I'm a bit embarrassed to ask this now, but I'm a bit confused on the aspect of calling a deck mono-colored. For example, say I have a "mono-white" deck constructed of only White cards and Colorless cards. At the same time, I have Vault of the Archangel in it, and lands like Isolated Chapel but no swamps. Does this deck still count as mono-white?
Please and thanks in advance.
I'm a bit embarrassed to ask this now, but I'm a bit confused on the aspect of calling a deck mono-colored. For example, say I have a "mono-white" deck constructed of only White cards and Colorless cards. At the same time, I have Vault of the Arc
I'm a bit embarrassed to ask this now, but I'm a bit confused on the aspect of calling a deck mono-colored. For example, say I have a "mono-white" deck constructed of only White cards and Colorless cards. At the same time, I have Vault of the Archangel in it, and lands like Isolated Chapel but no swamps. Does this deck still count as mono-white?
Please and thanks in advance.
The only time someone might care is if you were playing the commander format. It does count as a mono-white deck though. Really the deckbuilder can define it. For example some deckbuilders were using gitaxian probe , gut shot , and other phyrexian mana spells they could cast by paying the colored mana. They called it 5 color even though they only could produce 3 colors of mana.
Deckbuilder's decision on what to call it IMO.
The only time someone might care is if you were playing the commander format. It does count as a mono-white deck though. Really the deckbuilder can define it. For example some deckbuilders were using gitaxian probe
I feel like mono-color is a designation that should be given to decks that only intend to use cards and abilities of one color and/or only produce mana of one color. My Merfolk deck is mono-blue but I have Dismember and Leyline of the void in the sideboard. These are black cards but I have no black mana sources, so it's really not even a splashing sort of situation. The majority of the time these cards may as well be blue because I never intend to use black mana to cast them.
I feel like mono-color is a designation that should be given to decks that only intend to use cards and abilities of one color and/or only produce mana of one color. My Merfolk deck is mono-blue but I have Dismember
In my opinion, a deck's color/colors is the mana it produces. Thus, a deck that makes black mana for Vault of the Archangel is splashing black, even though it is not playing black cards. On the other hand, a BR zombie pod deck with no green sources is not a green deck, even if Birthing Pod is a green card. Things get more complicated with cards like Birds of Paradise , as one may have the capability to create a cortain type of mana, even if that option is rarely used. On the whole, I believe mana production determines the color of a deck.
In my opinion, a deck's color/colors is the mana it produces. Thus, a deck that makes black mana for Vault of the Archangel is splashing black, even though it is not playing black cards. On the other hand, a BR zom
His deck is splash-black because it includes an card effect he plans to use that requires black mana (a card he would not include if not for that effect), and lands whose only benefit relative to his maincolor basic is the added production of Black.
Yes, Marisi's Twinclaws' EDH color identity includes red. But it doesn't follow that your deck is red for the same reason his is black. Every card in your deck can do exactly what it is planned to do without you ever drawing or spending a red mana. That is not true of his deck and black - there are cards deliberately included to produce black mana and a card deliberately included to use it. That makes it a splash black.
That logic, of course, means that my Doran, the Siege Tower deck from Lorwyn-Alara Standard is red .[/quote]I do not think that follows.His deck is splash-black because it include
If a deck that doesn't produce or use Red mana is Red because Marisi's Twinclaws could have been paid for using Red mana, does that mean every deck that uses generic mana is a five-colour deck?
If a deck that doesn't produce or use Red mana is Red because Marisi's Twinclaws could have been paid for using Red mana, does that mean every deck that uses generic mana is a five-colour deck?
Here's the rule for labels: give the [deck/card/strategy/whatever] a label if doing so makes it clear what the deck is doing. The entire purpose of deck names is to tell people what you're playing. In the OP's example, calling that deck mono-white would be perfectly fine, as it's basically what it is. You could also say "mono-white with Vault" or similar.
Here's the rule for labels: give the [deck/card/strategy/whatever] a label if doing so makes it clear what the deck is doing. The entire purpose of deck names is to tell people what you're playing. In the OP's example, calling that deck mono-white wo
The entire purpose of deck names is to tell people what you're playing. In the OP's example, calling that deck mono-white would be perfectly fine, as it's basically what it is.
If you tell someone you're playing mono-white, and then you play them and you drop an Isolated Chapel on the board, they're going to think you're a liar, an imbecile, or both.
If you tell someone you're playing mono-white, and then you play them and you drop an Isolated Chapel on the board, they're going to think you're a liar, an imbecile, or both.
Instead of calling it a 'mono-white' deck, why not just call it a 'white' deck? 'Mono' as a prefix does seem to imply 'one and only one'. I certainly wouldnt call it a 'white and black' deck, that would seem odd since there arent actually any black cards in it.
In the end though its just semantics. As long as the description is useful, its a good enough description. For example if you were to call it a 'black' deck that obviously wouldnt be useful.
Instead of calling it a 'mono-white' deck, why not just call it a 'white' deck? 'Mono' as a prefix does seem to imply 'one and only one'. I certainly wouldnt call it a 'white and black' deck, that would seem odd since there arent actually any black
If a deck that doesn't produce or use Red mana is Red because Marisi's Twinclaws could have been paid for using Red mana, does that mean every deck that uses generic mana is a five-colour deck?
And now you know why the color identity rules make no sense. Congratulation!
And now you know why the color identity rules make no sense. Congratulation!
If a deck that doesn't produce or use Red mana is Red because Marisi's Twinclaws could have been paid for using Red mana, does that mean every deck that uses generic mana is a five-colour deck?
And now you know why the color identity rules make no sense. Congratulation!
They make sense. Marisi's Twinclaws has ties with red mana. If your commander does not have ties with red mana, then he/she/it will reject it.
And now you know why the color identity rules make no sense. Congratulation![/quote]They make sense.Marisi's Twinclaws has ties with red mana. If your commander does not have ties with red mana, then he/she/it will reject it.
If a deck that doesn't produce or use Red mana is Red because Marisi's Twinclaws could have been paid for using Red mana, does that mean every deck that uses generic mana is a five-colour deck?
And now you know why the color identity rules make no sense. Congratulation!
They make sense. Marisi's Twinclaws has ties with red mana. If your commander does not have ties with red mana, then he/she/it will reject it.
True, but is there any difference between and , other than that one can't be paid with three colors of (or colorless) mana? That's what I meant.
The same problem occurs on the flip side of the mana equation. How is ": Add one mana of any color to your mana pool." different from ": Add , , , , or to your mana pool."?
And now you know why the color identity rules make no sense. Congratulation![/quote]They make sense.Marisi's Twinclaws has ties with red mana. If your commander does not have ties with red mana, then he/she/it will reject it.[/quote]True, but is ther
If a deck that doesn't produce or use Red mana is Red because Marisi's Twinclaws could have been paid for using Red mana, does that mean every deck that uses generic mana is a five-colour deck?
And now you know why the color identity rules make no sense. Congratulation!
They make sense. Marisi's Twinclaws has ties with red mana. If your commander does not have ties with red mana, then he/she/it will reject it.
And now you know why the color identity rules make no sense. Congratulation![/quote]They make sense.Marisi's Twinclaws has ties with red mana. If your commander does not have ties with red mana, then he/she/it will reject it.[/quote]explain why Q
If a deck that doesn't produce or use Red mana is Red because Marisi's Twinclaws could have been paid for using Red mana, does that mean every deck that uses generic mana is a five-colour deck?
And now you know why the color identity rules make no sense. Congratulation!
They make sense. Marisi's Twinclaws has ties with red mana. If your commander does not have ties with red mana, then he/she/it will reject it.
And now you know why the color identity rules make no sense. Congratulation![/quote]They make sense.Marisi's Twinclaws has ties with red mana. If your commander does not have ties with red mana, then he/she/it will reject it.[/quote]explain why Q
Those two examples just happen to get hit by the current rule. In the majority of cases, the current rule makes sense. The only exceptions I can think of are things that have the opponents pay mana (though adding multiple colors is kinda dumb as well).
Those two examples just happen to get hit by the current rule.In the majority of cases, the current rule makes sense. The only exceptions I can think of are things that have the opponents pay mana (though adding multiple colors is kinda dumb as well)
A much simpler and cleaner rule would be that the only colors of mana you can produce are those of your general. That way, I could include Mirrorweave in a mono-blue deck, but it would be useless to add Plains to it, since they would tap for colorless mana. More flavor sense, more mechanical sense.
A much simpler and cleaner rule would be that the only colors of mana you can produce are those of your general. That way, I could include Mirrorweave in a mono-blue deck, but it would be useless to add Plains to i
A much simpler and cleaner rule would be that the only colors of mana you can produce are those of your general.
that rule already exists
I mean as the only one
Although Reanimators could cause trouble.
I don't see the problem. It's perfectly falvorful for a black mage to reanimate a white creature.
that rule already exists[/quote]I mean as the only one :-p[/quote]:thumbsup: Although Reanimators could cause trouble.[/quote]I don't see the problem. It's perfectly falvorful for a black mage to reanimate a white creature.
A much simpler and cleaner rule would be that the only colors of mana you can produce are those of your general.
that rule already exists
I mean as the only one
I agree, who can we talk to that would get this rule changed.
Considering even MaRo thinks it would be better but doesn't put any pressure for changing it...
that rule already exists[/quote]I mean as the only one :-p[/quote]I agree, who can we talk to that would get this rule changed.[/quote]Considering even MaRo thinks it would be better but doesn't put any pressure for changing it...
Although Reanimators could cause trouble.
.
