Devoid & Characteristic Defining Abilities in Color Identity

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

Post by Yatsufusa » 3 years ago

903.4. The Commander variant uses color identity to determine what cards can be in a deck with a certain commander. The color identity of a card is the color or colors of any mana symbols in that card's mana cost or rules text, plus any colors defined by its characteristic-defining abilities (see rule 604.3) or color indicator (see rule 204).
702.113a Devoid is a characteristic-defining ability. "Devoid" means "This object is colorless." This ability functions everywhere, even outside the game. See rule 604.3.
604.3. Some static abilities are characteristic-defining abilities. A characteristic-defining ability conveys information about an object's characteristics that would normally be found elsewhere on that object (such as in its mana cost, type line, or power/toughness box) or overrides information found elsewhere on that object. Characteristic-defining abilities function in all zones. They also function outside the game.
Should Characteristic-Defining Abilities of Color be allowed to override the mana costs? It mainly applies to pretty much Devoid (and Ghostfire) for now, because everything else that uses CDA and/or Color Indicators (Kobolds of Kher Keep, Pact of Negation and Transguild Courier) have more Colors than their generic colorless cost, which gets "overwritten" by default.

Let's say this card was printed.
Goblin-Summoned Bear 1R
Creature – Bear
Goblin-Summoned Bear is Green.
2/2

Under current rules, this bear has Identity of RG no matter what. If we let CDA/Color Indicator override it, like it does in the Comprehensive Rules itself, it would be G. It would feel awkward drawing and casting this in a mono-G deck although it is now possible, but at the same time functionally it is a green card you drawn and cast, perfectly unaffected by Barrenton Cragtreads, something you cannot claim for say, Boggart Ram-Gang .

So what I'm saying is, should Identity follow the same overrides that CDAs provide for identifying base color. It does not cover the rules text, so if the bear had firebreathing R: Bear gets +1/+0, it would still fall under RG.

I've always seen Color Identity as two distinct parts, the first part being the base in which is determined by 202.2
202.2. An object is the color or colors of the mana symbols in its mana cost, regardless of the color of its frame.
But as we all know from the highlighted part from 604.3, that is overwritten by CDAs/Color Indicators. Problem is that most non-Devoid cards would have overwritten what was Colorless in the first place, and a card cannot be colored and colorless at the same time. We haven't had any cards like the Bear printed ever to provide contrast, other than Devoid.

But instead of letting the CDA override the mana cost to determine "base color" like everything else that Color Identity follows word-for-word with the comprehensive rules (like 202.2d for Hybrid and Phyrexian Mana), it's feels randomly decided that "Colorless is weaker than Color", therefore Devoid's CDA override ability is not valid, but Transguild Courier is still 5C overriding colorless.

Granted, Devoid came out when Rule-4 was a thing, so there was no feasible way to cast Devoid spells in Colorless decks to begin with. That rule was scrapped the following set when Colorless Mana was given a specific symbol, because it now potentially can be used/required specifically. With rule 4 gone, so was the practical restriction on Devoid cards.

604.3 had to be unfortunately subverted because Rule 4 made it impossible to execute straight, but at this point of time that subversion stands out to be a sore thumb in what is otherwise a straight one-to-one agreement between the Comprehensive Rules and the base part of the Color Identity rules (the additional part of CI rules independent of the CR are all dependent on rules text, not the mana costs).

Visually, it looks out of place to play Dimensional Infiltrator in any deck, but at the same time what you drew was a colorless card, what you cast was a colorless card that could not be countered by Pyroblast and could be exiled by Infernal Reckoning, just like every artifact creature you played.

Long gone is Rule-4 and along with it the flavor that the Commander is disgusted you produced and spent off-color mana to cast something (and anyway Daxos of Meletis didn't care anyway), why is the special knot choking Devoid still there? In fact, if I read the website's direct rules:
"A card's color identity is its color plus the colour of any mana symbols in the card's rules text."
I would assume from the first half Dimensional Infiltrator is colorless because 604.3 overriding 202.2 and because there's no colored mana symbol in its rules text, it stays colorless. It isn't until I go to 903.4 then I realize that 604.3 cannot override 202.2 because 903.4 invalidates 604.3 by combining them… and I can't get this information from the website.

If I tried to "math" it, 903.4 is worded as [(Mana Cost + Rules Text Symbols) + (CDA + Color Indicators)] = Color Identity, but when read onsite it reads like (Color = Mana Cost/CDA overwrite) + Rules Text Symbols = Color Identity.

What do you think about this?
Image

onering
Posts: 1226
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 1
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by onering » 3 years ago

No. Your example of the bear illustrates why. It's casting cost is 1R and it has the ability that says it's green. You recognize that it has a RG color identity instead of a mono green one. Why? Because its rules text makes it green, giving it a green color identity, but color identity doesn't only look at the color of the card, but Mana symbols as well, so the R in the casting cost, while not making the card red due to its rules text, still gives it red in it's color identity. It's no different than mono color cards with off color activation costs. Thelon of Havenwood is a mono green card, but has a black green color identity because his activated ability has a black Mana symbol in it's cost. Even more relevant to devoid creatures, really a direct comparison, are colorless artifacts with colored Mana symbols in their rules text. Gruul Signet is clearly a colorless card, but it has a Gruul color identity because it taps for RG. The color identity doesn't override it's colorlessness, it's just looking at more than it's defined color. Devoid cards are treated exactly the same as artifacts with colored Mana symbols in their rules text. Color identity is looking at their color, seeing colorless due to Devoid setting them as colorless, then looking for Mana symbols on the card and, in ghost fire's case seeing an R and getting Red as the color identity.

To put it as an equation, color identity = color + colored Mana symbols anywhere on the card. Transguild courier has a five color CI because it's a five color card, even though it has no colored Mana symbols on it. Golos has a five color identity even though it's colorless because it has all five colored Mana symbols on it. Neither thing overrides the other, they are just taken together.

To look at it a different way, imagine a colorless artifact that transforms into UR creature with an activated ability that has WBG in it's cost. The flip side doesn't have a Mana cost, but it's blue red because the color indicator says it is. Color identity looks at that and says "this card is blue red, so it has blue and red in it's color identity". Then CI looks at its ability and says "this card has W, B, and G Mana symbols, so it has W, B, and G in it's CI." Then it puts them together and says it has a WURBG color identity. The WBG activation costs does nothing to effect it's color, but still adds to the color identity, while the lack of U or R Mana symbols is irrelevant as the card is defined as blue red, and thus has those colors in it's identity by definition.

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

Post by Yatsufusa » 3 years ago

onering wrote:
3 years ago
No. Your example of the bear illustrates why. It's casting cost is 1R and it has the ability that says it's green. You recognize that it has a RG color identity instead of a mono green one. Why? Because its rules text makes it green, giving it a green color identity, but color identity doesn't only look at the color of the card, but Mana symbols as well, so the R in the casting cost, while not making the card red due to its rules text, still gives it red in it's color identity. It's no different than mono color cards with off color activation costs. Thelon of Havenwood is a mono green card, but has a black green color identity because his activated ability has a black Mana symbol in it's cost. Even more relevant to devoid creatures, really a direct comparison, are colorless artifacts with colored Mana symbols in their rules text. Gruul Signet is clearly a colorless card, but it has a Gruul color identity because it taps for RG. The color identity doesn't override it's colorlessness, it's just looking at more than it's defined color. Devoid cards are treated exactly the same as artifacts with colored Mana symbols in their rules text. Color identity is looking at their color, seeing colorless due to Devoid setting them as colorless, then looking for Mana symbols on the card and, in ghost fire's case seeing an R and getting Red as the color identity.

To put it as an equation, color identity = color + colored Mana symbols anywhere on the card. Transguild courier has a five color CI because it's a five color card, even though it has no colored Mana symbols on it. Golos has a five color identity even though it's colorless because it has all five colored Mana symbols on it. Neither thing overrides the other, they are just taken together.

To look at it a different way, imagine a colorless artifact that transforms into UR creature with an activated ability that has WBG in it's cost. The flip side doesn't have a Mana cost, but it's blue red because the color indicator says it is. Color identity looks at that and says "this card is blue red, so it has blue and red in it's color identity". Then CI looks at its ability and says "this card has W, B, and G Mana symbols, so it has W, B, and G in it's CI." Then it puts them together and says it has a WURBG color identity. The WBG activation costs does nothing to effect it's color, but still adds to the color identity, while the lack of U or R Mana symbols is irrelevant as the card is defined as blue red, and thus has those colors in it's identity by definition.
Yes, I'm aware, I did mention that under the current rules, the bear will undoubtedly be RG. I'm pointing out that outside of Devoid, there exists no cards that have identifiers that have less/different colors than the base way of determining color (not identity, just color), to the point I had to create the bear to display it.

The base way of determining color is by its mana cost (202.2), unless it is overridden by a CDA/Indicator (604.3), which is how Transguild Courier and the back half of UR creature gains their colors, but all cards existing (except devoid) plus your example has only overwritten what would have been otherwise colorless, not another color.

Devoid is the only case where 604.3 override causes the Color of the Card to ignore its mana cost to determine color, or in its case, make it colorless. Since Colorless is often a confusing topic, I created the bear as an example where functionally in-game, the 604.3 override causes the card's color to also ignore its mana cost to determine its color.

So that brings me to question, then why bother with Color Identity = Color (202.2) + Mana Symbols on anywhere on the card, since Mana Symbols anywhere on the card includes mana cost, which means by default you ignore any 604.3 overrides, or to be more accurate, you let the Mana Cost override its own override.

Mana Symbols in Casting Costs are already accounted for in Color (202.2), the aspect in which Identity is based on, so why does Identity check for it again? It's extra misleading that it's worded as "color plus the colour of any mana symbols in the card's rules text", because rules text implies it's only in the text box, which in turn makes some think that it abides by what 202.2 determined + text box, when in reality it checks everything again, including casting costs, CDAs and Indicators.
Image

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

Post by cryogen » 3 years ago

It gets rid of the confusion of players asking why a colorless card has a colored identity, but it would then create confusion as to why the rules defining color identity can be overwritten. So it's a wash in my book without adding anything too great to the format.
Sheldon wrote:You're the reason we can't have nice things.

onering
Posts: 1226
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 1
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by onering » 3 years ago

Yatsufusa wrote:
3 years ago
onering wrote:
3 years ago
No. Your example of the bear illustrates why. It's casting cost is 1R and it has the ability that says it's green. You recognize that it has a RG color identity instead of a mono green one. Why? Because its rules text makes it green, giving it a green color identity, but color identity doesn't only look at the color of the card, but Mana symbols as well, so the R in the casting cost, while not making the card red due to its rules text, still gives it red in it's color identity. It's no different than mono color cards with off color activation costs. Thelon of Havenwood is a mono green card, but has a black green color identity because his activated ability has a black Mana symbol in it's cost. Even more relevant to devoid creatures, really a direct comparison, are colorless artifacts with colored Mana symbols in their rules text. Gruul Signet is clearly a colorless card, but it has a Gruul color identity because it taps for RG. The color identity doesn't override it's colorlessness, it's just looking at more than it's defined color. Devoid cards are treated exactly the same as artifacts with colored Mana symbols in their rules text. Color identity is looking at their color, seeing colorless due to Devoid setting them as colorless, then looking for Mana symbols on the card and, in ghost fire's case seeing an R and getting Red as the color identity.

To put it as an equation, color identity = color + colored Mana symbols anywhere on the card. Transguild courier has a five color CI because it's a five color card, even though it has no colored Mana symbols on it. Golos has a five color identity even though it's colorless because it has all five colored Mana symbols on it. Neither thing overrides the other, they are just taken together.

To look at it a different way, imagine a colorless artifact that transforms into UR creature with an activated ability that has WBG in it's cost. The flip side doesn't have a Mana cost, but it's blue red because the color indicator says it is. Color identity looks at that and says "this card is blue red, so it has blue and red in it's color identity". Then CI looks at its ability and says "this card has W, B, and G Mana symbols, so it has W, B, and G in it's CI." Then it puts them together and says it has a WURBG color identity. The WBG activation costs does nothing to effect it's color, but still adds to the color identity, while the lack of U or R Mana symbols is irrelevant as the card is defined as blue red, and thus has those colors in it's identity by definition.
Yes, I'm aware, I did mention that under the current rules, the bear will undoubtedly be RG. I'm pointing out that outside of Devoid, there exists no cards that have identifiers that have less/different colors than the base way of determining color (not identity, just color), to the point I had to create the bear to display it.

The base way of determining color is by its mana cost (202.2), unless it is overridden by a CDA/Indicator (604.3), which is how Transguild Courier and the back half of UR creature gains their colors, but all cards existing (except devoid) plus your example has only overwritten what would have been otherwise colorless, not another color.

Devoid is the only case where 604.3 override causes the Color of the Card to ignore its mana cost to determine color, or in its case, make it colorless. Since Colorless is often a confusing topic, I created the bear as an example where functionally in-game, the 604.3 override causes the card's color to also ignore its mana cost to determine its color.

So that brings me to question, then why bother with Color Identity = Color (202.2) + Mana Symbols on anywhere on the card, since Mana Symbols anywhere on the card includes mana cost, which means by default you ignore any 604.3 overrides, or to be more accurate, you let the Mana Cost override its own override.

Mana Symbols in Casting Costs are already accounted for in Color (202.2), the aspect in which Identity is based on, so why does Identity check for it again? It's extra misleading that it's worded as "color plus the colour of any mana symbols in the card's rules text", because rules text implies it's only in the text box, which in turn makes some think that it abides by what 202.2 determined + text box, when in reality it checks everything again, including casting costs, CDAs and Indicators.

Easy answer: because some colored cards are only colored because something other than Mana symbols makes them such. Like Transguild Courier, or certain transform cards, while other transform cards are a different color on the back side without any Mana symbols of that color.

Yes, for most cards, their color is defined by the Mana symbols in their casting cost. So? Color identity checks for colors, and for Mana symbols. Does that mean that it technically checks Mana symbols in the casting cost twice? Nope. For that bear example, it's green because the rules on it says it is, not because of the Mana symbols, so color identity is only seeing the R in the casting cost when it goes to check Mana symbols. For Ghostfire, it sees the card is colorless, because its rules text says it is, then it sees a red Mana symbol in it's casting cost and comes up with a red color identity. That's not overriding an override, it's adding a separate thing. Bosh Iron Golem isn't a red card, but it has a red color identity. Ghostfire isn't a red card, but it has a red color identity. Both cards get their red color identity from Mana symbols, the cards are still colorless. Your bear example is still just a green card, not a red card, but its got a red green color identity. The Mana symbols don't "override" the rules that say the card is green, they just add to the color identity.

The important thing to remember is that color identity is not color. They use color identity because using color wasn't doing what they wanted it to, and color identity is a more expansive thing than color. The rules of Devoid sets the color of a card to colorless, but it doesn't do anything to color identity, because color identity still cares about Mana symbols. All Devoid does for CI is make the colored Mana symbols the only thing that matters, Because CI only cares about colorless when a card has no color OR colored Mana symbols. Your bear example, on the other hand, would actually do something for color identity. Color identity would see a red Mana symbol and say "Red", the the rules text would say "this card is green" and CI would add that to the red from the Mana symbol and come up with Green Red as the CI of the bear. The rules text isn't being overridden, its being added to.

In the end, CI works the way it does for devoid because devoid says "this card is colorless" instead of "this card has a colorless color identity." "This card is colorless" is only half the story for color identity, so it keeps reading and sees colored Mana and goes from there. "This card has a colorless color identity", on the other hand, I don't actually know if it would work with the rules as they are but it would seem like it would indeed override what color identity typically looks for. You'd have to ask the RC about that hypothetical, but the answer would probably be "we'd tell them not to print that."

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

Post by Yatsufusa » 3 years ago

cryogen wrote:
3 years ago
It gets rid of the confusion of players asking why a colorless card has a colored identity, but it would then create confusion as to why the rules defining color identity can be overwritten. So it's a wash in my book without adding anything too great to the format.
I understand that and am okay with that, but what I'm not happy about is that the way the rule is worded.

Bluntly put, we all understand that Color Identity is an All-Sum Game, but the Color by itself (202.2) is not an All-Sum Game, because Devoid exists.

Using the statement "A card's color identity is its color plus the colour of any mana symbols in the card's rules text.", gives the mislead that Color Identity follows the same rules as 202.2, which isn't an All-Sum Game.

It has been pointed out that "A card's color identity is its color plus the colour of any mana symbols in the card's rules text." means it includes mana costs as well, but the word "rules text" muddles things up, because it refers to the text box. Sure, the comprehensive rules itself doesn't actually establish whether Mana Cost is part of the rules text or not*, but precisely because it's murky the rules for Identity needs to be clearer.

"A card's color identity is its color plus the colour of any mana symbols on the card, including its mana cost and rules text", would provide a much clearer view of the rule's All-Sum nature.

This problem even extends to the same rule in the comprehensive rules, as written it's:

"903.4. The Commander variant uses color identity to determine what cards can be in a deck with a certain commander. The color identity of a card is the color or colors of any mana symbols in that card's mana cost or rules text, plus any colors defined by its characteristic-defining abilities (see rule 604.3) or color indicator (see rule 204)."

Here, it clarifies that the symbols in mana cost/rules text are considered, but why is it an "or"? Sure, assuming Mana Cost is part of the rules text*, if the text box has no symbols, it clarifies mana cost is part of it, but it would be still clearer if it just said "mana symbols in that card's mana cost and rules text".

Also, why "any" mana symbols and and not "all" mana symbols, it gives an impression you could just choose. Sure, in linguistics any can refer to all in the sense of "any possible found", but likewise it could mean "any one you choose".

Likewise, a rewording of "903.4. The Commander variant uses color identity to determine what cards can be in a deck with a certain commander. The color identity of a card is the color or colors of all mana symbols in that card's mana cost and rules text, plus any colors defined by its characteristic-defining abilities (see rule 604.3) or color indicator (see rule 204)." would provide a straightforward depiction of Color Identity's All-Sum nature that isn't overwritten or flexible.

*The ruling for mana costs and rules text seems murky because they're all characteristics, but so are a slew of other card parts and there's no indicator affecting one affects the other (does changing P/T or types consider as modifying Rules Text?)
109.3. An object's characteristics are name, mana cost, color, color indicator, card type, subtype,
supertype, rules text, abilities, power, toughness, loyalty, hand modifier, and life modifier. Objects
can have some or all of these characteristics. Any other information about an object isn't a
characteristic. For example, characteristics don't include whether a permanent is tapped, a spell's
target, an object's owner or controller, what an Aura enchants, and so on.
Image

onering
Posts: 1226
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 1
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by onering » 3 years ago

Yatsufusa wrote:
3 years ago
cryogen wrote:
3 years ago
It gets rid of the confusion of players asking why a colorless card has a colored identity, but it would then create confusion as to why the rules defining color identity can be overwritten. So it's a wash in my book without adding anything too great to the format.
I understand that and am okay with that, but what I'm not happy about is that the way the rule is worded.

Bluntly put, we all understand that Color Identity is an All-Sum Game, but the Color by itself (202.2) is not an All-Sum Game, because Devoid exists.


And these are NOT contradictory, because Color Identity and Color are NOT the same thing.

Using the statement "A card's color identity is its color plus the colour of any mana symbols in the card's rules text.", gives the mislead that Color Identity follows the same rules as 202.2, which isn't an All-Sum Game.
Except it is not misleading AT ALL. 202.2 still sets the color the same way, there are just other factors that add to the color identity beyond the color.
It has been pointed out that "A card's color identity is its color plus the colour of any mana symbols in the card's rules text." means it includes mana costs as well, but the word "rules text" muddles things up, because it refers to the text box. Sure, the comprehensive rules itself doesn't actually establish whether Mana Cost is part of the rules text or not*, but precisely because it's murky the rules for Identity needs to be clearer.

"A card's color identity is its color plus the colour of any mana symbols on the card, including its mana cost and rules text", would provide a much clearer view of the rule's All-Sum nature.
This ones my bad for summarizing the comprehensive rules instead of directly quoting them. Although, given that you quote them below, there's not really an excuse for the confusion.

This problem even extends to the same rule in the comprehensive rules, as written it's:

"903.4. The Commander variant uses color identity to determine what cards can be in a deck with a certain commander. The color identity of a card is the color or colors of any mana symbols in that card's mana cost or rules text, plus any colors defined by its characteristic-defining abilities (see rule 604.3) or color indicator (see rule 204)."

Here, it clarifies that the symbols in mana cost/rules text are considered, but why is it an "or"? Sure, assuming Mana Cost is part of the rules text*, if the text box has no symbols, it clarifies mana cost is part of it, but it would be still clearer if it just said "mana symbols in that card's mana cost and rules text".

Also, why "any" mana symbols and and not "all" mana symbols, it gives an impression you could just choose. Sure, in linguistics any can refer to all in the sense of "any possible found", but likewise it could mean "any one you choose".
So this is a great argument if your point is that the rules should be cleaned up to have more precise language. The way it is written is imprecise, but it still doesn't advance the idea that devoid should make CI ignore mana symbols. Nothing about the way the rules are written indicate they can be overwritten by card text that merely changes color (card text that explicitly sets color identity would be able to override even your fixed version), and even without changing or to and and any to all it still doesn't leave any flexibility, because those words don't indicate a choice in context.

For example, the phrase "You can have chocolate or vanilla" indicates a choice, but when listing possibilities to look for "or" can be used to be inclusive without indicating that all possibilities will show up. The phrase "On this hike, you might spot poison ivy or bee's nests or even bears" indicates a list of things you may encounter but are not guaranteed to encounter. You might not encounter any, you might encounter them all, or you might just encounter poison ivy on the side of the path. Its still using or to indicate an inclusive list of non mutually exclusive possibilities to look out for. This is how its used in the rule. Mana symbols in the casting cost or rules text indicates two possibilities to look out for, but these possibilities don't always show up, so it allows for cards like Ancestrall Visions that don't have a mana cost, or the large number of cards with no mana symbols in the text box.

For and vs any, there are occasions where they can be used interchangeably. "I like all dogs" and "I like any dog" both mean the same thing in practice. The former means that the speaker likes all dogs inclusively, while the latter means the speaker would like any dog they encounter, which both in practice mean the same thing. "Take one for me from any free sample you see" and "Take one for me from all the free samples you see" also mean the same thing. Likewise, the way the rules use any, substituting all would mean the same thing. When you say that something includes any X, then Y, then any is indicating to include all found examples. "Any mana symbols in that cards mana or rules text" isn't ambiguous, its telling you that any mana symbols you see count, whether they appear in the rules text or mana cost. There may not be any in the mana cost, there may not be any in the rules text, and if there are in both they may be different. The rule is saying as long as its a colored mana symbol in one of those areas, it counts, and they are added together. Notably, this excludes reminder text, which is why extort and some other examples don't count for CI, otherwise, if reminder text were included, the rule could be simplified to "any mana symbols on the card".

The confusion is understandable though. English is a goofy language, and the use of any and or, while more correct, is also more confusing than "and," which technically indicates that you should expect what you are looking for to always show up in both locations on the card (all can be substituted for any with no issue). This is something that can cause confusion for native English speakers, but for non native speakers I'd imagine its even more confusing (excluding those who are English experts or particularly well studied, and thus have a stronger command of standard English than most native speakers, as their understanding of English is not influenced by local dialect and slang, and probably learned more of the language's rules in the first place).




Buuuuuuut, in the midst of this semantics discussion over the exact wording of the rules and why they mean devoid does not override color identity, we missed the philosophical reason it does not! Color Identity as a concept was created by the RC to expand on color and specifically to make commanders have more colors available in their decks. It is specifically designed to allow cards like Bosh run red spells and General Tazri run all five colors, while also restricting cards like Ancient Grudge from going in mono red decks. It creates a consistent, expansive standard. Devoid or anything else reducing the colors in a card's CI would not only run contrary to the rules as they exist, but to the purpose of the rule. Again, that doesn't mean that a mechanic that explicitly references color identity couldn't be made and couldn't reduce a cards color identity, but none exist as of yet. If your bear example said "This card is green and its color identity is green" it would override color identity. Interestingly, you could probably create a card that explicitly sets a color identity different from its color. "This card's color identity is colorless" would allow a card to go in any deck, even if it has colored mana symbols and even if the card actually has a color.

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

Post by Yatsufusa » 3 years ago

Heads up on the 903.4 linguistics, thanks for the clarification, although I'd still much prefer if it just used precise language. After all "All Mana Symbols found in mana cost and rules text" can also imply if you found none, none can be applied to identity the same way you explained "Any mana found in mana cost or rules text" indicates any symbol you may find in mana cost or rules text are applied.

I think the opportunistic nature of being a MTG player is kicking in, because "may" has huge connotations in-game, where the decision not to is a strategic move. It's like the difference of casting a ramp spell when you have nothing to ramp into, a "may" effect gives you the option to not shuffle your library. It becomes doubly erroneous when double-layered (since it isn't actually worded as may, but uses words that implicate it) and for non-native players whose grasp of "MTG in-game-play language" might be stronger than their grasp of English and have it overlay onto those rules.

It's also majorly my fault that I need to remember it's rules I'm checking up on, there is no room for me to "choose" in the first place, so I should alter my interpretation of words in accordance, but it's not like I check the rules all the time, I play more than I actively check the rules like now, which leaves more accidental space for me to forget that, which I can point out that many others would as well, and therefore I'd still prefer precise terms used.

Lastly, yes it doesn't have anything to do with devoid, I was using 903.4 to display why the RC website's page is worded tremendously wrong, because 903.4 distinctly words the summing of all the parts that makes up Color Identity correctly. I just stumbled onto the flexible words and went off-tangent because my brain just went "why not, you're trying to reinforce wording anyway?". Really sorry about that.
onering wrote:
3 years ago
And these are NOT contradictory, because Color Identity and Color are NOT the same thing.

Except it is not misleading AT ALL. 202.2 still sets the color the same way, there are just other factors that add to the color identity beyond the color.

This ones my bad for summarizing the comprehensive rules instead of directly quoting them. Although, given that you quote them below, there's not really an excuse for the confusion.
"A card's color identity is its color plus the colour of any mana symbols in the card's rules text."

I'm still harping on this, apologies, but the confusion will forever remain there as long as the mana cost isn't mentioned anywhere in this ruling. Rules Text is distinct part of the card, only within the text box. As it stands now the ruling currently worded contains only two distinct parts:

[COLOR] + [RULES TEXT MANA SYMBOLS] = [COLOR IDENTITY]

I'm going to read it for Dimensional Infiltrator as

[COLORLESS] + [COLORLESS MANA SYMBOL/INVALID] = [COLORLESS]

How am I supposed to know [COLOR] in this case is actually [MANACOST] (+) [CHARACTERISTICS] (+) [INDICATOR] and not just [MANACOST UNLESS CHARACTERISTICS/INDICATOR OVERRIDES IT] like it is for 202.2 solely from reading that first sentence? The former is the All-Sum formula and the later (202.2) is not an All-Sum formula.

If you're going to point out the [COLOR] in "[COLOR] + [RULES TEXT MANA SYMBOLS] = [COLOR IDENTITY]" is a distinct thing separate from the Color defined by 202.2, then you're going to need to spell it out in the ruling.

Alternatively, if we used 202.2 as it is in the formula, I'd run into a similar problem where I'm not supposed to think that [RULES TEXT MANA SYMBOLS] includes [MANACOST], because 109.3 states that rules text and mana costs are two distinct characteristics of their own and nothing in that first sentence indicates otherwise.

Even 903.4 surgically separates all of it by not mentioning Color at all and just goes [MANACOST] + [RULES TEXT] + [CHARACTERISTICS] + [INDICATOR], from the terms it uses in its wording.

If I just read the website's rulings, it's going to immediately summarize it as [202.2] + [109.3] in my head because that's the two default rulings for Color and Rules Text being its own thing. Nothing else in that sentence indicates I should think otherwise, even when it is actually so.
Image

papa_funk
Posts: 49
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by papa_funk » 3 years ago

The rules on the mtgcommander website are not intended to be comprehensive; they are speaking to people who want to get up and running, similar to the Magic Basic Rulebook. It also doesn't discuss the back sides of cards counting, for example; these are things that don't really come up until you get deep into the format, and are ready to look at the Comprehensive Rules for answers.

Since the aesthetic goal is to not have mana symbols in your deck that don't go there, the proposal isn't really where we'd want to go, but I will also say having read this, I have no idea what the color identity of this card would be:

Test Case 1R
Enchantment
Test Case is Colorless
3U: Draw a card

The current rules provide a very easy answer. I don't think any rule that isn't additive provides an intuitive result here.

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

Post by Yatsufusa » 3 years ago

papa_funk wrote:
3 years ago
The rules on the mtgcommander website are not intended to be comprehensive; they are speaking to people who want to get up and running, similar to the Magic Basic Rulebook. It also doesn't discuss the back sides of cards counting, for example; these are things that don't really come up until you get deep into the format, and are ready to look at the Comprehensive Rules for answers.

Since the aesthetic goal is to not have mana symbols in your deck that don't go there, the proposal isn't really where we'd want to go, but I will also say having read this, I have no idea what the color identity of this card would be:

Test Case 1R
Enchantment
Test Case is Colorless
3U: Draw a card

The current rules provide a very easy answer. I don't think any rule that isn't additive provides an intuitive result here.
Thanks for the insight. I do understand the website rules aren't meant to be comprehensive, but I still feel it speaks to the intended people wrongly, because I'd assume those people also have Magic Basic Rulebook knowledge (and played other formats), so when they read the website rules, then read your example they go "Oh, so Test Case has U color identity, its color is colorless and the text box has a U symbol on it."

To them, 202.2 and 604.3 are instinctual/intuitive conclusions without having read the comprehensive rules because they understand those applications from gameplay (example your Test Case being functionally colorless in-game, not countered/destroyed by Hydroblast). They bring that knowledge into reading the website rules for the first time, then see Color Identity as "Okay, add the mana symbols in the text box to the card's colors as you know it already".

Because its intuitive to them, they are less likely to question whether the mana cost is taken to consideration, also because for most cards (including non-devoid cards like Transguild Courier and Pact of Negation) it doesn't matter at all, so they're more likely to take assumptions (and question less) for Devoid cards than they are for double-faced cards.

While from a flavor-perspective I would actually prefer if 604.3 also overwrites mana costs for Color Identity as well, I fully understand why RC wants to the keep the functional process for Color Identity simply intuitively additive (as someone who saw 903.4 as functionally straightforward). I just feel the website's wording doesn't provide the correct intuitive conclusion for its intended target audience, because I believe 202.2 and 604.3 are intrinsically drilled even into players who have never read the comprehensive rules because those rules are naturally taught through gameplay interactions.
Image

papa_funk
Posts: 49
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by papa_funk » 3 years ago

I'll talk to the gang about it. We want to keep those rules as simple as possible, and we don't have a lot of evidence of people being confused (the people who ask about it tend to come with CR citations!), but there's always room for improvement.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Rules and Philosophy”