Iona is easy to get rid of but if your sitting at a table with an Omnath, locus of mana deck and a Ezuri, Renegade leader deck and someone plays Iona you are pretty much wrecked unless someone draws a beast within. Prime time doesn't do much for either in any situation just adds some more ramp. Saying that a card should be banned because it was in all decks with green is like saying you should ban sol ring because every deck ever(pretty much) plays it. There are many examples of cards that certain color decks always run and this is not a good reason(this is to reply of an above post).
Sure Iona is great if your opponents all happen to be playing mono color and the same color. But that's a fairly uncommon. It's much more likely to sit down a table and see a Damia deck, a Prosh deck, and a Reaper King deck. Yeah, I'm sure those guys are so worried about an Iona.
They would need a Duplicant or All is Dust or Disc or...one of a half dozen other colorless answers they should probably be running.
Exactly, there are plenty of options and card choices that people can and do run because they are versatile and can get them out of situations. Any player that builds a deck should be aware of the weaknesses and include the proper card choices to compensate.
I don't see how a card like Iona, Shield of Emeria can not be banned at the same time a card like Primeval Titan is. Iona can completely shut players out of games and gives them 0 chance of recovery. PT even has worse evasion. PT allows for interactions with all the players and is very strong but it doesn't win games flat out or lock players out of the game in any way like Iona does.
Iona is rather fragile without some other effect giving it hexproof/shroud/indestructibility/etc. It also doesn't have any immediate impact on the board. I wouldn't be surprised if a good number of decks consider Akroma, either color, to be more problematic than Iona. After all, there's nothing to even guarantee that Iona's effect will even have an impact since it's entirely possible for none of the other players to be holding a card of the chosen color. I'll admit that mono color decks are more heavily impacted, but even then colorless removal exists. I don't see any reason why mono color decks shouldn't shore up their weaknesses by taking advantage of colorless options that are out there.
Just think about the various archetypes out there, does control care about Iona? Stax? Combo? Goodstuff? Group hug? Aggro? Iona simply represents a speed bump that probably sits around for a few turns until someone needs to cast a card of the chosen color and casts some removal of a different color.
Hello Matt,
I sincerely apologize for the delay in your payment. Please know that due to a high volume of orders our accounting department is currently a little behind on issuing payments. I have given them your information and let them know that payment is overdue and needs to be submitted as soon as possible. I ask that you please be patient and allow just a little more time for the payment to be processed. Thank you in advance for your understanding in this matter.
I received the payment 5 days later. In all, they had the cards for 28 days - and this was mid October/November. I honestly don't know firsthand how receiving and accounting works in this type of situation, so I am hesitant to say things like "it doesn't make sense" or "payment should be faster", but I feel like there is definitely an efficiency problem there. All I have to compare it with is Star City Games, Channel Fireball, Icarus Magic, Card Kingdom, and Cool Stuff Inc though. I will still buy from Troll and Toad, but I have since just been selling to SCG and Card Kingdom (because I like dropping off orders in person).
I actually just finished contacting them using the chat service. They said that the check is scheduled to be cut later this week and sent out next Monday. So overall I'd say it's a bit on the slow side but nothing unreasonable. But on a purely customer experience level I'm comfortable with saying that the process should be faster.
Edit: Just wanted to update that I did get paid. Just took a bit over 2 weeks. Not the fastest process but good enough for the most part. They were pretty good about providing information when I asked for it so I'm pretty comfortable with selling to them in the future as long as I'm not in any immediate rush.
Well my buylist orders from them have been in "Payment Pending" status for a few days now. Reading back a few pages it seems that this isn't uncommon and it is the holiday season. Still, it really shouldn't take that long to send money. I mean, they processed the cards the day after they received them which I can only imagine to be a more demanding process than sending payments. So yeah, I plan on sending an email if the status doesn't change in the next day or two.
Except that the rule represents the flavour that your commander's colour identity affects the mana that it can draw from the world.
Just because Nicol Bolas can mind controlChameleon Colossus doesn't suddenly give him the knowledge to draw green mana from a City of Brass, to be able to activate Chameleon's ability. Despite his awesome intellect Nicol Bolas cannot connect to green and white magic, because it is alien and weak to him. The flavour is essentially about roleplaying the Legendary creature and the rules reflect that.
Neither rule needs to be cut. Both say flavourful things about the format, Rule 3 says that Nicol Bolas wouldn't associate with anything that has white or green in it's identity. Rule 4 says that he will never be able to draw upon the power of white or green mana, simply because it is not part of his sphere of influence.
The flavour of the Commander ruling the deck and being our representative on the battlefield is what defines the format, which is why it's unlikely the RC will ever change these rules simply to allow a few unfortunate cards or unusual interactions happen in game.
You know what else was a flavorful rule in magic?
Mana Burn.
Where is mana burn now?
Gone.
I'm curious, did you also have the same sentiments about mana burn as you do about Rule 4? Game play takes precedence over flavor. Flavor is malleable and it's a trivial matter to come up with an alternate explanation that supports a different set of rules.
You what doesn't make any flavorful sense? Why certain cards would stop functioning the way that they're written. Forests tap for green mana. Forests do not tap for colorless mana. There is no justification for why the mana that comes from a forest spontaneously turns colorless. If flavor is so important, then why stop at generating colorless mana? Why not simply stop any off color mana from being generated at all? For a format where flavor is so paramount, there are many compromises already that jeopardize the internal logic and flavor that's being used to justify these rules.
Also the problem that I see is that these rules are currently allowing "a few unfortunate cards or unusual interactions happen in game." and what's being allowed is a detriment to the overall quality of game play.
My counterargument to that is that if you accept his stance, then you must also be open to completely abolishing the color identity rule altogether, and that means allowing two-brid and phyrexian mana, for starters.
Well there's nothing inherently wrong with color identity. The problem comes up when color identity is applied to deck construction. Rule 3 and Rule 4 overlap quite a bit in determining the cards that people would run in their lists, so I'd be happy with either of them being eliminated.
On another note, can anyone tell me why Rule 4 is listed under deck construction when it governs what happens during game play?
The extort mechanic was not an exception by the RC. They didn't change anything to allow it. It's just the way the mechanic was made that allowed it to be that way.
You're right that the rules committee didn't change anything to accommodate extort. That was done by wotc. I find this to be a mistake since they have already done mechanics in the past with a static cost written into the keyword only to later issue errata to all previous cards because they wanted to explore the design space of having a variable cost. Chances are that we won't see extort again but that doesn't mean this issue won't come up again in the future.
They also didn't change the rules just for Bosh. So again they didn't make an exception for him.
But they did. Color identity was established in order to make Bosh and a small group of legendary creatures playable.
The poll's question is worded strangely - I don't think it asks what was meant to be asked. I voted 'no' in the poll, yet you'll note that I've been vocal about supporting 'hybrid' rules. Rigidity doesn't seem to be an issue at all to me. Rules are supposed to be well-defined.
I agree, the definition of color identity is fine. It's the application of color identity during deck building that I find to be unnecessary.
I've gotten a reply from Sheldon in the past, but I actually disagree with the OP on this topic. The rule that isn't pulling it's weight is the one saying that you can't produce off-color mana. Removing this rule has 3 situations in which it is relevant (theft/copy effects, donated Celestial Dawn, and sunburst).
Theft/Copy is going to become slightly better. Not notably, just slightly. It gets stronger in the same way that decks get stronger by a new set hitting.
Donated CD is a thing in some Zedruu decks, and shouldn't be. This is the one that makes me want it gone, and I played it for a while.
And... nobody cares about sunburst.
Good luck with this. I've tried to convince people that rule 4 is a detriment overall and, like mana burn, should be eliminated; however pretty much every time I've gotten into discussions about the issues, the opposition always treats it as some untouchable sacred cow of the format.
No, I have never asked for a flavor justification for any of those scenarios because I consider flavor to be worthless to the actual play of the game so I pay it little to no heed. I also agree that the cards should function as written, which is why I want to know why it would be acceptable for a mono-white deck to get a red trigger and bonus when you're only supposed to run white cards. Since the rules don't support it and since "flavor" seems to be the angle of justification being pitched I wanted it in those terms.
I think you misunderstand, the rules support a white deck getting "red" triggers just fine. There's nothing preventing in the rules that affect how cards function. Currently the rules simply prevent those cards from being played in decks and the flavor justification is used to keep it that way and not the other way around.
If Maro isn't happy about hybrids maybe he should've designed them better.:p
There are so few exceptions on some of these though (Quenchable Fire as an excuse to change the ruling?). I feel off color hybrids aren't in flavor for the format and shouldn't be legal for this reason. Celestial Dawn is also a card I'm completely fine with. It let's you produce only W mana and you can cast spells with only white mana. Non-white decks produce colorless mana instead of white which means you can't cast spells. It's not a Mycosynth Lattice for your spells.
What Maro wants, Maro gets, eventually... eg Poison.
That there exist so few exceptions is exactly my point. People don't care enough because there are so few. This wasn't the case with Generals though. There were only a few generals that couldn't be played using the old rules but people, or at least the right people, cared enough to get it changed. Once something that clashes with the color identity rules with the power level of primordials comes along, I can all but guarantee that people will start to care.
As for celestial dawn, that has nothing to do with color identity or rule 3. It is purely a case of rule 4 increasing its power level. I don't see how giving it the ability to lock out non-white players is beneficial to the game. As subjective as this is, I've seen it hurt the game far more often. It effectively prevents one player from playing the game while not actually eliminating them from the game. This situation is really awful when an aware player encounters it for the first time and also encounters the pitfalls of rule 4 for the first time. I'm pretty sure everything that was said when mana burn was removed can be applied to rule 4 as well.
Tell me hybrid supporters, what happens if I'm running Balefire Liege in a Darien deck and cast Boros Reckoner with it in play? Or how about if you're playing Balefire Liege in a Rakka Mar deck and I have a Gloom in play when you try and cast him? I'd like to know both how you'd handle the outcome of the scenario and the flavor justification for the outcome, just out of curiosity.
You play the cards as written. I don't see any complicated interactions between these cards. There has never been anything stopping you from casting off color hybrid cards. Black and Blue decks without Red or Green have always been able to cast Demigod of Revenge or Overbing of Myth even if they couldn't include the card in the deck and no one has ever said that those cards shouldn't work as written. I don't see why any flavor justification is needed? Have you ever asked for a flavor justification for those or any of the other ridiculous situations before?
I don't see any indication of this happening but I would prefer to address the problem once it becomes a problem instead of being preemptive about it when it's clear WOTC is willing to print card wordings with Commander in mind.
Fair enough, I simply ascribe to the philosophy that it's better to future proof things. Unless I'm mistaken, there have been occasional comments by Maro indicating that he is at least dissatisfied with the way that hybrid cards are treated under rule 3.
Hive Minding a Pact is my favorite way to kill people though
I don't think that they'll ever change rule 4 so you shouldn't have to worry. But in case they do, just make sure to blow up their chromatic lantern and darksteel ingots before you cast pact.
I'd be completely fine not being able to run this card just like I'm fine that Quenchable Fire can't be played outside of blue and fetches are legal in any deck. There's a few exception but overall the rules cover the vast majority of cards correctly.
What happens once enough of the exception cards are printed. What happens when there's a whole block of cards that are excluded from their intended color combinations? As we can see from extort, there are plenty of ways to design cards that potentially clash with rule 3. The current mentality might be to avoid forcing the issue, but there's no guarantee that it will be the case in the future.
I sort of feel like having the color identity plus the ability to only produce mana of your commanders colors is a redundant set of rules that is unnecessary. Due to that, zedru can also donate Celestial Dawn which becomes a problem SOLELY because of the wording of the rules for EDH.
I sort of feel like they could relinquish one of the two or cut them back some. It seems odd that both rules are needed as they really aren't both needed.
I'm glad someone agrees with this. Like I said before, rule 4 only comes up during games to create disappointment for players like in the case of Celestial Dawn or Pacts.
For anyone that believes that the rules are good enough, I ask you to again consider the following card:
Wedge Ramp Bear A 1G
Creature Bear
You cannot spend W or R to cast this card.
When ~ enters the battlefield, search your library for an island, swamp, or forest card and put it onto the battlefield. Shuffle your library.
2/2
This card is obviously intended for a wedge deck but cannot ever go into a wedge deck because of rule 3. Again, people don't really see rule 3 as a problem because the cards that it's excluding are easy to dismiss at the moment. No one cares that quenchable fire can't be run in mono color decks and extort was conveniently templated to avoid forcing the issue. But this won't be the case every time. Such a rule deficiency should be addressed sooner rather than later.
Sure Iona is great if your opponents all happen to be playing mono color and the same color. But that's a fairly uncommon. It's much more likely to sit down a table and see a Damia deck, a Prosh deck, and a Reaper King deck. Yeah, I'm sure those guys are so worried about an Iona.
Exactly, there are plenty of options and card choices that people can and do run because they are versatile and can get them out of situations. Any player that builds a deck should be aware of the weaknesses and include the proper card choices to compensate.
Iona is rather fragile without some other effect giving it hexproof/shroud/indestructibility/etc. It also doesn't have any immediate impact on the board. I wouldn't be surprised if a good number of decks consider Akroma, either color, to be more problematic than Iona. After all, there's nothing to even guarantee that Iona's effect will even have an impact since it's entirely possible for none of the other players to be holding a card of the chosen color. I'll admit that mono color decks are more heavily impacted, but even then colorless removal exists. I don't see any reason why mono color decks shouldn't shore up their weaknesses by taking advantage of colorless options that are out there.
Just think about the various archetypes out there, does control care about Iona? Stax? Combo? Goodstuff? Group hug? Aggro? Iona simply represents a speed bump that probably sits around for a few turns until someone needs to cast a card of the chosen color and casts some removal of a different color.
I actually just finished contacting them using the chat service. They said that the check is scheduled to be cut later this week and sent out next Monday. So overall I'd say it's a bit on the slow side but nothing unreasonable. But on a purely customer experience level I'm comfortable with saying that the process should be faster.
Edit: Just wanted to update that I did get paid. Just took a bit over 2 weeks. Not the fastest process but good enough for the most part. They were pretty good about providing information when I asked for it so I'm pretty comfortable with selling to them in the future as long as I'm not in any immediate rush.
You know what else was a flavorful rule in magic?
Mana Burn.
Where is mana burn now?
Gone.
I'm curious, did you also have the same sentiments about mana burn as you do about Rule 4? Game play takes precedence over flavor. Flavor is malleable and it's a trivial matter to come up with an alternate explanation that supports a different set of rules.
You what doesn't make any flavorful sense? Why certain cards would stop functioning the way that they're written. Forests tap for green mana. Forests do not tap for colorless mana. There is no justification for why the mana that comes from a forest spontaneously turns colorless. If flavor is so important, then why stop at generating colorless mana? Why not simply stop any off color mana from being generated at all? For a format where flavor is so paramount, there are many compromises already that jeopardize the internal logic and flavor that's being used to justify these rules.
Also the problem that I see is that these rules are currently allowing "a few unfortunate cards or unusual interactions happen in game." and what's being allowed is a detriment to the overall quality of game play.
Well there's nothing inherently wrong with color identity. The problem comes up when color identity is applied to deck construction. Rule 3 and Rule 4 overlap quite a bit in determining the cards that people would run in their lists, so I'd be happy with either of them being eliminated.
On another note, can anyone tell me why Rule 4 is listed under deck construction when it governs what happens during game play?
You're right that the rules committee didn't change anything to accommodate extort. That was done by wotc. I find this to be a mistake since they have already done mechanics in the past with a static cost written into the keyword only to later issue errata to all previous cards because they wanted to explore the design space of having a variable cost. Chances are that we won't see extort again but that doesn't mean this issue won't come up again in the future.
But they did. Color identity was established in order to make Bosh and a small group of legendary creatures playable.
I agree, the definition of color identity is fine. It's the application of color identity during deck building that I find to be unnecessary.
Good luck with this. I've tried to convince people that rule 4 is a detriment overall and, like mana burn, should be eliminated; however pretty much every time I've gotten into discussions about the issues, the opposition always treats it as some untouchable sacred cow of the format.
I have no problems with Iona and Servant as long as Terferi and Pool exists.
I think you misunderstand, the rules support a white deck getting "red" triggers just fine. There's nothing preventing in the rules that affect how cards function. Currently the rules simply prevent those cards from being played in decks and the flavor justification is used to keep it that way and not the other way around.
What Maro wants, Maro gets, eventually... eg Poison.
That there exist so few exceptions is exactly my point. People don't care enough because there are so few. This wasn't the case with Generals though. There were only a few generals that couldn't be played using the old rules but people, or at least the right people, cared enough to get it changed. Once something that clashes with the color identity rules with the power level of primordials comes along, I can all but guarantee that people will start to care.
As for celestial dawn, that has nothing to do with color identity or rule 3. It is purely a case of rule 4 increasing its power level. I don't see how giving it the ability to lock out non-white players is beneficial to the game. As subjective as this is, I've seen it hurt the game far more often. It effectively prevents one player from playing the game while not actually eliminating them from the game. This situation is really awful when an aware player encounters it for the first time and also encounters the pitfalls of rule 4 for the first time. I'm pretty sure everything that was said when mana burn was removed can be applied to rule 4 as well.
You play the cards as written. I don't see any complicated interactions between these cards. There has never been anything stopping you from casting off color hybrid cards. Black and Blue decks without Red or Green have always been able to cast Demigod of Revenge or Overbing of Myth even if they couldn't include the card in the deck and no one has ever said that those cards shouldn't work as written. I don't see why any flavor justification is needed? Have you ever asked for a flavor justification for those or any of the other ridiculous situations before?
I did say rule 4.
Fair enough, I simply ascribe to the philosophy that it's better to future proof things. Unless I'm mistaken, there have been occasional comments by Maro indicating that he is at least dissatisfied with the way that hybrid cards are treated under rule 3.
I don't think that they'll ever change rule 4 so you shouldn't have to worry. But in case they do, just make sure to blow up their chromatic lantern and darksteel ingots before you cast pact.
What happens once enough of the exception cards are printed. What happens when there's a whole block of cards that are excluded from their intended color combinations? As we can see from extort, there are plenty of ways to design cards that potentially clash with rule 3. The current mentality might be to avoid forcing the issue, but there's no guarantee that it will be the case in the future.
I'm glad someone agrees with this. Like I said before, rule 4 only comes up during games to create disappointment for players like in the case of Celestial Dawn or Pacts.
For anyone that believes that the rules are good enough, I ask you to again consider the following card:
Wedge Ramp Bear A 1G
Creature Bear
You cannot spend W or R to cast this card.
When ~ enters the battlefield, search your library for an island, swamp, or forest card and put it onto the battlefield. Shuffle your library.
2/2
This card is obviously intended for a wedge deck but cannot ever go into a wedge deck because of rule 3. Again, people don't really see rule 3 as a problem because the cards that it's excluding are easy to dismiss at the moment. No one cares that quenchable fire can't be run in mono color decks and extort was conveniently templated to avoid forcing the issue. But this won't be the case every time. Such a rule deficiency should be addressed sooner rather than later.