Hybrid mana

[Impossible]

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?

"Produce" is a hypothetical keyword that WotC invents because they think the text ": add " takes up too much space. So in this hypothetical future, all cards that said ": add " receive errata to just say "Produce" instead, including Copper Myr. What is Copper Myr's Color Identity now? Is it still green because if you looked up the rules text for "Produce" in the Comp Rules, it would have a green mana symbol in it? Or is it colorless now, because even though "Produce" explicitly adds green mana, the symbol doesn't appear on the actual card so it's colorless?

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."

This is what I was thinking of. Are lands with basic types defined as their respective colors (for the purposes of Color Identity) because they are understood to have the intrinsic ability to add mana of that color? So despite being colorless cards and having no actual symbols in the text box, their intrinsic ability has a mana symbol in it therefore they have the corresponding Color Identity. Basically, is this rule:

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.

...just an extension of 305.6 by spelling out the Color Identity interaction for those who might not be aware basic lands have that ability on them? Or is there some other reason why Godless Shrine has a Color Identity of W/B?

[cryogen]

Then in your example Copper Myr would be colorless if it would now match the same template as Extort cards. I don't know, maybe Toby will chime in again about Extort.

But again, the existence of Extort doesn't mean the overall hybrid rule should be changed.

[Impossible]

Then in your example Copper Myr would be colorless if it would now match the same template as Extort cards. I don't know, maybe Toby will chime in again about Extort.

And you don't find that super weird? Because I do.

But again, the existence of Extort doesn't mean the overall hybrid rule should be changed.

By the same vein, neither is the argument "changing the rules will open up loopholes" very convincing when there are already tons of weird loopholes. Behold, the Swamp with no Color Identity! Behold, the colorless land with a black Color Identity! No matter what, Color Identity is always going to be weird.

Frankly I don't really care either way (although I wish Extort was always W/B) but we were talking about reminder text and I wanted to jump in on Extort.

[cryogen]

Then in your example Copper Myr would be colorless if it would now match the same template as Extort cards. I don't know, maybe Toby will chime in again about Extort.

And you don't find that super weird? Because I do.

But again, the existence of Extort doesn't mean the overall hybrid rule should be changed.

By the same vein, neither is the argument "changing the rules will open up loopholes" very convincing when there are already tons of weird loopholes. Behold, the Swamp with no Color Identity! Behold, the colorless land with a black Color Identity! No matter what, Color Identity is always going to be weird.

Frankly I don't really care either way (although I wish Extort was always W/B) but we were talking about reminder text and I wanted to jump in on Extort.

I do find it weird, because I've already said numerous times why I think Extort would be more intuitive as a w/b color identity and support changing the rules as such.

I think the "loopholes" you describe are a case by case basis. Urborg is weird because it it gives itself the intrinsic ability to tap for black, so you could probably lump it into the same rule covering basic lands and extort, even if it isn't the same from a strict rules standpoint. Westvale Abbey is a black creature on the flip side so I don't see the issue there.

But as you can see, we are starting to come up with scenarios that affect individual cards instead of a blanket card set, and that was the point Toby made initially: that the color identity rule isn't perfect and maybe not 100% how they would craft it if they weren't trying to make official rules, but it is the simplest to grok rule which does 99% of the intended purpose.

[papa_funk]

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."

This is what I was thinking of. Are lands with basic types defined as their respective colors (for the purposes of Color Identity) because they are understood to have the intrinsic ability to add mana of that color?

No. (Most) Lands are have no color identity without 903.5d. If you look at the colloquial rules on mtgcommander, we also call out lands specifically there. Obviously not having 903.5d would be terrible - that giant mana symbol wouldn't count for anything.

I think there's a pretty strong case that Extort should be B/W (and the rule to make that happen would bring the lands along, since it would likely involve intrinsic rules text). I'm sure that we'll have extensive discussions about it if Extort comes back or another mechanic comes along with similar templating, but I wouldn't be shocked if we just let sleeping dogs lie until then.

Of course, part of me is also tempted to just include reminder text, make Charmed Pendant a UB card, and make folks scramble for matching Trinispheres...

[Impossible]

So under the current rules WotC can 'hide' Color Identity behind keywords and we'll all just pretend not to notice, like in the case of Extort? I mean, I don't know why they would, but it's still weird that it's even a thing. Like super weird.

I sure hope something else like Extort comes along soon so there's a reason to fix this madness.

[papa_funk]

So under the current rules WotC can 'hide' Color Identity behind keywords and we'll all just pretend not to notice, like in the case of Extort? I mean, I don't know why they would, but it's still weird that it's even a thing. Like super weird.

I sure hope something else like Extort comes along soon so there's a reason to fix this madness.

As I said, if they keep it up, we'll likely revisit. Thus far, they haven't shown any inclination to take advantage of this loophole.

I think describing it as madness is kind of wildly overstating. It's a weird corner involving 13 cards (of which 3 are played in any numbers) where there are valid cases to be made on both sides. We make the change and they print Crypt Ghast in another set where the foils don't have reminder text, it's pretty weird the other way (a card with only black mana symbols on it can't go in a mono-black deck). No answer is particularly great here. Frankly, it's less madness than, say, Mtenda Lion. Corners happen.

(Actually, I lie. There is a great answer: Wizards non-functional erratas Extort to be Extort <cost>, which makes the whole problem go away. Thus far, they have shown no interest in doing so.)

[cryogen]

Thank you for chiming in again Toby.

[Yatsufusa]

As I said, if they keep it up, we'll likely revisit. Thus far, they haven't shown any inclination to take advantage of this loophole.

I think describing it as madness is kind of wildly overstating. It's a weird corner involving 13 cards (of which 3 are played in any numbers) where there are valid cases to be made on both sides. We make the change and they print Crypt Ghast in another set where the foils don't have reminder text, it's pretty weird the other way (a card with only black mana symbols on it can't go in a mono-black deck). No answer is particularly great here. Frankly, it's less madness than, say, Mtenda Lion. Corners happen.

(Actually, I lie. There is a great answer: Wizards non-functional erratas Extort to be Extort <cost>, which makes the whole problem go away. Thus far, they have shown no interest in doing so.)

My concern isn't really that they'll do it to exploit loopholes as though they're doing to spite us. I'm just seeing it as design space I feel they're likely to touch on again in the future considering how the game expands.

Most abilities (e.g. kicker/madness) vary in costs and therefore need to present their costs upfront on the card text, which makes it easy for CI to identify, but I can see them assigning "hidden/intrinsic" (colored) costs to relatively simple abilities like Extort which only have 1 consistent cost. Imagine an ability "Cantrip" written without costs that costs (U/B) all the time and is piggybacking off spells of various colors.

Well, I'm the type that focuses more on "future-proofing", so I'd rather there be the answer that future-proofs against similar designs in the future (whether they happen or not). Sure, it'll look weird for Crypt Ghast to be unable to fit inside a mono-black deck visually (but as you said, corners happen), but at least the word "Extort" itself is identified and acknowledged for its CI written in its comprehensive rules, the same way the basic land types are recognized that way.

Not the first time I pushed for a similar agenda, before Rule 4 was abolished, I was pushing for it to either be abolished or reinforced further because of existence of cards that allow a player "to spend mana as though as it were of any color" bypassing it (mainly I was just salty Daxos of Meletis was basically "superior" to Sen Triplets and it felt really wrong). While I did get a satisfactory end result in the end, it still nags me a bit that it was actually Colorless Mana as a requirement that brought it down.

Sorry if I sounded overly-nagging - I've always been stickler for the "spirit of color identity" as a major pillar/definition of the format itself and therefore am easily annoyed when I feel like rules make themselves "hypocritical" of the spirit behind it, especially when it's already written to cover some aspects but not others. Basic land types being covered but Extort not basically annoys me the same way Rule 4 covered mana rocks but not Mycosynth Lattice did, bluntly put.

Either way, thanks for taking the time to indulge us. I do really hope the RC revisits the topic a bit more pro-actively than re-actively though.

[MRHblue]

(Actually, I lie. There is a great answer: Wizards non-functional erratas Extort to be Extort <cost>, which makes the whole problem go away. Thus far, they have shown no interest in doing so.)

Its like when they fixed Echo. It used to be the same cost, then some came out with different echo costs. Extort could be changed in such a manner.

I personally have no issue with Extort being OK in mono color, but understand why some people would.

[Sheldon]

Having spoken with MaRo on this issue in person in the last week (he was the first person to visit me at my desk), his primary argument isn't actually design intent (although he falls back on that a bit), it's about design space. Although I won't be able to share any of the details of the conversation, I'm going to talk to him this week about what he envisions that design space to be.

[cryogen]

Having spoken with MaRo on this issue in person in the last week (he was the first person to visit me at my desk), his primary argument isn't actually design intent (although he falls back on that a bit), it's about design space. Although I won't be able to share any of the details of the conversation, I'm going to talk to him this week about what he envisions that design space to be.

Well it's comforting to hear that you two have opened up dialogue on the subject, because there does really seem to be some disconnect, or at the least differing opinions on how to approach the mechanic. Could you in your future discussions with him talk about Extort and how to make that better fit your vision of color identity?

[ISBPathfinder]

I wish you the best Sheldon. I hope something can be worked out / new design feels less clunky in the future. For what its worth, I do actually really like hybrid mana and always have. It just drives me a little crazy when it comes to this format.

[onering]

Really the problem with extort comes from it being tied exclusively to white/black. It really should have been formatted as Extort (cost). All the RTR orzhov extort cards would have been Extort W/B. Boom, problem solved. It's a simple enough rule change to make, and is far more in line with the way such abilities are typically formatted. It's also has the side benefit of opening up more design space for the mechanic by opening it up (potentially) to other colors or color combos, and by providing another knob to adjust when designing the cards.

[cryogen]

Really the problem with extort comes from it being tied exclusively to white/black. It really should have been formatted as Extort (cost). All the RTR orzhov extort cards would have been Extort W/B. Boom, problem solved. It's a simple enough rule change to make, and is far more in line with the way such abilities are typically formatted. It's also has the side benefit of opening up more design space for the mechanic by opening it up (potentially) to other colors or color combos, and by providing another knob to adjust when designing the cards.

Exactly. Although I can see why they did it like they did. After all, what other color set does it make mechanical sense? MAYBE dimir?

[Cow31337Killer]

Really the problem with extort comes from it being tied exclusively to white/black. It really should have been formatted as Extort (cost). All the RTR orzhov extort cards would have been Extort W/B. Boom, problem solved. It's a simple enough rule change to make, and is far more in line with the way such abilities are typically formatted. It's also has the side benefit of opening up more design space for the mechanic by opening it up (potentially) to other colors or color combos, and by providing another knob to adjust when designing the cards.

Yeah that sounds like a good idea. I personally don't think Extort cards as they currently exist have any business being in Mono White or Mono Black decks in Commander. It just seems like an unfair loophole for cards that should really have a hybrid color identity. If I can't play Cold-Eyed Selkie|EVE in my Mono Green deck, I should NOT be allowed to play Blind Obedience|GTC in Mono White.

[onering]

Really the problem with extort comes from it being tied exclusively to white/black. It really should have been formatted as Extort (cost). All the RTR orzhov extort cards would have been Extort W/B. Boom, problem solved. It's a simple enough rule change to make, and is far more in line with the way such abilities are typically formatted. It's also has the side benefit of opening up more design space for the mechanic by opening it up (potentially) to other colors or color combos, and by providing another knob to adjust when designing the cards.

Exactly. Although I can see why they did it like they did. After all, what other color set does it make mechanical sense? MAYBE dimir?

It doesn't even make much sense in orzhov as hybrid, because white doesn't drain life. Only black gets this ability, while you often see it crop up in white black it's black doing the lifeloss and white covering the life gain. That's typically non hybrid cards or activations though. What they did for extort was take that gold design (color A + plus color B) and used it for a hybrid design (which is supposed to be something that could go in either color A or B). If they went by the same logic that allowed for a W/B hybrid cost on a mono white card (color A ability plus color B ability) the could justify G/B the same way (green gains life, black causes life loss), and R/B (black gains the life, and red causes life loss, which is a stretch but red does get direct damage and repeatable ping against players). By that token, Boros and Gruul can also be covered (red does the damage/life loss while green or white gain the life). Then, of course, there's mono black, or having colorless extort costs on Bx cards, or having manaless extort costs on Bx cards.

Besides all that, this might be the sort of effect that is small enough and limited enough that with proper costing it could be considered an ability that's open to every color. If extort first showed up as an ability on an artifact that cost, say, 2 to pay for each spell, it wouldn't seem much like a color pie break. It's an ability that is both limited by only triggering once for each spell and then further limited by having to pay an additional cost. I wouldn't say it's something that could be that way everywhere, but they take a more flexible view of the color pie when there are flavor reasons tied to the world or it's factions. Extort made sense in Orzhov, even when on white cards, because of what the Orzhov was all about. I could see it working just as well on New Phyrexia, or as a mechanic for the Sultai or Silumgar clan. I mean, phyrexian Mana is an extremely black mechanic but was in all colors, exploit is not a blue mechanic but appeared on mono blue cards, as did delve. Also, embalm from amonkhet.

[pokken]

Somewhat off topic of what's being discussed, here're two of my Golos decks that use a few hybrid mana cards but are functionally mono white or mono black. Outside of Golos black using Deathrite Shaman (which would be illegal in the proposed rule cos of its G/ability) I think it's a pretty good illustration of how hybrid cards could be used funly.

Mono black: https://deckbox.org/sets/2467360?s=c&o=a
--Nykthos using deck, leverages Nightveil Specter, Ashiok, Dream Render, Divinity of Pride, and Debtors' Knell

Getting to play Specter is a real treat since it reminds me a lot of mono black devotion (as Gary is one of the finishers).

Mono white: https://deckbox.org/sets/2423059
--Will eventually use Dovescape and Enchanted Evening as wincons. I forgot them when I was building

When I make mono green Gaea's Cradle golos, I'll probably enjoy playing Creakwood Liege and a possibly Spitting Image.

[schweinefett]

Are there any developments about the conversation between sheldon and maro?

I'm also curious though; what was the actual intent behind the colour identity rules? The thing that I don't get is why, when the design intent for hybrid is "or", do the rules take it to be "and". The main game says its both colours because of game balance and simplicity of dealing with say omen of fire (can you imagine the argument of "But my divinity of pride is only black right now!"). But in terms of deckbuilding, shouldn't the fact that its casting cost is white OR black be the only thing that's relevant there and then?
The way how i've understood it, the EDH rules are not there for balance; but for theme and fun.
Theme-wise, it should adhere to the design intent, right? It's the meaning behind the design and is what the theme is trying to bring out, right? So shouldn't the rules then be adhering to the "or" principle?
Fun-wise, i'm not really sure how much it applies to the argument of "or" vs "and". Possibly and, because it limits deckbuilding more, which is more fun. But then again dryad militant is a card i've been wanting to put into a WU control deck for a while.

I suppose at the end of the day, it doesn't bother me too much. It's just a casual format, and i'm happy with my local group's house rules. I guess I just feel like many other groups out there need to be willing to push the rules to make the game better for their own group, thus far, most people ive met at local shops are so unwilling to try house rules to improve rules for the local groups "because the RC says so", that it feels like i gotta at least try.

[cryogen]

Are there any developments about the conversation between sheldon and maro?

No public ones, as far as I'm aware. I'll try to remember and ask [mention]Sheldon[/mention] next weekend.

I'm also curious though; what was the actual intent behind the colour identity rules?

It was another deck-building restriction, similar to the singleton rule or 100 card rule. It was creating a rule around the flavor of building a deck around one specific card and a way to highlight why that specific card was so special.

The thing that I don't get is why, when the design intent for hybrid is "or", do the rules take it to be "and". The main game says its both colours because of game balance and simplicity of dealing with say omen of fire (can you imagine the argument of "But my divinity of pride is only black right now!"). But in terms of deckbuilding, shouldn't the fact that its casting cost is white OR black be the only thing that's relevant there and then?

Well you basically answered your own question. It would be a rules headache to try and identify what color a hybrid card was depending on how you cast it. Also consider: what color is that Divinity of Pride when I Reanimate and spend no mana casting it? During deck building do I have to declare what color my Spitting Image is in a Simic deck? What if I want to make it only green, and someone activates Grindstone for blue against me, hitting the SI? Under the current ruling (for Magic in general), the rule of hybrid cards is simple to grok: the card is each color in its mana cost, but you can spend either x or y to cast it.

The way how i've understood it, the EDH rules are not there for balance; but for theme and fun.
Theme-wise, it should adhere to the design intent, right? It's the meaning behind the design and is what the theme is trying to bring out, right? So shouldn't the rules then be adhering to the "or" principle?

The primary purpose of rules are to lay out expectations in an easy to digest manner and clear up confusion about how do to something. Theme and fun are important as well, but the former should take precedence. But regardless, the color identity rule creates another restriction, which the hybrid rule falls neatly into. It's not the RC that people should be petitioning, it's Wizards. Get them to change the hybrid rule to have the -or- affect card color, and this will automatically change the way hybrid cards are treated in Commander. To do the reverse would be to create format errata.

[Sheldon]

I remain unconvinced that changing hybrid is the right course, although Maro's arguments--which, btw, have less to do with "design intent" than you might think--might have moved me from an extreme hard line stance to normal hard line. Hybrid cards are both colors in all zones. That hasn't changed.

The actual intent behind color identity rules was to open up possibilities that players asked for--specifically, Memnarch and Bosh (and to a tiny extent, Autumn Willow) as commanders. Previously, since only the mana cost was taken into account, they simply invalidated themselves. Then-Rules Manager Matt Tabak came up with the idea of color identity, floated it to us, and we liked it. It cleaned up quite a bit. It changed nothing about hybrid, since we had always seen the cards as both colors.

The rules are there for format identity. Putting green cards into non-green decks violates that identity.

[ISBPathfinder]

I still think to some extent that color identity is confusing in some other ways. Things like Red Elemental Blast looking at a card's colors and not color identity is one that I find a little unfortunate. I was just thinking in relation to the Memnarch color identity kind of thing.

I appreciate the update Sheldon.

[Sheldon]

REB's color and color identity are the same. What's the source of the confusion? The fact that the word blue is on it?

The simple thing that I remember is only mana symbols (that aren't in reminder text) matter.

[ISBPathfinder]

REB's color and color identity are the same. What's the source of the confusion? The fact that the word blue is on it?

The simple thing that I remember is only mana symbols (that aren't in reminder text) matter.

I was more mentioning the fact that Red Elemental Blast can't counter or kill Memnarch. I know it and many do but I think it could be a confusing point for newer players. Its a very corner case and I don't think a lot of new players would end up in that situation but it highlights some of the confusion between color and color identity.

[WizardMN]

REB's color and color identity are the same. What's the source of the confusion? The fact that the word blue is on it?

The simple thing that I remember is only mana symbols (that aren't in reminder text) matter.

I was more mentioning the fact that Red Elemental Blast can't counter or kill Memnarch. I know it and many do but I think it could be a confusing point for newer players. Its a very corner case and I don't think a lot of new players would end up in that situation but it highlights some of the confusion between color and color identity.

To be fair, it comes up way more often than you would think. People think "Color" and "Color Identity" are the same (or, maybe more accurately, think EDH cares about "Color Identity" all the time). I think the issue for most people is simply the terms themselves since they are very close.

It is easy to explain: "If you are playing a game, Color Identity is irrelevant (except for 5 cards)". But that doesn't stop the questions from popping up to begin with. I don't think there is a solution for it, nor should there be, but I agree that it trips up new players often enough.