MTG Salvation

xambler-is-a-nerd-loser asked: "Bringing back poison took 14 years (although that ignores Future Sight). There's another mechanic planned for the current seven year plan that might break that record. We'll have to see." Banding maybe?

Yeah, you might not want to get your hopes up for that.

http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/138262784063/bringing-back-poison-took-14-years-although-that

So no banding (phew) but what old mechanics are legitimate for returning?

Admittedly, Maro is very vague. Poison last appeared in 5th edition before Scars of Mi1rrodin (I think. Again, we ignore Future Sight). But seeing that many of the early sets featured failed or obsolete mechanics (such as Cumulative Upkeep and Provoke (which Maro says is obsolete because of Fight)), the possible number of mechanics dwindle somewhat.

What mechanics can you see returning?

EDIT:

mtgcat asked: July 25, 2015. You said "Bringing back poison took 14 years (although that ignores Future Sight). There's another mechanic planned for the current seven year plan that might break that record. We'll have to see." What is this"another mechanic"? C-mana things for OGW? or another cool unrevealed mechanic?

We haven’t gotten to it yet.

So the original query was from 2015.

I love this.

How can we make this a thing?

Actually because of the numerous nooks and crannies of Magic effects, I find the Dies to Doomblade argument a little silly. Card effects are so numerous they shouldn't be taken into consideration during rules making like that. Same with the "some hybrid cards should be gold cards" argument... Hornet Queen shouldn't be monogreen.

I agree with... That poster who replied to me on the last page (sorry for bad form here, I'm omw out the door): rules clarity is very fundamental to EDH which already has some baggage and a lot going on in the actual games. I don't just think that the best argument for the current color identity rules are kept is because of clarity, I think it's a very good argument, and enough to save the rule.

Quote from Kedvesem »

Rules clarity is definitely good.

But I've always heard that MaRo dislikes Commander and doesn't play it. I actually quite like MaRo, but I take with a grain of salt anything he says concerning Commander.

He said so himself, that he should be taken with a grain of salt, no worries Still hybrid is his design so his intent with it is a good source for what it's supposed to do.

Here's your argument and the response of Maro.

http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/108321196928/the-problem-with-hybrid-mana-is-that-even-if-a

Cheating cards in (ie paying for cards without paying their mana cost somehow) isn't the fundamental form of deckbuilding. While you can cheat stuff out, Magic is, at its core, about playing lands, with which you gain mana to cast creatures and spells. (It's not that there's no room for the more "cheaty" interactions, they're just crust to the pie.)

Hybrid is supposed to work in this very fundamental way. What you outline is really the rules about hybrid in Commander. You fail to explain why it is a good idea that it's done as such. The point of hybrid is that it can be played in any deck using either color - it is not to make a card that's multicolored for no reason. They don't begin with a card and then see if they can make it multicolored, because that's unnecessary complexity. They begin with a color-overlapping effect and design the card from there, because at its heart, that what hybrid is all about.

Personally, I don't think color pie breaks nor æsthetics are good reasons to maintain the current color identity rules, because there are a plethora of those issues even when color identity is taken into account.

Rules clarity however, tha'ts a good reason. And now they're done with Rule 4, we have a very clear and easily understandable deckbuilding ruleset.

Quote from Flisch »

So basically, what they did is:

• Prevent cards that are specifically designed to be used in mono-coloured decks to be used by mono-coloured decks.
• Enable cards that are specifically designed to be used in multi-coloured decks to be used in mono-coloured decks.

Take a second and think about that.

... You're right. It totally makes sense to frame it that way. That's a weird nook of the new rules.

In case it looks like it, no, I'm not being sarcastic here.

Quote from flaming infinity »

I think the real question is what would it really matter if you could play hybrid/off color activated abilities? Regardless of flavor arguments, what do people actually want to add to a deck that you can't? Most off color activated/hybrid cards aren't really even worth it in multiplayer. How much is it really going to change actual deck compositions? Maybe somebody adds a card or two or someone builds the off color deck just to thumb their nose at the past?" I've played in metas that allow hybrid and I haven't really seen many actually played and most off color activations are limited fodder.

This is exactly why I respect the color identity rule to some degree: it's clean and simple ("Only play cards with the mana symbols on your commander"), and complicating the rules formulation probably isn't worth the gain of playing hybrid cards.

Quote from jturphy »

Quote from Sephon19 »

Quote from MARPJ »

Quote from Manite »

If I understand the removal of rule 4 correctly, mana sources now can tap for any color they normally would, but we still can't run hybrid cards in decks that don't include all the hybrid card's colors? Why don't they just write a rule for hybrid cards that allows you to run hybrid cards the way they're meant to be?

Because it already works as "meant to be". A hybrid card is a multicolored card that is of all colors of it. The color identity rule (903.4) also states it.

The objective of hybrid mana is not to be able to use a card in a deck without one of its color but to make easier to cast multicolored spells, just that it ends being a loop hole that can make color pie violations (a reason for most hybrid have abilities shared by both colors) and be abused in deck building

You are right about the color identity rule, but the rest is just not true. A hybrid is supposed to be a card that has effects shared in two colors that either color can use. The color pie violations are not there because of a loophole, they're there mistakenly. This is stated all the time by MaRo.

Rakdos Cackler is how the mechanic works. It's a card that can be played in monoblack, monored or black/red, whose mechanics fit all of those colors. The Commander rules don't work properly with the intent of the mechanic, but that's because the Rules Commitee either want hybrid to work differently than it does in literally all other card formats, or because allowing hybrid to work with the current rules might require some rules writing that's unintuitive or not worth additional complexity.

Giant Solifuge is a mistake, not a demonstration of how hybrid is intended to work, because it doesn't do what a monored card can do. But the same can be said about a plethora of old cards. Aftershock for example is used in EDH to some extent because it deals with red's weaknesses (big toughness creatures) somewhat effeciently and also "destroys". Blasphemous Act is a newer example of this problem; it kills large creatures easily which red is not supposed to do. With the number of inconsistencies present in monocolor already, the argument against hybrid cards causing mechanics "bleeding" isn't really that relevant.

How cards are "supposed to be" for other formats is irrelevant for Commander. Magic isn't supposed to be played with a card that can be cast at any time from outside the game, and yet Commander has that. Normal formats do not have restrictions on the colors your deck can play, but Commander does. This format was created by a number of the members from the RC (which includes WOTC employees btw). Hybrid works differently in Commander because the RC thinks it's better that way. Personally, I agree with them. Unmake is not a white card. It is not a black card. It is a black AND white card. You know how I know this? It's border is black and white. There are black and white mana symbols on the card. Regardless of how the cards were designed for tournament formats, that's not how things work in Commander, because we work with a different set of rules.

It's not about cards being designed for "tournament" formats, it's about how hybrid is supposed to work. Hybrid defines that a card can be white AND black while being played in white OR black. That's how it's supposed to be. That's the intent of hybrid designs. Not for "tournament" formats. For everything. Commander at its core is a format that cares about legendary creatures in large scope games and has high variance. It is not at its core a format where hybrid is supposed to act differently. That's just a causal byproduct of the ruleset that some people like. Wizards designs cards that are legendary, large scope and individually powerful to cater to this exact format. They also design hybrid cards that are supposed to work in either color. The RC doesn't like this, but the æsthetics are a weird argument. So a card is white and black? What about cards that have different watermarks from each other, using both Mirran and Phyrexian cards in the same deck for example? What about mixing old frames with newer frames? What about cards that read weird like Portal cards, or have strange symbols, like old flashback cards and Portal P/T? What about templating differences next to each other (Revised Frozen Shade beside Crypt Ripper, or different kinds of Eldrazi Scions)?

I can answer myself for you, here: 1) Æsthetics are subjective. 2) It would be a nightmare for deckbuilding and the rules commitee to create rules for these problems. 3) All these "problem" cards are supposed to be playable alongside each other.

So going by this, to retort these points 1): The subjective ideas about what makes a deck pretty is of course up to the RC as their directions aim to provide a certain free product for Magic communities to enjoy. The problem is that there are so many potential æsthetic problems that are all dismissed somewhat arbitrarily. Does it really serve the Commander community to preserve these people's idea of pretty decks? 2) This is actually the best point, to me. I'm unsure how the hybrid problem can be solved ruleswise in an elegant way, because this is really a very good argument for the current concept of restricting deckbuilding by color identity: The current rules are very simple. Complicating them too much for minor gain is probably not worth it. This is something I can respect. 3) This is not a valid argument against hybrid, because the same can be said about hybrid. Mirran and Phyrexian cards should be playable in the same deck, same goes for how Rakdos Cackler should be playable in any deck having access to either black or red mana.

All in all, I say what I said in another thread.
Both restricting color identity and making offcolor mana become colorless is overkill and really not relevant. Now that the colorless rule has been removed, we remain with a very clean rules system: Only use cards with the mana symbols of your commander.

Quote from MARPJ »

Quote from Manite »

If I understand the removal of rule 4 correctly, mana sources now can tap for any color they normally would, but we still can't run hybrid cards in decks that don't include all the hybrid card's colors? Why don't they just write a rule for hybrid cards that allows you to run hybrid cards the way they're meant to be?

Because it already works as "meant to be". A hybrid card is a multicolored card that is of all colors of it. The color identity rule (903.4) also states it.

The objective of hybrid mana is not to be able to use a card in a deck without one of its color but to make easier to cast multicolored spells, just that it ends being a loop hole that can make color pie violations (a reason for most hybrid have abilities shared by both colors) and be abused in deck building

You are right about the color identity rule, but the rest is just not true. A hybrid is supposed to be a card that has effects shared in two colors that either color can use. The color pie violations are not there because of a loophole, they're there mistakenly. This is stated all the time by MaRo.

Rakdos Cackler is how the mechanic works. It's a card that can be played in monoblack, monored or black/red, whose mechanics fit all of those colors. The Commander rules don't work properly with the intent of the mechanic, but that's because the Rules Commitee either want hybrid to work differently than it does in literally all other card formats, or because allowing hybrid to work with the current rules might require some rules writing that's unintuitive or not worth additional complexity.

Giant Solifuge is a mistake, not a demonstration of how hybrid is intended to work, because it doesn't do what a monored card can do. But the same can be said about a plethora of old cards. Aftershock for example is used in EDH to some extent because it deals with red's weaknesses (big toughness creatures) somewhat effeciently and also "destroys". Blasphemous Act is a newer example of this problem; it kills large creatures easily which red is not supposed to do. With the number of inconsistencies present in monocolor already, the argument against hybrid cards causing mechanics "bleeding" isn't really that relevant.

I am a player who always disliked that there were two rules enforcing weird interactions when staying in color: I disliked both that mana of the wrong color became colorless and that I couldn't play Unmake in my monowhite deck. But I was always fine with one of those rules being removed. Finally, Rule 4 is removed, so now I can live in peace with the fact that hybrid is handled wrong. as I simply wanted either of those things to be gone away with as a middle ground

I voted "Backstabbing is part of a free-for-all" because it is. That said, different players like to play in different ways. When playing multiplayer, you have a metagame in the community, and behavior is part of that. There is no higher moral to honor. But there's still plenty of reasons for different people to play in different ways. I play as a very "red" Timmy-Johnny, so I'm spontaneous and aggressive and do huge swings because they're awesome. Also I tend to simply punish people for acting aggressive towards me - one game, some guy attacks me turn 2 with a 1/1, then I smashed him every chance I got for a bunch of turns, totalling about 15 damage. That's just the way I play. I don't plan much to win, I plan to move the game forward and to have fun with people. But that's just my behavior. Other people are allowed to play in whatever way they want to. They are going to be told "I did not have fun during that game" if they do stuff that's too ill-willed, douchebaggy or groanworthy. Then people usually switch behaviors or cards. Again, it's a social metagame. I think a large part of the charm of playing with different people is to experience different playstyles. It's more interesting that way, one of the last remnants of the social metagame that was present when you were 13 and played with a total of three other people. Then specific cards were expected and feared, and behaviors were too. Some people also like to roleplay - if they're black, they're Macchivellian, if they're white, they're honorable.

Quote from SCDL »

Quote from Sephon19 »

This pretty much settles what <> means, IMO

It wasn't them officially announcing what it means?

Ancient Tomb is a reprint, with this version adding <><> to your mana pool; adding 2 or <><> to your mana pool must be the same thing, then. I really cannot see <> meaning anything but "1 colorless mana"; meaning that when produced, <> can be spent for 1 or <>, while <> can only be paid with colorless mana.

EDIT: I think I perhaps misunderstood - have they officially announced what it means? I'm sorry I think I totally missed that in that case. (Not that I paid too much attention however...)

EDIT: I found the relevant thread. Sorry for being behind!

This pretty much settles what <> means, IMO

Kid Ape and Tarmogoyf aren't 2/3s. Come on people...

Quote from GnozL »

Quote from FinalLogic »

Mirrorpool is interesting. Why does it add <> and not just {1}?

This is an important question. <> in the mana cost makes sense if we assume it to be Exclusively Colorless. But adding <> vs adding (1) to your mana pool??? I see no reason for that unless <> must be paid with exactly <>. If that's the case, I'm much less excited about this.

Another option i see is that <> is "exclusively colored", which is rainbow mana that cannot be used to pay colorless cost, and that <> in mana costs may be payed with either any color or <>, but not colorless. I don't like that option either, tbh.

Actually I think it works like this: The symbol <> in a cost meanst that only colorless mana can be spent to pay for that single mana. So a creature costing 1<>RG must be paid with 1RG and then any kind of mana for 1.