Every few weeks, when this topic comes up over and over, I wonder why a person who is drawn to this format for its imposed restrictions on deck-building would be upset about those same restrictions which drew them to the format to begin with.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I have seen the true path. I will not warm myself by the fire—I will become the flame."
—Lim-Dul, the Necromancer
I find it amusing that people are willing to take a completely unsourced anonymous post on gatherer that contains known factual errors (the color identity rules haven't changed on hybrid since the day hybrid was printed) as 'proof' that Mark throws tantrums about color identity and WotC and the RC are engaged in a calculated game of brinkmanship.
The only actual citation there - in which Mark (along with his questioner) gets the rules on color identity wrong should be a far better indicator about how much time he spends worrying about it.
The reality is the opposite. The mana symbol was put into reminder text and not as part of the ability so that the monocolor cards would work in the appropriate monocolor Commander deck. That was a conscious choice made by templating.
I find it amusing that people are willing to take a completely unsourced anonymous post on gatherer that contains known factual errors (the color identity rules haven't changed on hybrid since the day hybrid was printed) as 'proof' that Mark throws tantrums about color identity and WotC and the RC are engaged in a calculated game of brinkmanship.
The only actual citation there - in which Mark (along with his questioner) gets the rules on color identity wrong should be a far better indicator about how much time he spends worrying about it.
The reality is the opposite. The mana symbol was put into reminder text and not as part of the ability so that the monocolor cards would work in the appropriate monocolor Commander deck. That was a conscious choice made by templating.
In your opinion, if the hybrid mana had been templated differently in a similar manner to how extort works in the current system how would you feel about the existing hybrid cards? Purely a hypothetical question as to how you feel about the current hybrid cards if they fit more aesthetically.
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.
I find it amusing that people are willing to take a completely unsourced anonymous post on gatherer that contains known factual errors (the color identity rules haven't changed on hybrid since the day hybrid was printed) as 'proof' that Mark throws tantrums about color identity and WotC and the RC are engaged in a calculated game of brinkmanship.
The only actual citation there - in which Mark (along with his questioner) gets the rules on color identity wrong should be a far better indicator about how much time he spends worrying about it.
The reality is the opposite. The mana symbol was put into reminder text and not as part of the ability so that the monocolor cards would work in the appropriate monocolor Commander deck. That was a conscious choice made by templating.
Since you're here and many eyes are on this, could you make a ruling on if crypt ghast is allowed in a mono colored black deck? It seems like many people are confused, and the statements made by a few and the ruling on the mtgcommander site seem to disagree with what you're saying. This makes things a bit confusing:
For the sake of information sharing, and for people who think extort is still allowed in a mono colored black deck, please see the following post from page 1:
People always go on about how reminder text doesn't count, and its true, it does not. What does count though, is the rules linked to that ability.
From the Comprehensive Rules:
702.100. Extort
702.100a Extort is a triggered ability. "Extort" means "Whenever you cast a spell, you may pay B/W. If you do, each opponent loses 1 life and you gain life equal to the total life lost this way."
702.100b If a permanent has multiple instances of extort, each triggers separately.
The comprehensive rules for extort have the w/b hybrid mana ability in them, and anything with the keyword extort has these rules attached to it. The color identity of a card is specified by all mana symbols that appear on the card anywhere, including within its rules text.
This was ignored/changed when Extort was printed though.
I actually like Maro's way of thinking. A black commander can only make black mana and cast black spells. Divinity of Pride can be cast using only black mana and is a black spell. There is no requirement to be able to make white mana to cast Divinity of Pride, and yet you can't play it in a black commander deck. It doesn't make sense to me why a black mage can't cast it in EDH, but should be able to theoretically.
Official EDH site ruling for reference:
A card's colour identity is its colour plus the colour of any mana symbols in the card's rules text. A card's colour identity is established before the game begins, and cannot be changed by game effects.
The Commander's colour identity restricts what cards may appear in the deck
Is the above paragraph talking about rule text (that does actually happen to have the mana costs in the colors for extort), or is it referring to something else?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
EDH Decks:
Kaalia's Army of AnnhilationRWB
Obzedat, Ghost Council - Life Gain MattersWB
Jarad, Golgari Lich Lord - Fatty Reanimator ToolboxBG
Nekusar, the Mindrazer - Draw to DieRBU
Marath, Will of the Wild - Token Pump and TapGWR
Roon of the Hidden Realm - Blink to BleedWBG
It's talking about rules text, but NOT about reminder text. Because the W/B cost is in the reminder text, it isn't considered to be present on the card for the purposes of colour identity.
For example, Flying has reminder text that talks about how non-flying creatures cannot block flying creatures. But that text isn't part of the card's text, it's how the flying keyword works. Because they keyworded Extort, and didn't write it as Extort [value], but just as 'Extort', then the reminder text can be omitted- and thus ignored.
The thing is, this is really easy to understand, but since MaRo doesn't play Commander, he didn't take the five minutes to figure out that his 'solution' would never have worked in the first place.
Hybrid cards are cards whose abilities could be present in either color and the card is printed as being red or green. That is true.
However! My commander is only Red - I should not be able to put that R/G card into my R deck because it has a color that my commander is not. Simple as that.
Let's just get rid of extort in non WB decks and call it a day. If it wasn't printed with reminder text and every extort ability was W/B:Extort we wouldn't be having this discussion.
[EDH] It's built to be a casual format and to a specific vision, and if you don't like the vision, there's nothing wrong with that, but it's not going to change to accommodate everyone. Big tent is not a goal.
I don't know. That's the kind of reductive dismissiveness that leads Braids and Erayo getting kicked out of the format. The effect works fine as printed, and it's not like these extort cards are showing up in every deck able to run them, so there's not much of a fire in need of extinguishing.
It's talking about rules text, but NOT about reminder text. Because the W/B cost is in the reminder text, it isn't considered to be present on the card for the purposes of colour identity.
For example, Flying has reminder text that talks about how non-flying creatures cannot block flying creatures. But that text isn't part of the card's text, it's how the flying keyword works. Because they keyworded Extort, and didn't write it as Extort [value], but just as 'Extort', then the reminder text can be omitted- and thus ignored.
The thing is, this is really easy to understand, but since MaRo doesn't play Commander, he didn't take the five minutes to figure out that his 'solution' would never have worked in the first place.
Ok, so even though it is in the ruling, it's still just considered reminder text?
702.100a Extort is a triggered ability. "Extort" means "Whenever you cast a spell, you may pay B/W. If you do, each opponent loses 1 life and you gain life equal to the total life lost this way."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
EDH Decks:
Kaalia's Army of AnnhilationRWB
Obzedat, Ghost Council - Life Gain MattersWB
Jarad, Golgari Lich Lord - Fatty Reanimator ToolboxBG
Nekusar, the Mindrazer - Draw to DieRBU
Marath, Will of the Wild - Token Pump and TapGWR
Roon of the Hidden Realm - Blink to BleedWBG
Color Identity isn't the same as "what colors can I cast this spell with" but it's an interesting discussion. I wouldn't be opposed if the rules changed though. I wonder what cards MaRo thinks should be (un)banned from the format.
And what would happen if it changed control? Would we have to track which color it was based on its owner?
First of all, owner =/= controller. Second of all, I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
EDIT: It looks like we largely agree based on the rest of your post though.
What I mean is if we were going to consider hybrid cards to be only the colors a player's deck can play (owner), we also probably have to keep that consistent even if someone else took control of the creature via exchange, gain control, return from graveyard, etc. So if a black player were to reanimate a blue player's Nightveil Spector, that one would be blue but the one from their own deck would be black. The only alternative would be to have the creatures change color as they changed control, so it would change from being blue to being black.
The main point is that if hybrids were to be allowed in decks lacking some of the colors, it would mean that those decks are playing multi color creatures. The alternatives (either tracking or changing colors) are simply too absurd to be reasonable. Therefore, hybrid cards are very unlikely to be allowed in single color decks because they are quite clearly and unchangably multi colored creatures.
What is wrong with using a City of Brass to pay G for Trample from a red card with a green activated ability in a mono red deck? If you think it is wrong, have the rule say that you can't cast abilities outside of the commanders colour identity. Who cares if a card has an ability it can't/isn't allowed to use?
I've seen problems like this in other games and it usually comes down to lack of imagination and ego preventing common sense changes.
Who cares? I do. The rules committee does. Anyone who appreciates the concept of color identity (which is not identical to a card's color) does. The format was created in part with this unique concept, which is not used in any other format. To me, it is an integral part of the format's flavor and part of what separates it from just normal singleton formats.
As for the "lack of imagination and ego," I'd say that creating the concept of color identity is a sign of imagination (not a lack of), and your off-hand comment about common sense changes strikes me as ego. What makes your loose interpretation/outright destruction of color identity any more common sense than the current rules?
As for hybrid:
The rules of Magic: the Gathering state a hybrid card is both colors at all times. You can PyroblastDimir Guildmage even if cast for only BB. You cannot TerrorDivinity of Pride even if it was cast for WWWWW. The cards are both colors; therefore, your mono-white deck is no longer mono-white if it contains a black card, regardless of whether that card can be cast for white. The same argument of "but I could cast it" could be used to justify running ANY card in a mono-W deck as long as you include Celestial Dawn as one of the 99. The same line of thinking could be extrapolated to allow ANY card in mono-B reanimator deck because they can get it into play. That would be dumb. EDH/Commander is defined in part by the color identity of its commander. There is no need to change the rule; if you don't like it, there are plenty of other formats without the color identity rule - in fact, every other format falls into this category.
Look at it like this: Jace is the primarily blue planeswalker, but he's been known to dip into White and Black magic. Ajani is a white mage, but he obviously uses both red and green magic.
Why is it so odd for Azusa to cast a off color spell?
Azusa is not a planeswalker.
Glancing through the list of the 570 legendary creatures currently in print (which are not banned), I count 11 characters that even had the planesalker spark. Several of those never had their spark awakened, or the card depicts them prior to their spark awakening. One of them (Blind Seer) was actively hiding the fact that he was a planeswalker. That's 1.93% of legendary creature cards with (storyline) power comparable to a 'walker.
Since you're here and many eyes are on this, could you make a ruling on if crypt ghast is allowed in a mono colored black deck? It seems like many people are confused, and the statements made by a few and the ruling on the mtgcommander site seem to disagree with what you're saying.
Extort cards have always been permitted in monocolor decks.
It feels odd for a wizard to be able to copy an creature over and over?
Look at it like this: Jace is the primarily blue planeswalker, but he's been known to dip into White and Black magic. Ajani is a white mage, but he obviously uses both red and green magic.
Why is it so odd for Azusa to cast a off color spell?
As for it being "Aesthetically unpleasing", the RC should probably leave subjective opinions out of Rules Lawyering.
Also note a planeswalker's color identity is a reflection of their personality and mindset not a reflection of the types of magics they can wield. Jace could just as easily conjur a fireball or summon a massive hydra, but he would rather manipulate his foes with blue magics because that is what he does.
In your opinion, if the hybrid mana had been templated differently in a similar manner to how extort works in the current system how would you feel about the existing hybrid cards? Purely a hypothetical question as to how you feel about the current hybrid cards if they fit more aesthetically.
I cannot conceive how that could be templated. You'd have to go to entirely new mana symbols (the guild logos) and that would still leave the card being both colors.
In the event that one of those turned up in the text box of an artifact, we'd figure something out. But, man, talk about confusing to new players!
Since you're here and many eyes are on this, could you make a ruling on if crypt ghast is allowed in a mono colored black deck? It seems like many people are confused, and the statements made by a few and the ruling on the mtgcommander site seem to disagree with what you're saying. This makes things a bit confusing:
Crypt Ghast is fine in mono-black. Color Identity looks at the symbols on the card (ignoring reminder text). It doesn't look through into the CR to do text replacement or anything odd like that.
I support the color identity rules. I enjoy the flavor of Commander. I like Mark Rosewater just fine, and I actually think he does a great job at WotC. I am also glad that he isn't in charge of the RC, and I am very glad that hybrid cards stay both colors, as flavor-wise it seems they should.
It would be totally different...... but there really isnt' anything that Red and White have that aren't "Weenies and lots of them".
This doesn't mean that the rules should be changed so rashly just to help 2/5ths of the color pie. This solution being proposed benefits the other 3 colors just as much. And really.. white does have some big things like angels, lots of powerful permission cards, removal, and enchantment-related stuff, red has countless dragons and crazy good cards which I think makes it as good of a color as black. Really, the reason they're at the bottom is probably because those two colors are fitting pretty well in their parts of the pie overall, not really breaking the guidelines like blue always does. The top 3 colors of blue, green, and black have just ended up with more ways of stretching out of their parts of the color pie with more good cards than the other two colors have so far. If they're going to get more potentially powerful in EDH it should be from new cards in future sets. Who knows, maybe white will become the king of colors one day.
I hope they don't make any decisions about hybrid cards anytime soon for one reason: format stability.
We've already gotten a taste of what new rulings will impact the format in the C14 spoilers so far - namely, that certain planeswalker cards may be used as generals. Earlier this month, the banlist got a major revamp (I'm not gonna weigh in on this here...). That's 2 pretty significant changes to the format in less than 6 months. Probably less than even 3 months, but I'm not really counting. Still, in reaction to Teferi, PW and in response to the new banlist, decks all over the world have undergone some significant (other not-so-significant) changes to keep current with the official rulings.
In any case, if there were to be a decision about hybrid manage costs on top of all this, players might be forced yet again to revamp their decks; scrapping some entirely, creating whole new ones, and even if a player left his deck alone, he'd have to cope with other players' decks that changed to suit the new rules. He might even feel that he must change his deck to keep playing in a satisfied way in his meta.
This isn't anything new. It's the same old process that happens when any rulings are changed or revised. (Remember what happened when the Legendary Rule was revised?) Anyways, all I'm saying is that a rulings decision about hybrids right now is too close to other format-impacting rule changes. The timing isn't right.
I agree with the idea that hybrid cards should be playable in mono-colored decks. I don't think it would be format-warping, and I think flavorwise it fits the bill perfectly. While Commander decks feature the commander and the color identity as part of the format, you have to remember that...
"YOU ARE A PLANESWALKER."
So if you want to tap into the swamps of Kamigawa, the sewers of Ravnica, and the Vault of Whispers on Mirrodin to supply yourself with ample black mana to play a Divinity of Pride, you should, speaking from a flavor standpoint, be able to do so without your favored creature being like "No I don't like that one it's icky."
I think that this may also be part of what is driving Maro's argument. The idea of the player as someone slinging spells should not be limited to the notions of color so much as the mana you have to tap into in order to produce the spell.
Edit: I do agree that Phyrexian mana should not be given the same treatment, as it's more an alternate cost (like a blood sacrifice in exchange for the mana or something?)
I find the nuances of the colour identiy rules a lot more counterintuitive than a lot of things that have gone the way of the dodo in Magic (like tapped blockers not dealing damage, or tapped artifacts turning off, or mana burn).
There is no logic to Surrik Dragonclaw refusing to work with a Noble Hierarch because it produces icky white mana, but being happy to work with a Birds of Paradise (which also produces icky white mana), or being happy to visit a Windswept Heath but not a Savannah.
The 'Mana that would be added to your mana pool that is outside your color identity becomes colourless' rule alone would keep the flavour while playing better.
I don't agree that Hybrid cards should be playable in a deck that only contains one of its colors. My rationale behind my stand is simple: This restriction is a DECK-BUILDING RESTRICTION, not a gameplay restriction.
EDH is unique in the point that it is the only "mainstream" format with "DECK BUILDING RESTRICTIONS" as a major criteria process. EDH is the format that restricts everything (except basic lands and Relentless Rats-kind of cards, and even that has some people questioning it as well) to 1-of, not because of power-reasons like Vintage, but simply because of restrictions. EDH is the format that dictates an absolute amount of 100 cards total, instead of a minimum deck size (Yes, some people disagree with this rule as well, but that's not the point here).
Your standard, modern and limited decks don't stop you from putting Divinity of Pride in your mono-white and mono-black decks, but it doesn't stop you from putting it in your mono-red deck with no way to cast it either. Or putting it in that Jhoira of the Ghitu Modern deck that can suspend it.
It's precisely because of its many restrictions that makes EDH the unique format that it is now. Allowing the hybrids in decks with only 1 of their colors does increase the variety in deck building, but that is the precise opposite of restriction, which is what I see as a major purpose of the format (DECK BUILDING RESTRICTIONS).
And on the topic of "But that goes against why Hybrid was invented", firstly take note Hybrid cards existed prior to EDH (or at least way before it became popular, I don't know the exact year EDH was invented) and secondly, not every aspect of Magic: the Gathering was invented for EDH. It's like saying that the 1-of rule goes against the reason Rite of Flame-type of cards were created (or any card that gets better in multiples.)
I agree with the idea that hybrid cards should be playable in mono-colored decks. I don't think it would be format-warping, and I think flavorwise it fits the bill perfectly. While Commander decks feature the commander and the color identity as part of the format, you have to remember that...
"YOU ARE A PLANESWALKER."
So if you want to tap into the swamps of Kamigawa, the sewers of Ravnica, and the Vault of Whispers on Mirrodin to supply yourself with ample black mana to play a Divinity of Pride, you should, speaking from a flavor standpoint, be able to do so without your favored creature being like "No I don't like that one it's icky."
I think that this may also be part of what is driving Maro's argument. The idea of the player as someone slinging spells should not be limited to the notions of color so much as the mana you have to tap into in order to produce the spell.
Edit: I do agree that Phyrexian mana should not be given the same treatment, as it's more an alternate cost (like a blood sacrifice in exchange for the mana or something?)
I will drop a counterargument and say that in Commander, "You, the planeswalker" is not necessarily valid. "You" in this case, is replaced with the chosen general.
On the topic at hand, however, if you let a card like Divinity of Pride be playable in a deck void of either color because you can still cast it, then there's no reason why cards such as Beseech the Queen and Phyrexian Metamorph would still be illegal because in the same argument, you can still cast them. For those of you supporting one and rejecting the other by saying Beseech and Metamorph have a defined color identity, Divinity has a defined color identity as well. Beseech is Black, Metamorph is Blue, and Divinity is White and Black. Just because I can cast Beseech the Queen to fetch Phyrexian Metamorph to clone my Divinity of Pride in my Radiant, Archangel deck does not mean that I am allowed to include them in my 99 cards. Why? They go against the color identity of my commander. Now, if there was a card that was "6 Sorcery - Search your library for a card with converted mana cost equal or less than the number of lands you control" or "3 Artifact - Additional cost pay 2 life, ETB as a creature or artifact in play. This is still an artifact" or "WWWWW Creature - Flying Lifelink - If you have 20 or more life, this creature gets +4/+4 - 4/4". then hell yea, I would run them in my Radiant deck. However, they don't exist. Instead, we have three cards with distinct color identities that can only be included in decks with a general that shares those colors.
In every other format, there is nothing stopping you from casting those cards in a mono-white deck, but this is a format defined by it's restrictions. That's half the fun and challenge of it all. Yes, I'd love Ashling to have more card draw, but just because I could cast Tezzeret's Gambit, doesn't mean I'm allowed to put it in the deck. Likewsie, I'd LOVE to put Crystal Shard in half my decks, but I can't because it's blue, so I don't, even though I could still use it.
—Lim-Dul, the Necromancer
EDH/Commander
WWMichiko Konda, Truth Seeker Mono-White Control
RWBasandra, Battle Seraph Sunforger Shenanigans
GRWZacama Loam & Lands
Cube
Draft my "Classic Border Cube"
WUBRGCheck out some of my older lists and my Type4 Cube!GRBUW
Extort (Reminder text)
?
MuzzioU XenagosGR NahiriW GitrogGB MarathGRW MarchesaUBR JenaraGUW KarlovBW TazriWUBRG
Retired: RakdosBR
yeah, that would have been better.
UBRThe MindrazerRBU
UUUSpymaster of TrestGGG
GGGThe South TreeGGG
RRRHuman AscendantRRR
The only actual citation there - in which Mark (along with his questioner) gets the rules on color identity wrong should be a far better indicator about how much time he spends worrying about it.
The reality is the opposite. The mana symbol was put into reminder text and not as part of the ability so that the monocolor cards would work in the appropriate monocolor Commander deck. That was a conscious choice made by templating.
In your opinion, if the hybrid mana had been templated differently in a similar manner to how extort works in the current system how would you feel about the existing hybrid cards? Purely a hypothetical question as to how you feel about the current hybrid cards if they fit more aesthetically.
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics by Xen
[Modern] Allies
Since you're here and many eyes are on this, could you make a ruling on if crypt ghast is allowed in a mono colored black deck? It seems like many people are confused, and the statements made by a few and the ruling on the mtgcommander site seem to disagree with what you're saying. This makes things a bit confusing:
Is the above paragraph talking about rule text (that does actually happen to have the mana costs in the colors for extort), or is it referring to something else?
Kaalia's Army of Annhilation RWB
Obzedat, Ghost Council - Life Gain Matters WB
Jarad, Golgari Lich Lord - Fatty Reanimator Toolbox BG
Nekusar, the Mindrazer - Draw to Die RBU
Marath, Will of the Wild - Token Pump and Tap GWR
Roon of the Hidden Realm - Blink to Bleed WBG
For example, Flying has reminder text that talks about how non-flying creatures cannot block flying creatures. But that text isn't part of the card's text, it's how the flying keyword works. Because they keyworded Extort, and didn't write it as Extort [value], but just as 'Extort', then the reminder text can be omitted- and thus ignored.
The thing is, this is really easy to understand, but since MaRo doesn't play Commander, he didn't take the five minutes to figure out that his 'solution' would never have worked in the first place.
However! My commander is only Red - I should not be able to put that R/G card into my R deck because it has a color that my commander is not. Simple as that.
Let's just get rid of extort in non WB decks and call it a day. If it wasn't printed with reminder text and every extort ability was W/B:Extort we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Oh Rider, my heart will go on...
Ok, so even though it is in the ruling, it's still just considered reminder text?
702.100a Extort is a triggered ability. "Extort" means "Whenever you cast a spell, you may pay B/W. If you do, each opponent loses 1 life and you gain life equal to the total life lost this way."
Kaalia's Army of Annhilation RWB
Obzedat, Ghost Council - Life Gain Matters WB
Jarad, Golgari Lich Lord - Fatty Reanimator Toolbox BG
Nekusar, the Mindrazer - Draw to Die RBU
Marath, Will of the Wild - Token Pump and Tap GWR
Roon of the Hidden Realm - Blink to Bleed WBG
What I mean is if we were going to consider hybrid cards to be only the colors a player's deck can play (owner), we also probably have to keep that consistent even if someone else took control of the creature via exchange, gain control, return from graveyard, etc. So if a black player were to reanimate a blue player's Nightveil Spector, that one would be blue but the one from their own deck would be black. The only alternative would be to have the creatures change color as they changed control, so it would change from being blue to being black.
The main point is that if hybrids were to be allowed in decks lacking some of the colors, it would mean that those decks are playing multi color creatures. The alternatives (either tracking or changing colors) are simply too absurd to be reasonable. Therefore, hybrid cards are very unlikely to be allowed in single color decks because they are quite clearly and unchangably multi colored creatures.
As for the "lack of imagination and ego," I'd say that creating the concept of color identity is a sign of imagination (not a lack of), and your off-hand comment about common sense changes strikes me as ego. What makes your loose interpretation/outright destruction of color identity any more common sense than the current rules?
As for hybrid:
The rules of Magic: the Gathering state a hybrid card is both colors at all times. You can Pyroblast Dimir Guildmage even if cast for only BB. You cannot Terror Divinity of Pride even if it was cast for WWWWW. The cards are both colors; therefore, your mono-white deck is no longer mono-white if it contains a black card, regardless of whether that card can be cast for white. The same argument of "but I could cast it" could be used to justify running ANY card in a mono-W deck as long as you include Celestial Dawn as one of the 99. The same line of thinking could be extrapolated to allow ANY card in mono-B reanimator deck because they can get it into play. That would be dumb. EDH/Commander is defined in part by the color identity of its commander. There is no need to change the rule; if you don't like it, there are plenty of other formats without the color identity rule - in fact, every other format falls into this category.
2023 Average Peasant Cube|and Discussion
Because I have more decks than fit in a signature
Useful Resources:
MTGSalvation tags
EDHREC
ManabaseCrafter
Glancing through the list of the 570 legendary creatures currently in print (which are not banned), I count 11 characters that even had the planesalker spark. Several of those never had their spark awakened, or the card depicts them prior to their spark awakening. One of them (Blind Seer) was actively hiding the fact that he was a planeswalker. That's 1.93% of legendary creature cards with (storyline) power comparable to a 'walker.
Extort cards have always been permitted in monocolor decks.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Also note a planeswalker's color identity is a reflection of their personality and mindset not a reflection of the types of magics they can wield. Jace could just as easily conjur a fireball or summon a massive hydra, but he would rather manipulate his foes with blue magics because that is what he does.
I cannot conceive how that could be templated. You'd have to go to entirely new mana symbols (the guild logos) and that would still leave the card being both colors.
In the event that one of those turned up in the text box of an artifact, we'd figure something out. But, man, talk about confusing to new players!
Crypt Ghast is fine in mono-black. Color Identity looks at the symbols on the card (ignoring reminder text). It doesn't look through into the CR to do text replacement or anything odd like that.
This doesn't mean that the rules should be changed so rashly just to help 2/5ths of the color pie. This solution being proposed benefits the other 3 colors just as much. And really.. white does have some big things like angels, lots of powerful permission cards, removal, and enchantment-related stuff, red has countless dragons and crazy good cards which I think makes it as good of a color as black. Really, the reason they're at the bottom is probably because those two colors are fitting pretty well in their parts of the pie overall, not really breaking the guidelines like blue always does. The top 3 colors of blue, green, and black have just ended up with more ways of stretching out of their parts of the color pie with more good cards than the other two colors have so far. If they're going to get more potentially powerful in EDH it should be from new cards in future sets. Who knows, maybe white will become the king of colors one day.
We've already gotten a taste of what new rulings will impact the format in the C14 spoilers so far - namely, that certain planeswalker cards may be used as generals. Earlier this month, the banlist got a major revamp (I'm not gonna weigh in on this here...). That's 2 pretty significant changes to the format in less than 6 months. Probably less than even 3 months, but I'm not really counting. Still, in reaction to Teferi, PW and in response to the new banlist, decks all over the world have undergone some significant (other not-so-significant) changes to keep current with the official rulings.
In any case, if there were to be a decision about hybrid manage costs on top of all this, players might be forced yet again to revamp their decks; scrapping some entirely, creating whole new ones, and even if a player left his deck alone, he'd have to cope with other players' decks that changed to suit the new rules. He might even feel that he must change his deck to keep playing in a satisfied way in his meta.
This isn't anything new. It's the same old process that happens when any rulings are changed or revised. (Remember what happened when the Legendary Rule was revised?) Anyways, all I'm saying is that a rulings decision about hybrids right now is too close to other format-impacting rule changes. The timing isn't right.
Thank you to Rivenor for this awesome banner!
Palladia-Mors of {The Spirit of EDH}
EDH
WLinvala, Queen of the AngelsW
WUThe Prison of the Grand ArbiterUW [Primer]
URNiv-Mizzet, Handcycling ComboRU
UTalrand, Drake-Slinging to VictoryU
WUGDerevi, Tactical ShufflingGUW
BCao Cao, Discard Stax of Absolute MiseryB
"YOU ARE A PLANESWALKER."
So if you want to tap into the swamps of Kamigawa, the sewers of Ravnica, and the Vault of Whispers on Mirrodin to supply yourself with ample black mana to play a Divinity of Pride, you should, speaking from a flavor standpoint, be able to do so without your favored creature being like "No I don't like that one it's icky."
I think that this may also be part of what is driving Maro's argument. The idea of the player as someone slinging spells should not be limited to the notions of color so much as the mana you have to tap into in order to produce the spell.
Edit: I do agree that Phyrexian mana should not be given the same treatment, as it's more an alternate cost (like a blood sacrifice in exchange for the mana or something?)
There is no logic to Surrik Dragonclaw refusing to work with a Noble Hierarch because it produces icky white mana, but being happy to work with a Birds of Paradise (which also produces icky white mana), or being happy to visit a Windswept Heath but not a Savannah.
The 'Mana that would be added to your mana pool that is outside your color identity becomes colourless' rule alone would keep the flavour while playing better.
I don't say it often, but good on you Maro.
EDH is unique in the point that it is the only "mainstream" format with "DECK BUILDING RESTRICTIONS" as a major criteria process. EDH is the format that restricts everything (except basic lands and Relentless Rats-kind of cards, and even that has some people questioning it as well) to 1-of, not because of power-reasons like Vintage, but simply because of restrictions. EDH is the format that dictates an absolute amount of 100 cards total, instead of a minimum deck size (Yes, some people disagree with this rule as well, but that's not the point here).
Your standard, modern and limited decks don't stop you from putting Divinity of Pride in your mono-white and mono-black decks, but it doesn't stop you from putting it in your mono-red deck with no way to cast it either. Or putting it in that Jhoira of the Ghitu Modern deck that can suspend it.
It's precisely because of its many restrictions that makes EDH the unique format that it is now. Allowing the hybrids in decks with only 1 of their colors does increase the variety in deck building, but that is the precise opposite of restriction, which is what I see as a major purpose of the format (DECK BUILDING RESTRICTIONS).
And on the topic of "But that goes against why Hybrid was invented", firstly take note Hybrid cards existed prior to EDH (or at least way before it became popular, I don't know the exact year EDH was invented) and secondly, not every aspect of Magic: the Gathering was invented for EDH. It's like saying that the 1-of rule goes against the reason Rite of Flame-type of cards were created (or any card that gets better in multiples.)
This is just my stand on the matter.
I will drop a counterargument and say that in Commander, "You, the planeswalker" is not necessarily valid. "You" in this case, is replaced with the chosen general.
On the topic at hand, however, if you let a card like Divinity of Pride be playable in a deck void of either color because you can still cast it, then there's no reason why cards such as Beseech the Queen and Phyrexian Metamorph would still be illegal because in the same argument, you can still cast them. For those of you supporting one and rejecting the other by saying Beseech and Metamorph have a defined color identity, Divinity has a defined color identity as well. Beseech is Black, Metamorph is Blue, and Divinity is White and Black. Just because I can cast Beseech the Queen to fetch Phyrexian Metamorph to clone my Divinity of Pride in my Radiant, Archangel deck does not mean that I am allowed to include them in my 99 cards. Why? They go against the color identity of my commander. Now, if there was a card that was "6 Sorcery - Search your library for a card with converted mana cost equal or less than the number of lands you control" or "3 Artifact - Additional cost pay 2 life, ETB as a creature or artifact in play. This is still an artifact" or "WWWWW Creature - Flying Lifelink - If you have 20 or more life, this creature gets +4/+4 - 4/4". then hell yea, I would run them in my Radiant deck. However, they don't exist. Instead, we have three cards with distinct color identities that can only be included in decks with a general that shares those colors.
In every other format, there is nothing stopping you from casting those cards in a mono-white deck, but this is a format defined by it's restrictions. That's half the fun and challenge of it all. Yes, I'd love Ashling to have more card draw, but just because I could cast Tezzeret's Gambit, doesn't mean I'm allowed to put it in the deck. Likewsie, I'd LOVE to put Crystal Shard in half my decks, but I can't because it's blue, so I don't, even though I could still use it.
RRRAshling, the PilgrimRRR
UUUThadda Adel, AcquisitorUUU
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