903.4. The Commander variant uses color identity to determine what cards can be in a deck with a certain commander. The color identity of a card is the color or colors of any mana symbols in that card’s mana cost or rules text, plus any colors defined by its characteristic-defining abilities (see rule 604.3) or color indicator (see rule 204).
903.4b Reminder text is ignored when determining a card’s color identity. See rule 207.2.
Yes.903.4. The Commander variant uses color identity to determine what cards can be in a deck with a certain commander. The color identity of a card is the color or colors of any mana symbols in that card’s mana cost or rules text, plus any col
If they spelled the ability out on the card in full then it would not be allowed in a mono-black Commander deck, but because they used a keyword to save space it is allowed?
~ Tim
That makes no sense to me.If they spelled the ability out on the card in full then it would not be allowed in a mono-black Commander deck, but because they used a keyword to save space it is allowed?~ Tim
That's how the rules are currently. Maybe they'll change them with the release of Gatecrash, as I don't know of any other keyword ability that has a colored symbol.
That's how the rules are currently. Maybe they'll change them with the release of Gatecrash, as I don't know of any other keyword ability that has a colored symbol.
So we are saying that even though the rules text of the keyword ability contains a mana symbol, and the card has that ability, the card does not have the rules text of that ability?
That seems like trying to say that the equip ability doesn't target because the text on the card doesn't say it does.
So we are saying that even though the rules text of the keyword ability contains a mana symbol, and the card has that ability, the card does not have the rules text of that ability?That seems like trying to say that the equip ability doesn't target b
So we are saying that even though the rules text of the keyword ability contains a mana symbol, and the card has that ability, the card does not have the rules text of that ability?
Yes, in much the same way that Mind Bend can't change what Fear does. Keywords can and do remove text from a card.
That seems like trying to say that the equip ability doesn't target because the text on the card doesn't say it does.
The ability still targets, but the card doesn't have the word "target" in its rules text.
Yes, in much the same way that Mind Bend can't change what Fear does. Keywords can and do remove text from a card.The ability still targets, but the card doesn't have the word "t
903.4b Reminder text is ignored when determining a card’s color identity. See rule 207.2.
Yes, but "Extort" can't be ignored. At this moment, Keyword Abilities (as opposed to Keyword Actions) are fully replaceable with the text they are defined to "mean"*, so I forsee a rule clarifying that the text of keyword abilities counts towards the card's text for EDH's color identity. We'll have to wait and see to be sure, though.
* — Nothing says "Whenever a player {keyword ability}s, ..." or "If a player were to {keyword ability}, he ... instead."
Yes, but "Extort" can't be ignored. At this moment, Keyword Abilities (as opposed to Keyword Actions) are fully replaceable with the text they are defined to "mean"*, so I forsee a rule clarifying that the text of keyword abilities counts towards th
And cyphern mentioned the functional change brought by "fear".
Extort cards aren't the only cards that bring up this issue: Charmed Pendant can go in any EDH deck. Eye of Ramos can only go in blue EDH decks.And cyphern mentioned the functional
Those two are very different than Extort, and very easily answered.
Charmed Pendant's symbols are found in reminder text [CR 207.2a], which has "no game function" [CR 207.2].
The mana symbol appears twice in Eye of Ramos's text, so I have no idea why it was brought up.
Those two are very different than Extort, and very easily answered.Charmed Pendant's symbols are found in reminder text [CR 207.2a], which has "no game function" [CR 207.2].The mana symbol appears twice in Eye of Ramos's text, so I have no idea why
903.4b Reminder text is ignored when determining a card’s color identity. See rule 207.2.
Yes, but "Extort" can't be ignored. At this moment, Keyword Abilities (as opposed to Keyword Actions) are fully replaceable with the text they are defined to "mean"*, so I forsee a rule clarifying that the text of keyword abilities counts towards the card's text for EDH's color identity. We'll have to wait and see to be sure, though.
* — Nothing says "Whenever a player {keyword ability}s, ..." or "If a player were to {keyword ability}, he ... instead."
This isn't right. If something has a keyword ability in its rules text, that means it has that keyword ability. It doesn't instead or also have the spelled-out equivalent.
In several cases, the keyword isn't just a replacement for a spelled-out ability. First strike and haste, for example, don't have a spelled-out equivalent.
For other keywords, there is a text that the keyword "means", but there are also additional rules to modify the behavior. For example, miracle has a rule saying how long the card stays revealed.
And there are many cases where having a specific keyword matters. Chub Toad 's ability is exactly identical to bushido, but it won't get a boost from Takeno, Samurai General , even if it's somehow a Samurai. And if those Samurai instead had their spelled-out equivalent to bushido, they wouldn't get the bonus, either.
Also, Saproling Infestation does say "Whenever a player kicks a spell" (which only works when you cast a spell with its additional cost represented by the kicker keyword ability). There are also the terms devoured , prowl cost , and equip abilities . None of those would make sense if the cards had the spelled-out equivalents rather than the actual keywords.
Yes, but "Extort" can't be ignored. At this moment, Keyword Abilities (as opposed to Keyword Actions) are fully replaceable with the text they are defined to "mean"*, so I forsee a rule clarifying that the text of keyword abilities counts towards th
The mana symbol appears twice in Eye of Ramos's text, so I have no idea why it was brought up.
Eye of Ramos was printed with the word "blue" in its text. It was errata'd to the mana symbol. It's another example to display an oddity that already exists with the color identity rules.
That same logic applies to extort.Eye of Ramos was printed with the word "blue" in its text. It was errata'd to the mana symbol. It's another example to display an oddity that already exists with the color identity rules.
In several cases, the keyword isn't just a replacement for a spelled-out ability. First strike and haste, for example, don't have a spelled-out equivalent.
For other keywords, there is a text that the keyword "means", but there are also additional rules to modify the behavior. For example, miracle has a rule saying how long the card stays revealed.
And there are many cases where having a specific keyword matters. Chub Toad 's ability is exactly identical to bushido, but it won't get a boost from Takeno, Samurai General
Ok, now you've found something that contradicts what I said. Thanks, I've been hunting for one.
So? That doesn't contradict what I said.muh. Unimpressed.Ok, now you've found something that contradicts what I said. Thanks, I've been hunting for one.
The mana symbol appears twice in Eye of Ramos's text, so I have no idea why it was brought up.
Eye of Ramos was printed with the word "blue" in its text. It was errata'd to the mana symbol. It's another example to display an oddity that already exists with the color identity rules.
No, it's not. Identity looks at the card's text, not the text printed on the card. In fact, nothing in MTG looks at the text printed on the card. Nothing exceptional about Eye of Ramos.
That same logic applies to extort.[/quote]That's completely false. It's even an outright lie, I dare say. Both Extort and the rules for Extort have a game function, and you know it.Eye of Ramos was printed with the word "blue" in its text. It was err
No one is claiming that extort has no game function.
KyCygni did. He said the same logic that concluded the text that contained the symbol had no game function applied to Extort. Said text is the rules, and the rules do have a game function.
It's the reminder text of extort that has no game function.
The reminder text of Crypt Ghast, you mean. We know the reminder text of cards doesn't matter. We're talking about whether Extort's symbol matters.
Saying it doesn't matter because it doesn't matter for Charmed Pendant is an invalid argument. The situation is quite different.
KyCygni did. He said the same logic that concluded the text that contained the symbol had no game function applied to Extort. Said text is the rules, and the rules do have a game function.The reminder text of Crypt Ghast, you mean. We know the remind
That's completely false. It's even an outright lie, I dare say. Both Extort and the rules for Extort have a game function, and you know it.
We're not talking about the rules text for Extort, we're talking about the reminder text in the card's text box.
Like all other italicised text in a card's text box - flavour text and ability words - reminder text has no rules meaning whatsoever.
207.2. The text box may also contain italicized text that has no game function.
207.2a Reminder text is italicized text within parentheses that summarizes a rule that applies to that card. It usually appears on the same line as the ability it’s relevant to, but it may appear on its own line if it applies to an aspect of the card other than an ability.
207.2b Flavor text is italicized text that, like the illustration, adds artistic appeal to the game. It appears below the rules text. 207.2c An ability word appears in italics at the beginning of some abilities. Ability words are similar to keywords in that they tie together cards that have similar functionality, but they have no special rules meaning and no individual entries in the Comprehensive Rules. The ability words are channel, chroma, domain, fateful hour, grandeur, hellbent, imprint, join forces, kinship, landfall, metalcraft, morbid, radiance, sweep, and threshold.
The fact is that, ath the moment, the card's rules text is considered to be the keyword, and not the CR definition attached to that keyword. This is why you can't Mind Bend the colour word on Fear - because it doesn't have one.
Finally, we don't have the CR definition of Extort yet, so we can't be sure whether the mana symbol appears in the rules definition of Extort.
We're not talking about the rules text for Extort, we're talking about the reminder text in the card's text box.Like all other italicised text in a card's text box - flavour text and ability words - reminder text has no rules meaning whatsoever.The f
Interestingly, Reach is a keyword with a function but with no rules meaning (they define it anyway, but they don't have to), while Flying and Pseudoflying have identical rules text but are functionally different.
Interestingly, Reach is a keyword with a function but with no rules meaning (they define it anyway, but they don't have to), while Flying and Pseudoflying have identical rules text but are functionally different.
That's completely false. It's even an outright lie, I dare say. Both Extort and the rules for Extort have a game function, and you know it.
We're not talking about the rules text for Extort, we're talking about the reminder text in the card's text box.
So for the third time, that's not true; there are issues with Crypt Ghast not present in Charmed Pendant. Now, did you actually want to add anything to the discussion?
Finally, we don't have the CR definition of Extort yet, so we can't be sure whether the mana symbol appears in the rules definition of Extort.
Poppycock. The symbol will necessarilly appear in the definition. Furthermore, not knowing the rule is irrelevant. We can discuss the consequences of the presense of the symbol in the rule whether it actually apears there or not.
I know. I said as much earlier.We're not talking about the rules text for Extort, we're talking about the reminder text in the card's text box.[/quote]So for the third time, that's not true; there are issues with Crypt Ghast not present in Charmed Pe
EDIT: wow, ikegami, you edited your post about a half dozen times so far. I am responding to the part where you said reminder text has no effect.
Excellent we all agree that reminder text doesn't matter. Therefore, crypt ghast's color identity is black and only black (which is what the EDH rules council said too).
I think that about covers it, unless we want to discuss whether the rules should be changed.
EDIT: wow, ikegami, you edited your post about a half dozen times so far. I am responding to the part where you said reminder text has no effect.Excellent we all agree that reminder text doesn't matter. Therefore, crypt ghast's color identity is blac
Excellent we all agree that reminder text doesn't matter. Therefore, crypt ghast's color identity is black and only black (which is what the EDH rules council said too).
Not at all. As I said before, it completely depends on whether there's a rule added that considers Extort's definitons's symbol or not. (yay, back to where we were in post #8!)
Not at all. As I said before, it completely depends on whether there's a rule added that considers Extort's definitons's symbol or not. (yay, back to where we were in post #8!)
Not at all. As I said before, it completely depends on whether there's a rule added that considers Extort's definitons's symbol or not.
We know of no such rule, and the EDH rules council, which has been advising Matt Tabak, also knows of no such rule.
Would you like to discuss whether it's a good idea to add such a rule?
We know of no such rule, and the EDH rules council, which has been advising Matt Tabak, also knows of no such rule.Would you like to discuss whether it's a good idea to add such a rule?
Not at all. As I said before, it completely depends on whether there's a rule added that considers Extort's definitons's symbol or not.
We know of no such rule, and the EDH rules council, which has been advising Matt Tabak, also knows of no such rule.
Would you like to discuss whether it's a good idea to add such a rule?
If you do want to discuss rules changes, please start a thread in RT&T. I think the current discussion has gone beyond RQ&A, and we already have the answer to the question that started the thread.
We know of no such rule, and the EDH rules council, which has been advising Matt Tabak, also knows of no such rule.Would you like to discuss whether it's a good idea to add such a rule?[/quote]If you do want to discuss rules changes, please start a t
You mean "We don't know there will be such a rule", which is as true as "We don't know that there won't be one."
I do think it less likely than when I thought there was no precedent for Keyword Abilities being different than the abilities they represent (when they represent abilities).
Would you like to discuss whether it's a good idea to add such a rule?
Not really. Rule theory is for another forum, but I won't complain if you state your opinion.
You mean "We don't know there will be such a rule", which is as true as "We don't know that there won't be one."I do think it less likely than when I thought there was no precedent for Keyword Abilities being different than the abilities they represe
If they spelled the ability out on the card in full then it would not be allowed in a mono-black Commander deck, but because they used a keyword to save space it is allowed?
903.4b Reminder text is ignored when determining a card’s color identity. See rule 207.2.
Yes, but "Extort" can't be ignored. At this moment, Keyword Abilities (as opposed to Keyword Actions) are fully replaceable with the text they are defined to "mean"*, so I forsee a rule clarifying that the text of keyword abilities counts towards the card's text for EDH's color identity. We'll have to wait and see to be sure, though.
* — Nothing says "Whenever a player {keyword ability}s, ..." or "If a player were to {keyword ability}, he ... instead."
This isn't right. If something has a keyword ability in its rules text, that means it has that keyword ability. It doesn't instead or also have the spelled-out equivalent.
In several cases, the keyword isn't just a replacement for a spelled-out ability. First strike and haste, for example, don't have a spelled-out equivalent.
For other keywords, there is a text that the keyword "means", but there are also additional rules to modify the behavior. For example, miracle has a rule saying how long the card stays revealed.
And there are many cases where having a specific keyword matters. Chub Toad 's ability is exactly identical to bushido, but it won't get a boost from Takeno, Samurai General , even if it's somehow a Samurai. And if those Samurai instead had their spelled-out equivalent to bushido, they wouldn't get the bonus, either.
Also, Saproling Infestation does say "Whenever a player kicks a spell" (which only works when you cast a spell with its additional cost represented by the kicker keyword ability). There are also the terms devoured , prowl cost , and equip abilities . None of those would make sense if the cards had the spelled-out equivalents rather than the actual keywords.
You're splitting hairs. Those additional abilities refer to actions taken, or triggers, not to keywords. They don't mention keywords 'cause they don't need to. The term "kicked," however, is clarified in as rule, and reads as a simplification of "whenever a players pays the kicker cost(s) of a spell," which is a perfectly legitimate and effective way to write the ability. Indeed, action words like "kicked" and such are designed for the mere purpose of shortening triggers, but they "mean" the full text as written in the Rules.
First strike, and trample, and haste, "mean" what their reminder text says. The reason reminder text doesn't qualify for identity just so happens to be for cards that have "examples" written in them. Extort is the first keyword that has a mana-color specific trigger, and this should force a rules clarification on what a keyword ACTUALLY means.
702.1. Most abilities describe exactly what they do in the card’s rules text. Some, though, are very common or would require too much space to define on the card. In these cases, the object lists only the name of the ability as a “keyword”; sometimes reminder text summarizes the game rule.
e.g.,
702.8a Flash is a static ability that functions in any zone from which you could play the card it’s on. “Flash” means “You may play this card any time you could cast an instant.”
If Flash had a color word in it, or a color mana symbol, it would be read as though the word is shorthand for the full ability, and the full ability would be referred to for specificity. This is precisely the situation that occurs with Progenitus 's "Protection from everything":
702.15i “Protection from everything” is a variant of the protection ability. A permanent with protection from everything has protection from each object regardless of that object’s characteristic values. Such a permanent can’t be targeted by spells or abilities, enchanted by Auras, equipped by Equipment, fortified by Fortifications, or blocked by creatures, and all damage that would be dealt to it is prevented.
A double-nested example, to be sure, as "Protection" is a keyword that refers to a restriction of a subset of actions that cannot be used, while "from everything" doesn't qualify for the keyword's typical structure. "Protection from everything" cannot be broken down to mean any specific quality, it means "[CARDNAME] can’t be targeted by spells or abilities, enchanted by Auras, equipped by Equipment, fortified by Fortifications, or blocked by creatures, and all damage that would be dealt to it is prevented."
Edit:
Birds of Paradise and Command Tower both work in monogreen decks because "any color of mana" doesn't run afoul of the CI rules, which clarifies "The color identity of a card is the color or colors of any mana symbols in that card’s mana cost or rules text." The rules text, which ultimately points back to the document in hand, doesn't see a colored mana symbol or color word.
Yes, but "Extort" can't be ignored. At this moment, Keyword Abilities (as opposed to Keyword Actions) are fully replaceable with the text they are defined to "mean"*, so I forsee a rule clarifying that the text of keyword abilities counts towards th
Let me adjust my argument a tad (though I take the Mind Bend /Fear issue directly). This wording for extort wouldn't normally seem permittable, largely due to the unbroken rule of not placing costs in reminder text not in their rules texts.
There is no effective difference between
Extort (Whenever you cast a spell, you may pay {cost}. If you do, each opponent loses 1 life and you gain that much life.)
and
Extort (Whenever you cast a spell, you may pay . If you do, each opponent loses 1 life and you gain that much life.)
Except in the former, color identity restricts it; in the latter, no such case. This may have derived from MaRo's public desire for hybrid to be playble in any deck than can cast the card, regardless of its colors. Indeed, it seems to be a dodge around the CI rules WotC accepted when they started supporting the rules for EDH as "Commander," and MaRo, lead designer for Gatecrash during the time when the Orzhov keyword was developed, seems to have gotten his way.
Let me adjust my argument a tad (though I take the Mind Bend /Fear issue directly). This wording for extort wouldn't normally seem permittable, largely due to the unbroken rule of not placing costs in reminder text
If they spelled the ability out on the card in full then it would not be allowed in a mono-black Commander deck, but because they used a keyword to save space it is allowed?
Aww you used my favourite example as well. Sigged.
~ Tim
Yup, just like you can have Birds of paradise in a mono green deck but not Noble Hierarch . YAY COLOR IDENTITY :panic:[/quote]Aww you used my favourite example as well. Sigged. :a
Its not that the Hierarch being disallowed that doesnt make sense, what makes no sense is that BoP is allowed when the Hierarch isnt (even though it may as well say ": add , , , or to your mana pool").
~ Tim
Quenchable Fire is also an excellent example. Its not that the Hierarch being disallowed that doesnt make sense, what makes no sense is that BoP is allowed when the Hierarch isnt (even though it may as well say ": add , , , or to your mana pool").
