Color identity is a bad rule and should be removed

[illakunsaa]

I have played edh for almost 10 years and I've come to a conclusion that restricting what colors a deck can play based on the color identity of the commander is a bad idea.

Mtg is divided into five colors with each of them have their own strengths and weaknesses. If a player feel like their deck can't beat certain card(s) he can adapt his deck with new cards from different color to compensate but this in return makes his deck slightly inconsistent. Trade off some consistency to gain power.

This isn't true with edh however. Eg. a rakdos deck in a meta that has lot of enchantress decks is basically %$#% because you can't play a simple Disenchant in a rakdos deck. Only option here is to just accept the fact that you are always going to lose or play a different deck. Neither of them seem very fun.

Multicolor decks in edh also don't really lose consistency because they get access to more cards. Eg Torbran, Thane of Red Fell has only two cmc 2 artifacts that tap for colored mana while Kykar, Wind's Fury has access to 6 more. Kykar has a 50% chance to have a ramp spell in the opening 8 while Torbran has only 15%.

Restricting colors also leads to people building some commanders the same way because that's really the only way to build them. Eg. Ashaya, Soul of the Wild is basically only going to be mono green storm. Without color identity you could make a GW ashaya that focuses to Planar Cleansing type effects to gain advantage or GR ashaya that wants to aggro people with Brushfire Elemental type cards.

Wotc also in recent years has started to focus more on edh which has led them to design a lot of legends that mechanically could have less colors in them and giving colors access to effects that they maybe shouldn't have. I think a lot of this has to do with color identity.

So I think we should all go send rc bunch of angery tweets until they remove color identity. If they won't submit we are gonna unsubscribe from their onlyfans.

Warning for encouraging Harassment of others
- Ulka

[Treamayne]

I have played EDH for almost 10 years and I've come to a conclusion that restricting what colors a deck can play based on the color identity of the commander is a bad idea.

I've been playing EDH for more than 10 years, and I disagree.

E.g. a Rakdos deck in a meta that has lot of enchantress decks is basically %$#% because you can't play a simple Disenchant in a Rakdos deck. Only option here is to just accept the fact that you are always going to lose or play a different deck. Neither of them seem very fun.

This is a rhetorical fallacy known as "False Dilemma." You do not have only two choices. Not only do you have access to things like Feed the Swarm and Feast of Dreams, you also have access to Larry Niven's Disk and a whole host of "destroy target permanent" options. You can even use politics or things like Praetor's Grasp to access removal. You also have the option of transitioning the deck to a Jund or Mardu commander if you really need to; but start with Rule 0, and talk to the playgroup about the situation. Maybe only play the Rakdos deck when less than all opponents are all-in on enchantress builds (though one would think they would be picking each other's enchantress pieces off like wildfire if they were all competing in the same space ).

Multicolor decks in EDH also don't really lose consistency because they get access to more cards. E.g. Torbran, Thane of Red Fell has only two cmc 2 artifacts that tap for colored mana while Kykar, Wind's Fury has access to 6 more. Kykar has a 50% chance to have a ramp spell in the opening 8 while Torbran has only 15%.

This assumes that mana rocks are the only ramp, and that only 2 cmc mana rocks matter; neither of which is true for EDH (with the possible exception of cEDH, which I neither follow nor count as the totality of EDH). Mono-R has access to rituals, land search, mana dorks, cost reduction, and rocks both below and above 2 cmc for colored and colorless mana. True, not as much access as other colors, but that is the point of CI. Mono decks trade versatility for consistency, and vice versa.

Restricting colors also leads to people building some commanders the same way because that's really the only way to build them. Eg. Ashaya, Soul of the Wild is basically only going to be mono green storm. Without color identity you could make a GW Ashaya that focuses to Planar Cleansing type effects to gain advantage or GR Ashaya that wants to aggro people with Brushfire Elemental type cards.

CI does not force players to build Commanders the same way, net-decking is probably the primary contributor to this. I've never even seen Ashaya as a G storm deck, usually she is a Landfall or Stompy build in my experience. If you want a deck like the latter, there are 5 creatures in mono G that self pump on landfall, Plus Skyclave Pick-Axe. For the former, Mono G has a number of was to make lands indestructible,, then any creature wipe will act like Planar Cleansing for you. Or, you could go ahead and build an appropriate RG or GW deck, main-deck Ashaya, and make it a subtheme.

I think deck building creativity is a much higher barrier to Commander variance than CI has ever been.

Wotc also in recent years has started to focus more on EDH which has led them to design a lot of legends that mechanically could have less colors in them and giving colors access to effects that they maybe shouldn't have. I think a lot of this has to do with color identity.

Possibly true, but it also has to do with the dearth of wedge colored Legends prior to Khans (and they still lag behind shard colored Legend options). I'm much more concerned with WotC's proclivity for pushing commanders into generic "Goodstuff" spaces (like Chulane) than with some 3 color legends that could feasibly have been 2 color legends based solely on ability(ies) and flavor.

Summary: Color Identity is integral to the format. There is probably much discussion available on Hybrid and Phyrexian mana's place within CI; but the construct as a whole is a key part of why EDH is EDH. Otherwise you might as well play 100 card highlander or any of the other formats that ignore color identity to find the kind of games you want to play with your group.

[RxPhantom]

Working within the limitations of color identity is one of the best things about the format. None of your arguments have swayed me.

[pokken]

The one thing I hate about the format now is how - as predicted - almost every style of deck is best built as a 4-5 color pile. That's the only thing I can think of that I think would improve much with less color identity restraint.

[Vessiliana]

The one thing I hate about the format now is how - as predicted - almost every style of deck is best built as a 4-5 color pile. That's the only thing I can think of that I think would improve much with less color identity restraint.

I don't think that would help, actually.

[illakunsaa]

SPOILER

Show

Hide

E.g. a Rakdos deck in a meta that has lot of enchantress decks is basically %$#% because you can't play a simple Disenchant in a Rakdos deck. Only option here is to just accept the fact that you are always going to lose or play a different deck. Neither of them seem very fun.

This is a rhetorical fallacy known as "False Dilemma." You do not have only two choices. Not only do you have access to things like Feed the Swarm and Feast of Dreams, you also have access to Larry Niven's Disk and a whole host of "destroy target permanent" options. You can even use politics or things like Praetor's Grasp to access removal. You also have the option of transitioning the deck to a Jund or Mardu commander if you really need to; but start with Rule 0, and talk to the playgroup about the situation. Maybe only play the Rakdos deck when less than all opponents are all-in on enchantress builds (though one would think they would be picking each other's enchantress pieces off like wildfire if they were all competing in the same space ).

Adding one or two cards to your deck doesn't really chance things. Running cards that literally blow up your own board doesn't help. People also don't run Universal Solvent for a good reason.

SPOILER

Show

Hide

Multicolor decks in EDH also don't really lose consistency because they get access to more cards. E.g. Torbran, Thane of Red Fell has only two cmc 2 artifacts that tap for colored mana while Kykar, Wind's Fury has access to 6 more. Kykar has a 50% chance to have a ramp spell in the opening 8 while Torbran has only 15%.

This assumes that mana rocks are the only ramp, and that only 2 cmc mana rocks matter; neither of which is true for EDH (with the possible exception of cEDH, which I neither follow nor count as the totality of EDH). Mono-R has access to rituals, land search, mana dorks, cost reduction, and rocks both below and above 2 cmc for colored and colorless mana. True, not as much access as other colors, but that is the point of CI. Mono decks trade versatility for consistency, and vice versa.

You missed the point here. 2 cmc mana are pretty basic components of a modern edh deck. There is no gameplay reason why should some decks have access to more and better cards than some other deck.

Working within the limitations of color identity is one of the best things about the format. None of your arguments have swayed me.

"Working within limitations" really just means "filter cards by color". Playing Chaos Warp in a mono red deck to remove problematic permanents isn't a creative solution. You do it because it's the only good card you got.

[Treamayne]

SPOILER

Show

Hide

E.g. a Rakdos deck in a meta that has lot of enchantress decks is basically %$#% because you can't play a simple Disenchant in a Rakdos deck. Only option here is to just accept the fact that you are always going to lose or play a different deck. Neither of them seem very fun.

SPOILER

Show

Hide

This is a rhetorical fallacy known as "False Dilemma." You do not have only two choices. Not only do you have access to things like Feed the Swarm and Feast of Dreams, you also have access to Larry Niven's Disk and a whole host of "destroy target permanent" options. You can even use politics or things like Praetor's Grasp to access removal. You also have the option of transitioning the deck to a Jund or Mardu commander if you really need to; but start with Rule 0, and talk to the playgroup about the situation. Maybe only play the Rakdos deck when less than all opponents are all-in on enchantress builds (though one would think they would be picking each other's enchantress pieces off like wildfire if they were all competing in the same space ).

Adding one or two cards to your deck doesn't really change things. Running cards that literally blow up your own board doesn't help.

Tell that to all of the people adding Sol Ring and Mana Crypt to their decks. It's only one or two cards, it can't really make a difference. If blowing up your own board were so traumatic, why would anybody play a Wrath, Shatterstorm, or Tranquility (and their myriad variants)?

Sarcasm aside, I am now confused. First your point was that RB can't deal with enchantments. Are you now saying the problem is that RB isn't as efficient as other color pairs/groups?

Of course RB won't be as efficient at enchantment removal, just as RW won't be as efficient at tutors or any of the other color pairs - which all have something they do well and something they do poorly.

People also don't run Universal Solvent for a good reason.

I have it in two decks (mono-brown Karn Golems and Sydri Vehicles) along with Unstable Obelisk.

SPOILER

Show

Hide

Multicolor decks in EDH also don't really lose consistency because they get access to more cards. E.g. Torbran, Thane of Red Fell has only two cmc 2 artifacts that tap for colored mana while Kykar, Wind's Fury has access to 6 more. Kykar has a 50% chance to have a ramp spell in the opening 8 while Torbran has only 15%.

This assumes that mana rocks are the only ramp, and that only 2 cmc mana rocks matter; neither of which is true for EDH (with the possible exception of cEDH, which I neither follow nor count as the totality of EDH). Mono-R has access to rituals, land search, mana dorks, cost reduction, and rocks both below and above 2 cmc for colored and colorless mana. True, not as much access as other colors, but that is the point of CI. Mono decks trade versatility for consistency, and vice versa.

You missed the point here. 2 cmc mana are pretty basic components of a modern edh deck. There is no gameplay reason why should some decks have access to more and better cards than some other deck.

I beleive it is you who are missing the point. Mana rocks at 2 cmc are not a "basic component" of EDH. They may be considered a threshold for cEDH optimization, but that hardly applies to EDH as a whole. Also, there is a "gameplay reason" some decks have access to more cards - Color Identity. By choosing to play less colors, you choose to value consistency and resiliency over versatility. If you choose to play more colors, you are choosing to value versitility and quality over consistency. That is the point.

If you don't like how a deck is performing as a one or two color deck, then choose a new commander with three or more colors and adjust the deck. If you, for some reason, *must* play a specific general, then part of deckbuilding creativity figuring out how to work with the tools available.

If neither of those options sound good to you, perhaps EDH isn't the format that would bring you the joy you deserve to get from a hobby you invest time and money into supporting. However, please don't try to ruin a good thing that the rest of us enjoy because it's not exactly your favorite thing.

Working within the limitations of color identity is one of the best things about the format. None of your arguments have swayed me.

"Working within limitations" really just means "filter cards by color". Playing Chaos Warp in a mono red deck to remove problematic permanents isn't a creative solution. You do it because it's the only good card you got.

Incorrect. "Working within limitations" means exactly that; "working within limitations." True, those limitations may be color identity, but they might also be theme, tribe, deck archtype, etc. In fact, just building an EDH deck means you are working within the limitations of the EDH format.

Also, saying that Chaos Warp is the "only good card" for removing permanents in Red is hyperbole that degrades your argument, because it is obviously untrue. I agree it might not be creative, but creativity was never a point of contention that I was aware for this discussion.

[ISBPathfinder]

I have also been playing commander for over 10 years and while I likewise also have issues with the color identity, I don't think removing it is a good idea. My issues have more been that card color and color identity are not one and the same. For me this comes out a lot more when talking about hybrid mana cards but there are a number of cards like say Najeela, the Blade-Blossom whom are considered by magic to just be a red creature but by color identity are considered five color.

When it comes to cards like Red Elemental Blast is kind of what I am talking about. I wish that a card like Najeela, the Blade-Blossom were considered by the rules of magic to be a five color card rather than mono red from the perspective of a card like Red Elemental Blast. If we did this I would be a lot more on board for the current rules for hybrid mana cards but some of my own divide is that commander has introduced color identity in a way that is very alien to card color. I wish that both were one and the same. I guess rather than suggesting we change color identity in this case I am suggesting changing color to be color identity (this would be a change to magic rules as a whole rather than commander rules)

I think that the color identity rule of commander is one of the more core concepts to commander. I don't think that removing it would be a healthy move for the format or fans. That isn't to say we shouldn't talk about it and ask what ways it could change though.

[onering]

I have played edh for almost 10 years and I've come to a conclusion that restricting what colors a deck can play based on the color identity of the commander is a bad idea.

So have I, and I disagree.

Mtg is divided into five colors with each of them have their own strengths and weaknesses. If a player feel like their deck can't beat certain card(s) he can adapt his deck with new cards from different color to compensate but this in return makes his deck slightly inconsistent. Trade off some consistency to gain power.

This isn't true with edh however. Eg. a rakdos deck in a meta that has lot of enchantress decks is basically %$#% because you can't play a simple Disenchant in a rakdos deck. Only option here is to just accept the fact that you are always going to lose or play a different deck. Neither of them seem very fun.

Your first paragraph here is correct, and explains why your second paragraph is a feature and not a bug. Color identity serves to support what the color pie is trying to do, and fits very well in a format designed around the flavorful and vorthosian idea of having a legendary creature as your general. Not only does it make sense for your deck led by a legend, but it helps balance the format and keep it fresher. In a 100 card singleton format you have the incentive to just run the best possible cards from all five colors, so color restrictions help restrain that. Meanwhile, while Rakdos can't splash to deal with enchantments, this drawback is offset by always having access to Rakdos. Its a clear tradeoff, and one that benefits the Rakdos player far more than it harms them.

Multicolor decks in edh also don't really lose consistency because they get access to more cards. Eg Torbran, Thane of Red Fell has only two cmc 2 artifacts that tap for colored mana while Kykar, Wind's Fury has access to 6 more. Kykar has a 50% chance to have a ramp spell in the opening 8 while Torbran has only 15%.

Restricting colors also leads to people building some commanders the same way because that's really the only way to build them. Eg. Ashaya, Soul of the Wild is basically only going to be mono green storm. Without color identity you could make a GW ashaya that focuses to Planar Cleansing type effects to gain advantage or GR ashaya that wants to aggro people with Brushfire Elemental type cards.

Multicolor decks still do lose some efficiency, even with the access to a bit more ramp. Mono color decks simply need less fixing, and can replace colored mana rocks with colorless ones that have other abilities, or focus on action. '

Restricting colors does prevent people from building the kinds of decks you suggested, but people mostly wouldn't build those anyway, be honest with yourself. If people had access to more colors, they'd mostly use them to make the best strategies for those linear commanders even better. Nothing is stopping players from brewing those commanders with suboptimal strategies even with color restrictions that wouldn't also apply with color restrictions lifted. If you feel like Ashaya is pigeonholed into mono green storm now, why the hell wouldn't it just become Simic or RUG Storm if it could access other colors? You could already build her as a ramp deck or a forests matter deck, you don't need another color to come up with a janky build.

Wotc also in recent years has started to focus more on edh which has led them to design a lot of legends that mechanically could have less colors in them and giving colors access to effects that they maybe shouldn't have. I think a lot of this has to do with color identity.

Its primarily a function of them trying to push cards to sell packs. They'd do the same without color identity. Gold cards by definition don't give colors access to effects they shouldn't have. They have always been tinkering with the color pie to see what mechanics can be expanded and how colors can be approved, so don't chalk it up to just commander, especially when these cards are clearly aimed at limited or standard like that sorcery speed black spell that can kill an enchantment.

So I think we should all go send rc bunch of angery tweets until they remove color identity. If they won't submit we are gonna unsubscribe from their onlyfans.

Warning for encouraging Harassment of others
- Ulka

Finally, this was so clearly a joke that its crazy you got a warning.

[Dunharrow]

Not much to add. Disagree for a lot of the above reasons. I have also been playing 10 years.
Also, not much point in arguing since the RC will never drop color identity.

There are a lot of formats where you can play whatever you want. Commander is the only format (and commander derivatives) that has a color identify component. This restriction makes decks more creative, makes you play with cards you wouldn't normally use, etc. If you don't like color identity, look to another format.

what you are suggesting is that my Rakdos deck should be able to play Anguished Unmaking. But you are also saying is that Urza, Lord High Artificer should be able to run Demonic Tutor, wrath of god, birds of paradise, and more. No thanks.
Used to be that playing 5 colors was not only a challenge because of consistency with the mana, but because the generals sucked. You would see Sliver Queen or Child of Alara as commanders just so people could play 5 colors. It was a real downside.
Now, every set has a new 5-color general and it is not so much a downside anymore.

I do not want to play 5 color goodstuff constantly. This format is already getting close with cards like Golos. So, please, don't imagine the CI rule is anything other than the best part of the format.

Honestly, your post reminds me of Pauper players who write to Maro to have a Wrath printed at common. If you want to play Pauper, that means playing with cards at a common power level. It is in the design of the format.

If you want to play commander, that means color restrictions, command zone and singleton.

[cryogen]

So I think we should all go send rc bunch of angery tweets until they remove color identity. If they won't submit we are gonna unsubscribe from their onlyfans.

Warning for encouraging Harassment of others
- Ulka

Finally, this was so clearly a joke that its crazy you got a warning.

Joke or not, it is not the kind of humor we want to encourage.

[illakunsaa]

I beleive it is you who are missing the point. Mana rocks at 2 cmc are not a "basic component" of EDH. They may be considered a threshold for cEDH optimization, but that hardly applies to EDH as a whole. Also, there is a "gameplay reason" some decks have access to more cards - Color Identity. By choosing to play less colors, you choose to value consistency and resiliency over versatility. If you choose to play more colors, you are choosing to value versitility and quality over consistency. That is the point.

Literally all of the signets can be found in the top 100 most played edh cards. Half of the talismans are there too (I think this is mostly due to availability. They've been printed only in one set after all.). The mana rocks are very much basic component of modern edh deckbuilding.

"By having access to less cards makes your deck more consistent" I hope you understand how silly that sounds. Even if we are talking only the ability cast colored spells the difference between mono and multicolored decks isn't that big. You have multiple lands that add any color, shocks and fetches. Most spells only need one colored mana to cast.

People also don't run Universal Solvent for a good reason.

I have it in two decks (mono-brown Karn Golems and Sydri Vehicles) along with Unstable Obelisk.

Both of these cards see no play. According to edhrec oblisk is seen in 2% of decks and solvent in 0%.

[Treamayne]

Literally all of the signets can be found in the top 100 most played edh cards. Half of the talismans are there too (I think this is mostly due to availability. They've been printed only in one set after all.). The mana rocks are very much basic component of modern edh deckbuilding.

So what? I never said they were unpopular. I said that your implication that all mana ramp is accomplished by mana rocks, and that only the 2 cmc mana rocks matter and your further statement that these are "basic components of a modern edh deck" is wrong.

SPOILER

Show

Hide

Multicolor decks in EDH also don't really lose consistency because they get access to more cards. E.g. Torbran, Thane of Red Fell has only two cmc 2 artifacts that tap for colored mana while Kykar, Wind's Fury has access to 6 more. Kykar has a 50% chance to have a ramp spell in the opening 8 while Torbran has only 15%.

This assumes that mana rocks are the only ramp, and that only 2 cmc mana rocks matter; neither of which is true for EDH (with the possible exception of cEDH, which I neither follow nor count as the totality of EDH). Mono-R has access to rituals, land search, mana dorks, cost reduction, and rocks both below and above 2 cmc for colored and colorless mana. True, not as much access as other colors, but that is the point of CI. Mono decks trade versatility for consistency, and vice versa.

You missed the point here. 2 cmc mana are pretty basic components of a modern edh deck.

If you want to support the "Basic component" premise, please show me that >50% of three to five color decks use >50% of available 2 CMC rocks in their colors. Show me that >50% of mono decks use >50% of available 2 cmc rocks as well,. Also, show me the percentages of 2 CMC rocks against rocks of other casting costs, mana dorks, and land search - and prove that it has a higher play percentage than all of that. Otherwise, you're just saying "it's popular and I want more."

Obsession with 2CMC rocks seems to be a cEDH thing, and you should not try to ruin EDH for what is arguably a different format anyway.

Both of these cards see no play. According to edhrec oblisk is seen in 2% of decks and solvent in 0%.

Apparently untrue, as I just said they see play in 5% of my decks. And I am fairly certain that not every EDH player posts to EDHRec, much less every deck by players that do post. Besides, if they see less play then you are more likely to be surprising when you do play them.

My point is, you have options. Even if you don't think they are "popular enough" for your deck.

[tstorm823]

If a player feel like their deck can't beat certain card(s) he can adapt his deck with new cards from different color to...

Nope. If you find yourself slotting silver bullets to answer particular decks, you're on the fast track to having a bad time already.

"Hey buddy, you keep playing that enchantress deck, so I splashed white in my Rakdos deck to remove all your enchantments so you can't do your thing. Fun! Social!"

[WizardMN]

I have to admit: it is rare to see every post be against the OP. There have been some contentious posts in the past regarding EDH rules where at least someone agrees with the idea being presented, but having everyone against it is interesting. Though, it is unsurprising in this case. Of all the things that make EDH/Commander what it is, color identity is a core part of that.

A lot of good points have been made, and I agree with most of them. Though, I have only been playing EDH for 8 years (9 if one wants to be generous) so my opinion doesn't hold as much weight /s

As soon as we get to the point where someone is allowed to branch out into different colors, we start heading towards a path of decks no longer caring about the general. This isn't to say that the format devolves into goodstuff piles though, as mentioned, Wizards does seem intent on making that happen. And it doesn't even mean that the format will necessarily be worse for it. I don't think it will be better either though. It will just be different. Players are free to come up with their own format, house rules, ideas and play those. If it sticks, good for them.

But to want to change a core tenet of the current format because Rakdos has a tough time dealing with Enchantments, or mono-black has a tough time dealing with Artifacts I think is a bit of an overreach. Maybe I want to play Mogis because I enjoy the general and I have more fun trying with win with the deck being structured around those limitations. Splashing white so I can get Austere Command or Cleansing Nova just takes the fun out of deckbuilding and takes a lot of fun out of tweaking the deck. If every time I come across a bad matchup, my mind is immediately driven towards "well, add a white card" it becomes less fun to actually tweak the deck. And, at least for me, it becomes less fun to actually play the format.

So, I will throw my hat in as another disagreement. This is a bad suggestion and offers nothing for the format.

[pokken]

offers nothing for the format.

I think that's a bit much personally. While I'm not quite there on wanting unfettered color access I was really impressed by the coolness of the mono-colored partner generals in the latest set in particular; being able to play a greater variety of 3 color decks with say, Ludevic, Necro-Alchemist, is something I really appreciated in concept.

There is an absolute astronomical number of legends who have been largely obsoleted by printings in the last few years. Superseded by almost strictly better options with more colors. These generals fall by the wayside.

While many lower powered groups you can still trot out your underpowered mono-color deck, there *is* a generalizable meta in Commander. A sort of range of power and flexibility that most decks fit into. That range has slid up the scale as more powerful generals get printed and more super-powerful staples are printed in different colors that reward playing more colors (looking at you Dockside Extortionist and Hullbreacher and Opposition Agent and Fierce Guardianship).

There is potentially *something* offered to the format by relaxing the color identity rule. Even just getting rid of it definitely adds something to the format; older, weaker legends can compete a bit more and don't have such a low power ceiling. Whether it takes away more than it adds is the argument, but saying it adds nothing is I think an exaggeration.

Personally, I would be far more inclined to start the relaxation with getting rid of the hybrid rule and testing the waters. The hybrid rule affects a tiny subset of cards (there are maybe 20 or so that are even worth playing) and would let us see if slight stretching is worth considering.

Beyond that, I think there is a huge value in considering some sort of rule that allowed The Prismatic Piper to partner with anyone for example.

I can't say how many times I have really wanted a 2-color or 1-color legend to have a third color because there were cards I desperately wanted to play with it. On the flipside, the power of adding a single color does not scale in a linear fashion - going from 3 to 4 is not nearly as big a power bump as goin from 1 to 2. So it'd reward the weaker generals with fewer colors more than the more egregiously powered multi-colored generals.

Others may not agree but in my opinion mono-colored decks have basically been pushed to the extreme edges of the format these days, and I do think that is a problem.

(edit: I didn't want to write a manifesto on the mono-colored thing, but if you take a gander the only real mono-color generals you see these days are basically one-trick ponies that do one hyper-specialized thing really well and tend to flop if they're interacted with. You're starting to see a kinda similar thing in 2-color decks, with generals like Winota, Joiner of Forces joining Neheb, the Eternal and Selvala, Heart of the Wilds as "all in on my gimmick" commanders).

[umtiger]

If color restrictions were not in place, people having "access to answers" wouldn't be the direction players would take.

If anything, players would just use the same threats.

I don't think the "hybrid rule" should even be considered a rule. They are gold cards. Orzhov cards aren't in Selesnya decks because you can't play Righteous War in your Captain Sisay deck.

But in reality, if a hybrid card was sooo in flavor with your build, I don't think anyone in your play pod would object.

[onering]

offers nothing for the format.

I think that's a bit much personally. While I'm not quite there on wanting unfettered color access I was really impressed by the coolness of the mono-colored partner generals in the latest set in particular; being able to play a greater variety of 3 color decks with say, Ludevic, Necro-Alchemist, is something I really appreciated in concept.

There is an absolute astronomical number of legends who have been largely obsoleted by printings in the last few years. Superseded by almost strictly better options with more colors. These generals fall by the wayside.

While many lower powered groups you can still trot out your underpowered mono-color deck, there *is* a generalizable meta in Commander. A sort of range of power and flexibility that most decks fit into. That range has slid up the scale as more powerful generals get printed and more super-powerful staples are printed in different colors that reward playing more colors (looking at you Dockside Extortionist and Hullbreacher and Opposition Agent and Fierce Guardianship).

There is potentially *something* offered to the format by relaxing the color identity rule. Even just getting rid of it definitely adds something to the format; older, weaker legends can compete a bit more and don't have such a low power ceiling. Whether it takes away more than it adds is the argument, but saying it adds nothing is I think an exaggeration.

Personally, I would be far more inclined to start the relaxation with getting rid of the hybrid rule and testing the waters. The hybrid rule affects a tiny subset of cards (there are maybe 20 or so that are even worth playing) and would let us see if slight stretching is worth considering.

Beyond that, I think there is a huge value in considering some sort of rule that allowed The Prismatic Piper to partner with anyone for example.

I can't say how many times I have really wanted a 2-color or 1-color legend to have a third color because there were cards I desperately wanted to play with it. On the flipside, the power of adding a single color does not scale in a linear fashion - going from 3 to 4 is not nearly as big a power bump as goin from 1 to 2. So it'd reward the weaker generals with fewer colors more than the more egregiously powered multi-colored generals.

Others may not agree but in my opinion mono-colored decks have basically been pushed to the extreme edges of the format these days, and I do think that is a problem.

(edit: I didn't want to write a manifesto on the mono-colored thing, but if you take a gander the only real mono-color generals you see these days are basically one-trick ponies that do one hyper-specialized thing really well and tend to flop if they're interacted with. You're starting to see a kinda similar thing in 2-color decks, with generals like Winota, Joiner of Forces joining Neheb, the Eternal and Selvala, Heart of the Wilds as "all in on my gimmick" commanders).

Lots of commanders are all in on their gimmick, because WotC designed them that way. Even 3 color commanders.

The format was originally conceived of as a 3 color format back when the actual Elder Dragons were all you could use. 3 color has remained the standard for the format. Its recently gotten easier to run 4+colors because 4 color became possible and because of better 5 color commanders and more fixing, especially with lands. The solution to 5 color nonsense isn't to allow every commander to be 5 color nonsense. There's always drawbacks and benefits to running more or fewer colors. The issue is that the drawbacks to 5 color have been mitigated too much.

The solution to mono color weakness is to tamp down on 4+ color a bit, by making their drawbacks hurt more, while relieving some of the current mono color drawbacks that should not exist. The biggest one there is the fact that the more colors you run, the more rocks you have access to, when fewer colors are supposed to be more consistent. To correct this, Wizards should print a cycle of mono rocks that don't etb tapped, to supplement the diamonds. But there should also be more non basic land hate, more basic land rewards, etc. Throne of Eldraine was a step in the right direction. Also, ban Golos. %$#% Golos, all my homies hate Golos.

[pokken]

Lots of commanders are all in on their gimmick, because WotC designed them that way. Even 3 color commanders.

The format was originally conceived of as a 3 color format back when the actual Elder Dragons were all you could use. 3 color has remained the standard for the format. Its recently gotten easier to run 4+colors because 4 color became possible and because of better 5 color commanders and more fixing, especially with lands. The solution to 5 color nonsense isn't to allow every commander to be 5 color nonsense. There's always drawbacks and benefits to running more or fewer colors. The issue is that the drawbacks to 5 color have been mitigated too much.

The solution to mono color weakness is to tamp down on 4+ color a bit, by making their drawbacks hurt more, while relieving some of the current mono color drawbacks that should not exist. The biggest one there is the fact that the more colors you run, the more rocks you have access to, when fewer colors are supposed to be more consistent. To correct this, Wizards should print a cycle of mono rocks that don't etb tapped, to supplement the diamonds. But there should also be more non basic land hate, more basic land rewards, etc. Throne of Eldraine was a step in the right direction. Also, ban Golos. %$#% Golos, all my homies hate Golos.

And I'm fine with that being your opinion but we need to stop talking about things as if it's not weighing pros and cons. There *are* pros to opening up color identity a little whether or not people agree that they outweigh the cons.

[BeneTleilax]

Yeah, the answer to 5-color Golos %$#%$#% is not 5-color Sidisi, Undead Vizier %$#%$#%. The solution is getting rid of Golos.

[pokken]

Yeah, the answer to 5-color Golos %$#%$#% is not 5-color Sidisi, Undead Vizier %$#%$#%. The solution is getting rid of Golos.

Sure, and that's your opinion. In my opinion the same sense of restraint that keeps everyone from porting all their decks to Golos, Tireless Pilgrim would make it - in a post-color-identity world - such that a *lot more* people turn mono-colored generals into 3-color generals than into 5-color.

The variety of seeing all kinds of 1-5 color variations of each general is enormous, and opens up a ridiculous number of deckbuilding approaches.

I see a serious reluctance to engage with any of the potential positives at all and instant assumptions that everything would be 5c goodstuff. If that's the case why are people still clinging to their 1 and 2 color commanders?

In my opinion, because this format is about self-restraint more than it is about rules constraints. You can already take almost any deck and make it better by finding a 5 color version, but weirdly not every deck is Golos yet

[BeneTleilax]

Yes, there are postives (adding black to Fynn, say, to run Hooded Blightfang ), but I think the net trend will be homogenization. The conversation will shift from "why aren't you running Cyc Rift in [literally any blue deck regardless of theme]?" which is already pretty common, to "why aren't you splashing for Cyc Rift in [literally any deck ever]?" After all, if you're trying to get enchantment removal in your RB deck, why not splash for Rec Sage? If you want ramp in white, why not go with Cultivate? And hey, as long as you're playing fixing to get green, you may as well run Sylvan Library. This will create a hard-to-navigate gradient between "splashing to overcome color weakness" to "5-color heap of staples". Most people won't go to the far extreme, if for financial constraints if nothing else, but that will be the general direction of movement. Splashing for synergy is slightly easier to discern, but card draw synergizes with everything. EDH groups function best, in my experience, with clear shared expectations, and those seem impossible to adjudicate clearly for a group.

Furthermore, I think fewer 4 and 5 color pile players will switch to more thematic or limited generals than will switch to worse 5-color piles (Sidisi, as previously mentioned, comes to mind). If you've got a bunch of fixing lands and various staples, the incentive is to use them. It will also make threat assessment so much worse, as commanders become a less accurate heuristic of what a deck can do. Yes, 4+ color generals can run basically anything, but that itself is useful information. Without color identity, Kaalia could be running Fierce Guardianship or not, and you have absolutely no way of knowing. If all decks start getting treated like they could be running any staple, that only strengthens their incentive to run them.

[pokken]

I think far and away the most likely thing that is somewhat insidious without color identity is that ever deck becomes a minimum of 2-3c and all decks have blue or green or both. Really it is kinda drifting in that direction already.

I can't help but think there would be a beautiful minority of people who create really neat takes on generals who don't even see the light of day anymore and that's what interests me in the idea. But there is a strong possibility people drift toward piles of staples unfortunately.

I think it'd be pretty fun to just go nuts and say any two commanders can partner for a few months and see what wild stuff people come up with.

[onering]

I think far and away the most likely thing that is somewhat insidious without color identity is that ever deck becomes a minimum of 2-3c and all decks have blue or green or both. Really it is kinda drifting in that direction already.

I can't help but think there would be a beautiful minority of people who create really neat takes on generals who don't even see the light of day anymore and that's what interests me in the idea. But there is a strong possibility people drift toward piles of staples unfortunately.

I think it'd be pretty fun to just go nuts and say any two commanders can partner for a few months and see what wild stuff people come up with.

Since 3 color is so easy to run, every deck would be 3+ without color identity. In reality, it becomes so easy to splash a color for one or two staples from it that 4-5 would be pretty standard. Why not build your mana base with Command Tower, City of Brass, Mana Confluence, etc. and run Cyclonic Rift in every deck instead of just every blue deck.

Obviously not everyone has gold plated 5 color mana bases, so that alone is a factor limiting how homogenous things will get and how easy it is for people to do these splashes. But the metas where people are limited by budget are also the ones where people are more likely to not try hard the hell out of the format and drift to cEDH or 4+ color optimized right now anyway. Right now, running interesting commanders that aren't 3+ colors or not blue or green is enough of a draw for people despite the color restrictions.

[illakunsaa]

I highly doubt "every deck" becomes 3 color. Nothing is stopping people from already playing 3 colors but lot of people still play two color or mono color legends. If you look at highlander (which is a competition driven format). It has wide variety decks that see play from mono to five color.

Cyclonic Rift actually sees less play today than 3+ years ago. I remember rift being the second most played card after sol ring. Today it's not even in the top 5.