Hybrid mana

User avatar
cryogen
GΘΔ†
Posts: 527
Joined: 9 months ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Westminster, MD
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 181 times
Contact:

Titles & Recognition

Post by cryogen » 6 months ago

pokken wrote:
6 months ago
I don't honestly feel like I need a lot of justification for a preference. Because color identity and mana production rules have gone through a number of changes I think the key arguments should be less rules driven and more about whether it's a net positive for the format.

I do think restrictions can breed creativity but I also think we'd see a lot of interesting things happen in one and two color decks that would be worth the rules difficulties.

I don't see any philosophical issues with stopping at allowing hybrid mana as proposed. Most of the arguments like phyrexian and twobrid -- well, they're red herrings because no one asked for those things to.be legal and quirks can be ironed out.

Would it make the format more fun?
No one asked them to be legal because the majority of people are fine with the idea that off-color cards aren't supposed to be in your deck.
Expand Signature
Sheldon wrote:You're the reason we can't have nice things.

Tags:

MRHblue
Posts: 88
Joined: 7 months ago
Pronoun: he / him
Has thanked: 118 times
Been thanked: 35 times

Post by MRHblue » 6 months ago

pokken wrote:
6 months ago
Would it make the format more fun?
No. Homogenized decks are not more fun.

pokken
Posts: 982
Joined: 7 months ago
Answers: 1
Pronoun: he / him
Has thanked: 307 times
Been thanked: 209 times

Titles & Recognition

Post by pokken » 6 months ago

cryogen wrote:
6 months ago
pokken wrote:
6 months ago
I don't honestly feel like I need a lot of justification for a preference. Because color identity and mana production rules have gone through a number of changes I think the key arguments should be less rules driven and more about whether it's a net positive for the format.

I do think restrictions can breed creativity but I also think we'd see a lot of interesting things happen in one and two color decks that would be worth the rules difficulties.

I don't see any philosophical issues with stopping at allowing hybrid mana as proposed. Most of the arguments like phyrexian and twobrid -- well, they're red herrings because no one asked for those things to.be legal and quirks can be ironed out.

Would it make the format more fun?
No one asked them to be legal because the majority of people are fine with the idea that off-color cards aren't supposed to be in your deck.
I am very confused by what you mean - I mean that no one (or at best a very small minority) in the community of people who prefer hybrid mana be allowed actively wants beseech the queen or gitaxian probe to be legal in all decks because of phyrexian or 2brid's quirks of being able to be paid for by anyone.

What I want is very specifically entirely not off-color hybrid cards to be allowed (e.g. no mana symbol does not contain a color from your color identity).
MRHblue wrote:
6 months ago
pokken wrote:
6 months ago
Would it make the format more fun?
No. Homogenized decks are not more fun.
On the flipside, my argument is that it would increase the number of 1 and 2 color decks which has been going drastically down starting with the 4c commanders and partners (and a huge pile of 3-5c commanders).

I don't think there would be much homogenization; I think a small handful of decent hybrid cards would see more play. Most of the hybrid cards are fairly specific to strategies. For example thopter foundry to artifacts, or spitting image to land-matters.

If we had hybrid vampiric tutor level power cards I would agree but there are no hybrid cards that crack the top 100 power level lis that I can think of.

User avatar
cryogen
GΘΔ†
Posts: 527
Joined: 9 months ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Westminster, MD
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 181 times
Contact:

Titles & Recognition

Post by cryogen » 6 months ago

Oh I didn't realize you were limiting your parameters to solely people who want to change the color identity rule to allow *some* off color cards. I was speaking in the entirety of the Commander community, most are happy with the color identity rule as it currently stands.
Expand Signature
Sheldon wrote:You're the reason we can't have nice things.

MRHblue
Posts: 88
Joined: 7 months ago
Pronoun: he / him
Has thanked: 118 times
Been thanked: 35 times

Post by MRHblue » 6 months ago

pokken wrote:
6 months ago
On the flipside, my argument is that it would increase the number of 1 and 2 color decks which has been going drastically down starting with the 4c commanders and partners (and a huge pile of 3-5c commanders).
What data suggest 1 and 2 color decks have been drastically less represented? Even assuming thats true (which I doubt), is that something that would be restricted to 1 and 2 color decks?
I don't think there would be much homogenization; I think a small handful of decent hybrid cards would see more play. Most of the hybrid cards are fairly specific to strategies. For example thopter foundry to artifacts, or spitting image to land-matters.

If we had hybrid vampiric tutor level power cards I would agree but there are no hybrid cards that crack the top 100 power level lis that I can think of.
If they are rarely useful, and low power, why would it increase the number of decks appreciably?

pokken
Posts: 982
Joined: 7 months ago
Answers: 1
Pronoun: he / him
Has thanked: 307 times
Been thanked: 209 times

Titles & Recognition

Post by pokken » 6 months ago

MRHblue wrote:
6 months ago
pokken wrote:
6 months ago
On the flipside, my argument is that it would increase the number of 1 and 2 color decks which has been going drastically down starting with the 4c commanders and partners (and a huge pile of 3-5c commanders).
What data suggest 1 and 2 color decks have been drastically less represented? Even assuming thats true (which I doubt), is that something that would be restricted to 1 and 2 color decks?
I don't think there would be much homogenization; I think a small handful of decent hybrid cards would see more play. Most of the hybrid cards are fairly specific to strategies. For example thopter foundry to artifacts, or spitting image to land-matters.

If we had hybrid vampiric tutor level power cards I would agree but there are no hybrid cards that crack the top 100 power level lis that I can think of.
If they are rarely useful, and low power, why would it increase the number of decks appreciably?
Well if you look at the top generals on Edhrec:
1) there is one monocolor general in the top 20 or so
2) there are 4 2 color decks

So 5 out of the top 21 either 2 or 1 color decks. And of the 2 color decks 100% are black or blue or both.

My overall sense from looking at the decks people play these days is that 3 color is the baseline and 1 and 2 color decks are by far the exception. The partners and 4c commanders did a lot to shrink that.

-----------------------------------------------
regarding: "rarely useful" - I didn't say "rarely useful" I - they're just not compellingly powerful and are fairly strategy-specific vs. being goodstuff (e.g. Thopter Foundry is not a good stuff card; it goes in specific types of decks, where it is quite strong).

The fact that they're not super powerful but have a pretty diverse set of applications is what attracts me to the idea personally.

MRHblue
Posts: 88
Joined: 7 months ago
Pronoun: he / him
Has thanked: 118 times
Been thanked: 35 times

Post by MRHblue » 6 months ago

pokken wrote:
6 months ago
My overall sense from looking at the decks people play these days is that 3 color is the baseline and 1 and 2 color decks are by far the exception. The partners and 4c commanders did a lot to shrink that.
Thats only useful if you have data from the pre-4c deck. My recollection from the EDHrec podcast where they looked at new vs old data, 1 and 2 color dropped a few %. Hardly some huge movement. But thats all debate on the edges.

Lets get back to power : If they are low power and only going to be in a few decks, is a change actual worth it?

And how is this restricted to 1 and 2 color decks?
Last edited by MRHblue 6 months ago, edited 1 time in total.

pokken
Posts: 982
Joined: 7 months ago
Answers: 1
Pronoun: he / him
Has thanked: 307 times
Been thanked: 209 times

Titles & Recognition

Post by pokken » 6 months ago

I made a list a few pages back of ones I considered fairly playable in different strategies.

viewtopic.php?f=38&t=891&start=25 (bout 2/3rds down the page)

It's a pretty reasonably long list of cards that are decent in some strategies; since they aren't super powerful we aren't adding new staples, but we're adding new options that're not likely to cause a lot of issues.

Probably the absolute strongest is soulfire grand master being played in UW or WR, and people looking to play cutthroat with SFGM - Time warp combos are probably already doing that.

It's surely not restricted to 1 and 2 color decks, but they have by far the most go gain; 3-4c decks rarely play many hybrid cards as is despite having options because they have more powerful options by virtue of having goodstuff from more colors.

1-2c decks are more likely to play fringe playable hybrid cards.

Why do it? Because it'd add a bunch of extra options without forcing anyone to play many of them because they're niche. More options without huge amounts of power is a pretty desirable thing in EDH. It's a change with low power level impact but a high variety impact.

It's to be distinguished from abandoning color identity all together which would have the power level effect of forcing most decks to be 4-5c to be optimal.

MRHblue
Posts: 88
Joined: 7 months ago
Pronoun: he / him
Has thanked: 118 times
Been thanked: 35 times

Post by MRHblue » 6 months ago

So in your mind what CI decks can play soulfire grand master? Seems not U, R, or U/R?

I just dont see a rule thats nearly as clean as the current rule that encompasses that.
1-2c decks are more likely to play fringe playable hybrid cards.
Why do it? Because it'd add a bunch of extra options without forcing anyone to play many of them because they're niche. More options without huge amounts of power is a pretty desirable thing in EDH. It's a change with low power level impact but a high variety impact.
I agree that would be a desirable outcome, but I don't see the value being 'worth the lift' if you catch my meaning.

pokken
Posts: 982
Joined: 7 months ago
Answers: 1
Pronoun: he / him
Has thanked: 307 times
Been thanked: 209 times

Titles & Recognition

Post by pokken » 6 months ago

MRHblue wrote:
6 months ago
So in your mind what CI decks can play soulfire grand master? Seems not U, R, or U/R?

I just dont see a rule thats nearly as clean as the current rule that encompasses that.
1-2c decks are more likely to play fringe playable hybrid cards.
Why do it? Because it'd add a bunch of extra options without forcing anyone to play many of them because they're niche. More options without huge amounts of power is a pretty desirable thing in EDH. It's a change with low power level impact but a high variety impact.
I agree that would be a desirable outcome, but I don't see the value being 'worth the lift' if you catch my meaning.

SFGM would be UW, RW, or UWR. Its color identity is W(R || U), so WR, WU, or WRU will match.

The rule can fairly simply be changed from either side (commander or MTG rules) and a rider to fix twobrid mana can be accomplished as well with no unintended side effects. There is complexity with either approach.

The rules patches are not incredibly pretty but they are far simpler than other aspects of the MTG rules.

I can understand not seeing the value in doing it; there's a fairly high inertia in doing anything in EDH rules. Again I think this is a perfectly valid topic to have different opinions on because it's purely an aesthetic choice for the most part.

I think it entirely devolves around to whether you like it. And there are lots of angles to dislike or like it (rules elegance, preference for more restriction, purely aesthetic thoughts on color identity).

User avatar
cryogen
GΘΔ†
Posts: 527
Joined: 9 months ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Westminster, MD
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 181 times
Contact:

Titles & Recognition

Post by cryogen » 6 months ago

I think you just very eloquently summed up why this is such a hot topic and why neither side is likely to be swayed.
Expand Signature
Sheldon wrote:You're the reason we can't have nice things.

User avatar
hyalopterouslemur
Posts: 792
Joined: 7 months ago
Pronoun: he / him
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Post by hyalopterouslemur » 6 months ago

pokken wrote:
6 months ago
cryogen wrote:
6 months ago
So what happens when you play Godhead of Awe in a mono white deck and I want to cast Red Elemental Blast?
You counter it. Corner case that I don't find to be a particularly big deal.

Or they change the Hybrid mana rules to add memory, which seems really annoying and clunky. I'd rather deal with a few corner case quirks. It's not like there aren't tons of quirks in the system already. Extort, for example.

I just wanna play thopter foundry in my azorius decks please.
"Corner case", you say?

Bloom Tender is another example.

And yes, you have to factor in, say if I want to include Oona, Queen of the Fae in my Abzan deck, Ana Sanctuary exists. Cards like that may not be competitive or even 75% if you have access to all relevant colors, but when you're crafting a format, you have to consider bad cards just as much as good cards.

Also, where does it stop? There is literally no reason to worry about mana symbols in text boxes, since I can already cast them. (And Mtenda Lion is a far better example of a "corner case".) Or Transguild Courier is all colors, and has exactly zero colored mana symbols anywhere on the card.

Let's just say there are hundreds of corner cases, and I shouldn't be able to so easily exploit Bloom Tender. (I still can just find tokens in all the colors I don't have, e.g. Naya can use Tatsumasa, the Dragon's Fang and living weapon, but still, I had to work at it.)

On the counterexample, the main example I can think of is Mtenda Lion and other corner cases like that.
Expand Signature
Thanks to Feyd_Ruin for the avatar!

User avatar
digitalfire
Posts: 10
Joined: 7 months ago
Pronoun: Unlisted

Post by digitalfire » 6 months ago

I feel like people are making this far more complicated than it needs to be. Just look at extort cards. Those are currently a "corner case", allowed via a loophole about rules text. How about we do away with that loophole and treat all hybrid mana costs in the same way as extort is treated? Boom, simple.

If you understand, skip ahead. If somehow this is still too complicated, let's go over some examples:

I can play Blind Obedience in monowhite because I can pay all of its costs with white. I can NOT play it in monoblack because I can't pay all of its costs with black.
I can now play Debtors' Knell in monowhite because I can pay all of its costs with white. I can also now play it in monoblack because I can pay all of its costs with black.
I can NOT play Orzhov Guildmage in monowhite because I can't pay all of its costs with white. I can NOT play it in monoblack because I can't pay all of its costs with black.
I can now play Beseech the Queen in monowhite because I can pay all of its costs with white. I can still play it in monoblack because I can pay all of its costs with black.

Super simple to understand. So let's move on to the common criticisms.

"But Matt, how you gonna cast a multicolored card in a monocolored deck???? Flavor?? Hello???" I can already do that with Gonti in Sidisi, Undead Vizier for example. Also, as ISBPathfinder points out, that's literally hybrid mana's intended use.

"But Matt, isn't every deck gonna run Beseech now? Doesn't that feel bad?" Yeah. Probably. It feels bad to me, because I'm a very aesthetic player. I proxy every single old card to have modern borders because I like homogony. Playing off-color fetches feels bad to me. Playing extort cards feels bad to me. Magic is a storied game with lots of baggage, but I think this rule is simpler. I have no interest in running hybrid cards, I just think it's right.

MRHblue
Posts: 88
Joined: 7 months ago
Pronoun: he / him
Has thanked: 118 times
Been thanked: 35 times

Post by MRHblue » 6 months ago

digitalfire wrote:
6 months ago
I feel like people are making this far more complicated than it needs to be. Just look at extort cards. Those are currently a "corner case", allowed via a loophole about rules text. How about we do away with that loophole and treat all hybrid mana costs in the same way as extort is treated? Boom, simple.
Except that makes Charmed Pendant UB color identity. Call it a loophole if you like, it serves a specific purpose.
"But Matt, isn't every deck gonna run Beseech now? Doesn't that feel bad?" Yeah. Probably. It feels bad to me, because I'm a very aesthetic player. I proxy every single old card to have modern borders because I like homogony. Playing off-color fetches feels bad to me. Playing extort cards feels bad to me. Magic is a storied game with lots of baggage, but I think this rule is simpler. I have no interest in running hybrid cards, I just think it's right.
Thats a fine opinion, but many people do not find this rule simpler. It may be understandable, but I don't think you made a good case for simpler.

papa_funk
Posts: 16
Joined: 7 months ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Been thanked: 22 times

Titles & Recognition

Post by papa_funk » 6 months ago

Charmed Pendant isn't the problem. Trinisphere is. What's the CI of that card if you include reminder text?

User avatar
Impossible
Posts: 46
Joined: 6 months ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 25 times

Post by Impossible » 6 months ago

This talk of reminder text really does lead down a rabbit hole. Why is Blind Obedience allowed in a mono-white deck? It's like allowing a Godless Shrine in a mono-white deck. The mana symbols are in the reminder text so it's fine, right? If we bothered writing out what Extort actually means ("Whenever you cast a spell, you may pay {W/B}. If you do, each opponent loses 1 life and you gain life equal to the total life lost this way.") we would see that Blind Obedience very clearly has a Color Identity of W/B.

Why are Extort cards the only hybrid mana cards that get a pass?
Expand Signature
Image

User avatar
Yatsufusa
Posts: 28
Joined: 7 months ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Been thanked: 5 times

Post by Yatsufusa » 6 months ago

digitalfire wrote:
6 months ago
"But Matt, how you gonna cast a multicolored card in a monocolored deck???? Flavor?? Hello???" I can already do that with Gonti in Sidisi, Undead Vizier for example. Also, as ISBPathfinder points out, that's literally hybrid mana's intended use.
Actually, that's not my issue - my issue is why are you putting in an off-color card in the deck, regardless of whether you can cast it or not?

As of the comprehensive rules (202.2d specifically), it apparently means Hybrid's intended use is to make a multicolored card castable by using only mana of one color. It doesn't change the fact the card is still multicolored, and that is all Color Identity cares for.

Color Identity does not care about how you can cast a card (e.g. Transguild Courier). All because Hybrid Mana was designed in that space doesn't mean Color Identity has to suddenly start caring about "how you can cast a card" to accommodate it (otherwise the "reanimation was designed in a space that you can reanimate creatures you can't otherwise cast that CI doesn't care about either, and therefore should get the same treatment" kicks in again). Especially now that Rule 4 is gone, I feel there is precedent to reinforce the rule, otherwise Jin should be legal in any deck that runs Gilded Lotus.

Is the rule perfect? No, as stated by many here, extort and fetches still stand out as sore thumbs. If anything we should be looking for ways to restrict those instead.
Expand Signature
Image

User avatar
cryogen
GΘΔ†
Posts: 527
Joined: 9 months ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Westminster, MD
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 181 times
Contact:

Titles & Recognition

Post by cryogen » 6 months ago

The issue with Extort is that because the hybrid mana symbol ONLY appears in the reminder text, you could very easily see in a future set an Extort that just has "Extort" in the rules text, similar to haste or first strike. So for consistency and clarification do you rule that all Extort cards are W/B, which also makes cards like Trinisphere colored, or do you just ignore reminder text altogether?

(FWIW, I think Extort should also have a w/b CI, and the comparison to Trinisphere isn't valid.)
Expand Signature
Sheldon wrote:You're the reason we can't have nice things.

User avatar
Impossible
Posts: 46
Joined: 6 months ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 25 times

Post by Impossible » 6 months ago

cryogen wrote:
6 months ago
The issue with Extort is that because the hybrid mana symbol ONLY appears in the reminder text, you could very easily see in a future set an Extort that just has "Extort" in the rules text, similar to haste or first strike. So for consistency and clarification do you rule that all Extort cards are W/B, which also makes cards like Trinisphere colored, or do you just ignore reminder text altogether?

(FWIW, I think Extort should also have a w/b CI, and the comparison to Trinisphere isn't valid.)
But doesn't only appear in the reminder text, it appears in the full rules text of Extort. Which is why I also made the comparison to Godless Shrine. You'll notice Godless Shrine's only mana symbols appear in reminder text. So if Godless Shrine followed the same rules as Extort, it would be allowed into any deck because the Color Identity is hidden away in the Comprehensive Rules instead of on the card.

But we all know basic land types come with the intrinsic ability of ": add C" therefore they have the corresponding Color Identity. Godless Shrine has the rules text ": add or " on it, even if it doesn't say so anywhere on the card. Likewise, Blind Obedience has the rules text "Whenever you cast a spell, you may pay . If you do, each opponent loses 1 life and you gain life equal to the total life lost this way." even if it has been shorthanded to just "Extort" on the physical card.

This has nothing to do with reminder text and everything to do with rules text, so I also agree that Trinisphere isn't a valid comparison.
Expand Signature
Image

User avatar
cryogen
GΘΔ†
Posts: 527
Joined: 9 months ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Westminster, MD
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 181 times
Contact:

Titles & Recognition

Post by cryogen » 6 months ago

Impossible wrote:
6 months ago
cryogen wrote:
6 months ago
The issue with Extort is that because the hybrid mana symbol ONLY appears in the reminder text, you could very easily see in a future set an Extort that just has "Extort" in the rules text, similar to haste or first strike. So for consistency and clarification do you rule that all Extort cards are W/B, which also makes cards like Trinisphere colored, or do you just ignore reminder text altogether?

(FWIW, I think Extort should also have a w/b CI, and the comparison to Trinisphere isn't valid.)
But doesn't only appear in the reminder text, it appears in the full rules text of Extort. Which is why I also made the comparison to Godless Shrine. You'll notice Godless Shrine's only mana symbols appear in reminder text. So if Godless Shrine followed the same rules as Extort, it would be allowed into any deck because the Color Identity is hidden away in the Comprehensive Rules instead of on the card.

But we all know basic land types come with the intrinsic ability of ": add C" therefore they have the corresponding Color Identity. Godless Shrine has the rules text ": add or " on it, even if it doesn't say so anywhere on the card. Likewise, Blind Obedience has the rules text "Whenever you cast a spell, you may pay . If you do, each opponent loses 1 life and you gain life equal to the total life lost this way." even if it has been shorthanded to just "Extort" on the physical card.

This has nothing to do with reminder text and everything to do with rules text, so I also agree that Trinisphere isn't a valid comparison.
Incorrect.

The explanation text for Extort is italicized, meaning it is REMINDER text (that it has so far always appeared on the card is inconsequential). Therefore, it is entirely possible that in a future set the mechanic could be brought back and the reminder text left off, which would make that specific version of the card perfectly legal (e.g. Blind Obedience would be a white card only).

The (expanded) reason of why I think the Extort mechanic should be ruled to a white/black color identity and why comparisons to Trinisphere are not valid is this: First, look at the different versions of Trinisphere. The original Darksteel printing has black mana symbols in its reminder text. The From the Vault and Invention printings have no mana symbols. In a future printing you could put blue mana symbols in the reminder text and it would not change the functionality of the card. However, compare this to Extort. Despite the mana symbols being only in the reminder text, the actual mechanic itself requires white or black mana. You cannot arbitrarily change the mana symbols, and if Rule 4 were still in effect, you would not be able to activate the Extort ability if you were not within the white or black color identity already. (I also find it aesthetically displeasing and flies in the face of the hybrid rule, but that is more personal preference.)


Edit: Lands are also never a valid comparison because the rules intrinsically assign CI to the basic land types.
Expand Signature
Sheldon wrote:You're the reason we can't have nice things.

User avatar
Yatsufusa
Posts: 28
Joined: 7 months ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Been thanked: 5 times

Post by Yatsufusa » 6 months ago

I think we're all on the same page here - the mana symbol is intrinsically tied to the mechanic-word "Extort" itself, regardless of whether there is reminder text or not. We always need to pay (W/B) when Extort in involved, just like we can tap a land for U as long as there is "Island" in the subtype.

So basically, just like with basic land types, we need to associate the mechanic-word itself to the Color Identity. It's precisely because the mechanic remains the same regardless of whether there is reminder text or not we cannot allow it to be determined by reminder text, because if/when they print a card without it, it would make the rule look stupid for basing it on visibility of the reminder text.

Is it a lot of wording for just one mechanic? Yes, but at the same time this one of the few times I feel it is absolutely necessary for it in order to retain integrity of the spirit of color identity. For now we only have Extort, but we could jolly well get more color-cost-specific mechanics like this in the future, so it's something I think the RC should really take a look into.

Imagine if they printed Alesha with Extort (and without the reanimation ability, of course), functionally the cycle is still intact in both design and aesthetics, but the current Color Identity rulings would make the cycle lopsided because it fails to identify Extort as color-relevant.
Expand Signature
Image

User avatar
cryogen
GΘΔ†
Posts: 527
Joined: 9 months ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Westminster, MD
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 181 times
Contact:

Titles & Recognition

Post by cryogen » 6 months ago

Yatsufusa wrote:
6 months ago
I think we're all on the same page here - the mana symbol is intrinsically tied to the mechanic-word "Extort" itself, regardless of whether there is reminder text or not. We always need to pay (W/B) when Extort in involved, just like we can tap a land for U as long as there is "Island" in the subtype.

So basically, just like with basic land types, we need to associate the mechanic-word itself to the Color Identity. It's precisely because the mechanic remains the same regardless of whether there is reminder text or not we cannot allow it to be determined by reminder text, because if/when they print a card without it, it would make the rule look stupid for basing it on visibility of the reminder text.

Is it a lot of wording for just one mechanic? Yes, but at the same time this one of the few times I feel it is absolutely necessary for it in order to retain integrity of the spirit of color identity. For now we only have Extort, but we could jolly well get more color-cost-specific mechanics like this in the future, so it's something I think the RC should really take a look into.

Imagine if they printed Alesha with Extort (and without the reanimation ability, of course), functionally the cycle is still intact in both design and aesthetics, but the current Color Identity rulings would make the cycle lopsided because it fails to identify Extort as color-relevant.
My stance is that Extort is the outlier which should be fixed, not the justification to change the hybrid mana rule.
Expand Signature
Sheldon wrote:You're the reason we can't have nice things.

User avatar
Impossible
Posts: 46
Joined: 6 months ago
Pronoun: Unlisted
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 25 times

Post by Impossible » 6 months ago

cryogen wrote:
6 months ago
Incorrect.

The explanation text for Extort is italicized, meaning it is REMINDER text (that it has so far always appeared on the card is inconsequential). Therefore, it is entirely possible that in a future set the mechanic could be brought back and the reminder text left off, which would make that specific version of the card perfectly legal (e.g. Blind Obedience would be a white card only).
I mean...
"702.100 Extort
702.100a Extort is a triggered ability. "Extort" means "Whenever you cast a spell, you may pay {W/B}. If you do, each opponent loses 1 life and you gain life equal to the total life lost this way."
702.100b If a permanent has multiple instances of extort, each triggers separately."

It's rules text. Imagine if Copper Myr, instead of it's current text, had the keyword ability "Produce". So it would be:

Copper Myr
2
Artifact Creature -- Myr
Produce
1/1

And then when you go to the Comp Rules to look up what Produce does it says "Produce means : add ". Do you think this card has a green Color Identity? And if not, does that mean WotC is allowed to hide any Color Identity they want by simply keywording it instead of writing it out?
Edit: Lands are also never a valid comparison because the rules intrinsically assign CI to the basic land types.
Can you point me to this rule?
Expand Signature
Image

User avatar
cryogen
GΘΔ†
Posts: 527
Joined: 9 months ago
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Westminster, MD
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 181 times
Contact:

Titles & Recognition

Post by cryogen » 6 months ago

Impossible wrote:
6 months ago
cryogen wrote:
6 months ago
Incorrect.

The explanation text for Extort is italicized, meaning it is REMINDER text (that it has so far always appeared on the card is inconsequential). Therefore, it is entirely possible that in a future set the mechanic could be brought back and the reminder text left off, which would make that specific version of the card perfectly legal (e.g. Blind Obedience would be a white card only).
I mean...
"702.100 Extort
702.100a Extort is a triggered ability. "Extort" means "Whenever you cast a spell, you may pay {W/B}. If you do, each opponent loses 1 life and you gain life equal to the total life lost this way."
702.100b If a permanent has multiple instances of extort, each triggers separately."

It's rules text. Imagine if Copper Myr, instead of it's current text, had the keyword ability "Produce". So it would be:

Copper Myr
2
Artifact Creature -- Myr
Produce
1/1

And then when you go to the Comp Rules to look up what Produce does it says "Produce means : add ". Do you think this card has a green Color Identity? And if not, does that mean WotC is allowed to hide any Color Identity they want by simply keywording it instead of writing it out?
Edit: Lands are also never a valid comparison because the rules intrinsically assign CI to the basic land types.
Can you point me to this rule?
I'm at work right now and can't access that WotC page, so I can't cite actual rules. But I am fairly confident in my recollection that the reason cited by [mention]papa_funk[/mention] concerning Extort is that it is because the mana symbol only appears in the reminder text. I'm not interested in continuing further (unless I am wrong), because I am in agreement that I think the way Extort is ruled should be changed.

I'm not sure where you're going with the Myr example, because it would be "T: Produce G", and that is what gives it the color identity. Unless you are imagining a scenario where each color gets it's own keyword to generate mana, and "produce" would be the one for green?
Expand Signature
Sheldon wrote:You're the reason we can't have nice things.

User avatar
WizardMN
Posts: 360
Joined: 7 months ago
Answers: 25
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Twin Cities
Has thanked: 133 times
Been thanked: 100 times
Contact:

Titles & Recognition

Post by WizardMN » 6 months ago

Impossible wrote:
6 months ago
Edit: Lands are also never a valid comparison because the rules intrinsically assign CI to the basic land types.
Can you point me to this rule?
While not exactly granting lands a Color Identity, here is the rule for lands with basic land types in general:

903.5d. A card with a basic land type may be included in a Commander deck only if each color of mana it could produce is included in the commander's color identity.


You could also use this rule as the basis for actually having a Color Identity:

305.6. The basic land types are Plains, Island, Swamp, Mountain, and Forest. If an object uses the words "basic land type," it's referring to one of these subtypes. A land with a basic land type has the intrinsic ability "{T}: Add [mana symbol]," even if the text box doesn't actually contain that text or the object has no text box. For Plains, [mana symbol] is {W}; for Islands, {U}; for Swamps, {B}; for Mountains, {R}; and for Forests, {G}. See rule 107.4a. See also rule 605, "Mana Abilities."

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Rules and Philosophy”