifacts (and for that matter, Izzet artifacts) or Sultai Maros. I do have a Temur Maro deck piloted by Riku of Two Reflections, reflecting (c wut i did thar?) Maro's love for doubling, but that's it for Temur. Four-color was in really dire straits.
On phasing:
My Helpdesk
[Pr] Marath | [Pr] Lovisa | Jodah | Saskia | Najeela | Yisan | Lord Windgrace | Atraxa | Meren | Gisa and Geralf
I think this is a particularly excellent point. Commander, as a format, can reward deep knowledge of the game. With some experience, you can reasonably guess what sort of strategy someone's playing when they reveal their commander. With enough experience, you can gauge what a deck's strategy isn't, based on their commander, because certain colours and colour combinations lend themselves to certain strengths and weaknesses.
I'm not willing to go so far as to playing 5C in a monored commander. Restrictions breed creativity. Sometimes there're enough tools to build around, but that means your pitch to the designers for a future commander who does so-and-so have to be really persistent. Sometimes they don't get it, like our werewolf legend; I supposed we can't get homeruns all the time.
UR Melek, Izzet ParagonUR, B Shirei, Shizo's CaretakerB, R Jaya Ballard, Task MageR,RW Tajic, Blade of the LegionRW, UB Lazav, Dimir MastermindUB, UB Circu, Dimir LobotomistUB, RWU Zedruu the GreatheartedRWU, GUBThe MimeoplasmGUB, UGExperiment Kraj UG, WDarien, King of KjeldorW, BMarrow-GnawerB, WBGKarador, Ghost ChieftainWBG, UTeferi, Temporal ArchmageU, GWUDerevi, Empyrial TacticianGWU, RDaretti, Scrap SavantR, UTalrand, Sky SummonerU, GEzuri, Renegade LeaderG, WUBRGReaper KingWUBRG, RGXenagos, God of RevelsRG, CKozilek, Butcher of TruthC, WUBRGGeneral TazriWUBRG, GTitania, Protector of ArgothG
Zada is an Ally and General Tazri is a card that says ETB: Find Zada put Zada in my hand.
UR Melek, Izzet ParagonUR, B Shirei, Shizo's CaretakerB, R Jaya Ballard, Task MageR,RW Tajic, Blade of the LegionRW, UB Lazav, Dimir MastermindUB, UB Circu, Dimir LobotomistUB, RWU Zedruu the GreatheartedRWU, GUBThe MimeoplasmGUB, UGExperiment Kraj UG, WDarien, King of KjeldorW, BMarrow-GnawerB, WBGKarador, Ghost ChieftainWBG, UTeferi, Temporal ArchmageU, GWUDerevi, Empyrial TacticianGWU, RDaretti, Scrap SavantR, UTalrand, Sky SummonerU, GEzuri, Renegade LeaderG, WUBRGReaper KingWUBRG, RGXenagos, God of RevelsRG, CKozilek, Butcher of TruthC, WUBRGGeneral TazriWUBRG, GTitania, Protector of ArgothG