Color words

63 posts / 0 new
Last post
-post removed-

I have been told every time I spoke to someone about this a "color word" can only target colors, and I understand the logic behind this.
I however completely disagree and can not find anything in the rules to prove me wrong, nor could anybody else ('but that's just not how it works.') I hope everyone can imagine that is not a satisfying answer for me.

Here is the rule:
105. Colors

105.1. There are five colors in the _Magic_ game: white, blue, black, red, and green.

105.4. If a player is asked to choose a color, he or she must choose one of the five colors. "Multicolored" is not a color. Neither is "colorless."
The color words are the words "red", "black", "green", "white" and "blue". "Nongreen" can be changed to "nonred" because it contains the word "green". That's the philosophy that's always been followed. Now, it is possible that the rules are not clear enough on this matter; if so, that's something you should point out in the Rules Issues forum rather than Rules Q&A. Because as for the current [O]fficial answer, all you'll get even from the Rules Manager Himself, a.k.a. Mark Gottlieb a.k.a The Great MaGo, is that the color words are "red", "black", "green", "white" and "blue".
Magic The Gathering DCI Lvl 1 Judge Don't hesitate to post rules question in the Rules Q&A forum for me and other competent advisors to answer : http://community.wizards.com/go/forum/view/75842/134778/Rules_Q38A

I have been told every time I spoke to someone about this a "color word" can only target colors, and I understand the logic behind this.
I however completely disagree and can not find anything in the rules to prove me wrong, nor could anybody else ('but that's just not how it works.') I hope everyone can imagine that is not a satisfying answer for me.

Here is the rule:
105. Colors

105.1. There are five colors in the _Magic_ game: white, blue, black, red, and green.

105.4. If a player is asked to choose a color, he or she must choose one of the five colors. "Multicolored" is not a color. Neither is "colorless."

I think Hqql's point here is that a "color" and a "color word" are two different things, which looks to me like it might be actually debatable. From our side, we can extrapolate from 105.1 that a "color word" is a word that is or that contains one of the five colors, which I think is the actual philosophy of the current rules, but he could say that's extrapolation, not written rules.
Magic The Gathering DCI Lvl 1 Judge Don't hesitate to post rules question in the Rules Q&A forum for me and other competent advisors to answer : http://community.wizards.com/go/forum/view/75842/134778/Rules_Q38A

I think Hqql's point here is that a "color" and a "color word" are two different things, which looks maybe debatable to me.

Since "word" does not have its own magic-specific definition, its gets used as it plain simple english meaning. A "word" is:
word   (wûrd)   
n.

A sound or a combination of sounds, or its representation in writing or printing, that symbolizes and communicates a meaning and may consist of a single morpheme or of a combination of morphemes.

(The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition )
I've highlighted the part i feel to be the closest to the use on Slight of Mind. A "color word" is therefore the representation in writing or printing that symbolizes and communicates a color. Since "color" is defined in the magic rules, that means "color word" is referring to the text strings "W-H-I-T-E" "B-L-U-E" "B-L-A-C-K" "R-E-D" and "G-R-E-E-N".


As far as Magic is concerned, 'color word' means 'the name of one of the five colors of Magic, in a context referring specifically to said color'.

As such, 'colorless', 'colored', 'multicolored', and so on--none of those are color words. The only color words in Magic are 'white', 'blue', 'black', 'red', and 'green'. 'Nonblack' and so on are actually hyphenated words, with the hyphen omitted for aesthetic purposes: 'nonblack' means 'non-black', and so on. The 'non' part is effectively a separate word.

You're not going to find anything in the CompRules that proves you wrong, because the CompRules aren't written that way--you also won't find anything in the CompRules that says that you can't punch your opponent in the face whenever he casts a spell, or that says that mana is not a form of chocolate pudding. The rules, for the most part, generally tell you what is the case, and what you do do, and everything else is false or wrong by default.


I think I'll get this moved to Rules Theory and Templating, since it's probably going to be a dive into that area's specialty.

Come join me at No Goblins Allowed


Because frankly, being here depresses me these days.

I personaly agree with Cyphern, but I see why Hqql might not. It's up to him to try and push his view to the rules commitee (with little chance of success, unfortunately). I actually think it could be useful (not necessary, but useful enough to warrant a sentence) if the term "color word" as a whole was defined in the CR. If what he wants is for words like "colorless", "colored", or "multicolored" to be considered color words, then I don't agree with him; what I'd like is the current philosophy, which is what we all stated here, to be clarified in the rules. I'm not the one who'll push it, though.

Magic The Gathering DCI Lvl 1 Judge Don't hesitate to post rules question in the Rules Q&A forum for me and other competent advisors to answer : http://community.wizards.com/go/forum/view/75842/134778/Rules_Q38A
The rules for Slight of Mind fall into the "Don't be an idiot" rule.

That is, they are very apparent. There are five colors of magic, whenever one of these colors is used in proper context, you can replace it with another color word.

In a similar case, Magical Hack doesn't allow you to replace the word "Forest" with the word "Nonbasic". Because though these words are used in a similar fashion, they aren't used with the same meaning.

So, again, don't argue the rules because you will lose. There is absolutely no ambiguity with the rules or with the text.
… and then, the squirrels came.

Perhaps it would be useful if they explicitly said what a "color word" is. However, as i have pointed out, they do clearly define what a "color" is. If you accept that definition, why would you make the assumption that a "color word" is completely unrelated to a "color"? As far as i can tell, you are making up your own definition that has no justification in the rules, while ignoring an existing rule-based definition.

The text of Mind Bend is illuminating:

Change the text of target permanent by replacing all instances of one color word with another or one basic land type with another. (For example, you may change "nonblack creature" to "nongreen creature" or "forestwalk" to "islandwalk." This effect lasts indefinitely.)

Weird, huh? The word "forestwalk" is not a "basic land type" - it's actually the name of an ability, which just happens to contain a basic land type. And yet we're told Mind Bend can change it. That is to say, if part of a word is a basic land type, Mind Bend can change that part of that word... but I think it's obvious that it can't change anything else. You can't replace "forestwalk" with "forestcycling".

Well, changing color words follows exactly the same logic. Sleight of Mind allows you to replace any part of any word, provided that part is the name of a color. But you can't change the rest of the word.

I agree the cards should spell this out better.
I totally understand your desire for a clear definition of "color word."  I can see how it would be useful.  But at the same time, I think that others are also making a good case for interpreting "color word" in light of Magic's definition of color from 105.

Show

105. Colors
105.1. There are five colors in the Magic game: white, blue, black, red, and green.
105.2. An object can be one or more of the five colors, or it can be no color at all. An object is the color or colors of the mana symbols in its mana cost, regardless of the color of its frame. See rule 202.2.
105.2a A monocolored object is exactly one of the five colors.
105.2b A multicolored object is two or more of the five colors.
105.2c A colorless object has no color.
105.3. Effects may change an object’s color or give a color to a colorless object. If an effect gives an object a new color, the new color replaces all previous colors the object had (unless the effect said the object became that color “in addition” to its other colors). Effects may also make a colored object become colorless.
105.4. If a player is asked to choose a color, he or she must choose one of the five colors. “Multicolored” is not a color. Neither is “colorless.”


"Monocolored," "multicolored," and "colorless" are used to refer to objects and aren't listed as colors but ways to describe colors.  And in 105.4 all color choices must be one of the 5 colors and "multicolored" and "colorless" are listed as things the choice can't be, which I think further advances the notion that they wouldn't be interpreted as "color words."

Ultimately, I think the discussion boils down to how "color word" should be defined.  Is it "a word that uses a Magic color" or is it "a word that describes a Magic color?"  And while I think the second definition is not likely in view of 105, I can see how it being more clearly defined in the rules may not be a bad thing.

Edit:  Oops, didn't mean to res this thread.  Just got into reading the discussion and forgot it was old.
Edit2: Pulled off my spoiler tags since you responded to it.  (Figured the point of the spoiler tags was moot now.)
Show
I totally understand your desire for a clear definition of "color word."  I can see how it would be useful.  But at the same time, I think that others are also making a good case for interpreting "color word" in light of Magic's definition of color from 105.

Show

105. Colors
105.1. There are five colors in the Magic game: white, blue, black, red, and green.
105.2. An object can be one or more of the five colors, or it can be no color at all. An object is the color or colors of the mana symbols in its mana cost, regardless of the color of its frame. See rule 202.2.
105.2a A monocolored object is exactly one of the five colors.
105.2b A multicolored object is two or more of the five colors.
105.2c A colorless object has no color.
105.3. Effects may change an object’s color or give a color to a colorless object. If an effect gives an object a new color, the new color replaces all previous colors the object had (unless the effect said the object became that color “in addition” to its other colors). Effects may also make a colored object become colorless.
105.4. If a player is asked to choose a color, he or she must choose one of the five colors. “Multicolored” is not a color. Neither is “colorless.”


"Monocolored," "multicolored," and "colorless" are used to refer to objects and aren't listed as colors but ways to describe colors.  And in 105.4 all color choices must be one of the 5 colors and "multicolored" and "colorless" are listed as things the choice can't be, which I think further advances the notion that they wouldn't be interpreted as "color words."

Ultimately, I think the discussion boils down to how "color word" should be defined.  Is it "a word that uses a Magic color" or is it "a word that describes a Magic color?"  And while I think the second definition is not likely in view of 105, I can see how it being more clearly defined in the rules may not be a bad thing.

Edit:  Oops, didn't mean to res this thread.  Just got into reading the discussion and forgot it was old.



Lol, old? I created this thread 1 day ago...

I really can't argue much with what you're saying since it's exactly what I'm pointing out. The only thing I can say is that 105.4 does not imply anything about 'color words.' It's about letting you pick a 'color' and as stated before I am very well aware of the fact colorless and multicolored are not considered to be colors so can not be chosen as such. But that's exactly where my point becomes very clear: 'color' is NOT the same as 'color word,' since it is not the same a different meaning between them is only logical. The only logical different meaning, at least to me, would be that a 'color word' would be able to say anything about the color of a card, so as well whether it has color, has no color or has several colors.

Furthermore, I know why others interpret 'color word' as 'a word that can target a magic color' but the whole issue I raise is because it's open to interpretation. I just seem to be the first one to interpret it differently.

Anyway, I thank you very much for your post, it may help other users see what I mean
But that's exactly where my point becomes very clear: 'color' is NOT the same as 'color word,'

The following things are colors: , , , , . The following things are color words: "red", "white", "green", "blue", "black".

The magic rules unambiguously define what a color is in the context of magic the gathering. The definition of "word" (which i quoted earlier) is hopefully agreed upon by everyone, so when the rulebook says "color word", it is specifying that it is referring to the textual representation of a color rather than some other representation of a color, such as its wavelength in hertz, its effects on the human retina, or as an abstract concept. (It could in theory also be referring to the spoken representation of a color, but that's rather useless, since cards do not speak)

If you disagree, please tell me what your definition of "word" is.
Furthermore, I know why others interpret 'color word' as 'a word that can target a magic color'

Targetting has nothing to do with the matter. 
Hqql: I see what you're trying to get at.  I've had simmilar debates with myself, about colours, colour words and colour traites... These being...

COLOURS: :W::U::B::R::G:
Colour words: Colourless, white, blue, black, red, green.
Colour traits: Noncoloured Monocoloured, Multicoloured, Snow.

I was just having a debate about Snow mana counting as a colour to spite not being a colour, the other day.

In my opinion, colourless should count as a colour that you can change the text on a card to say.  For example, change, destroy target non-black permanent to target non-colourless permanent.  But going from green to non-green doesn't so much work... I wish it did.  I saw how you mentioned that you aren't saying that you want it to happen, but it needs to be addressed all the same.  I would like it to happen, but as things currently are, non is a tag word, like cycling or walk.  I'm sorry, I can only think of land based examples right now, but I think my point will get across.  Being able to add non, would be able to change islandwalk to nonforestwalk, or to forestcyclingwalk... Given, best abilites ever, (I actually think I'm going to make that an ability now in an Unset), but the card says that you may change a colour word and not add a tag word.

Here is how the eratta should go... or at least something simmilar.  You may change the text of a card, by changing all instances of a colour to another colour.  Example, nongreen to nonblue.

Non-black is non a colour word, but a colour-based word.  I can see the arguement of it being a word that defines colour in magic and thus could be a colour word.

I can't make the same arguements for Mono or Multicoloured.  Maybe Multiblue, but that doesn't make any sense in magic.
Personally, I'd love to be able to change "protection from red" to "Protection from monocoloured".  That would be awesome.  But as I said, colour traits are not the same as colour words.

Hqql, I believe that you are right, and there should be more text added to this rule, just for nit picky people like us.
But that's exactly where my point becomes very clear: 'color' is NOT the same as 'color word,'

  such as its wavelength in hertz, its effects on the human retina, or as an abstract concept. (It could in theory also be referring to the spoken representation of a color, but that's rather useless, since cards do not speak)




This is why Cyphern is my favorite poster.

He just used basic physics to wtfown this thread lol.

As far as this thread is concerned, I don't really question the rulings often....I just agree with how it was meant to be played and I'll play it as it is.

DCI Level 1 Judge Katy, Texas

He just used basic physics to wtfown this thread lol.

I sincerely doubt the discussion is over. hqql views "color word" as meaning "a word about color", so even if he/she accepts that "word" is used to restrict it to its textual representation, that doesn't elminate the possibility of "colorless" being a piece of text which is about color.

I would ask Hqql though: which of the 5 colors is "colorless" about?


I am glad to see someone is partially agreeing with me ^_^

However "walk" and "cycling" differ ever so much from "non." They represent an ability, the basic land type added to this ability gives the ability a target. "Non" however only has effect on what colors are effected. In essence I think we indeed shouldn't be able to change "nongreen" to "green" if the range of targeting cards is not to be changed, this however is not stated anywhere, hence this topic.


And by the way guys, please keep in mind some of the new Eldrazi cards target "colorless" and "colored" as in the past specific colors were targeted. It would bring more balance to the game being able to change these targets as we are able to change targets when they are of 1 color only. This however is only my opinion on the specific cards and not on why I want to have this changed.

I just can't imagine something that would say "Destroy target non-colourless creature" when almost every creature has at least 1 colourless mana in their cost.

Overpowered, but anyways....I don't mind it if it was addressed on the card, but so long as it has the definition defined in the rulings.

I'm not too nit-picky about it though. I just accept the rules as they are and play.
DCI Level 1 Judge Katy, Texas
 Color in Magic can be one of the five colors, a combination of colors, can be said to be present in/on a card or can be absent in/on a card.

No where is it stated in the rules that a combination of colors is a color.

Your use of "color word" includes not only words that are about colors, it also includes words that are about quantities.
 Color in Magic can be one of the five colors, a combination of colors, can be said to be present in/on a card or can be absent in/on a card.

No where is it stated in the rules that a combination of colors is a color, nor that the presence or absence of color is a color.

Your use of "color word" includes not only words that are about colors, it also includes words that are about quantities.



Again I am not saying 'a combination of colors' is 'a color,' I know it is not, I recognize that and I accept that just as any other. What I am saying is that "a combination of colors' is a form of color (or 'color') in Magic.

Also I do not speak of quantities of color, I'm not saying a specific amount of colors is a color word. I am however saying that whenever a word tells you something about the color of a card it is a color word, and yes, that does include "multicolored."


By the way, do you understand my point of view, eventhough it differs very much from yours? Otherwise, I am more than happy to try and explain it in a different way if this would help.
By the way, do you understand my point of view, eventhough it differs very much from yours? Otherwise, I am more than happy to try and explain it in a different way if this would help.



Yes, we understand your point of view. But you are arguing something that's clearly defined. If you want to argue that "Multicolored", or "colorless" should be "color words", you can do that in the rules theory forum down below this one. This forum is for the rules as they exist right now.

I could argue all day and night that "artifact" is a valid chocie for Engineered Plague, but in the end, i'm wrong. Multicolored isn't a color word, just like Artifact isn't a creature type.
… and then, the squirrels came.

Again I am not saying 'a combination of colors' is 'a color,'

What I am saying is that "a combination of colors' is a form of color (or 'color') in Magic.

It looks to me like you are contradicting yourself. Is there a difference between "a color" and "a form of color (or color)"?
Also I do not speak of quantities of color, I'm not saying a specific amount of colors is a color word. I am however saying that whenever a word tells you something about the color of a card it is a color word, and yes, that does include "multicolored."

Do you agree that all of the following are referring to a quantity of colors, and not to the colors themselves: Colorless (which means "having zero colors"), Monocolored ("having exactly one color"), Multicolored ("having more than one color").
By the way, do you understand my point of view, eventhough it differs very much from yours?

I believe I understand what your position is, but i don't understand how you justify it. How did you decide that "color word" is a meta-term, which refers to all things related to color, rather than being a direct term about the colors themselves?

Again I am not saying 'a combination of colors' is 'a color,'

What I am saying is that "a combination of colors' is a form of color (or 'color') in Magic.

It looks to me like you are contradicting yourself. Is there a difference between "a color" and "a form of color (or color)"?



Form

2b. The mode in which a thing exists, acts, or manifests itself; kind: a form of animal life; a form of blackmail.



So yes, 'colorless' is a form of color since non-existance is a mode of existance. Or when color manifests itself as multiple colors, it is still color.


Also I do not speak of quantities of color, I'm not saying a specific amount of colors is a color word. I am however saying that whenever a word tells you something about the color of a card it is a color word, and yes, that does include "multicolored."

Do you agree that all of the following are referring to a quantity of colors, and not to the colors themselves: Colorless (which means "having zero colors"), Monocolored ("having exactly one color"), Multicolored ("having more than one color").



quantity
[ˈkwɒntɪtɪ]n pl -ties1.
a.  a specified or definite amount, weight, number, etc.


So, no. The words do refer to the presence of either a single color, more than one color or no color at all but they do not represent the quantity of colors. (Okay, okay, monocolored and colorless actually do, according to this logic but you catch my drift.)



By the way, do you understand my point of view, eventhough it differs very much from yours?

I believe I understand what your position is, but i don't understand how you justify it. How did you decide that "color word" is a meta-term, which refers to all things related to color, rather than being a direct term and about the colors themselves?



It is a direct term about the colors themselves. It can state whether one of the colors is present, which one of the colors is present, whether more than one of the colors is present and whether none of the colors are present.

So how would you propose wording Sleight of Mind without using the phrase "color word" and without changing it's existing functionality?
MTG Rules Advisor
So how would you propose wording Sleight of Mind without using the phrase "color word" and without changing it's existing functionality?



If I were to change the text on Sleight of Mind so it only changes one color to one other color it would state:

Change the text of target permanent or spell by replacing all written occurences of one color with another. (For example, you may change "nongreen creature" to "nonred creature." If this spell targets a permanent, play it as an instant.)


Simple enough as I see it.


***Additional note***
Personally, I would rather not see this card changed as it has a very rare ability. If the functionality however would change due to a change in the comprehensive rules I wouldn't mind.

Well, this has been a lovely chat, but when it comes to the point where you claim that "colorless" "monocolored" and "multicolored" are not about quantities, despite them being explicitly defined that way in the rulebook, i really see no point in continuing. I will not be posting further in this thread.

quantity [ˈkwɒntɪtɪ]n pl -ties1.
a.  a specified or definite amount

105.2a A monocolored object is exactly one of the five colors.

105.2b A multicolored object is two or more of the five colors.

105.2c A colorless object has no color.


Well, this has been a lovely chat, but when it comes to the point where you claim that "colorless" "monocolored" and "multicolored" are not about quantities, despite them being explicitly defined that way in the rulebook, i really see no point in continuing. I will not be posting further in this thread.

quantity [ˈkwɒntɪtɪ]n pl -ties1.
a.  a specified or definite amount

105.2a A monocolored object is exactly one of the five colors.

105.2b A multicolored object is two or more of the five colors.

105.2c A colorless object has no color.




Then I was wrong about that particular part. I don't see how this cancels out my entire point though. So these words describe the quantity of color, a word describing the quantity of color present in/on a card can still be a color word, I already said:
It can state whether one of the colors is present, which one of the colors is present, whether more than one of the colors is present and whether none of the colors are present.



If you really are to not post again in this thread just because I made ONE error (and not even an error that would change the point I'm trying to make in the end) in a discussion covering 3 pages now, that's just because you now see you can not prove me wrong and you have an excuse to leave the discussion entirely.

I had thought more of you.
Cyphern isn't leaving this thread because of an error...he is leaving because there isn't a point to this thread.

This forums is to discuss how the current rulings are....not why the wording isn't "correct" to a select few players. If you want to be picky about wording and not accept the ruling as it is, go to the Rules Theory and Templating forums.
DCI Level 1 Judge Katy, Texas

Click here, make a thread, state your problem, and disscuss.

This forum isn't for disscussing the rules, it's to answerer them.

… and then, the squirrels came.

Change the text of target permanent or spell by replacing all written occurences of one color with another. (For example, you may change "nongreen creature" to "nonred creature." If this spell targets a permanent, play it as an instant.)



Writing it this way would allow you to use Sleight of Mind to change the payment required by Quenchable Fire to avoid the second burn. Since is in the text of the spell, and is an occurence of the color (although it is not a word).

1. I do not question the rules, if it's a rule I accept it as is
2. I do not think a current rule should be changed
3. All I want is to know, with 100% certainty, whether Sleight of Mind can be interpreted as I interpret it or not, according to the current rules.

That is what this forum is for, is it not?



@ forty2j: It is an occurance, yes, however it is not written.
1. I do not question the rules, if it's a rule I accept it as is
3. All I want is to know, with 100% certainty, whether Sleight of Mind can be interpreted as I interpret it or not, according to the current rules.



cyphern answerered 1&3 on the second post of this thread.


I have been told every time I spoke to someone about this a "color word" can only target colors, and I understand the logic behind this.
I however completely disagree and can not find anything in the rules to prove me wrong, nor could anybody else ('but that's just not how it works.') I hope everyone can imagine that is not a satisfying answer for me.

Here is the rule:
105. Colors

105.1. There are five colors in the _Magic_ game: white, blue, black, red, and green.

105.4. If a player is asked to choose a color, he or she must choose one of the five colors. "Multicolored" is not a color. Neither is "colorless."



^ These are the rules of the game.
… and then, the squirrels came.
I know about that rule, it's about a chosen color not a color word.

Go  get 'm Max !!!Laughing
Out of the whole thread, the thing that jumps out at me is this...
The text of Mind Bend is illuminating:

Change the text of target permanent by replacing all instances of one color word with another or one basic land type with another. (For example, you may change "nonblack creature" to "nongreen creature" or "forestwalk" to "islandwalk." This effect lasts indefinitely.)

Weird, huh? The word "forestwalk" is not a "basic land type" - it's actually the name of an ability, which just happens to contain a basic land type. And yet we're told Mind Bend can change it. That is to say, if part of a word is a basic land type, Mind Bend can change that part of that word.

Interesting.

Mind Bend can change part of a word that isn't hyphenated.

Does that mean that Mind Bend could, as an example, change the text of Credit Voucher from "Sacrifice Credit Voucher:..." to "Sacrifice Cislandit Voucher:..."?

I know it doesn't seem to make much sense.  And I can't really think of a reason I would want to do it.  But... could I?

I'm just a Pigment of your imagination.
3. All I want is to know, with 100% certainty, whether Sleight of Mind can be interpreted as I interpret it or not, according to the current rules.


It is 100% certain that your interpretation is not the way Sleight of Mind works.  If you want to argue that it should be able to be interpreted this way, that's one thing, but the card does not allow you to choose "colorless".  Period.
Mind Bend can change part of a word that isn't hyphenated.

Does that mean that Mind Bend could, as an example, change the text of Credit Voucher from "Sacrifice Credit Voucher:..." to "Sacrifice Cislandit Voucher:..."?

I know it doesn't seem to make much sense.  And I can't really think of a reason I would want to do it.  But... could I?


No, you couldn't, for two reasons:
(1) You can change words only when they're used for their color meaning or basic land type meaning.  Thus, you can't Mind Bend "Black Vise" to "Blue Vise" or "Island Fish Jasconius" to "Forest Fish Jasconius".
612.2. A text-changing effect changes only those words that are used in the correct way (for example, a Magic color word being used as a color word, a land type word used as a land type, or a creature type word used as a creature type). An effect that changes a color word or a subtype can't change a card name, even if that name contains a word or a series of letters that is the same as a Magic color word, basic land type, or creature type.


(2) Even if you could, "red" is a color and "island" is a basic land type - you'd have to go for "Cblueit Voucher".

No:

612.2. A text-changing effect changes only those words that are used in the correct way (for example, a Magic color word being used as a color word, a land type word used as a land type, or a creature type word used as a creature type). An effect that changes a color word or a subtype can't change a card name, even if that name contains a word or a series of letters that is the same as a Magic color word, basic land type, or creature type.



While forestwalk is the name of the ability, that ability has the form [type]walk, so the forest part of it is still referring to the basic land type.

(Also, in your example, you're trying to change a color word to a basic land type.)

Again, it is assumed that you, as a player, are capable to figuring out when "Island" is used to refer to a name, vs. when it's used to refer to an island type.

Much like for years we've been able to figure out the two diffrent "plays" or "counters".

So the card looks for basic land type words. The game knows when it's using a word for what purpose. So i don't understand what you're arguing here.

Again, this falls under the "don't be an idiot" rule. You should know when a word is being used as part of a name vs. when it's being used to refer to something else.

… and then, the squirrels came.

Change the text of target spell or permanent by replacing all instances of one color word with another.


Q: What is changing on the target spell or permanent?
A: The text.

Q: Which text is changing?
A: One word for another word.

Q: Which word is changing?
A: A word that represents a particular colour. eg. the word blue for the word black.

Q: Isn't the word "word" redundant? Couldn't they have used "color" by itself?
A: Yes, but it isn't the colour of the spell that's changing, it is the word that is changing. It's there to make it clear that only the word is changing, not the color.

Anything more than that about "color word" is overthinking it.

DCI Certified Judge & Goth/Industrial/EBM/Indie/Alternative/80's-Wave DJ
DJ Vortex

DCI Certified Judge since July 13, 2013
DCI #5209514320


My Wife's Makeup Artist Page <-- cool stuff - check it out

3. All I want is to know, with 100% certainty, whether Sleight of Mind can be interpreted as I interpret it or not, according to the current rules.


It is 100% certain that your interpretation is not the way Sleight of Mind works.  If you want to argue that it should be able to be interpreted this way, that's one thing, but the card does not allow you to choose "colorless".  Period.


"not the way it works" blah blah. That argument is getting pretty old since I already gave it in my first post. That's like saying beer is not a drink because nobody drinks it and nobody drinks it because it's not a drink, and it's not a drink because it's beer. I hope you see how this endless circle does not make a good argument?

What I am trying to argue here is that the card allows just that, following the rules as they are now. I still have not seen anyone making a good case against this other than "a color word can only be a color" which is nonsense as well because that is not defined anywhere.



Change the text of target spell or permanent by replacing all instances of one color word with another.


Q: What is changing on the target spell or permanent?
A: The text.

Q: Which text is changing?
A: One word for another word.

Q: Which word is changing?
A: A word that represents a particular colour. eg. the word blue for the word black.

Q: Isn't the word "word" redundant? Couldn't they have used "color" by itself?
A: Yes, but it isn't the colour of the spell that's changing, it is the word that is changing. It's there to make it clear that only the word is changing, not the color.

Anything more than that about "color word" is overthinking it.



Now if that were only in the rules...

And I don't see it as overthinking, this was the first thing that came up to me as I saw the card for the first time. It's more logical when you stop and think about it... Look!

Q: Is nongreen a color word according to this card?

A: Yes

Q: Is nongreen anywhere else stated to not be a color word?
A: No

Q: Is green a color word?
A: Yes

Q: Does nongreen encompass all colors other than green and colorless?
A: Yes

Q: Can all other colors be color words?
A: Yes

Q: So colorless is a color word as well?
A: Errrr, no, because, well it's not a color!

Q: Is nongreen a color?
A: No, but it has "green" in it, which is a color!


...wtf. I don't think anybody here is able to explain to me how that is more logical than what I'm saying, and YES, I do know about the definition of color in the rules, it does not apply.
Colorless isn't a color. It says so in the first part of the rules. the colors are white, blue, black, red, and green.

Your logic is that if words are used in a similar manner, they must be interchangable. They're not.

The rules don't need to clarify this because it doesn't need clarification. Multicolored and Colorless are not colors so how can they be color words?

* Also Nongreen isn't a color word... the green in nongreen is. THat's why you replace the green part and keep the non.
… and then, the squirrels came.
I think that 2goth4U found the key of the problem



Q: Isn't the word "word" redundant? Couldn't they have used "color" by itself?

A: Yes, but it isn't the colour of the spell that's changing, it is the word that is changing. It's there to make it clear that only the word is changing, not the color.



Think for a moment that the spell just read color instead of color word, then you could argue about the possibility to change the colour of the spell or permanent and not just the text, which surely was the original idea of the card. So, color word means just: "the part of the text in which you could find a colour", and then nongreen is not a color word, just the green part of that word, and so on.


 

Sign In to post comments