I always feel a little nervous about the mana symbol rule when compared to colour words or simple templating that the editing team might be using. Birds of Paradise could suddenly have a 5-colour identity if the templating team wakes up one day and decides that "T: Add W, U, B, R, or G to your mana pool" was better than the current wording. Or if Noble Hierarch said "T: add any colour mana except B or R to your mana pool", and now suddenly you have a card that can only go into a Jund deck but is only really useful in a Bant deck. Scary thoughts.
This is part of why I don't love the CI rule. That said, imo any hybrid "fix" just takes the rule farther in the wrong direction.
Especially with the new cycle of commanders that wouldn't work in their own decks under a "color identity" -> "color" version of the rule, though, it's highly unlikely that we'll ever fix the CI rule in a way that makes mechanical sense with the rest of the game.
I tried proposing a new deck building rule, and immediately got shot down just because it was a little too complex, but I'll propose a new rule that goes more in line with my personal beliefs:
Cards in a deck must have mana costs that can be paid using only mana of their commander's color identity.
That's it. Color identity remains the same. Deckbuilding is incredibly more open. I can now run Elbrus in Nahiri instead of just Batterskull. The sky will fall. Rivers will run red with blood. Corn flakes will be piddled in. And when all is said and done, everyone will realize it's really no different than when the CI rule was changed to allow Memnarch and Thelon to use their own abilities.
I always feel a little nervous about the mana symbol rule when compared to colour words or simple templating that the editing team might be using. Birds of Paradise could suddenly have a 5-colour identity if the templating team wakes up one day and decides that "T: Add W, U, B, R, or G to your mana pool" was better than the current wording. Or if Noble Hierarch said "T: add any colour mana except B or R to your mana pool", and now suddenly you have a card that can only go into a Jund deck but is only really useful in a Bant deck. Scary thoughts.
This is part of why I don't love the CI rule. That said, imo any hybrid "fix" just takes the rule farther in the wrong direction.
Especially with the new cycle of commanders that wouldn't work in their own decks under a "color identity" -> "color" version of the rule, though, it's highly unlikely that we'll ever fix the CI rule in a way that makes mechanical sense with the rest of the game.
I tried proposing a new deck building rule, and immediately got shot down just because it was a little too complex, but I'll propose a new rule that goes more in line with my personal beliefs:
Cards in a deck must have mana costs that can be paid using only mana of their commander's color identity.
That's it. Color identity remains the same. Deckbuilding is incredibly more open. I can now run Elbrus in Nahiri instead of just Batterskull. The sky will fall. Rivers will run red with blood. Corn flakes will be piddled in. And when all is said and done, everyone will realize it's really no different than when the CI rule was changed to allow Memnarch and Thelon to use their own abilities.
I do like the simplicity, but I think it violates the flavor that the RC wants for the format.
I see literally zero problems with this. There are infinitely better tutors in all colors than Beseech the Queen, Birthing Pod requires creatures (generally where you don't want to be in mono-blue) and a massive life investment, and Kobolds are out-classed by Memnite and Ornithopter. Hell, the only flavor quibbling is using phyrexian mana cards in non-phyrexian decks, but we do that already so whatever. Beseech is fine, you're asking Oona for help at a significant cost of mana, perfectly in line with her character. And Kobolds are stupid and will follow anyone who points in a general direction and shouts "March!" so no issues there.
OK, it seems to have reached the point where everyone is talking past each other and accusing folks of acting in bad faith. Neither side is doing much more than repeating the same arguments, mostly because there's not much else to add. So, I figure I should step in.
First of all: the CI rule isn't changing. Everyone on the RC is, as best I know, very happy with where things are now with hybrid. It was an easy call when Ravnica came out and remains so now (DFCs were a little more arbitrary; I could see us revisiting those some time in the future, though not without some surprising new development).
Ironically, very few of the arguments presented here, on either side, are all that relevant to our calculus. That's because most of the arguments are centered around gameplay issues, but rule 3 is a deckbuilding rule. It exists outside the context of a game.
Yes, Hybrid cards are unquestionably multicolored cards at all times. Yes, designer intent was to make them easier to play than traditional gold spells. You're all correct. But we have rule 4 to handle those questions - that's the gameplay rule. And that rule handles hybrids as expected - if a mono-U mage gains control of Yasoova, they can totally make use of her ability. A B/W deck can Praetor's Grasp for Master Warcraft and cast it just fine. So Commander already reflects designer intent (and this is what Maro misses because, honestly, he doesn't spend that much time thinking about the intricacies of Commander. He thinks "hey, we should make sure that there are some big, splashy Legendaries in this set for the Commander players". And we love him for that.)
So what is a deckbuilding rule? A deckbuilding rule is a restriction, designed to keep you from just throwing whatever you want in your decks. All formats have them - what sets are legal, how many you can put in your deck, etc, etc. They are used to shape a format.
Commander cares about color, and always has. Yes, the rules have evolved over time, but that's largely in parallel with the rules getting written down and slowly becoming more formalized in the first place. Trying to go originalist isn't terribly useful - the rules were a somewhat contradictory hodge-podge when we started. But, it's clear that we want a restriction that cares about color, and "you can't have mana symbols in your deck that aren't on your commander" is elegant, easy to explain and aesthetically pleasing to us. (Yes, that only covers 99.9% of cases, so there's another rule for color indicator because that obviously applies and yes, Extort is a little unfortunate. But, reminder text just *can't* matter.) Given that rule, it's very easy to see where hybrid falls. "Fixing" hybrid requires messing with that fundamental rule and the alternatives are, frankly, clunkier and less aesthetically pleasing (ymmv on that last one, obviously). Note that the rules on mtgcommander.net are written to be colloquial and to overexplain; CR 903.4 is what you really want to be messing with.
It also presupposes that there's compelling external reasons to make hybrids legal. We haven't seen them yet. "It makes them available to more decks" isn't a good reason. Any change to the deckbuilding criteria would make more or less cards available, and making more cards available to the average deck is certainly not something we're seeking to do. They all have plenty. Frankly, I think it's a good thing that mono-U decks and U/R decks might have to find different answers to problems; that's what having the color restriction is about in the first place.
So, yeah, no need to snipe at each other. Your arguments are true, and irreconcilable, so you're not going to be convincing each other any time soon, and someone not recognizing the glory of your argument isn't ignoring you. It's just not relevant to them. And we look at something else, anyway
I have a question: how do people feel about Soul Burn?
I know it has errata to get rid of the mana symbol, so it is legal in a mono black deck as another Drain Life or Consume Spirit in your deck, but It still refers to using red mana even if the symbol is gone. I don't know what other card, if any other do this, but are we going to be nit picky about a SYMBOL vs referring to using mana of that color?
I think this is the biggest flaw in the the CI rules right now. It is unfortunate that cards like that, which reference a color using a mana symbol are instantly a multicolored card (when determining color identity only), just as it is unfortunate that off-color fetches are acceptable. If there was a simple way to fix this I'm sure the RC would have done so, but coming up with a concise rule would be near impossible, in my opinion.
See, I don't see how you can try to make that argument when what we are trying to change is the colour identity rules which are under the control of the RC. We are not trying to change the comprehensive rules (well, except the parts that duplicate the Commander's rule section), since they don't dictate colour identity. The colour rules should be no more important in the case of hybrids as they are in the case of Memnarch.
Well, you may be, and if so then my comment was directed at you. It was directed at those who say since design intent was to make hybrid an OR state it should be treated as an OR color, which is something Wizards, and not the RC can change.
Your example makes no sense. The change was to the colour identity rule for deck construction, you are talking about in-game card interactions. Such interactions are not changed by colour identity rules. Such lack of change can be seen with Garruk Relentless, Memnarch, and Noble Hierarch all of which have a colour and a colour identity that are different.
Even if you change CI deckbuilding rules, I used that example because the color of the card still hasn't changed, and that leads to confusing game states. A player builds a mono-blue deck and adds a R/U card, because the CI rules of Commander now say that it's a blue card. They cast it in game, and I attempt to counter it with Hydroblast. Perfectly legal play, because it is a red card after all. Argument ensues because he says it's a blue card because it's in a monoblue deck.
Even if I disagree with what you are saying, I at least understand what you have been saying, but I don't understand this. WotC includes in their comprehensive rules a copy of the RC's rules for the Commander format. The RC determines how colour identity is defined and if they changed it, the comprehensive rules would change to follow suit. If the RC changed the deck building restrictions of colour identity, which they have done in the past, then that has no bearing on any other part of the comprehensive rules.
I was responding to an earlier statement "And to those who still say Blue Elemental Blasting a card with a white color identity is a problem, then I again point to Frazzle-ing a card with a blue color identity." which was clearly talking about there being a problem with Memnarch being able to get Frazzled. That is why I said that the CI rule influences deckbuilding only, and not actual color.
OK, it seems to have reached the point where everyone is talking past each other and accusing folks of acting in bad faith. Neither side is doing much more than repeating the same arguments, mostly because there's not much else to add. So, I figure I should step in.
First of all: the CI rule isn't changing. Everyone on the RC is, as best I know, very happy with where things are now with hybrid. It was an easy call when Ravnica came out and remains so now (DFCs were a little more arbitrary; I could see us revisiting those some time in the future, though not without some surprising new development).
Ironically, very few of the arguments presented here, on either side, are all that relevant to our calculus. That's because most of the arguments are centered around gameplay issues, but rule 3 is a deckbuilding rule. It exists outside the context of a game.
Yes, Hybrid cards are unquestionably multicolored cards at all times. Yes, designer intent was to make them easier to play than traditional gold spells. You're all correct. But we have rule 4 to handle those questions - that's the gameplay rule. And that rule handles hybrids as expected - if a mono-U mage gains control of Yasoova, they can totally make use of her ability. A B/W deck can Praetor's Grasp for Master Warcraft and cast it just fine. So Commander already reflects designer intent (and this is what Maro misses because, honestly, he doesn't spend that much time thinking about the intricacies of Commander. He thinks "hey, we should make sure that there are some big, splashy Legendaries in this set for the Commander players". And we love him for that.)
So what is a deckbuilding rule? A deckbuilding rule is a restriction, designed to keep you from just throwing whatever you want in your decks. All formats have them - what sets are legal, how many you can put in your deck, etc, etc. They are used to shape a format.
Commander cares about color, and always has. Yes, the rules have evolved over time, but that's largely in parallel with the rules getting written down and slowly becoming more formalized in the first place. Trying to go originalist isn't terribly useful - the rules were a somewhat contradictory hodge-podge when we started. But, it's clear that we want a restriction that cares about color, and "you can't have mana symbols in your deck that aren't on your commander" is elegant, easy to explain and aesthetically pleasing to us. (Yes, that only covers 99.9% of cases, so there's another rule for color indicator because that obviously applies and yes, Bestow is a little unfortunate. But, reminder text just *can't* matter.) Given that rule, it's very easy to see where hybrid falls. "Fixing" hybrid requires messing with that fundamental rule and the alternatives are, frankly, clunkier and less aesthetically pleasing (ymmv on that last one, obviously). Note that the rules on mtgcommander.net are written to be colloquial and to overexplain; CR 903.4 is what you really want to be messing with.
It also presupposes that there's compelling external reasons to make hybrids legal. We haven't seen them yet. "It makes them available to more decks" isn't a good reason. Any change to the deckbuilding criteria would make more or less cards available, and making more cards available to the average deck is certainly not something we're seeking to do. They all have plenty. Frankly, I think it's a good thing that mono-U decks and U/R decks might have to find different answers to problems; that's what having the color restriction is about in the first place.
So, yeah, no need to snipe at each other. Your arguments are true, and irreconcilable, so you're not going to be convincing each other any time soon, and someone not recognizing the glory of your argument isn't ignoring you. It's just not relevant to them. And we look at something else, anyway
Thank you for weighing in Papa Funk. I didn't expect anyone on the RC to wade into this quagmire.
To say I am disappointed in this would be a bit of an understatement, but delivery as expected. Considering that Wayward Angel exists and is allowed in mono-W decks, yet Garruk Relentless is only permitted in GB decks, I can only sigh and shake my head at the very clear contradiction the RC chooses to uphold.
To say I am disappointed in this would be a bit of an understatement, but delivery as expected. Considering that Wayward Angel exists and is allowed in mono-W decks, yet Garruk Relentless is only permitted in GB decks, I can only sigh and shake my head at the very clear contradiction the RC chooses to uphold.
You do understand that in order to make Wayward Angel function like Garruk Relentless, one of two things would have to happen: Wizards would have to errata the card, or the RC would have to errata the card.
Or the RC could simply ignore Garruk's (and other DFCs') backside color indicator. There is literally nothing about Garruk the Veil Cursed that can't be done in mono-green except the color of the token.
Or the RC could simply ignore Garruk's (and other DFCs') backside color indicator. There is literally nothing about Garruk the Veil Cursed that can't be done in mono-green except the color of the token.
Mono green can make black tokens already. I believe that Wizards was the one who introduced the color indicator in the case of DFC cards (albeit most likely to compliment what the RC was doing with color identity). So it would still probably have to come from Wizards. However, and I am not 100% on this, when Garruk Relentless transforms, isn't he now a black card? So theoretically speaking, if there existed a card that said "destroy target nonblack permanant", you could target GR when he enters the battlefield, but not once he transforms, correct? If that is the case, and again let me state that I am not sure if I'm correct about the card ruling, then functionally the transform cards are multicolor.
Or the RC could simply ignore Garruk's (and other DFCs') backside color indicator. There is literally nothing about Garruk the Veil Cursed that can't be done in mono-green except the color of the token.
Mono green can make black tokens already. I believe that Wizards was the one who introduced the color indicator in the case of DFC cards (albeit most likely to compliment what the RC was doing with color identity). So it would still probably have to come from Wizards. However, and I am not 100% on this, when Garruk Relentless transforms, isn't he now a black card? So theoretically speaking, if there existed a card that said "destroy target nonblack permanant", you could target GR when he enters the battlefield, but not once he transforms, correct? If that is the case, and again let me state that I am not sure if I'm correct about the card ruling, then functionally the transform cards are multicolor.
You are correct on this hypothetical. The same way that Civilized Scholar can get hit with Red Elemental Blast and Homicidal Brute can get hit with Blue Elemental Blast. Also, I think WOTC wanted to do the color indicator moreso so that they wouldn't have to print "CARDNAME is COLOR." like on the Pact cycle and Evermind.
I'll admit, there's a lot of times I wish I could run this or that hybrid spell or some artifact with a colored activated ability, but for the most part, I pretty much agree with Papa Funk on this. Although while Mono-U doesn't need help, I wouldn't mind Mono-W or Mono-R having access to hybrid stuff, but that's more rules baggage than I care to learn.
"When does a man die? When he is hit by a bullet? No! When he suffers a disease? No! When he ate a soup made out of a poisonous mushroom? No! A man dies when he is forgotten!" Currently Piloting: EDH BGGlissa, The Traitor - Recursion (Primer) WBRKaalia of The Vast URGRiku of Two Reflections WUBSydri, Galvanic Genius UBRamirez DePietro GWKrond, The Dawn-Clad GWUDerevi, Empyrial Tactician RGOmnath, Locus of Rage
Anyway, I would like to know, how are RC opinions on creating colored mana outside of your colors. This isnt exactly color identity discussion, but is little bit related to this topic.
We all know that you can only include lands or things that produce mana of your general colors (so you can't play plains in monored, and so on).
So, what is the problem in allowing stolen land, Darksteel ingot, Mana confluence, etc. in providing mana of different color?
It doesn't change the deckbuilding rules, nor allow any hybrids, phyrexian and so on, but cards such as Nightveil Specter, Sen Triplets, any Cloned card, stolen card and so on would greatly benefit from this change, because it's controler could activate it's abilities. Also it would negate the effect of Celestial Dawn if someone donates it to you and you don't have white deck.
Not really. We think it's a fine gameplay constraint, and encouraging people to run more 5-color mana producers on the off-chance that they end up needing them seems like a bit of a mild flavor fail. Also, clone and steal seem prevalent enough strategies as it is. (Celestial Dawn sucks, but if you're playing with people who think that sounds like a good time, you have deeper problems. If it becomes a wider issue, we'd probably just ban it.)
Of the two rules, I'd say rule 4 (mana production) would be more likely to change than rule 3 (color identity), but I don't see either happening any time soon.
Personally I think the format would be better off without the no-offcolor-mana rule, I can't think of many corner cases where it matters significantly. It's a very minor flavor offense to activate/cast stuff you steal, and probably much less so than the stealing in the first place, not to mention the existing token production, color changing, etc. Decks don't lose anything aesthetically and nothing comes to mind that would make it relevant in deckbuilding except to make theft slightly better. The biggest downside i see is that it highlights the weirdness in the birds of paradise/urborg elf issue.
Not really. We think it's a fine gameplay constraint, and encouraging people to run more 5-color mana producers on the off-chance that they end up needing them seems like a bit of a mild flavor fail. Also, clone and steal seem prevalent enough strategies as it is. (Celestial Dawn sucks, but if you're playing with people who think that sounds like a good time, you have deeper problems. If it becomes a wider issue, we'd probably just ban it.)
Of the two rules, I'd say rule 4 (mana production) would be more likely to change than rule 3 (color identity), but I don't see either happening any time soon.
I'm just spitballing here, but since the flavor of lands is that you tap into the mana (which sounds more of an inherited ability), and using an artifact is more akin to using a tool, would there be any consideration to allowing off-color production via artifacts? I realize that it leads to slippery slopes like other card types, and that it could be difficult to write.
Decks don't lose anything aesthetically and nothing comes to mind that would make it relevant in deckbuilding except to make theft slightly better. The biggest downside i see is that it highlights the weirdness in the birds of paradise/urborg elf issue.
The only way I see, which would affect deckbuilding, will be in the use of cards with Sunburst, which according to Gatherer are 16 cards and then cards such as Nightveil Specter.
For the Birds/Urborg, sure it would be weird, but on the other hand, aren't they weird also now?
Not really. We think it's a fine gameplay constraint, and encouraging people to run more 5-color mana producers on the off-chance that they end up needing them seems like a bit of a mild flavor fail. Also, clone and steal seem prevalent enough strategies as it is. (Celestial Dawn sucks, but if you're playing with people who think that sounds like a good time, you have deeper problems. If it becomes a wider issue, we'd probably just ban it.)
Of the two rules, I'd say rule 4 (mana production) would be more likely to change than rule 3 (color identity), but I don't see either happening any time soon.
I'm just spitballing here, but since the flavor of lands is that you tap into the mana (which sounds more of an inherited ability), and using an artifact is more akin to using a tool, would there be any consideration to allowing off-color production via artifacts? I realize that it leads to slippery slopes like other card types, and that it could be difficult to write.
Could you write what slippery slopes and card types would cause problems, if artifacts such as Darksteel Ingot could produce offcolor mana?
"Whatever style you wish to play, be it fast and frenzied or slow and tactical, the surest way to defeat your opponent consistently is by dominating him or her in the war of card advantage." - Brian Wiseman, April 1996
The only way I see, which would affect deckbuilding, will be in the use of cards with Sunburst, which according to Gatherer are 16 cards and then cards such as Nightveil Specter.
For the Birds/Urborg, sure it would be weird, but on the other hand, aren't they weird also now?
Could you write what slippery slopes and card types would cause problems, if artifacts such as Darksteel Ingot could produce offcolor mana?
Well I didn't think about it too much. But if the rule is coming from a flavor standpoint, what is the flavor of enchantments or creatures that let you tap for any color? What about a PW emblem if they do one?
It seems that people on the RC said the same thing about the whole Bosh, Iron Golem and Memnarch can't be played as a General thing for years and yet it was still changed.
See Sheldon's comment on the first page here and see here by you, papa_funk, which certainly seems to indicate continued support for the status quo at that time. And the rule was changed in June 2011 with the release of the original Commander product.
This is not to say that you were not being truthful or anything. To the contrary, I am just pointing out that never is a very long time.
Yes, Hybrid cards are unquestionably multicolored cards at all times. Yes, designer intent was to make them easier to play than traditional gold spells.
Well, not just easier to play. They were also designed to be within the colour pie of each of the colour's represented by the hybrid mana symbol. To me that's a pretty important part of their design and purpose (even if it doesn't work out so great on all hybrid cards).
It also presupposes that there's compelling external reasons to make hybrids legal. We haven't seen them yet. "It makes them available to more decks" isn't a good reason. Any change to the deckbuilding criteria would make more or less cards available, and making more cards available to the average deck is certainly not something we're seeking to do. They all have plenty.
Didn't someone post that this currently only affects 240 cards or something like that? I wonder how many of them it actually does affect for any single deck. Certainly if you had a 3 colour deck it would gain access to more cards than a mono-colour deck, but again, we are still talking about 240 cards in total for all five colours.
I think the point about making decks look for different answers is a decent point, but how many hybrid cards fall into that camp? How many hybrid blue/red cards, for example, fall into the category of powerful threats / answers that a mono-blue or mono-red deck would play over existing threats / answers if the rule was changed? Basically, I'm wondering what the real world implication of this change would end up being for any particular, non-theme based deck compared to a deck that included both sides of the hybrid card. Two cards? Five cards? Are you basing this on maybe one or two cards falling into the overlap between these decks?
I think the point about making decks look for different answers is a decent point, but how many hybrid cards fall into that camp? How many hybrid blue/red cards, for example, fall into the category of powerful threats / answers that a mono-blue or mono-red deck would play over existing threats / answers if the rule was changed? Basically, I'm wondering what the real world implication of this change would end up being for any particular, non-theme based deck compared to a deck that included both sides of the hybrid card. Two cards? Five cards? Are you basing this on maybe one or two cards falling into the overlap between these decks?
In my opinion, the number really doesn't matter. Even if we are talking about a very small number of cards, Papa's point still stands: colors matter in this format, and restriction breeds creativity. Part of the nature of this format is that different decks are forced to run different stuff. Thus, in EDH, you are only going to find Unmake and Debtors' Knell in decks including both of Orzhov's colors; mono-black decks will have to seek other threats and answers, which is fine, because they have plenty to choose from.
My Mirri, Cat Warrior deck runs Asceticism; if I also want to run Privileged Position, then I'm going to have to select a general who also has white in her color identity. No real need to do so, though, because there are other ways to keep Mirri from being targeted, and the deck works just great as is.
Keep in mind, there is always another option allowed within the rules... pick a general who is of two hybrid colors, but just run one of those colors. There's a guy in the local meta with a very successful mono-red Wort, the Raidmother deck which includes cards like Manamorphose and Rosheen Meanderer but doesn't include a single green mana source. He can run all the R/G hybrid cards he wants, cast his general, etc. with just Mountains. It's a weird way to build, but it's completely legal under current color identity rules, and a creative way to work around a limitation. He still can't run any Rakdos- or Boros- colored hybrid cards, but he manages just fine.
There are ways to not have the limitations imposed by the rules be too much of a limit, if you're willing to be creative and thoughtful in deckbuilding, rather than demand that rules be changed just so you can jam whatever you want into a deck.
I should note that I'd also be completely good with a rules change that allowed Garruk Relentless to be run in mono-G, or Elbrus, the Binding Blade to be run in any deck. The color-changing angel mentioned earlier is a good precedent, as are artifacts like Nim Deathmantle, which turn things black.
In my opinion, the number really doesn't matter. Even if we are talking about a very small number of cards, Papa's point still stands: colors matter in this format, and restriction breeds creativity.
papa_funk made a few points, one about colour and one about restrictions. I can't / won't do much about the colour of the cards other than to say that hybrids should be treated differently by colour identity despite their colour by virtue of their design. As for restrictions breed creativity, you have to be careful with this statement since too much restriction can impede creativity. For example, if I said you could only pick cards that start with the letter A on top of all of the other rules in Commander, that would be more restrictive, but would it lead to more "creative" decks? I don't think so.
And as a contrast to that point, if you loosen the restriction such as each mono-colour deck could now play about a hundred new cards that they couldn't before, you've only decreased creativity if enough of those cards would be played as to push out cards that would only be available in the mono-colour decks. For example, if Vassal Soul pushed out a blue card in blue decks and a white card in mono-white decks making those two decks one card more similar than they were before. That is a decrease in creativity. Maybe. Because what if allowing that card made it easier to build a mono-blue or a mono-white spirit deck when it wasn't easy before, so a new deck pops up. Is that a decrease to creativity or a gain?
Part of the nature of this format is that different decks are forced to run different stuff. Thus, in EDH, you are only going to find Unmake and Debtors' Knell in decks including both of Orzhov's colors; mono-black decks will have to seek other threats and answers, which is fine, because they have plenty to choose from.
And which is why you don't even see all white/black decks run those two cards. The very nature of the format and the large card pool makes it hard to fit any particular card in any particular slot. You have good cards (threats / answers / utility) fighting with on-theme cards fighting with personal favorites fighting with who knows what else. Just because a card is an option doesn't mean it will be played and just because it is a black/white card doesn't suddenly make it better than existing mono-black or mono-white choices.
Of course, given that, you might think "if the card is not good enough to play if it were legal, why do you want it to be legal" because of the principle, because hybrid cards are different then gold cards and the CI rules should reflect that.
Keep in mind, there is always another option allowed within the rules... pick a general who is of two hybrid colors, but just run one of those colors.
Your solution is to change your Commander? Really? The whole point of wanting a rule change is so that the Commander would not have to change. Perhaps you were just looking at it from the wrong angle with this part. If the problem was wanting to run Godhead of Awe for the sake of running it or building a deck around it, then what you said would make sense. If the point was to allow non white/blue decks to run it then your idea here makes no sense.
So I've been thinking more I n the mana production rule, and while I get the intention, I decided I don't like it. I try to steer clear of the flavor behind it for arguments because we can argue anything in the name of flavor. So all I'll say about flavor in the defense of removing the rule is that if my general is so adept at stealing resources from other players and using them, then surely they would be equally adept at drawing mana from outside their CI. But as I said, I'm going to stick to more concrete arguments.
1. The rule is counterintuitive. - This is a gameplay issue. The rule directly contradicts the basic rules of format and rules of the card. City of Brass says you can tap for any color, and in every single format except this one that holds true. So this rules is creating card-specific errata.
2. It comes at price. - Every nonbasic you add to your deck is an opportunity cost. The upside of mana fixing comes at the downside of possibly being ETBT, or getting punished with something like Blood Moon. Decks that need nonbasics for mana fixing will already run them, decks that currently don't probably won't. So what we are looking at is whether the possible potential of theft is worth hurting the efficiency of your manabase. Same with mana rocks. Most all color ones start at 3cmc so we're going beyond basic ramp and into affecting your curve. So really, what I foresee that is decks that don't really care about it now all remain largely unaffected, hut decks which would benefit will be more in line with how they were intended to play.
I thought I had a third point but I can't think of it and I have to go back to work anyway.
The biggest downside i see is that it highlights the weirdness in the birds of paradise/urborg elf issue.
I think those subtleties are important. First of all, cards like Birds of Paradise and City of Brass allow for additional design space in case Wizards creates (god forbid) additional colours. Second, a card that reads "add W, U, B, R or G to your mana pool" seems redundant, and could be confusing to new players at first glance. Conversely, something like Urborg Elf catches you, because it doesn't include all five colours. "Add one mana of any colour" is far easier to understand at first read.
To put it another way, it's a visual shorthand to differentiate them from cards that DO have all five mana symbols in their text box. If Fist of Suns read "You may pay one mana of each colour rather than pay the mana cost for spells that you cast", it would take you a moment to understand it rather than its current wording. It would also take up a lot more text space. Simplicity is key! Same goes with Crystal Quarry. At first glance, it would seem like an even-worse School of the Unseen if it read "Add one mana of each colour to your mana pool", until you noticed the "each" instead of "any". Human brains are lazy that way. WUBRG catches the eye in a way that words don't.
So I've been thinking more I n the mana production rule, and while I get the intention, I decided I don't like it. I try to steer clear of the flavor behind it for arguments because we can argue anything in the name of flavor.
1. The rule is counterintuitive. - This is a gameplay issue. The rule directly contradicts the basic rules of format and rules of the card. City of Brass says you can tap for any color, and in every single format except this one that holds true. So this rules is creating card-specific errata.
Yeah. It is one of the few things that actually impact cards and game play during the game and even then it effects very few games. The circumstances have to be just right for it to even matter and even in the worse case scenario where people modify their decks to take advantage of this, that just means more 5-colour sources and most 3-colour decks run a number of those anyway (City of Brass, Mana Confluence, Chromatic Lantern, Darksteel Ingot, etc) and then you still need to steal something with an off-colour activated ability that you want to activate or steal a spell that you cannot otherwise cast.
Going back to the Hybrid discussion...don't you guys feel mono-color could use a boost? Mono-U is doing fine, but mono-W can use the help. Currently, most mono-colored decks are only viable if they have a really strong (and usually linear) commander like Purphoros, God of the Forge or Azusa, Lost but Seeking. The big benefit of running mono-color vs multi-color in other formats (consistency and speed) is largely negated by the nature of the EDH format (large number of dual/tri/penta-lands available, 40 life, multiplayer setting).
I'm with you guys on the no-mana-outside-of-your-colors-rule. It's definitely the Mana Burn equivalent of EDH. In 95% of the games it doesn't come up, and when it does it's a feel-bad moment. In practice, all it really does is limit the few cards with the Sunburst mechanic, cards like Nightveil Specter & Sen Triplets (but oddly enough, not Daxos of Meletis), and creates a flavor-fail when Mountain stops producing red mana as soon as it's Annexed.
I do like the simplicity, but I think it violates the flavor that the RC wants for the format.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
I see literally zero problems with this. There are infinitely better tutors in all colors than Beseech the Queen, Birthing Pod requires creatures (generally where you don't want to be in mono-blue) and a massive life investment, and Kobolds are out-classed by Memnite and Ornithopter. Hell, the only flavor quibbling is using phyrexian mana cards in non-phyrexian decks, but we do that already so whatever. Beseech is fine, you're asking Oona for help at a significant cost of mana, perfectly in line with her character. And Kobolds are stupid and will follow anyone who points in a general direction and shouts "March!" so no issues there.
My Custom Cards
My Twitch - Languishing in neglect under the vain hope of starting again
My Livestream Archive
First of all: the CI rule isn't changing. Everyone on the RC is, as best I know, very happy with where things are now with hybrid. It was an easy call when Ravnica came out and remains so now (DFCs were a little more arbitrary; I could see us revisiting those some time in the future, though not without some surprising new development).
Ironically, very few of the arguments presented here, on either side, are all that relevant to our calculus. That's because most of the arguments are centered around gameplay issues, but rule 3 is a deckbuilding rule. It exists outside the context of a game.
Yes, Hybrid cards are unquestionably multicolored cards at all times. Yes, designer intent was to make them easier to play than traditional gold spells. You're all correct. But we have rule 4 to handle those questions - that's the gameplay rule. And that rule handles hybrids as expected - if a mono-U mage gains control of Yasoova, they can totally make use of her ability. A B/W deck can Praetor's Grasp for Master Warcraft and cast it just fine. So Commander already reflects designer intent (and this is what Maro misses because, honestly, he doesn't spend that much time thinking about the intricacies of Commander. He thinks "hey, we should make sure that there are some big, splashy Legendaries in this set for the Commander players". And we love him for that.)
So what is a deckbuilding rule? A deckbuilding rule is a restriction, designed to keep you from just throwing whatever you want in your decks. All formats have them - what sets are legal, how many you can put in your deck, etc, etc. They are used to shape a format.
Commander cares about color, and always has. Yes, the rules have evolved over time, but that's largely in parallel with the rules getting written down and slowly becoming more formalized in the first place. Trying to go originalist isn't terribly useful - the rules were a somewhat contradictory hodge-podge when we started. But, it's clear that we want a restriction that cares about color, and "you can't have mana symbols in your deck that aren't on your commander" is elegant, easy to explain and aesthetically pleasing to us. (Yes, that only covers 99.9% of cases, so there's another rule for color indicator because that obviously applies and yes, Extort is a little unfortunate. But, reminder text just *can't* matter.) Given that rule, it's very easy to see where hybrid falls. "Fixing" hybrid requires messing with that fundamental rule and the alternatives are, frankly, clunkier and less aesthetically pleasing (ymmv on that last one, obviously). Note that the rules on mtgcommander.net are written to be colloquial and to overexplain; CR 903.4 is what you really want to be messing with.
It also presupposes that there's compelling external reasons to make hybrids legal. We haven't seen them yet. "It makes them available to more decks" isn't a good reason. Any change to the deckbuilding criteria would make more or less cards available, and making more cards available to the average deck is certainly not something we're seeking to do. They all have plenty. Frankly, I think it's a good thing that mono-U decks and U/R decks might have to find different answers to problems; that's what having the color restriction is about in the first place.
So, yeah, no need to snipe at each other. Your arguments are true, and irreconcilable, so you're not going to be convincing each other any time soon, and someone not recognizing the glory of your argument isn't ignoring you. It's just not relevant to them. And we look at something else, anyway
I think this is the biggest flaw in the the CI rules right now. It is unfortunate that cards like that, which reference a color using a mana symbol are instantly a multicolored card (when determining color identity only), just as it is unfortunate that off-color fetches are acceptable. If there was a simple way to fix this I'm sure the RC would have done so, but coming up with a concise rule would be near impossible, in my opinion.
Well, you may be, and if so then my comment was directed at you. It was directed at those who say since design intent was to make hybrid an OR state it should be treated as an OR color, which is something Wizards, and not the RC can change.
Even if you change CI deckbuilding rules, I used that example because the color of the card still hasn't changed, and that leads to confusing game states. A player builds a mono-blue deck and adds a R/U card, because the CI rules of Commander now say that it's a blue card. They cast it in game, and I attempt to counter it with Hydroblast. Perfectly legal play, because it is a red card after all. Argument ensues because he says it's a blue card because it's in a monoblue deck.
I was responding to an earlier statement "And to those who still say Blue Elemental Blasting a card with a white color identity is a problem, then I again point to Frazzle-ing a card with a blue color identity." which was clearly talking about there being a problem with Memnarch being able to get Frazzled. That is why I said that the CI rule influences deckbuilding only, and not actual color.
Thank you for weighing in Papa Funk. I didn't expect anyone on the RC to wade into this quagmire.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
My Custom Cards
My Twitch - Languishing in neglect under the vain hope of starting again
My Livestream Archive
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
My Custom Cards
My Twitch - Languishing in neglect under the vain hope of starting again
My Livestream Archive
Mono green can make black tokens already. I believe that Wizards was the one who introduced the color indicator in the case of DFC cards (albeit most likely to compliment what the RC was doing with color identity). So it would still probably have to come from Wizards. However, and I am not 100% on this, when Garruk Relentless transforms, isn't he now a black card? So theoretically speaking, if there existed a card that said "destroy target nonblack permanant", you could target GR when he enters the battlefield, but not once he transforms, correct? If that is the case, and again let me state that I am not sure if I'm correct about the card ruling, then functionally the transform cards are multicolor.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
I'll admit, there's a lot of times I wish I could run this or that hybrid spell or some artifact with a colored activated ability, but for the most part, I pretty much agree with Papa Funk on this. Although while Mono-U doesn't need help, I wouldn't mind Mono-W or Mono-R having access to hybrid stuff, but that's more rules baggage than I care to learn.
Currently Piloting:
EDH
BGGlissa, The Traitor - Recursion (Primer)
WBRKaalia of The Vast
URGRiku of Two Reflections
WUBSydri, Galvanic Genius
UBRamirez DePietro
GWKrond, The Dawn-Clad
GWUDerevi, Empyrial Tactician
RGOmnath, Locus of Rage
Modern
UG Infect
I got reason to hope!
He's no longer green Garruk Relentless, he's now black Garruk, the veil-cursed. He's a different card with a different name (matters with cards like Pithing Needle). Garruk Relentless is never black. Not on the battlefield, not on the stack, not in the library, not in your hand, not in the graveyard. And Garruk, the veil-cursed is never in your hand, never in your library, never in your graveyard, and can only exist on the battlefield. So for deck building rules, Garruk, the veil-cursed should not matter. Sadly, it does.
This exactly. Thank you.
My Custom Cards
My Twitch - Languishing in neglect under the vain hope of starting again
My Livestream Archive
Anyway, I would like to know, how are RC opinions on creating colored mana outside of your colors. This isnt exactly color identity discussion, but is little bit related to this topic.
We all know that you can only include lands or things that produce mana of your general colors (so you can't play plains in monored, and so on).
So, what is the problem in allowing stolen land, Darksteel ingot, Mana confluence, etc. in providing mana of different color?
It doesn't change the deckbuilding rules, nor allow any hybrids, phyrexian and so on, but cards such as Nightveil Specter, Sen Triplets, any Cloned card, stolen card and so on would greatly benefit from this change, because it's controler could activate it's abilities. Also it would negate the effect of Celestial Dawn if someone donates it to you and you don't have white deck.
So, are there any thoughts about this change?
Not really. We think it's a fine gameplay constraint, and encouraging people to run more 5-color mana producers on the off-chance that they end up needing them seems like a bit of a mild flavor fail. Also, clone and steal seem prevalent enough strategies as it is. (Celestial Dawn sucks, but if you're playing with people who think that sounds like a good time, you have deeper problems. If it becomes a wider issue, we'd probably just ban it.)
Of the two rules, I'd say rule 4 (mana production) would be more likely to change than rule 3 (color identity), but I don't see either happening any time soon.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
I'm just spitballing here, but since the flavor of lands is that you tap into the mana (which sounds more of an inherited ability), and using an artifact is more akin to using a tool, would there be any consideration to allowing off-color production via artifacts? I realize that it leads to slippery slopes like other card types, and that it could be difficult to write.
(Not that I'm advocating for it, mind you)
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
For the Birds/Urborg, sure it would be weird, but on the other hand, aren't they weird also now?
Could you write what slippery slopes and card types would cause problems, if artifacts such as Darksteel Ingot could produce offcolor mana?
Well I didn't think about it too much. But if the rule is coming from a flavor standpoint, what is the flavor of enchantments or creatures that let you tap for any color? What about a PW emblem if they do one?
I don't think we're ignoring you. Many people have commented that allowing Urborg in a wonowhite deck feels wrong.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
And thank you for doing so.
It seems that people on the RC said the same thing about the whole Bosh, Iron Golem and Memnarch can't be played as a General thing for years and yet it was still changed.
See Sheldon's comment on the first page here and see here by you, papa_funk, which certainly seems to indicate continued support for the status quo at that time. And the rule was changed in June 2011 with the release of the original Commander product.
This is not to say that you were not being truthful or anything. To the contrary, I am just pointing out that never is a very long time.
Well, not just easier to play. They were also designed to be within the colour pie of each of the colour's represented by the hybrid mana symbol. To me that's a pretty important part of their design and purpose (even if it doesn't work out so great on all hybrid cards).
Didn't someone post that this currently only affects 240 cards or something like that? I wonder how many of them it actually does affect for any single deck. Certainly if you had a 3 colour deck it would gain access to more cards than a mono-colour deck, but again, we are still talking about 240 cards in total for all five colours.
I think the point about making decks look for different answers is a decent point, but how many hybrid cards fall into that camp? How many hybrid blue/red cards, for example, fall into the category of powerful threats / answers that a mono-blue or mono-red deck would play over existing threats / answers if the rule was changed? Basically, I'm wondering what the real world implication of this change would end up being for any particular, non-theme based deck compared to a deck that included both sides of the hybrid card. Two cards? Five cards? Are you basing this on maybe one or two cards falling into the overlap between these decks?
In my opinion, the number really doesn't matter. Even if we are talking about a very small number of cards, Papa's point still stands: colors matter in this format, and restriction breeds creativity. Part of the nature of this format is that different decks are forced to run different stuff. Thus, in EDH, you are only going to find Unmake and Debtors' Knell in decks including both of Orzhov's colors; mono-black decks will have to seek other threats and answers, which is fine, because they have plenty to choose from.
My Mirri, Cat Warrior deck runs Asceticism; if I also want to run Privileged Position, then I'm going to have to select a general who also has white in her color identity. No real need to do so, though, because there are other ways to keep Mirri from being targeted, and the deck works just great as is.
Keep in mind, there is always another option allowed within the rules... pick a general who is of two hybrid colors, but just run one of those colors. There's a guy in the local meta with a very successful mono-red Wort, the Raidmother deck which includes cards like Manamorphose and Rosheen Meanderer but doesn't include a single green mana source. He can run all the R/G hybrid cards he wants, cast his general, etc. with just Mountains. It's a weird way to build, but it's completely legal under current color identity rules, and a creative way to work around a limitation. He still can't run any Rakdos- or Boros- colored hybrid cards, but he manages just fine.
There are ways to not have the limitations imposed by the rules be too much of a limit, if you're willing to be creative and thoughtful in deckbuilding, rather than demand that rules be changed just so you can jam whatever you want into a deck.
I should note that I'd also be completely good with a rules change that allowed Garruk Relentless to be run in mono-G, or Elbrus, the Binding Blade to be run in any deck. The color-changing angel mentioned earlier is a good precedent, as are artifacts like Nim Deathmantle, which turn things black.
papa_funk made a few points, one about colour and one about restrictions. I can't / won't do much about the colour of the cards other than to say that hybrids should be treated differently by colour identity despite their colour by virtue of their design. As for restrictions breed creativity, you have to be careful with this statement since too much restriction can impede creativity. For example, if I said you could only pick cards that start with the letter A on top of all of the other rules in Commander, that would be more restrictive, but would it lead to more "creative" decks? I don't think so.
And as a contrast to that point, if you loosen the restriction such as each mono-colour deck could now play about a hundred new cards that they couldn't before, you've only decreased creativity if enough of those cards would be played as to push out cards that would only be available in the mono-colour decks. For example, if Vassal Soul pushed out a blue card in blue decks and a white card in mono-white decks making those two decks one card more similar than they were before. That is a decrease in creativity. Maybe. Because what if allowing that card made it easier to build a mono-blue or a mono-white spirit deck when it wasn't easy before, so a new deck pops up. Is that a decrease to creativity or a gain?
And which is why you don't even see all white/black decks run those two cards. The very nature of the format and the large card pool makes it hard to fit any particular card in any particular slot. You have good cards (threats / answers / utility) fighting with on-theme cards fighting with personal favorites fighting with who knows what else. Just because a card is an option doesn't mean it will be played and just because it is a black/white card doesn't suddenly make it better than existing mono-black or mono-white choices.
Of course, given that, you might think "if the card is not good enough to play if it were legal, why do you want it to be legal" because of the principle, because hybrid cards are different then gold cards and the CI rules should reflect that.
Your solution is to change your Commander? Really? The whole point of wanting a rule change is so that the Commander would not have to change. Perhaps you were just looking at it from the wrong angle with this part. If the problem was wanting to run Godhead of Awe for the sake of running it or building a deck around it, then what you said would make sense. If the point was to allow non white/blue decks to run it then your idea here makes no sense.
1. The rule is counterintuitive. - This is a gameplay issue. The rule directly contradicts the basic rules of format and rules of the card. City of Brass says you can tap for any color, and in every single format except this one that holds true. So this rules is creating card-specific errata.
2. It comes at price. - Every nonbasic you add to your deck is an opportunity cost. The upside of mana fixing comes at the downside of possibly being ETBT, or getting punished with something like Blood Moon. Decks that need nonbasics for mana fixing will already run them, decks that currently don't probably won't. So what we are looking at is whether the possible potential of theft is worth hurting the efficiency of your manabase. Same with mana rocks. Most all color ones start at 3cmc so we're going beyond basic ramp and into affecting your curve. So really, what I foresee that is decks that don't really care about it now all remain largely unaffected, hut decks which would benefit will be more in line with how they were intended to play.
I thought I had a third point but I can't think of it and I have to go back to work anyway.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
I think those subtleties are important. First of all, cards like Birds of Paradise and City of Brass allow for additional design space in case Wizards creates (god forbid) additional colours. Second, a card that reads "add W, U, B, R or G to your mana pool" seems redundant, and could be confusing to new players at first glance. Conversely, something like Urborg Elf catches you, because it doesn't include all five colours. "Add one mana of any colour" is far easier to understand at first read.
To put it another way, it's a visual shorthand to differentiate them from cards that DO have all five mana symbols in their text box. If Fist of Suns read "You may pay one mana of each colour rather than pay the mana cost for spells that you cast", it would take you a moment to understand it rather than its current wording. It would also take up a lot more text space. Simplicity is key! Same goes with Crystal Quarry. At first glance, it would seem like an even-worse School of the Unseen if it read "Add one mana of each colour to your mana pool", until you noticed the "each" instead of "any". Human brains are lazy that way. WUBRG catches the eye in a way that words don't.
I am definitely not a fan of this rule.
Yeah. It is one of the few things that actually impact cards and game play during the game and even then it effects very few games. The circumstances have to be just right for it to even matter and even in the worse case scenario where people modify their decks to take advantage of this, that just means more 5-colour sources and most 3-colour decks run a number of those anyway (City of Brass, Mana Confluence, Chromatic Lantern, Darksteel Ingot, etc) and then you still need to steal something with an off-colour activated ability that you want to activate or steal a spell that you cannot otherwise cast.
I'm with you guys on the no-mana-outside-of-your-colors-rule. It's definitely the Mana Burn equivalent of EDH. In 95% of the games it doesn't come up, and when it does it's a feel-bad moment. In practice, all it really does is limit the few cards with the Sunburst mechanic, cards like Nightveil Specter & Sen Triplets (but oddly enough, not Daxos of Meletis), and creates a flavor-fail when Mountain stops producing red mana as soon as it's Annexed.