If you could make one change in Commander...

umtiger
Posts: 394
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by umtiger » 4 years ago

DirkGently wrote:
4 years ago
As much as I dislike a lot of those commanders, I think power creep in general - and a disregard for balance in non-tournament formats - is to blame, moreso than supplementary products. [...]
I don't think there's any clean dividing line between the not-obnoxious commanders and the okay ones. If there is, it's probably 2010 commander. Then the worst you have to worry about is zur, arcum, and azami.
I dislike playing against stuff like Maelstrom Wanderer- where you have to remove it and even when you do it comes back with more value. And it's not because I dislike power creep, people can play whatever they want. But when I want to employ my preferred tactics that prevents Maelstrom Wanderer from running over the table (e.g. land destruction, stax), they are disliked by other players. And you know what? If others dislike stax, then I won't play it...but it's not like if we dislike the stupid value engines, that those people will stop playing Maelstrom Wanderer and its elk.

It's like a player in vintage who loves to play Ancestral Recall and win on turn 1 yet somehow flip tables after getting Trinisphere'd on turn 1.

Also, much of the power creep is because they do print all of those commanders in those extra sets. I don't mind having to face Muldrotha...but it's having to face Muldrotha on top of Meren, Prossh, Animar, Yuriko, Edgar Markov, Chulane, Breya each and every game. No one can point to a distinct line, but when non-Standard set generals started to outnumber Standard set generals...I definitely enjoyed the decks that my opponents played a lot less. The stuff they put in those Commander sets steer players too far into one direction.

Anecdotal evidence isn't much, but I can't remember the last game where standard set generals outnumbered CMDR set ones. Actually, I'm usually the only standard set general at the table. The skimed data on EDHREC is sketchy also, but standard set commanders are widely outnumbered there as well.

Not asking for a ban, because people obviously enjoy to play those cards. Just wish there was a legitimate side format that wasn't brawl, tiny leader, etc. If this doesn't qualify for as a "change," then yeah 30 life.

User avatar
Drusus
Posts: 56
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Drusus » 4 years ago

One change? Lower the life total to 30.

I don't feel at risk for cracking a fetch to get a shockland, then shocking myself for 2 let it enter untapped. As 3 damage is still half of 6, which would be the equal parity for life costs in EDH. While 30 is still more than 20 for effective cost, and the parity for cost is still above the norm, the effective difference to reach parity is 4/4,5 with 30 life and 6 with 40 life.

User avatar
ZenN
Posts: 455
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Canada

Post by ZenN » 4 years ago

Drusus wrote:
4 years ago
One change? Lower the life total to 30.
I could absolutely get behind this. It would create a fairly large shift in the format, where efficient beaters become much more valuable, and aggro has a real chance without needing to combo win. It would make life harder for certain types of decks, but not impossible.

I was going to say some other things, but honestly I think it's probably this.
Commander
Golos, ETB Pilgrim - Value Town
Maelstrom Wanderer a.k.a. The Kool-Aid Man
Korvold, Fae-Cursed King - OM NOM NOM
Kykar, Wind's Fury - Spellslinger + Tokens

CrazyPierre
Jasmine Boreal is for real.
Posts: 22
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Post by CrazyPierre » 4 years ago

Partner no longer exists. Failing that, both Partners get commander taxed.
That isn't going to happen, so I'll get loopy and suggest this: They should make cards that increase or decrease commander taxes.
For example: Popeddy Popedda 3UW 2/4 Legendary Creature - Human Advisor. "While ~ is on the battlefield, your opponents must pay an additional 2 to play their Commanders." There's always room to give a little more - Grand Arbiter Augustin IV

Or lower the starting life total to 30.

CylonSupreme
Posts: 5
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by CylonSupreme » 4 years ago

Bring back "Banned as a commander" and use it.

freelunch
Posts: 44
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by freelunch » 4 years ago

I'm all for banning the 2 CMC and less unrestricted tutors (like Demonic Tutor or Imperial Seal). One of the major appeals of any Highlander format is variance. Tutors remove that to an extent, and are antithetical to the Highlander experience.

Sure, I can play without them, but the Spike part of me says that I'm playing the game wrong at that point. This leads to less fun.

Sure, not everybody has a bit of Spike in their player profile, but we're magic players too and we still want to have fun.
Last edited by freelunch 4 years ago, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
cryogen
GΘΔ†
Posts: 1056
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Westminster, MD
Contact:

Post by cryogen » 4 years ago

freelunch wrote:
4 years ago
I'm all for banning the 2 CMC and less tutors. One of the major appeals of any Highlander format is variance. Tutors remove that to an extent, and are antithetical to the Highlander experience.

Sure, I can play without them, but the Spike part of me says that I'm playing the game wrong at that point. This leads to less fun.

Sure, not everybody has a bit of Spike in their player profile, but we're magic players too and we still want to have fun.
Agreed. Rampant Growth is cEDH and has been ruining the format since Mirage.
Sheldon wrote:You're the reason we can't have nice things.

freelunch
Posts: 44
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by freelunch » 4 years ago

Okay, I forgot one word in my post which changes the meaning a lot. I meant to say "2 CMC and less unrestricted tutors" so the likes of Diabolic and Imperial Seal.

Is it really appropriate to respond with such a sarcastic reply? Is your reply supposed to be 'funny'? I'm not sure I take it as "funny", and I'm not sure I appreciate being treated like that.

User avatar
WizardMN
Posts: 1965
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 124
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Twin Cities
Contact:

Post by WizardMN » 4 years ago

freelunch wrote:
4 years ago
Okay, I forgot one word in my post which changes the meaning a lot. I meant to say "2 CMC and less unrestricted tutors" so the likes of Diabolic and Imperial Seal.

Is it really appropriate to respond with such a sarcastic reply? Is your reply supposed to be 'funny'? I'm not sure I take it as "funny", and I'm not sure I appreciate being treated like that.
It may not have been "funny", but I found it amusing. It is also something that you didn't really seem to want to explain further either. The thing about your desire is that you feel Mystical Tutor and Enlightened Tutor are fine. So, really, you are fine with cutting back on Black's consistency but not Blue's which I find very interesting.

To be clear, I agree with your sentiment but the conclusion to just ban them all just seems wrong. I generally limit tutors in my decks for the exact reason you stated; they decrease variance. But why only go after the cheap ones? I mean, what does Demonic Tutor ruin that Grim Tutor doesn't? Based on the way this thread has gone with a number of people thinking 40 life is too high, surely that means 3 life is basically inconsequential? Why cut it off at 2 mana?

To be frank, it seems like the comment comes pretty close to originating from the realm of cEDH. That is, 2 mana vs 3 mana only really matters when trying to win as fast as possible, right?

On a side note, as more of an FYI, you might want to edit your post again to say "Demonic" instead of "Diabolic".

freelunch
Posts: 44
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by freelunch » 4 years ago

On a side note, as more of an FYI, you might want to edit your post again to say "Demonic" instead of "Diabolic".
Yes, thanks.
WizardMN wrote:
4 years ago
It is also something that you didn't really seem to want to explain further either.
I thought my original post had enough explanation.
WizardMN wrote:
4 years ago
But why only go after the cheap ones? I mean, what does Demonic Tutor ruin that Grim Tutor doesn't?
I forgot Grim Tutor exists. So lets make it 3 CMC or less unrestricted tutors.
WizardMN wrote:
4 years ago
So, really, you are fine with cutting back on Black's consistency but not Blue's which I find very interesting.
The thread asked for one change. If I could make more changes, I'd probably also do away with some of Blue's better cantrips or forcibly re-educate people to accept mass land destruction.
WizardMN wrote:
4 years ago
To be frank, it seems like the comment comes pretty close to originating from the realm of cEDH. That is, 2 mana vs 3 mana only really matters when trying to win as fast as possible, right?
You'll have to define what you mean when you say cEDH. The past few months have shown that very few can put a solid definition on what they mean when they say cEDH. This is one of my strongest decks (http://tappedout.net/mtg-decks/the-infinite-marathon/) so you have an idea of what level I play at. I would certainly not be defining this as cEDH power level. That said, I'm still trying to win as fast as possible and cutting down on average CMC is one of the best ways to do that.

User avatar
WizardMN
Posts: 1965
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 124
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Twin Cities
Contact:

Post by WizardMN » 4 years ago

@freelunch

As you mentioned, this thread is "One change I would like to see" and this is the change you want to see so I will acquiesce to that fact. Not every change needs to be agreed to by everyone and I think I went too far down defending a certain position when this thread isn't for that.

My point was simply that the change you requested is almost entirely focused on black losing tutors without actually managing to reduce variance in normal games of Magic. People will just use different tutors. In any case, if another thread were to come up about tutors specifically, I would be happy to debate things there. But this has sort of become a bit off topic for this thread so I will just leave it there.

User avatar
cryogen
GΘΔ†
Posts: 1056
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Westminster, MD
Contact:

Post by cryogen » 4 years ago

freelunch wrote:
4 years ago
Okay, I forgot one word in my post which changes the meaning a lot. I meant to say "2 CMC and less unrestricted tutors" so the likes of Diabolic and Imperial Seal.

Is it really appropriate to respond with such a sarcastic reply? Is your reply supposed to be 'funny'? I'm not sure I take it as "funny", and I'm not sure I appreciate being treated like that.
I was using hyperbole sarcasm to respond to point out the absurdity in your hyperbolic proposition. I'm not a mind reader so I didn't know that you misspoke and only wanted to ban Demonic and Vampiric Tutors, Imperial Seal, and Gamble off the top of my head.

IVariations of your idea comes up from time to time in the broader "ban broken tutors". So I can easily see where that is where you were heading, only less thought out.
Sheldon wrote:You're the reason we can't have nice things.

User avatar
pokken
Posts: 6282
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 2
Pronoun: he / him

Post by pokken » 4 years ago

There are few enough broken tutors you could just nail them by name. Probably 10 cards.

However, the thing people always forget about when banning tutors is that it sort of enforces a goodstuff format where your individual card quality has to be much higher. It's hard to support jank without ways to find the cogs and pulleys.

Snes
Posts: 22
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Snes » 3 years ago

I'd change Rule 2 to read as follows:
A card's colour identity is the colour of any mana symbols in the card's rules text that don't add mana as a mana ability. A card's color identity is established before the game begins, and cannot be changed by game effects. Mana symbols with more than one colour can be considered any or all of its colours during deck construction. The cards in a deck may not have any colours in their color identity which are not in the colour identity of the deck's commander.
This change would allow cards with hybrid mana symbols to be played in any deck that can cast them, as well as allow decks to run cards that generate mana of any color printed on the card (ie. Signets and Talismans become colorless and can be run in any deck). Both of these changes would be a huge boon to decks with fewer colors, removing a fairly arbitrary advantage multi-colored decks had over them.
Do you remember where we all came from?
Do you remember what it's all about?

User avatar
Negoyrc
Posts: 3
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Negoyrc » 3 years ago

Snes wrote:
3 years ago
I'd change Rule 2 to read as follows:
A card's colour identity is the colour of any mana symbols in the card's rules text that don't add mana as a mana ability. A card's color identity is established before the game begins, and cannot be changed by game effects. Mana symbols with more than one colour can be considered any or all of its colours during deck construction. The cards in a deck may not have any colours in their color identity which are not in the colour identity of the deck's commander.
This change would allow cards with hybrid mana symbols to be played in any deck that can cast them, as well as allow decks to run cards that generate mana of any color printed on the card (ie. Signets and Talismans become colorless and can be run in any deck). Both of these changes would be a huge boon to decks with fewer colors, removing a fairly arbitrary advantage multi-colored decks had over them.
I don't like this proposal for two reasons: The first is that you're giving every deck access to ~30 2cmc mana rock accelerants. Second, the wording to legalize off-color hybrid mana doesn't make sense because the two sentences seem to contradict each other.

edit: whoops, didn't realize I was logged in under the wrong account - cryo

Snes
Posts: 22
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Snes » 3 years ago

Negoyrc wrote:
3 years ago
I don't like this proposal for two reasons: The first is that you're giving every deck access to ~30 2cmc mana rock accelerants. Second, the wording to legalize off-color hybrid mana doesn't make sense because the two sentences seem to contradict each other.

edit: whoops, didn't realize I was logged in under the wrong account - cryo
Yes, I would be opening up a lot of mana rocks to be available in every deck. As it currently stands, adding more colors to your deck makes you significantly better at ramping using artifacts, and I just can't see that as a good thing. Access to Magic's entire history of color fixing already removes most of the downside that comes from adding more colors. Unless Wizards plans to reprint Arcane Signet with four different names, I think this is the direction we should go.

That being said, my solution may not be perfect. Looking at the wording, it allows players to play off-color lands as long as they don't have any activated abilities that cost colored mana. Most such lands aren't that notable and wouldn't be worth "splashing," but I don't know how comfortable I am with giving every deck access to Bajuka Bog and Gaea's Cradle.

Which two sentences are you saying contradict each other? The third line about symbols with multiple colors supercceeds the first sentence.
Do you remember where we all came from?
Do you remember what it's all about?

User avatar
Yatsufusa
Posts: 166
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Yatsufusa » 3 years ago

Snes wrote:
3 years ago
Yes, I would be opening up a lot of mana rocks to be available in every deck. As it currently stands, adding more colors to your deck makes you significantly better at ramping using artifacts, and I just can't see that as a good thing. Access to Magic's entire history of color fixing already removes most of the downside that comes from adding more colors. Unless Wizards plans to reprint Arcane Signet with four different names, I think this is the direction we should go.

That being said, my solution may not be perfect. Looking at the wording, it allows players to play off-color lands as long as they don't have any activated abilities that cost colored mana. Most such lands aren't that notable and wouldn't be worth "splashing," but I don't know how comfortable I am with giving every deck access to Bajuka Bog and Gaea's Cradle.

Which two sentences are you saying contradict each other? The third line about symbols with multiple colors supercceeds the first sentence.
Rules text is defined specifically to be only within the text box of any card, so you effectively turned every card without mana symbols in their rules text to colorless "identity".

Hybrid is a problem that cannot be fixed without tweaking the comprehensive rules (CR), because identity is built on CR Colors + Rules Text. It makes no sense for the card to be flexible in deck-building, but not flexible in-game (where it still retains all of its Colors when it comes to Color-Matters cards).

The common argument is that other formats are flexible in deck-building (because they have no rules regulating that in the first place), so EDH needs to double-rule to maintain the flexibility, but fact remains the card's CR color (not identity) is still there in the comprehensive rules. The spirit of Color Identity (not functionality) is that the Commander doesn't want a card outside their color at all, whether they can cast it or not. Hybrids are incapable of changing their CR color because the CR doesn't allow them to.

For it to function, Identity also needs to overwrite its CR portion, which means a whole paragraph dedicated to making sure that the Hybrid card's CR Colors are also determined by its mana costs declaration during deck-building and before-play. You have to declare Dominus of Fealty as mono-Red during deckbuilding, before and during playing and it cannot be countered by a Pyroblast because it is not a blue card.

With rule-4 gone, all declarations need to be made beforehand, otherwise one could put a Dominus into a Bant deck because it was mono-Blue, but then cast it with rrrrr using Chromatic Lantern and then claim the Dominus is mono-red and cannot be countered by pyroblast.

That could technically be patched with reintroduction of specific rule that hybrid mana can only be paid with mana that aligned with the card's declared color identity, but to even get to this point we already needed a tugboat of rules overwriting CR color and the declaration rulings. It also has to be the declared card's colors, not the Commander's because you need to shut off the "switcheroo" trick I mentioned earlier if you were to say, put Dominus into a Grixis deck, unless of course, we add yet another CR-level rule that if a hybrid card was declared both its colors, it can be mono-colored in gameplay states if it was cast by using only mana of that color.
Image

Snes
Posts: 22
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Snes » 3 years ago

Yatsufusa wrote:
3 years ago
Rules text is defined specifically to be only within the text box of any card, so you effectively turned every card without mana symbols in their rules text to colorless "identity".
That can't be correct. The specific wording of the current rule is "a card's colour identity is its color plus the colour of any mana symbols in the card's rules text." If the rules text is only the text box and not the mana cost in the top right, then Ghostfire and all spells with devoid would be considered colorless under current EDH rules, as they are colorless spells with no colored mana symbols in the text box. I can only conclude that "rules text" includes the card's casting cost.
Yatsufusa wrote:
3 years ago
Hybrid is a problem that cannot be fixed without tweaking the comprehensive rules (CR), because identity is built on CR Colors + Rules Text. It makes no sense for the card to be flexible in deck-building, but not flexible in-game (where it still retains all of its Colors when it comes to Color-Matters cards).
You're seriously overthinking this. Nobody said we have to change the comprehensive rules to make all hybrid cards mono-colored for this to work. Dominus can be a blue/red card that has a color identity that is either blue or red, depending on what deck it's in. A card's color identity is already divorced from its actual colors. Nobody argued that we had to change the comprehensive rules to make it so Bosh could be targeted by Celestial Purge because his identity is red, or that Alesha could get +1/+1 from Honor of the Pure because her identity includes white.
Do you remember where we all came from?
Do you remember what it's all about?

User avatar
Yatsufusa
Posts: 166
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by Yatsufusa » 3 years ago

Snes wrote:
3 years ago
That can't be correct. The specific wording of the current rule is "a card's colour identity is its color plus the colour of any mana symbols in the card's rules text." If the rules text is only the text box and not the mana cost in the top right, then Ghostfire and all spells with devoid would be considered colorless under current EDH rules, as they are colorless spells with no colored mana symbols in the text box. I can only conclude that "rules text" includes the card's casting cost.

You're seriously overthinking this. Nobody said we have to change the comprehensive rules to make all hybrid cards mono-colored for this to work. Dominus can be a blue/red card that has a color identity that is either blue or red, depending on what deck it's in. A card's color identity is already divorced from its actual colors. Nobody argued that we had to change the comprehensive rules to make it so Bosh could be targeted by Celestial Purge because his identity is red, or that Alesha could get +1/+1 from Honor of the Pure because her identity includes white.
The specific wording of the current rule is "a card's colour identity is its color plus the colour of any mana symbols in the card's rules text."

I bolded the parts for you. "Its color" refers to the CR color of the card itself, as defined by the comprehensive rules. Also, Identity is only defined by the color of mana symbols in the card's rules text, not any other text, devoid has no mana symbols, it's just words, which Identity does not take into account.* That being said I do agree it's an unintuitive part of the ruling, one I hope the RC eventually gets to rectifying, it's awkward when the CR acknowledges the words, but Identity doesn't.

*EDIT: Upon some research actually it's not because Devoid has no mana symbols, it's because 903.4 defines Identity as mana cost plus Characteristic-Defining Abilities (CDA), so Devoid is considered, but because it's added with the mana cost instead of overriding it like it's supposed to do, it essentially becomes worthless/nonfunctional, since Colorless isn't an identity. Doesn't change my view that it's unintuitive, except now it should simply fix around CDAs to overwrite mana costs like it does for Color (not Identity), because unlike hybrid, the CR also recognizes the override as functional (you can't Pyroblast Benthic Infiltrator).

Color Identity (deck-building) is only divorced from color by addition, never by subtraction. This creates a reverse effect in-game, where in-game color-matters interactions will only result in it being possible a card's colors is a subset of its identities (therefore following the spirit of the rule being there in the first place), and not "magically conjure" an additional color not part of its Identity out of nowhere.

If Color Identity is divorced by subtraction without any CR changes to hybrid, the reverse effect triggers, where you put a Dominus into a Mardu deck because it's identity is Red, cast it and it gets countered by a Pyroblast despite its identity being Red, creating a dissonance, because the comprehensive rules of color still sees it as a blue card, even if Identity doesn't. The Identity becomes a subset of its CR Colors, but the gameplay doesn't reflect that, making Identity feel like it was a way to sneak in gold cards functionally.

There's no elegant solution to that, because even if we attempt to trying to alter color-choices to affect Color Identity instead of Color to fix that problem (so that Mardu Dominus can't be Pyroblast'ed aligns correctly), we end up with the Bosh/Alesha problem, now Memnarch can be countered by Pyroblast.

The spirit/flavor/whole point of Color Identity is that the Mardu deck cannot possibly draw/cast a blue card out of its own deck, even if it can produce the mana to cast it, because it cannot divorce the blue-aspect of the card in-game (which in turn requires CR-level erratas). "Because it was meant to be mono-red at times" means nothing if the CR itself is incapable of distinguishing that. Functionally the times it can actually work as mono-red in a game proper is the same as Fierce Guardianship and Pact of Negation.

I understand the rule isn't perfect, fetchlands are currently free-roaming the space Hybrids wish they were at, but if anything, I would support reinforcing the rule to kick out off-color fetchlands out than to undermine the purpose of Color Identity further, which Hybrids, as long as the CR regarding them remains the same, essentially does. In fact, I like to call them "gold hybrids", because only their costs are flexible, not their colors.
Image

User avatar
cryogen
GΘΔ†
Posts: 1056
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Westminster, MD
Contact:

Post by cryogen » 3 years ago

Snes wrote:
3 years ago
Negoyrc wrote:
3 years ago
I don't like this proposal for two reasons: The first is that you're giving every deck access to ~30 2cmc mana rock accelerants. Second, the wording to legalize off-color hybrid mana doesn't make sense because the two sentences seem to contradict each other.

edit: whoops, didn't realize I was logged in under the wrong account - cryo
Yes, I would be opening up a lot of mana rocks to be available in every deck. As it currently stands, adding more colors to your deck makes you significantly better at ramping using artifacts, and I just can't see that as a good thing. Access to Magic's entire history of color fixing already removes most of the downside that comes from adding more colors. Unless Wizards plans to reprint Arcane Signet with four different names, I think this is the direction we should go.

That being said, my solution may not be perfect. Looking at the wording, it allows players to play off-color lands as long as they don't have any activated abilities that cost colored mana. Most such lands aren't that notable and wouldn't be worth "splashing," but I don't know how comfortable I am with giving every deck access to Bajuka Bog and Gaea's Cradle.

Which two sentences are you saying contradict each other? The third line about symbols with multiple colors supercceeds the first sentence.
The last sentence sets up the deck restriction as being only cards in your CI, but the sentence right before that basically gives you the freedom to ignore mana symbols you don't want to include. That same sentence also redefines the color of a card, as I'm reading it (the color is considered to be...), so I guess under your rule Spitting image is a mino green card in a Yeva deck? Would it no longer be countered by Red Elemental Blast? What if i played that same card in a Tatyova deck? Do I have to declare before the game begins what color my hybrid cards are (say for instance I wanted to make it a green card because I know my opponents play REB)?
Sheldon wrote:You're the reason we can't have nice things.

User avatar
BeneTleilax
Posts: 1330
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by BeneTleilax » 3 years ago

unban shahrazad.

Snes
Posts: 22
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Snes » 3 years ago

cryogen wrote:
3 years ago
The last sentence sets up the deck restriction as being only cards in your CI, but the sentence right before that basically gives you the freedom to ignore mana symbols you don't want to include. That same sentence also redefines the color of a card, as I'm reading it (the color is considered to be...), so I guess under your rule Spitting image is a mino green card in a Yeva deck? Would it no longer be countered by Red Elemental Blast? What if i played that same card in a Tatyova deck? Do I have to declare before the game begins what color my hybrid cards are (say for instance I wanted to make it a green card because I know my opponents play REB)?
That sentence only lets you choose which colors of hybrid mana symbols "count" for color identity. It doesn't let you ignore mana symbols altogether.

My goal isn't to change the in-game colors of hybrid mana cards, it's just to change their color identity during deck construction, not during play. In-game, hybrid mana cards are their normal colors. Tell me if this wording is any clearer:
A card's colour identity is the combined colour identities of any mana symbols in the card's rules text that don't add mana as a mana ability. A mana symbol's colour identity is colourless if it can be paid with colourless mana and is otherwise the colour of mana required to pay it. A mana symbol with multiple colours in its colour identity can be considered any or all of its colours during deck construction. The cards in a deck may not have any colours in their color identity which are not in the colour identity of the deck's commander.
Do you remember where we all came from?
Do you remember what it's all about?

User avatar
cryogen
GΘΔ†
Posts: 1056
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Westminster, MD
Contact:

Post by cryogen » 3 years ago

Snes wrote:
3 years ago
cryogen wrote:
3 years ago
The last sentence sets up the deck restriction as being only cards in your CI, but the sentence right before that basically gives you the freedom to ignore mana symbols you don't want to include. That same sentence also redefines the color of a card, as I'm reading it (the color is considered to be...), so I guess under your rule Spitting image is a mino green card in a Yeva deck? Would it no longer be countered by Red Elemental Blast? What if i played that same card in a Tatyova deck? Do I have to declare before the game begins what color my hybrid cards are (say for instance I wanted to make it a green card because I know my opponents play REB)?
That sentence only lets you choose which colors of hybrid mana symbols "count" for color identity. It doesn't let you ignore mana symbols altogether.

My goal isn't to change the in-game colors of hybrid mana cards, it's just to change their color identity during deck construction, not during play. In-game, hybrid mana cards are their normal colors. Tell me if this wording is any clearer:
A card's colour identity is the combined colour identities of any mana symbols in the card's rules text that don't add mana as a mana ability. A mana symbol's colour identity is colourless if it can be paid with colourless mana and is otherwise the colour of mana required to pay it. A mana symbol with multiple colours in its colour identity can be considered any or all of its colours during deck construction. The cards in a deck may not have any colours in their color identity which are not in the colour identity of the deck's commander.
Mtenda Lion is still a multi colored card. Beseech the Queen is now a colorless card. And is still confusing because I can run it in a deck that can't run blue cards but it still gets countered with Red Elemental Blast.
Sheldon wrote:You're the reason we can't have nice things.

User avatar
motleyslayer
Posts: 1127
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him
Contact:

Post by motleyslayer » 3 years ago

I know that this is something that is different in playgroups but I'd change poison damage in commander.

To my understanding, poison damage is still 10 in commander, even with the higher life totals in the format. I'd probably double poison from 10 to 20, to reflect the higher life totals

although I guess one of the good things about commander is you can have house rules i your group

Snes
Posts: 22
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by Snes » 3 years ago

cryogen wrote:
3 years ago
Mtenda Lion is still a multi colored card. Beseech the Queen is now a colorless card. And is still confusing because I can run it in a deck that can't run blue cards but it still gets countered with Red Elemental Blast.
There are a few edge-case cards like Mtenda Lion and Quenchable Fire that should be considered mono-colored, but I can't really figure out a good way of adding exceptions for them without further complicating the rules, so I think we'll just have to tolerate them slipping through the cracks.

Beseech the Queen and the other monocolored hybrid cards being made colorless is a feature, not a bug. Those cards were designed to be playable in any deck, and so they should be. The only one that has a chance of being broken is Beseech, and if it is, it can be banned.

As for your third point, you're thinking about it all wrong; you aren't playing a deck that "can't run blue cards," you're playing a deck that can run cards with a green color identity. During deck construction, you looked at Spitting Image's hybrid blue/green mana sybmols and decided to treat them as green. In-game, it's a blue/green card with a green color identity (not that the color identity of a card matters once the game has started).
Do you remember where we all came from?
Do you remember what it's all about?

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Rules and Philosophy”