Hi! I want to ask a question regarding hybrid colors.
If play Azusa, Lost but Seeking, why cant I play vexing shusher?
I cant produce red mana, so why I cant play it?
You actually answered your own question. You can't play Vexing Shusher in Azusa, Lost but Seeking because you can't produce red mana. Look at the hybrid symbol for (R/G) if you will. You can see the R mana symbol and since Azusa, Lost but Seeking don't have R in its casting cost, you can't play Vexing Shusher.
Anyway, for the official reasoning: -
Quote from Dragonhighlander.net »
While Hybrid mana symbols may be played with either colour mana, they count as both colours. As such, they may only be played with a general which is ALL of the hybrid mana symbols' colours.
This discussion is going nowhere. As I mentioned earlier, you are free to adopt any amount of house rules as you see fit. As long as players see that this is a non-issue (I believe that this is the general stance of the majority of the players in the format), you would unlikely garner much support to push for a rules change). I'll stop commenting on this issue here since I believe that we are clogging up this thread unnecessarily.
I should point out that this thread is somewhat dedicated to answering rules query and is not really meant for debating the spirit of these rules You may have better luck with this debate if you post a separate thread for it.
On topic, I empathise with your inability to build and play a deck with Bosh as a general but as you probably already know, you are free to make house rules to accomodate this problem. Admittedly, you will have a little bit of convincing to do if you play outside your playgroup but treat this as an "additional cost" to playing a slightly controversial general. On the flip side, note that a player entering your playgroup with a firm belief that Bosh should not be allowed as a general will have to similarly convince your playgroup to disallow Bosh.
EDIT: -
Just read your some of your previous posts and I think it would be necessary for me to elaborate.
What I mean is if the rules are lacking in some sense, there should be a push by the community as a whole to change them. If it takes ousting Sheldon and his cronies or creating an alternative format (EDH v2), then so be it. Playing by the rules is great if they make sense - if they don't make sense and you still play by the rules, you're a sheep.
To be honest, I believe that only a small minority believes that the rules are lacking just because it can't accomodate a few generals. You are assuming that the rules don't make sense for everybody because they don't make sense to you. This is false. Whether or not a rule makes sense is dependent on a particular group. In fact, I still fail to see why you claim that the rules do not make sense just because they fail to accomodate a small proportion of generals.
No more of this "the rules are the rules" garbage. If the rules don't make sense, you change them. Just because the rules, as they are, allow a stable play environment doesn't mean they shouldn't be changed because other rule sets can allow stability as well (with added benefits).
There is a very good reason why the player base do not go changing the rules when it already leads to a stable play environment. If we are to overthrow a rules committee just because another rule set could allow for stability, there will ALWAYS be disagreements with the rules. One group of player will argue that Noble Hierarch should be allowed in monogreen, another would argue that Oona, Queen of the Fae shall be allowed for monoblack and so on, so forth. What is "making sense" and what is "being flavourful" anyway? Moving into wackier territories, what if one player says that it makes sense and flavourful for a goblin mountaineer to block a canyon drake just because the goblin can go on top of a mountain and jump on an unsuspecting drake that is flying along a canyon? Should we accept that player's rationale just because it 1) makes sense (it is theoretically possible) and 2) it is flavourful (goblin climbing to the top of the mountain to jump on a passing by dragon? That's flavour!)
You underestimate the challenge faced by the RC. The RC must not only make rules that makes the game stable but to act as a final authority in reconciling all the problem areas faced by all players.
Could you petition for a change of the EDH rules? Certainly.
Would that work? That's another question altogether.
To be honest, I doubt that most playgroups are concerned enough to be willing to credibly argue for this change. It is not as if there is a lack of Green-Black and Red generals to justify the change in this policy. I don't really see the point of mobilising the entire EDH community to argue for this change though; as long as your playgroup accepts it, it should be good enough. If you do choose to go to another playgroup, ask nicely if you can play Bosh. I doubt that many players would actually bother.
Just to confirm before I start using it at my playgroups. In theory, if I am playing Rhys the Redeemed as my general, it is perfectly legal to have only mono-white cards in my 99-card library, right? I am not obliged to play all colours of my generals if I don't want to, correct?
It does but i like viperesque's answer better and i don;t know which one of you to believe
When in doubt, listen to the guy with "Rules Guru" in their title (hint: it's not me)
Actually, after rereading your original question, I may have made a mistake in answering your question. I misread your question and in my scenario, you were controlling the Exotic Orchard and your opponent was controlling the Vivid Creek. Basically, I mixed up who owned what (in your scenario, you control the Vivid Creek and your opponent controlled the Exotic Orchard. Many apologies for that.
I was actually trying to answer a different question than viperesque was answering: -
Well my vivid can only produce my general's colours and only if there is a counter on it or else it only produces one colour. It isn't the costs that trouble me it is that the land cannot produce a different mana colour (for me).
Then again if i was to steal a (vivid) land from my oponent with a dominus of fealty it could again only produce my general's colours or colourless mana wouldn't it?
Well my vivid can only produce my general's colours and only if there is a counter on it or else it only produces one colour. It isn't the costs that trouble me it is that the land cannot produce a different mana colour (for me).
Then again if i was to steal a (vivid) land from my oponent with a dominus of fealty it could again only produce my general's colours or colourless mana wouldn't it?
Okay, I think you are getting a little mixed up so I'll clear it up for you from the beginning.
You will be able to produce the following mana using your Exotic Orchard R, G, W and 1. Exotic Orchard ignores all costs of mana producing ability (if any), besides the requirement to t (because it is stated on Exotic Orchard.
The above remains true even if Vivid Creek has no counters on it. Why? Because as mentioned earlier, Exotic Orchard ignores all cost associated with producing one mana of any color to your mana pool and "remove a charge counter" is a cost for the effect.
If it is still confusing, think of it this way. If your opponent has Horizon Canopy in play, you can tap your Exotic Orchard for G or W without paying any life but if you somehow manage to steal that Horizon Canopy with Dominus of Fealty, you need to pay one life to get G or W, right?
So if the vivd doesn't have any counters left the oponent's orchard would only produce the vivid colour right?
The orchard checks the effects of all mana-producing abilities of lands your opponents control, but it doesn't check their costs. So, if your opponent has a Vivid Land, it will produce any colours your general would allow you to. I think you can choose colourless mana by choosing a colour not matching your general but I am not sure about this). It doesn't matter if there is a counter on your opponent's vivid land or otherwise.
Whoa.... That's one really strange ruling though admittedly, my question wasn't the most common situation ever (though it actually occured when my friend's Akroma, Angel of Fury was bounced)
1. Yes, additional costs are still paid.
2. That's actually a good thought. I don't think you're under any compulsion to tell him by the current rules.
I am pretty sure that at some point, you must let the opponent know that he is being hit by the general. How else would the opponent know if it is 2 general damage or just plain 2 damage?
Just to confirm: If my general is put into the command zone from anywhere the first time, it would cost 5 to morph it back into play from the command zone instead of 3. Is the statement true?
Akroma, Angel of Fury is returned to my hand (say using Stingscourger). From there, I morph it back into play. When I smash with that morphed creature, does it deal general damage? If yes, when should I tell my opponent that I morphed Akroma not just any random morph? I am refering to rule 9 of the Elderdragonhighlander.net rules which says: -
Quote from Official Elder Dragon Highlander (EDH) Rules »
A General which is affected by Cytoshape, or is face down, is still a General.
No, you may not. The Command Zone and the Hand are two different zones.
On the same note, you don't get a divinity counter when you cast Myojin of Cleansing Fire from the command zone and you lose the game when you successfully cast Phage the Untouchable from the command zone (unless something like Platinum Angel saves you from dying).
You actually answered your own question. You can't play Vexing Shusher in Azusa, Lost but Seeking because you can't produce red mana. Look at the hybrid symbol for (R/G) if you will. You can see the R mana symbol and since Azusa, Lost but Seeking don't have R in its casting cost, you can't play Vexing Shusher.
Anyway, for the official reasoning: -
On topic, I empathise with your inability to build and play a deck with Bosh as a general but as you probably already know, you are free to make house rules to accomodate this problem. Admittedly, you will have a little bit of convincing to do if you play outside your playgroup but treat this as an "additional cost" to playing a slightly controversial general. On the flip side, note that a player entering your playgroup with a firm belief that Bosh should not be allowed as a general will have to similarly convince your playgroup to disallow Bosh.
EDIT: -
Just read your some of your previous posts and I think it would be necessary for me to elaborate.
To be honest, I believe that only a small minority believes that the rules are lacking just because it can't accomodate a few generals. You are assuming that the rules don't make sense for everybody because they don't make sense to you. This is false. Whether or not a rule makes sense is dependent on a particular group. In fact, I still fail to see why you claim that the rules do not make sense just because they fail to accomodate a small proportion of generals.
There is a very good reason why the player base do not go changing the rules when it already leads to a stable play environment. If we are to overthrow a rules committee just because another rule set could allow for stability, there will ALWAYS be disagreements with the rules. One group of player will argue that Noble Hierarch should be allowed in monogreen, another would argue that Oona, Queen of the Fae shall be allowed for monoblack and so on, so forth. What is "making sense" and what is "being flavourful" anyway? Moving into wackier territories, what if one player says that it makes sense and flavourful for a goblin mountaineer to block a canyon drake just because the goblin can go on top of a mountain and jump on an unsuspecting drake that is flying along a canyon? Should we accept that player's rationale just because it 1) makes sense (it is theoretically possible) and 2) it is flavourful (goblin climbing to the top of the mountain to jump on a passing by dragon? That's flavour!)
You underestimate the challenge faced by the RC. The RC must not only make rules that makes the game stable but to act as a final authority in reconciling all the problem areas faced by all players.
Would that work? That's another question altogether.
To be honest, I doubt that most playgroups are concerned enough to be willing to credibly argue for this change. It is not as if there is a lack of Green-Black and Red generals to justify the change in this policy. I don't really see the point of mobilising the entire EDH community to argue for this change though; as long as your playgroup accepts it, it should be good enough. If you do choose to go to another playgroup, ask nicely if you can play Bosh. I doubt that many players would actually bother.
Just to confirm before I start using it at my playgroups. In theory, if I am playing Rhys the Redeemed as my general, it is perfectly legal to have only mono-white cards in my 99-card library, right? I am not obliged to play all colours of my generals if I don't want to, correct?
When in doubt, listen to the guy with "Rules Guru" in their title (hint: it's not me)
Actually, after rereading your original question, I may have made a mistake in answering your question. I misread your question and in my scenario, you were controlling the Exotic Orchard and your opponent was controlling the Vivid Creek. Basically, I mixed up who owned what (in your scenario, you control the Vivid Creek and your opponent controlled the Exotic Orchard. Many apologies for that.
I was actually trying to answer a different question than viperesque was answering: -
Okay, I think you are getting a little mixed up so I'll clear it up for you from the beginning.
If you have an Exotic Orchard, your opponent has a Vivid Land (say, Vivid Creek) and your general is Uril, the Miststalker: -
I hope that helps
The orchard checks the effects of all mana-producing abilities of lands your opponents control, but it doesn't check their costs. So, if your opponent has a Vivid Land, it will produce any colours your general would allow you to. I think you can choose colourless mana by choosing a colour not matching your general but I am not sure about this). It doesn't matter if there is a counter on your opponent's vivid land or otherwise.
In any case, thanks
I am pretty sure that at some point, you must let the opponent know that he is being hit by the general. How else would the opponent know if it is 2 general damage or just plain 2 damage?
Assume that my general is Akroma, Angel of Fury: -
Thanks in advance for the answers.
On the same note, you don't get a divinity counter when you cast Myojin of Cleansing Fire from the command zone and you lose the game when you successfully cast Phage the Untouchable from the command zone (unless something like Platinum Angel saves you from dying).
The following are banned: -
* Ancestral Recall
* Balance
* Biorhythm
* Black Lotus
* Coalition Victory
* Fastbond
* Gifts Ungiven
* Kokusho, the Evening Star
* Karakas
* Library of Alexandria
* Limited Resources
* Lion's Eye Diamond
* Metalworker
* Mox Sapphire, Ruby, Pearl, Emerald and Jet
* Panoptic Mirror
* Protean Hulk
* Recurring Nightmare
* Sway of the Stars
* Time Vault
* Time Walk
* Tinker
* Upheaval
* Worldgorger Dragon
* Yawgmoth's Bargain
* Painter's Servant