Community

May 20, 2010 -- 7:36AM, Erluti wrote:

Spoiler: 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.

Spoiler: 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

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:
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.

May 20, 2010 -- 12:08PM, hqql wrote:

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.