If you missed the point you missed the point. Quenchable fire is a red spell sure, but its the sort of red spell that a die hard red mage is gonna eschew because blue can negate half of it without hardly trying.
If red mages never played spells that could be negated by blue mages, then the list of spells they could play would be very short indeed. If including the option to negate in the spell itself made it less red, then it would have raised complaints when it was first printed. After all, the colour pie is a concept that exists outside commander.
Really? Monoblue gets lots of copy effects and even gets copy effects that reoccur from the graveyard and six cost sorcery speed copy effects that can reoccur multiple times
Quenchable fire is a red spell sure, but its the sort of red spell that a die hard red mage is gonna eschew because blue can negate half of it without hardly trying.
Once again : why in hell would that be true? You just invented that red mages never cast anything that can be negated by blue mages. That doesn't even make sense. A stereotypical die hard red mage would just throw every spell he has access to towards his opponent without thinking about if it'll be effective or not anyway.
That's the flavor argument that goes along with the current rule, which is in its best form currently. Its simple and allows for all legendary creatures to act as commanders (the flip into legends don't count).
How?
You see, it isn't the flavor of the card that matters but the flavor of the format. The rules are meant to enforce the flavor in the most reasonable way possible. Hybrid cards are just too closely related to all colors involved for off color commanders to permit them.
Look. Hybrids were designed by Magic's creators to be playable by both of their colors independantly. That's what they are. You can argue all day long that you believe it's a mistake, but that would be like arguing that Lapse of Certainty (EDIT : changed for the correct card) should be only playable by Commander decks with blue in them because it's a counterspell.
Also, if you don't find it odd for a monoblue deck having one of its spells countered by a flashfreeze I have to question your understanding of the commander format.
If you find it more odd than the same situation happening in any other format, I question your bias.
Once again : why in hell would that be true? You just invented that red mages never cast anything that can be negated by blue mages. That doesn't even make sense. A stereotypical die hard red mage would just throw every spell he has access to towards
Quenchable fire is a red spell sure, but its the sort of red spell that a die hard red mage is gonna eschew because blue can negate half of it without hardly trying.
Once again : why in hell would that be true? You just invented that red mages never cast anything that can be negated by blue mages. That doesn't even make sense. A stereotypical die hard red mage would just throw every spell he has access to towards his opponent without thinking about if it'll be effective or not anyway.
You mischaracterize what I said. I said negated so easily. And its not something I invented, its the flavor of the friggin' commander format.
Heartless Hidetsugu is too die hard red to accept something like Quenchable Fire where the full effect is just bested by a single , where as Niv-Mizzet, Dracogenius can really appreciate the ability to get that extra damage against enemies who are not blue and so thinks quenchable is a fine spell.
Its just a flavor explaination for the current rules, that can be extended to why hybrids are disallowed even though they were designed (as if that actually matters) to be monoplayable.
That's the flavor argument that goes along with the current rule, which is in its best form currently. Its simple and allows for all legendary creatures to act as commanders (the flip into legends don't count).
How?
The previous rule for what could be a commander was based on mana costs only. So someone like Memnarch would be a colorless commander, but couldn't be in his own deck, which just didn't make sense. So the Color Identity rules were formulated. Basically applying the same criteria applied to cards in the deck to the commanders.
You see, it isn't the flavor of the card that matters but the flavor of the format. The rules are meant to enforce the flavor in the most reasonable way possible. Hybrid cards are just too closely related to all colors involved for off color commanders to permit them.
Look. Hybrids were designed by Magic's creators to be playable by both of their colors independantly. That's what they are. You can argue all day long that you believe it's a mistake, but that would be like arguing that Lapse of Certainty (EDIT : changed for the correct card) should be only playable by Commander decks with blue in them because it's a counterspell.
Funny edit... I confuse the two in my head sometimes too.
but I'm not wrong. That is the current state of the rules, and the flavor arguments I put forward hold up against those rules. Your strawman example is laughable.
It isn't the effect, that matters but the spell itself. This is what I was pointing at when I mentioned Wrath and Damnation a few posts back. They are essentially the same spell, but Avacyn looks at Damnation with disgust, but really digs the righteous indignation of Wrath.
Hybrids represent a spell that draws closely from the methodology of the two colors and so is monocastable, but too closely related to the other color for commander not of that color to accept. Seton loves him some Naturalize, but Disenchant is taboo. Sundering Growth is too much like disenchant for him to accept.
Also, if you don't find it odd for a monoblue deck having one of its spells countered by a flashfreeze I have to question your understanding of the commander format.
If you find it more odd than the same situation happening in any other format, I question your bias.
Odd as in, whoa that just happened... sure I would find it odd. I would say funny is more like how I would categorize it... getting your monogreen cast Snakeform countered by a Gutteral Response is hilarious and ironic.
But that same situation would be horribly out of place in a format like commander.
Once again : why in hell would that be true? You just invented that red mages never cast anything that can be negated by blue mages. That doesn't even make sense. A stereotypical die hard red mage would just throw every spell he has access to towards
Heartless Hidetsugu is too die hard red to accept something like Quenchable Fire where the full effect is just bested by a single , where as Niv-Mizzet, Dracogenius can really appreciate the ability to get that extra damage against enemies who are not blue and so thinks quenchable is a fine spell.
Why? Where do you get that? You just invented that. Trying to argue with something you just came up with from nowhere with no hold within the game's flavor is ludicrous.
The previous rule for what could be a commander was based on mana costs only. So someone like Memnarch would be a colorless commander, but couldn't be in his own deck, which just didn't make sense. So the Color Identity rules were formulated. Basically applying the same criteria applied to cards in the deck to the commanders.
The only change was that the color identity of a given Commander counts the symbols in its cost. Before that, Memnarch couldn't be put into his own deck nor be very useful as a Commander. As for even before it was any legendary creature, that was the inception of the format, where it was only the five elder dragons. And the color identity rule was always existent.
Look. Hybrids were designed by Magic's creators to be playable by both of their colors independantly. That's what they are. You can argue all day long that you believe it's a mistake, but that would be like arguing that Lapse of Certainty (EDIT : changed for the correct card) should be only playable by Commander decks with blue in them because it's a counterspell.
Funny edit... I confuse the two in my head sometimes too.
but I'm not wrong. That is the current state of the rules, and the flavor arguments I put forward hold up against those rules. Your strawman example is laughable.
It isn't the effect, that matters but the spell itself. This is what I was pointing at when I mentioned Wrath and Damnation a few posts back. They are essentially the same spell, but Avacyn looks at Damnation with disgust, but really digs the righteous indignation of Wrath.
Hybrids represent a spell that draws closely from the methodology of the two colors and so is monocastable, but too closely related to the other color for commander not of that color to accept. Seton loves him some Naturalize, but Disenchant is taboo. Sundering Growth is too much like disenchant for him to accept.
That's not a matter of being taboo. It's a matter of not wanting to cast it. Avacyn only uses white mana. Thus, she can't cast Damnation, even if she wanted. You've got it wrong. The flavor behind the color pie is that certain mage only draw from certain types of mana. Jace would cast black, red and green spell all day long if he could. Liliana would get her hands on any magic she could master. However, four colors and closed to them because they only wield their color of mana. Spellcasters are only limited by the color of mana they can generate. Hybrid spells can be cast with either color of mana. The Commander rule is intended to emulate the mana system for your Commander. If you're playing with a mono-blue Commander, you'll only be able to cast the same spells as he (since he's the leader), thus no nonblue spells or, to circumvent using cards that generate off-color mana, spells with any blue mana symbols in the card text. However, the simple fix of only being able to produce mana of your Commander's color would be more elegant, would make more sense and would not produce awkward results.
[Odd as in, whoa that just happened... sure I would find it odd. I would say funny is more like how I would categorize it... getting your monogreen cast Snakeform countered by a Gutteral Response is hilarious and ironic.
But that same situation would be horribly out of place in a format like commander.
Why? Why is that format any different? The flavor of the color pie is the same across all format.
Why? Where do you get that? You just invented that. Trying to argue with something you just came up with from nowhere with no hold within the game's flavor is ludicrous.The only change was that the color identity of a given Commander counts the symbo
Heartless Hidetsugu is too die hard red to accept something like Quenchable Fire where the full effect is just bested by a single , where as Niv-Mizzet, Dracogenius can really appreciate the ability to get that extra damage against enemies who are not blue and so thinks quenchable is a fine spell.
Why? Where do you get that? You just invented that. Trying to argue with something you just came up with from nowhere with no hold within the game's flavor is ludicrous.
it is perfectly within the flavor of the Commander format.
The previous rule for what could be a commander was based on mana costs only. So someone like Memnarch would be a colorless commander, but couldn't be in his own deck, which just didn't make sense. So the Color Identity rules were formulated. Basically applying the same criteria applied to cards in the deck to the commanders.
The only change was that the color identity of a given Commander counts the symbols in its cost. Before that, Memnarch couldn't be put into his own deck nor be very useful as a Commander. As for even before it was any legendary creature, that was the inception of the format, where it was only the five elder dragons. And the color identity rule was always existent.
What? Color identity has not always existed in its current form. I really don't think you know what you're talking about.
I'll say it again. Before the current rules, the color of any given deck was based solely on the colors of a legendary creature's mana cost. There were a number of legends then that could not helm decks for being illegal in them based on their mana cost. Thelon of Havenwood for example. He was a monogreen commander who could not be in his own deck because he had a black mana symbol in his rules text. This method of determining color was at odds with the way legality in a deck was determined for other cards. and that was to look at all colored symbols on the card. So, something like Ethersworn Adjudicator 's legality was determined differently than was, say, Memnarch as a commander. Now all cards are judged based on the same criteria.
That's not a matter of being taboo. It's a matter of not wanting to cast it
semantics. you're not helping yourself. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/taboo
Avacyn only uses white mana. Thus, she can't cast Damnation, even if she wanted.
Mycosynth Lattice , Celestial Dawn . And this is only because of the rules set up to further cement the notion that other colors are taboo. Avacyn could simply run Gilded Lotus and cast Damnation were it not for current rules.
You've got it wrong. The flavor behind the color pie is that certain mage only draw from certain types of mana. Jace would cast black, red and green spell all day long if he could.
not according to the creators of the format. also not according to you just saying Avacyn doesn't cast damanation because she doesn't want to, unless that was a typo.
Liliana would get her hands on any magic she could master. However, four colors and closed to them because they only wield their color of mana. Spellcasters are only limited by the color of mana they can generate. Hybrid spells can be cast with either color of mana. The Commander rule is intended to emulate the mana system for your Commander. If you're playing with a mono-blue Commander, you'll only be able to cast the same spells as he (since he's the leader), thus no nonblue spells or, to circumvent using cards that generate off-color mana, spells with any blue mana symbols in the card text. However, the simple fix of only being able to produce mana of your Commander's color would be more elegant, would make more sense and would not produce awkward results.
I suggest you look deeper into the format. There are plenty of people who agree with you. But those people aren't in charge of the format and the guiding flavor of it.
Why? Why is that format any different? The flavor of the color pie is the same across all format.
Its not the flavor of the color pie that matters in EDH. Who friggin' cares if Unmake coud have been a monowhite or a monoblack spell and is castable as either. All that matters is the flavor and rules set forth by the Rules Committee, neither of which currently support thinking of hybrids as monocolored.
I'm sorry if you don't agree.
Why? Where do you get that? You just invented that. Trying to argue with something you just came up with from nowhere with no hold within the game's flavor is ludicrous.[/quote]it is perfectly within the flavor of the Commander format. The only chang
Heartless Hidetsugu is too die hard red to accept something like Quenchable Fire where the full effect is just bested by a single , where as Niv-Mizzet, Dracogenius can really appreciate the ability to get that extra damage against enemies who are not blue and so thinks quenchable is a fine spell.
Why? Where do you get that? You just invented that. Trying to argue with something you just came up with from nowhere with no hold within the game's flavor is ludicrous.
it is perfectly within the flavor of the Commander format.
No, it's not. It's a nonsensical justification you made up on the fly to try to pretend a well-known problem with the color identity rules actually makes sense. It doesn't make sense. At all.
Why? Where do you get that? You just invented that. Trying to argue with something you just came up with from nowhere with no hold within the game's flavor is ludicrous.[/quote]it is perfectly within the flavor of the Commander format.[/quote]No, it'
I certainly can. Far less incomprehensible than the tides. But I see no point in doing so, falling on deaf ears and all.
If one doesn't understand the flavor of commander at this point, I don't expect anything further will help.
I certainly can. Far less incomprehensible than the tides. But I see no point in doing so, falling on deaf ears and all. If one doesn't understand the flavor of commander at this point, I don't expect anything further will help.
it is perfectly within the flavor of the Commander format.
No it's not. Nowhere in the "flavor of the Commander format" is there something that remotely suggests that die-hard red mages won't cast something that can easily be beaten. After all, they cast Rhystic Lightning and run Rhystic Cave .
What? Color identity has not always existed in its current form. I really don't think you know what you're talking about.
I'll say it again. Before the current rules, the color of any given deck was based solely on the colors of a legendary creature's mana cost. There were a number of legends then that could not helm decks for being illegal in them based on their mana cost. Thelon of Havenwood for example. He was a monogreen commander who could not be in his own deck because he had a black mana symbol in his rules text. This method of determining color was at odds with the way legality in a deck was determined for other cards. and that was to look at all colored symbols on the card. So, something like Ethersworn Adjudicator 's legality was determined differently than was, say, Memnarch as a commander. Now all cards are judged based on the same criteria.
You said something about a rules change letting legendary creatures be Commanders. I know the color idendity changed from mana cost to mana cost and abilities. I said as much.
That's not a matter of being taboo. It's a matter of not wanting to cast it
semantics. you're not helping yourself. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/taboo
Typo, sorry about that.
Avacyn only uses white mana. Thus, she can't cast Damnation, even if she wanted.
Mycosynth Lattice , Celestial Dawn . And this is only because of the rules set up to further cement the notion that other colors are taboo. Avacyn could simply run Gilded Lotus and cast Damnation were it not for current rules.
She could also play swamps if it were not for the current rules. That's irrelevant. I'm proposing the rule is that you can't generate off-color mana. Thus, you can't use Gilded Lotus to cast Damnation, nor can you use a crapload of other spells. Celestial Dawn? Mycosynth Lattice? Why not? They're spell designed to let white/any mages cast spells from any color. Why would that be different in Commander? If Avacyn casts a mono-white spell that lets her cast any spell, I don't see any flavor problem.
not according to the creators of the format.
That's what I'm complaining about, actually.
I suggest you look deeper into the format. There are plenty of people who agree with you. But those people aren't in charge of the format and the guiding flavor of it.
Those in charge of the format are in charge of the set of rules set to emulate the flavor behind it. There are many things I disagree with in those rules, but color identity only shows how a format that started casually has kept traditionnal rules that weren't thought through. Anyways, if you want to appeal to authority, MaRo himself, which in my eyes is a much more expert source, said that he'd prefer the way I see it becuase Hybrids are a casualty of war and they're inelegant. Both of those sources, however, are irrelevant. I'm arguing for a rules change. Telling me that the ones who did the rules haven't changed them yet doesn't add anything to the argument.
Why? Why is that format any different? The flavor of the color pie is the same across all format.
Its not the flavor of the color pie that matters in EDH. Who friggin' cares if Unmake coud have been a monowhite or a monoblack spell and is castable as either. All that matters is the flavor and rules set forth by the Rules Committee, neither of which currently support thinking of hybrids as monocolored.
I'm sorry if you don't agree.
The rules currently written have not been invented out of nowhere. They're in place to emulate the color pie in the eyes of your Commander. The whole point is to build a deck your Commander could cast. Why is it how it is now? Don't tell me it's because when those five friends sat down with their five Elder Dragons as Commanders and nothing else, they thought deeply about the impact of their rules. They first said "no off-color cards or lands", then realized there were some creatures or artifacts with abilities to generate such mana and that required it to activate, so they said "no mana symbol in the card text", then added "no off-color mana". That's how they got adopted, much like the banlist ("this is unfun, ban it"). They weren't experts, nor thinking about the future of the format. Since then, tradition has kept things as they are.
I don't believe that they sat down and considered every option and decided this would be the most flavorful.
No it's not. Nowhere in the "flavor of the Commander format" is there something that remotely suggests that die-hard red mages won't cast something that can easily be beaten. After all, they cast Rhystic Lightning
If one doesn't understand the flavor of commander at this point, I don't expect anything further will help.
The major problem with your argument is that it's a bad one: "Rule X is the way it is because of flavor Y," is not a convincing argument because we don't all agree that Flavor Y (or any flavor at all) is a valid justification for, well, anything.
For example, I believe that the rules structure of a format should be such that it promotes good gameplay. Flavor can provide the inspiration for certain aspects of the rules structure, but should never be used as a brace to prop up a bad rule. If we decide on a different rules structure, we can always invent a new flavor to explain the new rules.
A player who runs a deck in which all of the lands are Basic Islands can pay the casting cost of both Spitting Image and Rite of Replication . It is important to note that these cards' effects are exactly indentical (apart for an irrelevant difference relating to their keywords). Therefore, if somewhere there exists a rule which says that a player running nothing but Basic Islands in his or her deck can include one of them but not the other, to me that is a strong indication that that rule is a bad rule, regardless of the flavor anyone proffers to justify it.
The real reason that the rule is the way it is is because it's trying to allow people to build Bosh decks while preventing all of the decklists from degenerating into "Run these fifteen cards, decide which method you'll use to avoid satisfying their colored mana requirments and then pick the Commander that matches the colors needed for that method." It's all about promoting creative deckbuilding. But these are fundamentally inconsistent goals. The casualty of trying to satisfy both of them is a regrettable inflexibility in how the rules handle some cards with extra colored mana symbols in unusual places.
Also, as a personal side note, please don't talk about what Niv-Mizzet and Hidetsugu think unless you can get them to post on this forum and confirm that you're representing their opinions correctly.
The major problem with your argument is that it's a bad one: "Rule X is the way it is because of flavor Y," is not a convincing argument because we don't all agree that Flavor Y (or any flavor at all) is a valid justification for, well, anything.For
Something I find even more offensive than the issue with Spitting Image is the fact that the Bringers can only be played in a 5-color deck. A monoblue card with a monoblue mana cost can't be played in a monoblue deck because you have the option of paying 5 colors for it. If Teferi, Mage of Zhalfir can't run Bringer of the Blue Dawn , why can he run Vivid Creek ?
Something I find even more offensive than the issue with Spitting Image is the fact that the Bringers can only be played in a 5-color deck. A monoblue card with a monoblue mana c
Something I find even more offensive than the issue with Spitting Image is the fact that the Bringers can only be played in a 5-color deck. A monoblue card with a monoblue mana cost can't be played in a monoblue deck because you have the option of paying 5 colors for it.
The bringers used to have their own rule specifically exempting them from that restriction but it was removed for consistency.
The bringers used to have their own rule specifically exempting them from that restriction but it was removed for consistency.
I thought about that too, but I decided to directly address the argument over Spitting Image . I find the status of the Bringers equally strange. The only part of that card of that card which isn't monoblue is the Trample, and that is easily explained by "because cycle ".
I thought about that too, but I decided to directly address the argument over Spitting Image . I find the status of the Bringers equally strange. The only part of that card of that card which isn't monoblue is the T
I almost want text boxes to be ignored when it comes to determining what you're allowed to play in your 99, but then they become inconsistent with generals in the opposite way of how they used to be.
I almost want text boxes to be ignored when it comes to determining what you're allowed to play in your 99, but then they become inconsistent with generals in the opposite way of how they used to be.
1) The color identity of a commander includes each of the colors in its mana cost, color indicator, and any mana symbols in its text box.
2) If a player would add mana to his or her mana pool of a color not in his or her commander's color identity, that player adds that much colorless mana to his or her mana pool instead.
3) A card can't be included in a commander deck if its mana cost requires a color of mana not in its commander's color identity.
Seems pretty simple to me. Simir Ragworm doesn't require blue mana to cast, so why shouldn't monogreen be able to play it? Not all commanders should be so strict that they prohibit anyone that associates with other colors from working for them.
1) The color identity of a commander includes each of the colors in its mana cost, color indicator, and any mana symbols in its text box.2) If a player would add mana to his or her mana pool of a color not in his or her commander's color identity, th
So now only Commanders have a color identity? And is it your intention that every Commander deck can now use Mycosynth Lattice to Suspend, say, Hypergenesis ?
So now only Commanders have a color identity? And is it your intention that every Commander deck can now use Mycosynth Lattice to Suspend, say, Hypergenesis ?
So now only Commanders have a color identity? And is it your intention that every Commander deck can now use Mycosynth Lattice to Suspend, say, Hypergenesis ?
Why not? The point of Lattice is that you can cast any spells. Anyways, there's only reanimator decks that could run a considerable number of off-color cards, because relying on Lattice to get a chance at casting the spell is bad in a 100-cards singleton format. How many cards like that are there anyway? There's Jhoira of the Ghitu decks, reanimator decks, and apart from that, we've got what, two cards, one of which is firmly rooted in white?
Why not? The point of Lattice is that you can cast any spells. Anyways, there's only reanimator decks that could run a considerable number of off-color cards, because relying on Lattice to get a chance at casting the spell is bad in a 100-cards singl
I don't like the idea of playing Akroma or what have you for reanimation purposes -- that does strike me as unflavourful, so I think upper right corner needs to be taken into account. However if one cycle from Time Spiral is a weird exception because their "real" mana costs are in their text boxes, I don't think that's really a problem. It's no stranger than the fact that Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth is currently legal in all Commander decks because it's only a swamp when it's in play.
Though now that I think of Urborg that reminds me that if text boxes were ignored, mono-green could tutor up it and Cabal Coffers to make a bunch of colourless mana. That seems a little questionable to me. Maybe I don't like this idea anymore.
I don't like the idea of playing Akroma or what have you for reanimation purposes -- that does strike me as unflavourful, so I think upper right corner needs to be taken into account. However if one cycle from Time Spiral is a weird exception because
But that's my point. Hypergenesis doesn't have any colors in its mana cost. Therefore, according to your changed rule, any Commander deck is now allowed to include it because its mana cost doesn't require a color of mana not present in any potential Commander's color identity. I was just clarifying if that was your intention.
But that's my point. Hypergenesis doesn't have any colors in its mana cost. Therefore, according to your changed rule, any Commander deck is now allowed to include it because its mana cost doesn't require a color o
Though now that I think of Urborg that reminds me that if text boxes were ignored, mono-green could tutor up it and Cabal Coffers to make a bunch of colourless mana. That seems a little questionable to me. Maybe I don't like this idea anymore.
But that's my point. Hypergenesis doesn't have any colors in its mana cost. Therefore, according to your changed rule, any Commander deck is now allowed to include it because its mana cost doesn't require a color of mana not present in any potential Commander's color identity. I was just clarifying if that was your intention.
Correct. Under the rules I suggested, a Memnarch deck could run a copy of Hypergenesis and suspend it using Mycosynth Lattice . That's not my intention, but I don't see it as a huge problem since Mycosynth Lattice allows Commander decks now to pull tricks that aren't intended by the current rules. Monored decks can already cast spells of any color if they include a copy of Mindclaw Shaman . Monoblue decks can use Bribery to put Dune-Brood Nephilim onto the battlefield.
But that's my point. Hypergenesis doesn't have any colors in its mana cost. Therefore, according to your changed rule, any Commander deck is now allowed to include it because its mana cost doesn't require a color o
No, it's not. It's a nonsensical justification you made up on the fly to try to pretend a well-known problem with the color identity rules actually makes sense. It doesn't make sense. At all.
If you take something to the absurd of course it appears absurd and easily dismissed... I think there's a named logical fallacy for that. If only I had a brain I'm sure I'd know it.
If you look at the example in its full context. Quenchable Fire , Heartless Hidetsugu and the rules for CI and how that affects deck construction.
Sugu can obviously generate mana to cast the spell, but it is disallowed in that deck. If we were to give it a flavorful reasoning why so, we must dismiss him not being able to cast it (he can), so we are left with him eschewing it for reasons of taste. What about that card could he take exception to. There's a blue symbol on it- thats the mechanical reasoning for why we can't play it in mono red. The blue symbol has nothing to do with casting, but is part of the means that an opponent might cancel out a portion of the effect... so the blue symbol on the card is associated with a cancellation of the spells full affect... Why that must be the reason Sugu will not run it! Oh my, that sure makes sense when you actually try.
If one doesn't understand the flavor of commander at this point, I don't expect anything further will help.
The major problem with your argument is that it's a bad one: "Rule X is the way it is because of flavor Y," is not a convincing argument because we don't all agree that Flavor Y (or any flavor at all) is a valid justification for, well, anything.
Why isn't valid? The format is driven by flavor at its core, why not use that to inform how the rules are written?
The real problem comes from opinion, and that those differ on what taste good and what doesn't flavorwise.
For example, I believe that the rules structure of a format should be such that it promotes good gameplay. Flavor can provide the inspiration for certain aspects of the rules structure, but should never be used as a brace to prop up a bad rule. If we decide on a different rules structure, we can always invent a new flavor to explain the new rules.
I wasn't arguing for the status quo via flavor. I found it funny that the appeals for hybrids being allowed smacked of being flavor based... their intended to represent mono colored spells while being mechanically multicolored? So I presented valid and sensical (anyone who says otherwise is plain wrong) flavor interpretations for the current rule set. An appeal to flavor doesn't justify keeping rules or changing them, but, as you've said, good gameplay (or to a lesser extent, simple to understand rules. Its the very reason why the rules committee for EDH hasn't tackled weird things like Urborg or "off-color" fetches, etc).
A player who runs a deck in which all of the lands are Basic Islands can pay the casting cost of both Spitting Image and Rite of Replication . It is important to note that these cards' effects are exactly indentical (apart for an irrelevant difference relating to their keywords). Therefore, if somewhere there exists a rule which says that a player running nothing but Basic Islands in his or her deck can include one of them but not the other, to me that is a strong indication that that rule is a bad rule, regardless of the flavor anyone proffers to justify it.
Why is it bad? because you have an opinion? define "bad" and Show that there is a significant detrimental effect on the gameplay in commander. otherwise Its too subjective to consider.
I think its a good rule.
The real reason that the rule is the way it is is because it's trying to allow people to build Bosh decks while preventing all of the decklists from degenerating into "Run these fifteen cards, decide which method you'll use to avoid satisfying their colored mana requirments and then pick the Commander that matches the colors needed for that method." It's all about promoting creative deckbuilding. But these are fundamentally inconsistent goals. The casualty of trying to satisfy both of them is a regrettable inflexibility in how the rules handle some cards with extra colored mana symbols in unusual places.
Edh can devolve into an arms race of staples regardless of color restrictions. I will agree that the rules are there to create vibrant and varied environments.
Also, as a personal side note, please don't talk about what Niv-Mizzet and Hidetsugu think unless you can get them to post on this forum and confirm that you're representing their opinions correctly.
We had lunch together before I last posted. You can believe me or not, I don't much care.
If you take something to the absurd of course it appears absurd and easily dismissed... I think there's a named logical fallacy for that. If only I had a brain I'm sure I'd know it.If you look at the example in its full context. Quenchable Fire
1) The color identity of a commander includes each of the colors in its mana cost, color indicator, and any mana symbols in its text box.
2) If a player would add mana to his or her mana pool of a color not in his or her commander's color identity, that player adds that much colorless mana to his or her mana pool instead.
3) A card can't be included in a commander deck if its mana cost requires a color of mana not in its commander's color identity.
Seems pretty simple to me. Simir Ragworm doesn't require blue mana to cast, so why shouldn't monogreen be able to play it? Not all commanders should be so strict that they prohibit anyone that associates with other colors from working for them.
I really like the color restrictions placed on the format.
Personally I would rather see the color production rule go away, but maintain the CI rules. Its a small thing really, but It would make Sen Triplets so much more playable. I get that its flavorful, and has been argued as being a handicap to the already powerful theiving antics of blue decks, but I don't find those as important as CI in general.
Also, a small part of me like not looking at cards texts for CI... I secretly want to play Obelisk of Alara in every one of my decks. Don't tell anyone though.
I really like the color restrictions placed on the format. Personally I would rather see the color production rule go away, but maintain the CI rules. Its a small thing really, but It would make Sen Triplets so muc
If you look at the example in its full context. Quenchable Fire , Heartless Hidetsugu and the rules for CI and how that affects deck construction.
Sugu can obviously generate mana to cast the spell, but it is disallowed in that deck. If we were to give it a flavorful reasoning why so, we must dismiss him not being able to cast it (he can), so we are left with him eschewing it for reasons of taste. What about that card could he take exception to. There's a blue symbol on it- thats the mechanical reasoning for why we can't play it in mono red. The blue symbol has nothing to do with casting, but is part of the means that an opponent might cancel out a portion of the effect... so the blue symbol on the card is associated with a cancellation of the spells full affect... Why that must be the reason Sugu will not run it! Oh my, that sure makes sense when you actually try...
Good job making the opposing side's argument for them. You can come up with any number of flavor reasons to justify why your side makes sense. The argument is that the rules should have rules that fit the flavor, not the other way around.
As a counter-argument to your point, Hidetsugu knows that Quenchable Fire can be mitigated by a blue mage. However, he knows that many of his opponents aren't capable of producing the blue mana needed to stop it. Against such opponents, Hidetsugu's happy to get a bit more burn for his buck and so would love to cast Quenchable Fire.
Good job making the opposing side's argument for them. You can come up with any number of flavor reasons to justify why your side makes sense. The argument is that the rules should have rules that fit the flavor, not the other way around.As a counter
If you take something to the absurd of course it appears absurd and easily dismissed... I think there's a named logical fallacy for that. If only I had a brain I'm sure I'd know it.
If you look at the example in its full context. Quenchable Fire , Heartless Hidetsugu and the rules for CI and how that affects deck construction.
Sugu can obviously generate mana to cast the spell, but it is disallowed in that deck. If we were to give it a flavorful reasoning why so, we must dismiss him not being able to cast it (he can), so we are left with him eschewing it for reasons of taste. What about that card could he take exception to. There's a blue symbol on it- thats the mechanical reasoning for why we can't play it in mono red. The blue symbol has nothing to do with casting, but is part of the means that an opponent might cancel out a portion of the effect... so the blue symbol on the card is associated with a cancellation of the spells full affect... Why that must be the reason Sugu will not run it! Oh my, that sure makes sense when you actually try.
My point is that you are taking the rules as they exist, loopholes and all, building a flavor description with the sole purpose of matching those rules, and then using that post-hoc description to argue that the rules and their loopholes make sense because they match the flavor that you just built. Of course they match your flavor--you created it specifically so that they would.
It's pretty much always possible to make post-hoc flavor justifications of almost any rules quirk or loophole, no matter how weird. But those justifications shouldn't be used to try to argue that the loopholes make sense. That amounts to arguing that the rules make sense because they're the rules.
My point is that you are taking the rules as they exist, loopholes and all, building a flavor description with the sole purpose of matching those rules, and then using that post-hoc description to argue that the rules and their loopholes make sense b
If you take something to the absurd of course it appears absurd and easily dismissed... I think there's a named logical fallacy for that. If only I had a brain I'm sure I'd know it.
If you look at the example in its full context. Quenchable Fire , Heartless Hidetsugu and the rules for CI and how that affects deck construction.
Sugu can obviously generate mana to cast the spell, but it is disallowed in that deck. If we were to give it a flavorful reasoning why so, we must dismiss him not being able to cast it (he can), so we are left with him eschewing it for reasons of taste. What about that card could he take exception to. There's a blue symbol on it- thats the mechanical reasoning for why we can't play it in mono red. The blue symbol has nothing to do with casting, but is part of the means that an opponent might cancel out a portion of the effect... so the blue symbol on the card is associated with a cancellation of the spells full affect... Why that must be the reason Sugu will not run it! Oh my, that sure makes sense when you actually try.
My point is that you are taking the rules as they exist, loopholes and all, building a flavor description with the sole purpose of matching those rules, and then using that post-hoc description to argue that the rules and their loopholes make sense because they match the flavor that you just built. Of course they match your flavor--you created it specifically so that they would.
It's pretty much always possible to make post-hoc flavor justifications of almost any rules quirk or loophole, no matter how weird. But those justifications shouldn't be used to try to argue that the loopholes make sense. That amounts to arguing that the rules make sense because they're the rules.
your point was not lost on me, though I am still disappointed that you wouldn't just outright make it and instead resorted to a strawman. I would still argue that the flavor I built is not a justification for the
I don't know if you read the rest of what I said, but the arguments for allowing hybrid rules are steeped in the flavor of hybrids being essentially two monocolored spells represented by the same card, which is fine. I posited my own flavor, which made just as much sense, as a counter.
If you go back I'm sure you'll see where I protest hybrids in monocolor for the unituitive instances they would create mechanically. My original reasoning- this was regarding Spitting Image- was that it was still both colors regardless of being castable as a monogreen spell, which, based on the color-philosophy of the format, would exclude it from being in either monogreen or monoblue decks. THEN, because we had moved on to the driving flavor behind the rules, gave a justification for a commonly-complained-about card Quenchable Fire , and gave forth a perfectly sensible interpretation of the current rules and why quenchable flavor-wise is disallowed. Too often I've encountered players who say the current rules make no sense because something odd isn't adequatly covered. The point is that the current rules make just as much sense flavorwise as would any just about any other set of rules, but it is unlikely that those rules would be as elegant, easily understood or as comprehensive as the current set. The next point would be that hybrids and such cards like mtenda lion and quenchable fire and the bringers etc. are not exceptions or loopholes but consequences (and very intentional ones) of the current rules. Bringers once had rules exceptions, but those were deemed onerous and taken out for the sake of simplicity.
Still, there is something to be said for the validity of an argument based on flavor. The CI rules as they exist now don't have any detrimental impact on the format that I can see (evidenced by the popularity and continued growth of the format). The format itself is flavor driven, a very specific flavor of off-color being taboo, incomprehensible and in all ways anathema. The Rules Committee has stated on a number of occasions that the rules would be more restrictive to better enforce the flavor of the format but aren't for the sake of having a simple and easily understood rules set. If that is the goal, rules that support the desired flavor without hindering the enjoyability of the format should be accepted. The CI rules that disallow quenchable as monored and hybrids as monocolored best satisfy the criteria aforementioned.
The conversation shouldn't be about the design of hybrids or their flavor... but how their inclusion in monocolored fits the vision of the format (flavor wise) and positively impacts the format more than damages.
But I'm more than willing to banter flavor justifications for the current set of rules if anyone thinks that arguing hybrids should be allowed because they're essentially monocolored carries any weight more than the fact that they are (in most cases) multicolored spells.
To a lesser extent I'm willing to entertain ideas on an overall change in the flavor of the format (I think that's what Dilleux is pointing towards). Change the flavor, change the rules. I just don't expect that loosening the restrictions would result in as successful a format (or as fun a format. fun and success are probably related).
My point is that you are taking the rules as they exist, loopholes and all, building a flavor description with the sole purpose of matching those rules, and then using that post-hoc description to argue that the rules and their loopholes make sense b
If Quenchable Fire could be quenched by , it would be strictly easier to deal with. It could then be used in any red deck. So any argument that a mono-red mage wouldn't use QF because it's so easy to counter fails.
If Quenchable Fire could be quenched by , it would be strictly easier to deal with. It could then be used in any red deck. So any argument that a mono-red mage wouldn't use QF because it's so easy to counter fails.
Except that the rules are written such that its not monolegal.
I wasn't justifying the rules, but explaining the flavor of them with a common example.
The color restrictions of the format are an essential element of the driving flavor. The current rules are in their best form to date. By these rules hybrids are not mono, neither is quenchable fire etc. I put forth an easily understood interpretation for why. I could go into it further or spin it differently if you need. I would love to hear another interpretation for why sugu cant run the fire.
That sums its up I believe. Thanks for your input.
Except that the rules are written such that its not monolegal.I wasn't justifying the rules, but explaining the flavor of them with a common example.The color restrictions of the format are an essential element of the driving flavor. The current rule
I find that "you can't make off-color mana" is way simpler to understand and much more elegant than "you can't have a spell off-color, or a off-color symbol (but it's okay if the color is written instead of a symbol), or a off-color basic land, or produce off-color mana, I think that sums it all?"
I find that "you can't make off-color mana" is way simpler to understand and much more elegant than "you can't have a spell off-color, or a off-color symbol (but it's okay if the color is written instead of a symbol), or a off-color basic land, or pr
One or the other would do a pretty decent job. Restrictions on mana production are more easily bypassed than the rules on deck construction however. And the format has always been geared towards the more restrictive.
And while mana production is simple, color identity itself isn't less so. You conflate multiple rules and state exceptions as one rule. No symbols in costs or text allowed is pretty simple.
I could have taken what you said and went on to list a number of odd cases that aren't in the spirit of the format... urborg + cabal coffers in any deck for loads of colorless. Running cards that aren't in your commanders colors for the sake of being tricksy with them...
One or the other would do a pretty decent job. Restrictions on mana production are more easily bypassed than the rules on deck construction however. And the format has always been geared towards the more restrictive. And while mana production is simp
One or the other would do a pretty decent job. Restrictions on mana production are more easily bypassed than the rules on deck construction however. And the format has always been geared towards the more restrictive. And while mana production is simple, color identity itself isn't less so. You conflate multiple rules and state exceptions as one rule. No symbols in costs or text allowed is pretty simple. I could have taken what you said and went on to list a number of odd cases that aren't in the spirit of the format... urborg + cabal coffers in any deck for loads of colorless. Running cards that aren't in your commanders colors for the sake of being tricksy with them...
It's all a matter of opinions, of course, but I find it more elegant that someone plays Urborg+Cabal Coffers for colorless than preventing him from using Savage Lands but not Jund Panorama , for less obvious examples than the usual. The first seems intuitive; you can use the mana, but you'll get colorless instead.
A rule that could combine both could be even better : If you'd produce off-color mana, you produce no mana instead. Oh, you can run Urborg. Now all your land can tap for no mana. That would keep it clear an elegant, prevent people from casting off-colors spell if no shenanigans and reduce the number of unintuitive situations, while still keeping the possibility of using Hybrid spells and Obelisk of Alara for the abilities in your colors. In fact, I prefer it to the first alternative, now that I think about it.
It's all a matter of opinions, of course, but I find it more elegant that someone plays Urborg+Cabal Coffers for colorless than preventing him from using Savage Lands but not Jund Panorama
Above all else, I think it should be considered that the rules are more of a series of recommendations than anything and the RC encourages local playgroups to use their own rules if they're comfortable doing so.
As such, I have no problem playing with hybrid cards or bringers etc or having them played against me.
Above all else, I think it should be considered that the rules are more of a series of recommendations than anything and the RC encourages local playgroups to use their own rules if they're comfortable doing so.As such, I have no problem playing with
A rule that could combine both could be even better : If you'd produce off-color mana, you produce no mana instead. Oh, you can run Urborg. Now all your land can tap for no mana. That would keep it clear an elegant, prevent people from casting off-colors spell if no shenanigans and reduce the number of unintuitive situations, while still keeping the possibility of using Hybrid spells and Obelisk of Alara for the abilities in your colors. In fact, I prefer it to the first alternative, now that I think about it.
I like the colorless mana rule and "you must be able to cast all castable cards in your deck." So evermind and any land can go in monoblack reanimator, but Inona can't. I'm not certain how well defined "castable" is.
There's problems with magus of the vineyard and related cards. I like the colorless mana rule and "you must be able to cast all castable cards in your deck." So evermind and any
A rule that could combine both could be even better : If you'd produce off-color mana, you produce no mana instead. Oh, you can run Urborg. Now all your land can tap for no mana. That would keep it clear an elegant, prevent people from casting off-colors spell if no shenanigans and reduce the number of unintuitive situations, while still keeping the possibility of using Hybrid spells and Obelisk of Alara for the abilities in your colors. In fact, I prefer it to the first alternative, now that I think about it.
You can't generate off-color mana. That doesn't mean it has to be in your mana pool. Your opponent isn't generating anything off your Magus. That's how I see it. With that interpretation, the only way of going around it would be to Donate a Magus you've reanimated to get green mana to cast other spells. I don't think that's a problem
There's problems with magus of the vineyard and related cards. [/quote]You can't generate off-color mana. That doesn't mean it has to be in your mana pool. Your opponent isn't generating anything off your Magus. Th
I don't know if you read the rest of what I said, but the arguments for allowing hybrid rules are steeped in the flavor of hybrids being essentially two monocolored spells represented by the same card, which is fine. I posited my own flavor, which made just as much sense, as a counter.
I believe the argument for hybrids is actually a mechanical one, not a flavor one.
From a mechanical perspective, the entire point of the entire point of hybrid cards is that they don't require both colors. They are designed, from start to finish, to be playable in monocolor decks. The current rules for Commander, on the other hand, treat them the same as they do traditional multicolor cards. But they are not. Disallowing a green/white hybrid in a monogreen or a monowhite deck goes against the mechanical purpose of hybrid mana.
The next point would be that hybrids and such cards like mtenda lion and quenchable fire and the bringers etc. are not exceptions or loopholes but consequences (and very intentional ones) of the current rules. Bringers once had rules exceptions, but those were deemed onerous and taken out for the sake of simplicity.
They are not intentional consequences--that would imply that the rules were written with the intent of excluding them. The fact that there were rules exceptions in the first place demonstrates that that's not true--the rules team made those exceptions because they thought they should be allowed in monocolor decks. Flavor demanded it.
What the Bringers are, are casualties. The team decided that clean rules were more important than the flavor gained by allowing those cards in monocolor decks. Quenchable Fire is just another such casualty. Yes, you can bend the flavor to suit those casualties. But being disallowed is a result of the need for the rules to be simpler, not the need of the flavor to be better.
Still, there is something to be said for the validity of an argument based on flavor. The CI rules as they exist now don't have any detrimental impact on the format that I can see (evidenced by the popularity and continued growth of the format). The format itself is flavor driven, a very specific flavor of off-color being taboo, incomprehensible and in all ways anathema. The Rules Committee has stated on a number of occasions that the rules would be more restrictive to better enforce the flavor of the format but aren't for the sake of having a simple and easily understood rules set. If that is the goal, rules that support the desired flavor without hindering the enjoyability of the format should be accepted. The CI rules that disallow quenchable as monored and hybrids as monocolored best satisfy the criteria aforementioned.
That is arguable. Popularity and growth are not a reliable indication that there isn't negative impact--after all, it's possible that the format could be more popular and grow faster with different rules. Magic spent years as a very popular game with interrupts and damage-prevention windows--that doesn't mean interrupts and damage-prevention windows were good for the game, or even neutral. It just meant that Magic as a whole was good.
EDH as a whole is a great, fun format. Whether or not the CI rules as they exist now are beneficial, neutral, or detrimental to that end result is an entirely separate argument.
I believe the argument for hybrids is actually a mechanical one, not a flavor one.From a mechanical perspective, the entire point of the entire point of hybrid cards is that they don't require both colors. They are designed, from start to finish, to
A rule that could combine both could be even better : If you'd produce off-color mana, you produce no mana instead. Oh, you can run Urborg. Now all your land can tap for no mana. That would keep it clear an elegant, prevent people from casting off-colors spell if no shenanigans and reduce the number of unintuitive situations, while still keeping the possibility of using Hybrid spells and Obelisk of Alara for the abilities in your colors. In fact, I prefer it to the first alternative, now that I think about it.
A rule that could combine both could be even better : If you'd produce off-color mana, you produce no mana instead. Oh, you can run Urborg. Now all your land can tap for no mana. That would keep it clear an elegant, prevent people from casting off-colors spell if no shenanigans and reduce the number of unintuitive situations, while still keeping the possibility of using Hybrid spells and Obelisk of Alara for the abilities in your colors. In fact, I prefer it to the first alternative, now that I think about it.
I believe the argument for hybrids is actually a mechanical one, not a flavor one.
From a mechanical perspective, the entire point of the entire point of hybrid cards is that they don't require both colors. They are designed, from start to finish, to be playable in monocolor decks. The current rules for Commander, on the other hand, treat them the same as they do traditional multicolor cards. But they are not. Disallowing a green/white hybrid in a monogreen or a monowhite deck goes against the mechanical purpose of hybrid mana.
Are split cards like fire and ice intended to me mono playable? Is Foil meant to be playable in monogreen because I can ditch a dual land to its alterate cost? Were the bringers meant to be 5 colored creatures because they have an alternate casting cost?
If hybrids were intended to me monocolored spells (not monoplayable) then why are they multicolored always? I would argue that they were also meant to be playable as gold cards, I can cast spitting image with any of the three 2-combinations of , if they were intended only as mono colored one might expect my options to only be or ...also look to things like Firespout and Torrent of Souls , those are absolutely designed as gold-possible.
having an alternate casting cost does not change the fact that hybrids are multicolored. The idea of them as being appropriate in a monocolored commander deck is flavor based.
The next point would be that hybrids and such cards like mtenda lion and quenchable fire and the bringers etc. are not exceptions or loopholes but consequences (and very intentional ones) of the current rules. Bringers once had rules exceptions, but those were deemed onerous and taken out for the sake of simplicity.
They are not intentional consequences--that would imply that the rules were written with the intent of excluding them.
How do you know they weren't? You think that it never occurred to the rules committee that by looking at every mana symbol on a card for the CI there might be cards that are excluded from decks that they would be legal in if one only looked at the those cards' mana costs? That particular wording, for non-commanders at least, has been around for a while, at least as long as there have been cards with mana symbols in their texts that aren't in their costs.
I will say that 'intended' was a poor word choice. 'Foreseen' might have been better.
The fact that there were rules exceptions in the first place demonstrates that that's not true--the rules team made those exceptions because they thought they should be allowed in monocolor decks. Flavor demanded it.
Untrue. Those exception could have been made for the sake of the format, or because of the demand of the players. Tolerance is not the same as acceptance.
What the Bringers are, are casualties. The team decided that clean rules were more important than the flavor gained by allowing those cards in monocolor decks. Quenchable Fire is just another such casualty. Yes, you can bend the flavor to suit those casualties. But being disallowed is a result of the need for the rules to be simpler, not the need of the flavor to be better.
Fair enough I suppose. Doesn't help the case for hybrids, though.
Most of the changes people suggest, such as making exceptions for hybrids, end up with unintuitive consequences that don't adhere to the overall flavor of the format and require some mental gymnastics to understand... or just end up with horrible gameplay.
Finding the balance between the restrictive color philosophy of the format and a clean set of rules has lead us to the set of rules we have now. Hybrids are only an exception to some based on opinions on how those cards should be viewed, which is, unfortunate for those peoples, not a very good reason for change.
Still, there is something to be said for the validity of an argument based on flavor. The CI rules as they exist now don't have any detrimental impact on the format that I can see (evidenced by the popularity and continued growth of the format). The format itself is flavor driven, a very specific flavor of off-color being taboo, incomprehensible and in all ways anathema. The Rules Committee has stated on a number of occasions that the rules would be more restrictive to better enforce the flavor of the format but aren't for the sake of having a simple and easily understood rules set. If that is the goal, rules that support the desired flavor without hindering the enjoyability of the format should be accepted. The CI rules that disallow quenchable as monored and hybrids as monocolored best satisfy the criteria aforementioned.
That is arguable. Popularity and growth are not a reliable indication that there isn't negative impact--after all, it's possible that the format could be more popular and grow faster with different rules. Magic spent years as a very popular game with interrupts and damage-prevention windows--that doesn't mean interrupts and damage-prevention windows were good for the game, or even neutral. It just meant that Magic as a whole was good.
Less good is not the same as bad. Holding the game back is not the same as causing it to fail. Interrupts and Instants and Mana sources were good enough that the game grew, and were changed when something better was found.
The growth of the format is proof positive that the rules as constituted work well enough and have worked well enough in the past (just the way previous rules of magic worked just fine). I never said they couldn't be better. Showing that a change would result in greater success is not going to be easy.
EDH as a whole is a great, fun format. Whether or not the CI rules as they exist now are beneficial, neutral, or detrimental to that end result is an entirely separate argument.
When we consider that the rules of the format are what have defined the format from the beginning I find it odd that you say their impact on the format can't be determined. Each iteration of the CI rules has managed to maintain a relatively similar environment, which has found an ever growing appeal amongst players. I highly doubt that they could be neutral to the format's success in the aggregate.
Again, I'm not saying they're perfect, only that they're in their best form so far. I'm more than willing to entertain possible improvements.
Are split cards like fire and ice intended to me mono playable? Is Foil meant to be playable in monogreen because I can ditch a dual land to its alterate cost? Were the bringers meant to be 5 colored creatures because they have an alternate casting c
If hybrids were intended to me monocolored spells (not monoplayable) then why are they multicolored always?
Because they're playable in both colors. A blue mage and a green mage can both cast it. Therefore, it's green and blue.
I would argue that they were also meant to be playable as gold cards, I can cast spitting image with any of the three 2-combinations of , if they were intended only as mono colored one might expect my options to only be or ...also look to things like Firespout and Torrent of Souls , those are absolutely designed as gold-possible.
They are intended to be playable either in a mono-colored deck or a multicolored deck. Both of these. Also, for the last two, your argument would imply that Chroma shouldn't be playable in multi-colored Commander, since it's obviously designed to saty mono-colored.
having an alternate casting cost does not change the fact that hybrids are multicolored. The idea of them as being appropriate in a monocolored commander deck is flavor based.
The Commander's rule is intended to emulate the fact that it's your Commander leading the deck. Mechanically speaking, he'd be able to cast those spells. It's as much mechanical as flavor-based.
How do you know they weren't? You think that it never occurred to the rules committee that by looking at every mana symbol on a card for the CI there might be cards that are excluded from decks that they would be legal in if one only looked at the those cards' mana costs? That particular wording, for non-commanders at least, has been around for a while, at least as long as there have been cards with mana symbols in their texts that aren't in their costs.
I will say that 'intended' was a poor word choice. 'Foreseen' might have been better.
Really? You really think the current rules have been thought through? The format has grown from a local thing. It's not liek five people got together and thought about the long-term plan. After that, the rules never changed. There's inertia. When the rules were first adopted, they were doing patching to make sure the ruls made sense. They removed the too specific ones (like the Bringers) later for consistency's sake, but never touched the core ones.
Untrue. Those exception could have been made for the sake of the format, or because of the demand of the players. Tolerance is not the same as acceptance.
They were made before Commander was a big thing.
Most of the changes people suggest, such as making exceptions for hybrids, end up with unintuitive consequences that don't adhere to the overall flavor of the format and require some mental gymnastics to understand... or just end up with horrible gameplay.
Finding the balance between the restrictive color philosophy of the format and a clean set of rules has lead us to the set of rules we have now. Hybrids are only an exception to some based on opinions on how those cards should be viewed, which is, unfortunate for those peoples, not a very good reason for change.
Between a rule whose unintuitive case is using Jund Panorama and City of Brass but not Savage Lands, or one whose unintuitive case is to cast Flashfreeze against a mono-blue deck, I choose the latter any day.
When we consider that the rules of the format are what have defined the format from the beginning I find it odd that you say their impact on the format can't be determined.
What if the other rule was there form the beginning? Maybe it'd be more played, or less played, how could we know? That's what he meant.
Because they're playable in both colors. A blue mage and a green mage can both cast it. Therefore, it's green and blue.They are intended to be playable either in a mono-colored deck or a multicolored deck. Both of these. Also, for the last two, your
I am done with this conversation... but not for anything that was said. I had a post, opened a window to look something up before hitting submit, ended up watching a video of Sheldon talking about edh, and when I come back my kindle had done eated my post! It Reloaded the page and lost everything...
Suffice it to say I disagree that hybrids should or ever will be monocolored legal.
I am done with this conversation... but not for anything that was said. I had a post, opened a window to look something up before hitting submit, ended up watching a video of Sheldon talking about edh, and when I come back my kindle had done eated my
Suffice it to say I disagree that hybrids should or ever will be monocolored legal.
I think cards with generic mana in their costs or rules text should only be legal in 5-colour decks for exactly the same reasons you give that (multicoloured) hybrids shouldn't be legal in monocoloured - Razormane Masticore was clearly designed to be playable as a gold card - you could cast it for and if it weren't intended to be five colour it wouldn't be castable for one of each colour. Also, look to sunburst cards like Clearwater Goblet or Skyreach Manta - clearly designed to be as five-colour as possible.
Having alternate casting costs doesn't change the fact that generic costs are all colours.
I think cards with generic mana in their costs or rules text should only be legal in 5-colour decks for exactly the same reasons you give that (multicoloured) hybrids shouldn't be legal in monocoloured - Razormane Masticore
The reason I give for hybrids being disallowed is that they are multicolored. You take what I said out if context. I pointed out that hybrids can be cast as gold cards to poke holes in the notion that simply because something is castable in a fashion that should factor into its color identity.
Thanks for your input.
Mg position is and always has been that they are multicolored due to having multiple mana symbols in their costs and so should be disallowed in mono.
? Masticore is a strawman example.The reason I give for hybrids being disallowed is that they are multicolored. You take what I said out if context. I pointed out that hybrids can be cast as gold cards to poke holes in the notion that simply because
The difference between a strawman and a reductio ad absurdum is that the difference between the strawman and the original position changes the validity of the arguments used, while the reductio is a legitimate consequence or extension of the original position.
For a serious argument that hybrid cards are multicolored because they can be cast using multiple colours of mana, the Masticore is a reductio; if that argument was in turn being used as a reductio of another, then that's fair enough.
Firespout and Torrent of Souls are themselves strawmen, of course - they would still be multicolour even if the hybrid symbols were replaced with generic costs.
On the broader issue, my starting point for the flavour of colour identity would be the concept of being able to make full use of the card - if a card has a feature that can't be accessed unless you have a certain colour of mana, then that colour is part of its identity - otherwise you're not able to take advantage of that feature. For cards that produce mana, or change the colour of mana other cards produce, the colour(s) produced should be part of its identity, otherwise you're not taking advantage of that mana production. Quenchable Fire is still a casualty of this approach, though just barely - if you cast it on yourself, then you need blue mana to stop the second burn. The obvious change from the current approach is that hybrid symbols can be counted as either of their colours during deck construction, not just during play.
What we have is a structure that makes perfect sense for traditional multicolour cards - a card that's red AND green has to be played in a deck that's red AND green - and for monocolour cards - a card that's red has to be played in a deck that's red. Hybrid cards are a contentious fit - a red-green hybrid is a card that's red OR green, but has to be played in a deck that's red AND green. From a strictly mechanical perspective, the only sane answer to "Is Pit Fight red?" is "Yes" (and similarly for "is it green") - partly because the rules don't handle "maybe" as an answer, and partly because, in the general case, there's no way of picking between the three possibilities (just red, just green, both), and "both" is the only reasonable default since it doesn't involve picking one colour over another. In the specific context of a mono-green Commander deck, there is a solid reason to prefer one colour over the other - and there is nothing you could do with Pit Fight if you somehow turned some of your mana red that you can't do with it still all green.
I would be happy with a rule that said "multicoloured hybrid mana symbols can be counted as either or both of their colours when determining colour identity" - I'd be more dubious about allowing monocoloured hybrid symbols to count as colourless - getting a discount for using the appropriate colour means you have a feature that requires that colour to use...
The difference between a strawman and a reductio ad absurdum is that the difference between the strawman and the original position changes the validity of the arguments used, while the reductio is a legitimate consequence or extension of the original
? Masticore is a strawman example. The reason I give for hybrids being disallowed is that they are multicolored. You take what I said out if context. I pointed out that hybrids can be cast as gold cards to poke holes in the notion that simply because something is castable in a fashion that should factor into its color identity. Thanks for your input. Mg position is and always has been that they are multicolored due to having multiple mana symbols in their costs and so should be disallowed in mono.
That's ignoring the reason why the rules are as they are. The rules tend to emulate the casting system of other formats like your Commander would cast the spells. the color of a spell has nothing to do with that. Anybody can cast Transguild Courier . Why wouldn't your Commander cast it?
Additionnaly, it's circular reasoning. Why do the rules disallow multicolored spell into monocolored decks? Because they're multicolored. That's basically what you just said.
That's ignoring the reason why the rules are as they are. The rules tend to emulate the casting system of other formats like your Commander would cast the spells. the color of a spell has nothing to do with that. Anybody can cast Transguild Couri
? Masticore is a strawman example. The reason I give for hybrids being disallowed is that they are multicolored. You take what I said out if context. I pointed out that hybrids can be cast as gold cards to poke holes in the notion that simply because something is castable in a fashion that should factor into its color identity. Thanks for your input. Mg position is and always has been that they are multicolored due to having multiple mana symbols in their costs and so should be disallowed in mono.
That's ignoring the reason why the rules are as they are. The rules tend to emulate the casting system of other formats like your Commander would cast the spells. the color of a spell has nothing to do with that. Anybody can cast Transguild Courier . Why wouldn't your Commander cast it?
Why? because commanders hate things outside of their colors.
Ability to cast is one facet of why the rules are the way they are. The intended flavor is Commanders do not understand or tolerate colors outside of their own. Karn, Silver Golem might be able to summon the Courier, but he won't cuz he hates that guy.
Additionnaly, it's circular reasoning. Why do the rules disallow multicolored spell into monocolored decks? Because they're multicolored. That's basically what you just said.
That isn't what I said.
Why are hybrids disallowed? Because they're multicolored. Why are multicolored cards disallowed in monodecks? Because that doesn't adhere to the intended flavor. That isn't circular... its arbitrary.
However arbitrary the flavor is, it has been a driving force for the popularity of the format. At the very core, EDH has been about the commander, the singleton nature, and the restrictions on deck building colorwise. There have been allowances made for the sake of playability (the format started with basic lands being 1 of as well as the rest of the deck, and only the 5 elder dragons as commanders. But things were changed as more than 5 people showed up for games)
An allowance could be made for hybrids, but I'm willing to bet it won't. The fix to perceived flavor grievances is countered by new grievances of different types.
That's ignoring the reason why the rules are as they are. The rules tend to emulate the casting system of other formats like your Commander would cast the spells. the color of a spell has nothing to do with that. Anybody can cast Transguild Couri
? Masticore is a strawman example. The reason I give for hybrids being disallowed is that they are multicolored. You take what I said out if context. I pointed out that hybrids can be cast as gold cards to poke holes in the notion that simply because something is castable in a fashion that should factor into its color identity. Thanks for your input. Mg position is and always has been that they are multicolored due to having multiple mana symbols in their costs and so should be disallowed in mono.
That's ignoring the reason why the rules are as they are. The rules tend to emulate the casting system of other formats like your Commander would cast the spells. the color of a spell has nothing to do with that. Anybody can cast Transguild Courier . Why wouldn't your Commander cast it?
Why? because commanders hate things outside of their colors.
Ability to cast is one facet of why the rules are the way they are. The intended flavor is Commanders do not understand or tolerate colors outside of their own. Karn, Silver Golem might be able to summon the Courier, but he won't cuz he hates that guy.
Why would they? The Commander flavor isn't "your Commander hates them", it's "your Commander can't cast them". Why would Karn hate a golem? Makes no sense.
Additionnaly, it's circular reasoning. Why do the rules disallow multicolored spell into monocolored decks? Because they're multicolored. That's basically what you just said.
That isn't what I said.
Why are hybrids disallowed? Because they're multicolored. Why are multicolored cards disallowed in monodecks? Because that doesn't adhere to the intended flavor. That isn't circular... its arbitrary.
No, it's circular. You're justifying the current rules with... the current rules. Why aren't hybrid allowed? Because they're multicolored, which isn't allowed. That's exactly the same statement as "Why aren't hey allowed? Because they aren't allowed". It's circular.
However arbitrary the flavor is, it has been a driving force for the popularity of the format. At the very core, EDH has been about the commander, the singleton nature, and the restrictions on deck building colorwise. There have been allowances made for the sake of playability (the format started with basic lands being 1 of as well as the rest of the deck, and only the 5 elder dragons as commanders. But things were changed as more than 5 people showed up for games)
Yes. Hence why it's important to make sure it's optimal.
That's ignoring the reason why the rules are as they are. The rules tend to emulate the casting system of other formats like your Commander would cast the spells. the color of a spell has nothing to do with that. Anybody can cast Transguild Couri
That commanders hate off color is absolutely part of the flavor. If it doesn't make sense to you, that's a deficiency on your part.
As for circular arguments... you're again just wrong, not sure why you persist.
The flavor of the format is set. The rules were drafted. hybrids are forbidden by the rules.
There is nothing circular about that. I have not tried to prop up the rules with any arguments other than saying the current rules best support the desired flavor while maintaining a modicum of elegance and simplicity.
Granted, there's a lot of context for the statement you want to male circular... but you should be aware of it all, so I am at a loss over your assertion.
That commanders hate off color is absolutely part of the flavor. If it doesn't make sense to you, that's a deficiency on your part.As for circular arguments... you're again just wrong, not sure why you persist.The flavor of the format is set.The rule
That commanders hate off color is absolutely part of the flavor. If it doesn't make sense to you, that's a deficiency on your part. As for circular arguments... you're again just wrong, not sure why you persist. The flavor of the format is set. The rules were drafted. hybrids are forbidden by the rules. There is nothing circular about that. I have not tried to prop up the rules with any arguments other than saying the current rules best support the desired flavor while maintaining a modicum of elegance and simplicity. Granted, there's a lot of context for the statement you want to male circular... but you should be aware of it all, so I am at a loss over your assertion.
We're saying the rules shouldn't stop hybrids because they're castable with one color of mana. You answer that they're multicolored, so the rules forbid them. You're using the rules to justify the rules.
We're saying that the flavor of the Commander format shouldn't stop Hybrids, and that they're a casualty of war of rules that were created in a non-formal way and were intended to patch holes. One too many holes was patched. The flavor of the hybrid spells is that they're castable by monocolored mages. However, by preventing off-color cards, the rules go against that flavor and create a dissonnance between the intended flavor and its mechanical counterpart.
I disagree that "hate" has anything to do with the flavor of the Commander format. The rule was created to enfore the fact that you're Commander only has access to some colors and not others, and it was created with that in mind. It just happenned to cut hybrids from deck construction for a strictly mechanical reason. We're suggesting alternatives to keep the spirit ot the rules while optimizing them with the flavor.
I'll also add that the rules for the Commander format were drafted in 1996, way before hybrid spells existed. The people who created the format never intended to exclude hybrids; they didn't exist back then. It's ten years later that the format became popular, and that hybrids were created. Don't get mixed up!
We're saying the rules shouldn't stop hybrids because they're castable with one color of mana.You answer that they're multicolored, so the rules forbid them.You're using the rules to justify the rules. We're saying that the flavor of the Commander fo
That commanders hateoff color is absolutely part of the flavor. If it doesn't make sense to you, that's a deficiency on your part.
Please cite a source for this, preferably one involving the EDH committee and their reasoning behind the color-identity rules, or one involving Mark Rosewater, since he's basically the king of the color-pie. Otherwise, Dilleux most certainly does not have a deficiency for simply disagreeing with your opinion.
Please cite a source for this, preferably one involving the EDH committee and their reasoning behind the color-identity rules, or one involving Mark Rosewater, since he's basically the king of the color-pie. Otherwise, Dilleux most certainly does not
Nothing about "hating" colors. Only about what colors you "can use". In truth, someone's deck had Tsabo Tavoc as the commander, and played Illuminate just fine - he just couldn't use the blue Kicker cost.
... can someone open this link? It's not working for me.
A link from the official site (click in "historical") sent me to this StarCityGames article a forum post about an old Duelist article.Nothing about "hating" colors. Only about what colors you "can use". In truth, someone's deck had Tsabo Tavoc
If you take the time you can find things Sheldon has said about the format in forum posts referencing a commander's complete disagreeing with off color. Its rather common knowledge that commander abhor off color. I cannot take responsibility for ignorance... but if people need to read up on it www.mtgcommander.net/Forum/viewtopic.php... Sheldon and some of the other members of the RC speak up and opine on the rules, making changes, and the flavor behind the current form of the rules.
On using circular agruments: I appeal to the current rules, they being the most in line with the desired flavor and function for the format. Hybrids, as multicolored cards, break from that and so are excluded from monocolored.
That is not circular. Dill is applying the answer of why hybrids are excluded from monocolored decks to why they should be excluded.
Exceptions are generally unfavorable. Unintuitive results are unfavorable. Unnecessary complications are unfavorable. Undue hardships in deck construction is unfavorable. Etc.
99% of all rules changes proposed end up with some sort of unfavorable consequences. 1 problem fixed, 1 problem created. This is the why the rules are the way they are. They are currently in their best form.
So why are hybrids excluded? They're multicolored- its just application of the rules. Why are the rules so worded? They strike the best balance between flavor and playability. Why should hybrids be excluded from monocolored? For a myriad of reasons. Pick one.
If a sound argument/solution for hybrids were found I have no doubt it would be implemented. I just don't see it here.
If you take the time you can find things Sheldon has said about the format in forum posts referencing a commander's complete disagreeing with off color. Its rather common knowledge that commander abhor off color. I cannot take responsibility for igno
"You must be able to pay the mana cost of each card in your deck with a mana cost using only mana in your commander's color identity."
Seems simple, flavorful, and much more sensible than the current rules.
"You must be able to pay the mana cost of each card in your deck with a mana cost using only mana in your commander's color identity."Seems simple, flavorful, and much more sensible than the current rules.
I can pay the mana cost of any card ever printed using only mana in my commander's color identity...if my deck contains Mycosynth Lattice .
I don't see how it's not flavorful. It's a card designed to let any deck play any spell ever. Why wouldn't it let a Commander deck play any spell ever?
I don't see how it's not flavorful. It's a card designed to let any deck play any spell ever. Why wouldn't it let a Commander deck play any spell ever?
I can pay the mana cost of any card ever printed using only mana in my commander's color identity...if my deck contains Mycosynth Lattice .
That's ridiculous. Mycosynth Lattice isn't on the battlefield when you're building your deck. In addition, the fact that Mycosynth Lattice lets you treat your blue mana "as though it were red mana" doesn't change the fact that a cost of can only be paid with red mana.
That's ridiculous. Mycosynth Lattice isn't on the battlefield when you're building your deck. In addition, the fact that Mycosynth Lattice lets you treat your blue mana "as though it were red mana" doesn't change t
Wording things based on costs might be possible. Basing it only on casting costs doesn't stop things like ethersworn adjudicator from going into any deck with blue or pact of negation going into any deck.
Finding a clean wording that takes into account activated ability costs, costs on triggers etc becomes difficult, but the concept comes pretty close. My instinct is that looking at printed mana symbols amounts to the same thing and is easier and covers things like Obelisk of Jund in two colored decks without needing additional rules.
Wording things based on costs might be possible. Basing it only on casting costs doesn't stop things like ethersworn adjudicator from going into any deck with blue or pact of negation going into any deck.Finding a clean wording that takes into accoun
I can pay the mana cost of any card ever printed using only mana in my commander's color identity...if my deck contains Mycosynth Lattice .
I don't see how it's not flavorful. It's a card designed to let any deck play any spell ever. Why wouldn't it let a Commander deck play any spell ever?
I would prefer that people who want a Commander deck that can run any spell ever printed take the traditional route: running a five-color Commander.
I can pay the mana cost of any card ever printed using only mana in my commander's color identity...if my deck contains Mycosynth Lattice .
That's ridiculous. Mycosynth Lattice isn't on the battlefield when you're building your deck. In addition, the fact that Mycosynth Lattice lets you treat your blue mana "as though it were red mana" doesn't change the fact that a cost of can only be paid with red mana.
I agree it's ridiculous. Moreover, I normally look very skeptically at that kind of rules-lawyering. But what in the wording of that proposed rule prohibits that interpretation? It comes down to how we define "be able to pay". All I'm saying is that the rule is badly ambiguous.
Actually, I'm okay with the rules as they currently stand. They're consistent in how they handle multicolored cards -- either you can run all of the cards or you can't run any of them -- and for the most part successfully enforce on-color deck building (which is a real trick when you consider how many ways Magic provides to skirt colored mana requirements). The real casualties of the current structure are your Quenchable Fire , your Mtenda Lion , your Obelisk of Alara and your Noble Hierarch ...but I only really miss the last one.
I don't see how it's not flavorful. It's a card designed to let any deck play any spell ever. Why wouldn't it let a Commander deck play any spell ever?[/quote]I would prefer that people who want a Commander deck that can run any spell ever printed ta
Wording things based on costs might be possible. Basing it only on casting costs doesn't stop things like ethersworn adjudicator from going into any deck with blue or pact of negation going into any deck.
Ethersworn Adjudicator in a blue deck without the mana to activate its abilities is terribly bad. Pact of Negation in a deck without blue is suicidal. I don't see the problem.
I would prefer that people who want a Commander deck that can run any spell ever printed take the traditional route: running a five-color Commander.
There are two cards in Magic's history who can let you cast any color of spell. One requires a heavy white commitment. You're playing a 100-cards singleton format. Playing mono-blue with Lattice won't let you fill your deck with off-color spells.
Ethersworn Adjudicator in a blue deck without the mana to activate its abilities is terribly bad. Pact of Negation in a deck without blue is suicidal. I don't see the problem.There a
Wording things based on costs might be possible. Basing it only on casting costs doesn't stop things like ethersworn adjudicator from going into any deck with blue or pact of negation going into any deck.
Ethersworn Adjudicator in a blue deck without the mana to activate its abilities is terribly bad. Pact of Negation in a deck without blue is suicidal. I don't see the problem.
The quality of a card in a deck has nothing to do with it.
Besides, Pact of negation is an amazing card in any deck looking to combo-win that turn. I have seen a number of non-blue decks that would love to run pact of negation.
Ethersworn Adjudicator in a blue deck without the mana to activate its abilities is terribly bad. Pact of Negation in a deck without blue is suicidal. I don't see the problem.[/quote
Wording things based on costs might be possible. Basing it only on casting costs doesn't stop things like ethersworn adjudicator from going into any deck with blue or pact of negation going into any deck.
Ethersworn Adjudicator in a blue deck without the mana to activate its abilities is terribly bad. Pact of Negation in a deck without blue is suicidal. I don't see the problem.
The quality of a card in a deck has nothing to do with it.
Besides, Pact of negation is an amazing card in any deck looking to combo-win that turn. I have seen a number of non-blue decks that would love to run pact of negation.
I don't see the problem. Mono-green legacy decks can run Pact but die next turn. Akroma should be able to cast Pact and die next turn. Mono-blue Legacy deck can run Ethersworn adjudicator but not activate its first ability. Ixidor should be able to do the same.
Ethersworn Adjudicator in a blue deck without the mana to activate its abilities is terribly bad. Pact of Negation in a deck without blue is suicidal. I don't see the problem.[/quote
Wording things based on costs might be possible. Basing it only on casting costs doesn't stop things like ethersworn adjudicator from going into any deck with blue or pact of negation going into any deck.
Ethersworn Adjudicator in a blue deck without the mana to activate its abilities is terribly bad. Pact of Negation in a deck without blue is suicidal. I don't see the problem.
The quality of a card in a deck has nothing to do with it.
Besides, Pact of negation is an amazing card in any deck looking to combo-win that turn. I have seen a number of non-blue decks that would love to run pact of negation.
I don't see the problem. Mono-green legacy decks can run Pact but die next turn. Akroma should be able to cast Pact and die next turn. Mono-blue Legacy deck can run Ethersworn adjudicator but not activate its first ability. Ixidor should be able to do the same.
EDH is not Legacy...
you cannot use legacy as a backing for what should be done in EDH. Legacy allows 4 of many cards... should EDH get rid of its singleton aspect?
Ethersworn Adjudicator in a blue deck without the mana to activate its abilities is terribly bad. Pact of Negation in a deck without blue is suicidal. I don't see the problem.[/quote
The flavor of Commander is based on the flavor of the rest of the game : the Commanders can only cast spells they could cast in-world. A mono-green Commander can only cast green spells because a mono-green character can only cast green spells. But in reality, as depicted by Legacy decks, a mono-green mage can still use spells like Mycosynth Lattice to cast spells of mana foreign to them. That's the mechanics of the game. Making Commander obey its own remote island of tailored flavor that was built to emulate the flavor of the rest of the game doesn't make sense.
The flavor of Commander is based on the flavor of the rest of the game : the Commanders can only cast spells they could cast in-world. A mono-green Commander can only cast green spells because a mono-green character can only cast green spells. But in
Just a friendly reminder: if you're trying to effect change to the Commander rules, you'll have more luck in the Rules Discussion forum at mtgcommander.net. The Magic rules team coordinates with the Commander rules committee, but the Commander rules committee continues to set policy for the format.
Just a friendly reminder: if you're trying to effect change to the Commander rules, you'll have more luck in the Rules Discussion forum at mtgcommander.net. The Magic rules team coordinates with the Commander rules committee, but the Commander rules
@dilleux - you seem to argue that commander should change because it doesn't make sense. The problem is that it does make sense- you just don't agree with it.
@dilleux - you seem to argue that commander should change because it doesn't make sense. The problem is that it does make sense- you just don't agree with it.
@dilleux - you seem to argue that commander should change because it doesn't make sense. The problem is that it does make sense- you just don't agree with it.
What doesn't make sense isn't the rules -- it's the dichotomy you're putting between Legacy's flavor and Commander's. What is thebest rule to represent that flavor can be multiple things, but saying that Commander's flavor is entirely different from the rest of the formats doesn't make much sense.
What doesn't make sense isn't the rules -- it's the dichotomy you're putting between Legacy's flavor and Commander's. What is thebest rule to represent that flavor can be multiple things, but saying that Commander's flavor is entirely different from
Again, edh isn't legacy or vintage or any other constructed format. It doesn't need to adhere to the sensibilities of those formats. If you cant make sense of why this is, that's on you.
The different formats have different rules. Why does two headed giant have teams with shared life totals? Why do teams take their turns together rather than seperately? You cant look to other multiplayer or constructed formats to answer that you look to the intended flavor of two headed giant and see how it informs the rules for the format.
Do the same with edh. Don't look to legacy for why things are the way they are in edh.
Again, edh isn't legacy or vintage or any other constructed format. It doesn't need to adhere to the sensibilities of those formats. If you cant make sense of why this is, that's on you. The different formats have different rules. Why does two headed
Again, edh isn't legacy or vintage or any other constructed format. It doesn't need to adhere to the sensibilities of those formats. If you cant make sense of why this is, that's on you. The different formats have different rules. Why does two headed giant have teams with shared life totals? Why do teams take their turns together rather than seperately? You cant look to other multiplayer or constructed formats to answer that you look to the intended flavor of two headed giant and see how it informs the rules for the format. Do the same with edh. Don't look to legacy for why things are the way they are in edh.
Tules are different, the flavor is the same. You can play Star, Tribal, Prismatic, 2HG, 3HG, Emperor, multiplayer, Archenemy, Planar magic, Draft, Sealed, whatever and you still have the same base flavor : Pact of Negation can be cast by any deck, any mage, any game. When anyone drops Mycosynth Lattice, they can cast spell of any color, whatever deck they're playing. These aren't some special rules, they're the very core of Magic's indentity.
Tules are different, the flavor is the same. You can play Star, Tribal, Prismatic, 2HG, 3HG, Emperor, multiplayer, Archenemy, Planar magic, Draft, Sealed, whatever and you still have the same base flavor : Pact of Negation can be cast by any deck, an
You ignore the obvious flavor implications of the rules in two headed giant. Why should I lose the game if you blast my team mate with a 100 x-damage consume spirit? The rules for turn structure and shared life total are based on the idea of a two-headed giant... 2 heads, 1 body.
The rules for deck construction, mana production, etc in edh are informed by the arbitrary flavor of the format. You cannot look to legacy, vintage, standard, ravnica limited, or any format and use that to dictate how edh should function. It is its own entity with its own flavor. Yes, its built on the framework of the game of magic, but so what?
Edh is rather analogous to a pc mod. The main game does not necessarily dictate what the mod must be.
You ignore the obvious flavor implications of the rules in two headed giant. Why should I lose the game if you blast my team mate with a 100 x-damage consume spirit? The rules for turn structure and shared life total are based on the idea of a two-he
You ignore the obvious flavor implications of the rules in two headed giant. Why should I lose the game if you blast my team mate with a 100 x-damage consume spirit? The rules for turn structure and shared life total are based on the idea of a two-headed giant... 2 heads, 1 body. The rules for deck construction, mana production, etc in edh are informed by the arbitrary flavor of the format. You cannot look to legacy, vintage, standard, ravnica limited, or any format and use that to dictate how edh should function. It is its own entity with its own flavor. Yes, its built on the framework of the game of magic, but so what? Edh is rather analogous to a pc mod. The main game does not necessarily dictate what the mod must be.
That's not exactly it. 2HG is the same as a normal game, but you are two heads of the same giant. Commander is the same as a normal game, but you can only cast spells your Commander would be able to cast. The problem is creating so much of a dichotomy that the basis of flavor itself is changed. What about if the rules team decided that in 2HG, you can't play white? That burn actually makes you gain life? That every land can tap for two colorless mana? That would be strange indeed.
That's not exactly it. 2HG is the same as a normal game, but you are two heads of the same giant. Commander is the same as a normal game, but you can only cast spells your Commander would be able to cast. The problem is creating so much of a dichotom
Why is it a problem for a format to introduce a new flavor? You haven't actually shown that to be an issue.
And why would one change be different than another? Why would a color restriction be different from a tribal restriction, or a card pool restriction? This dichotomy of flavor seems a contrived issue based on your opinions.
You can bring up a bunch of weird arbitrary rules changes that will never actually happen... but if you were to ground them in flavor and make a format incorporating them I suspect they'd feel less strange. That's what these alternate formats do.
Why is it a problem for a format to introduce a new flavor? You haven't actually shown that to be an issue. And why would one change be different than another? Why would a color restriction be different from a tribal restriction, or a card pool restr
The fact is that the flavor of Commander is based upon the colors of Magic your Commander can use. That should follow the canon explanation that drives the mechanics of the game.
The fact is that the flavor of Commander is based upon the colors of Magic your Commander can use. That should follow the canon explanation that drives the mechanics of the game.
Should? Should what? I'm not sure what it is you're trying to say now.
Does the commander flavor need an overhaul? Good luck showing that to be true.
Do the current rules not adhere to the desired flavor for the format? Good luck showing that to be true.
Do the rules have a few inconsistencies? Yes, but good luck trying to patch those up adequately.
Should? Should what? I'm not sure what it is you're trying to say now.Does the commander flavor need an overhaul? Good luck showing that to be true.Do the current rules not adhere to the desired flavor for the format? Good luck showing that to be tru
Commander is based upon the idea that you can cast only spells your Commander can cast. Every other format says any mage can cast Pact of Negation . Ergo, you should be able to cast Pact of Negation with any Commander.
Commander is based upon the idea that you can cast only spells your Commander can cast.Every other format says any mage can cast Pact of Negation .Ergo, you should be able to cast Pact of Negation
Commander is based upon the idea that you can cast only spells your Commander can cast. Every other format says any mage can cast Pact of Negation . Ergo, you should be able to cast Pact of Negation with any Commander.
On what do you base that assumtion in the first line? I don't think you will find any EDH lore or rules to back that up. The color of the spell matters.
On what do you base that assumtion in the first line? I don't think you will find any EDH lore or rules to back that up.The color of the spell matters.
Commander is based upon the idea that you can cast only spells your Commander can cast. Every other format says any mage can cast Pact of Negation . Ergo, you should be able to cast Pact of Negation with any Commander.
On what do you base that assumtion in the first line? I don't think you will find any EDH lore or rules to back that up. The color of the spell matters.
How do you think they came up with the color identity rule? I won't do a deep research across the web, but I think it's pretty clear where it came from originally : the five elder dragons, and you can only play spells of those colors...
On what do you base that assumtion in the first line? I don't think you will find any EDH lore or rules to back that up.The color of the spell matters. [/quote]How do you think they came up with the color identity rule? I won't do a deep research acr
The original rules were more lax and so there were issues with cards like kobolds of kher keep being legal in any deck when obviously red.
The rules were updated to better match the desired color restrictions, though at what point I'm not sure. Certainly since lorwyn/alara blocks.
But how the format was, or how other formats currently are has little bearing on how edh should be. Each format has its idiosyncrasies, color restrictions being one of edh's defining.
The argument that edh should adhere to any particular sensibility because its common to any or all other formats is simply not cogent.
The original rules were more lax and so there were issues with cards like kobolds of kher keep being legal in any deck when obviously red. The rules were updated to better match the desired color restrictions, though at what point I'm not sure. Certa
The first rule that was implemented was the "no off-color cards" rule. It has been there since forever. At first, they made exception for cards like the Bringers, to be played in mono-color, but they removed them for the sake of simplicity.
You've got history wrong. The only update on the color restriction rule was the one that made Memnarch a mono-blue Commander.
The first rule that was implemented was the "no off-color cards" rule. It has been there since forever. At first, they made exception for cards like the Bringers, to be played in mono-color, but they removed them for the sake of simplicity.You've got
No. History of the format has no bearing on whether or no the rules should allow for hybrids in off color decks.
Though I'm unsure what history I'm mistaken over. Cards were once deigned legal based on casting cost (hence the legal illuminate in Brion stoutarm in the linked article) after which all mana symbols were looked at (note the exception for bringers you mentioned) and then we were given a comp rules formulation for CI that made memnarch and friends legal commanders.
No. History of the format has no bearing on whether or no the rules should allow for hybrids in off color decks.Though I'm unsure what history I'm mistaken over. Cards were once deigned legal based on casting cost (hence the legal illuminate in Brion
History of the format sure is important when you try to understand its flavor. I don't get your point. If you want to find what's the flavor of the format to make the rules adhere more to it, then you have to look up what it has been throughout Commander's history. There's no other way. Looking at the current rules, deriving flavor from it and justifying the rules with said flavor is circular reasoning.
History of the format sure is important when you try to understand its flavor. I don't get your point. If you want to find what's the flavor of the format to make the rules adhere more to it, then you have to look up what it has been throughout Comma
Looking at previous rules for flavor and what should be done might be thought of as an appeal to tradition and equally fallacious as circular
But looking at current rules to derive current flavor to determine how to handle current situations isn't circular its interpretation and application of current flavor philosophy/rules.
We also need not look at past rules for flavor (though you will find in almost all cases that the rules have become stricter, so no good prospects for hybrids there. The current CI wording being the exception as they opened up Memnarch, bosh et al as legal commanders), we only have to ask the rules committee what they're take is currently.
Looking at previous rules for flavor and what should be done might be thought of as an appeal to tradition and equally fallacious as circularBut looking at current rules to derive current flavor to determine how to handle current situations isn't cir
Until you find me a place on the internet that proves that the rules committee has determined that the current flavor of Commander has changed over the years, we'll assume it's the same as in its inception, since the rules haven't changed. The burden of proof is upon one who claims fact. Simply stating that it's possible doesn't make it relevant. If we know what the flavor was in the beginning and have no reason to suspect it has changed, we can't just assume it has because it's possible, especially since the rules already mismatched the flavor in the beginning.
Until you find me a place on the internet that proves that the rules committee has determined that the current flavor of Commander has changed over the years, we'll assume it's the same as in its inception, since the rules haven't changed. The burden
Whatever. I did post a link to a thread where Sheldon menery posted.
And I'm not sure what you mean by the rules haven't changed. They have. Again you need only look to the historical article. The official banning of hybrids in off color decks. And then the CI wording for the comp rules. That's three definite time periods operating under different rules variations... each one bringing the rules more in line with the direction that Sheldon and the rest of the RC wanted for the format.
The more you post the more baffled I am over what your intent is... to show that hybrid cards should be allowed because the original wording only looked at casting costs? That doesn't hold- cards like the aforementioned kobolds were red but legal in any deck, which was seen as an oversight. So the rules were changed to look at all symbols and colors of a card, which ruled out bringers and hybrids in the appropriate contexts.
In fact I cant think of a previous rules wording that they would have been legal as at all times cards legality has been based (not solely of course) on the mana symbols in its casting cost... the rules have never been about what is castable, but based on color in some fashion.
So again, whatever. Feel free to do your own research or not, I don't feel in the slightest burdened to prove anything to you. History isn't the point. The point is the "now" and what would be best for the format. Allowing hybrids doesn't open up any spectacular amount of playability or diversity that isn't already there and doesn't fix more than it breaks (as did the change in CI to allow for memnarch et al as commanders). The change is bad.
You simply aren't on the right side of the issue right now. Maybe in time as more and more hybrids are printed a new formulation of the rules will be requisite, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
Whatever. I did post a link to a thread where Sheldon menery posted.And I'm not sure what you mean by the rules haven't changed. They have. Again you need only look to the historical article. The official banning of hybrids in off color decks. And th
The only real change in the color identity rules were to make Commander's color identities include their abilities' cost. There never was any "official banning of Hybrids" (the rule that prevents them was in effect ten years before they existed, I don't know where you get the contrary), and the wording for the comp rules never changed anything. From the very inception of the game, the rule went with colors and mana symbols. It has stayed like this throughout the years. There never was any major rules change that could make you say that it proves the intended flavor.
What I propose is that the only rule be that you can't generate off-color mana. That means that a mono-blue deck can cast U/X hybrid spells like they were created for and cards like the Pacts will work as intended in their conception, which is, any deck can use them, but without any means to generate on-color mana, you'll die. Cards like Mycosynth Lattice and reanimator spells, which were always meant to enbale casting/reanimating of any card of any color without requirements for having a deck with those colors will work like they should.
That's what I'm suggesting, and it isn't out of the blue.
The fact the the rules have never permitted it isn't a strike against my suggestion; it's the foundation of it. If at some point they had and had been changed, I wouldn't have any grounds.
What the change brings is the negation of mechanical fails (multiple have been quoted which can't be reasoned into any sense) with the only downside being things that feel strange but can be reasoned. I prefer being able to reanimate Iona in a mono-black deck with the downside of maybe having a dead card than not being able to use a swamp, nor a Savage Land , but be able to use Urborg.
The current rules feel mechanical and clunky. The arbitrary dichotomy between words and symbols feels artificial and unintuitive. The Color rule goes against the flavor of Hybrids, 0-cost spells and Mycosynth Lattice/that other one in white.
The only real change in the color identity rules were to make Commander's color identities include their abilities' cost. There never was any "official banning of Hybrids" (the rule that prevents them was in effect ten years before they existed, I do
Your still on the wrong side of the issue. Restriction just to color production (not a new idea) does not align with the restrictions on deck construction that the RC wants for the format. The current rules are such that they find a balance between simplicity, flavor, and ease of mechanical play. The change you've proposed has been discussed ad nauseum and rejected. In fact, the removal of restrictions on mana production is seen as a more likely-to-happen change.
Also, its funny how wrong you are about the rulings on hybrids and the impact of the CI wording, and because I have easy access to them, links:
Your still on the wrong side of the issue. Restriction just to color production (not a new idea) does not align with the restrictions on deck construction that the RC wants for the format. The current rules are such that they find a balance between s
So, it's been about a hundred post talking about it and you just had "easy access" to a discussion about how they considered the change but didn't do it? That's exactly what I asked for earlier!
Still, it's far from "Hybrid bannings" (it's just that they considered changing the rules and didn't) and the last link is exactly what I said earlier (the color identity changed for Commander). The hybrids were never allowed, the only change was for Memnarch-style Commanders identity and the current rules were the same for the color inclusion for the whole duration of the format's life.
I still disagree with the Rulse Comitee decision, but knowing that it has been discussed and rejected is a good thing to know. That's the only part where I was "wrong", and that was what I saked for earlier, the rest of what I said still stands and wasn't proven wrong by any link you posted.
So, it's been about a hundred post talking about it and you just had "easy access" to a discussion about how they considered the change but didn't do it? That's exactly what I asked for earlier! Still, it's far from "Hybrid bannings" (it's just that
The hybrids were never allowed, the only change was for Memnarch-style Commanders identity and the current rules were the same for the color inclusion for the whole duration of the format's life.
Actually, that third link above was also where CDAs started to apply to Color Identity (since it's the first time that Color and Color Identity were separated as concepts). Prior to that point, Kobolds were legal in any deck, which was considered an unfortunate loophole.
Actually, that third link above was also where CDAs started to apply to Color Identity (since it's the first time that Color and Color Identity were separated as concepts). Prior to that point, Kobolds were legal in any deck, which was considered an
@dill... I actually just looked them up earlier that day for the "easy access"... they were things I was well aware of previously but had no direct source to quote, though I DID post a link to a long conversation, which I assume you didn't bother to read.
I'm a bit confused about what you were right about that still stands.
@dill... I actually just looked them up earlier that day for the "easy access"... :) they were things I was well aware of previously but had no direct source to quote, though I DID post a link to a long conversation, which I assume you didn't bother
Actually, that third link above was also where CDAs started to apply to Color Identity (since it's the first time that Color and Color Identity were separated as concepts). Prior to that point, Kobolds were legal in any deck, which was considered an unfortunate loophole.
No it wasn't :
The major impact here is that there are a few Legendary Creatures who no longer invalidate themselves as Commanders: Memnarch, Bosh, Iron Golem, Thelon of Havenwood, Daughter of Autumn, and Rhys, the Exiled. It means that you can have these creatures as Commanders, and you can generate mana of their color identity (so if you’re playing Memnarch, you can generate blue mana, or if you’re playing Thelon, you can generate black and green).
Prior to that point, Kobolds weren't legal in non-red deck.
@dill... I actually just looked them up earlier that day for the "easy access"... they were things I was well aware of previously but had no direct source to quote, though I DID post a link to a long conversation, which I assume you didn't bother to read. I'm a bit confused about what you were right about that still stands.
There never was any Hybrid banning. There never was any change to color identity from the origin of the format except for enabling Commander like Memnarch to be playable. The only thing that your link proved is that they considered a rules change, which, while relevant to the conversation, didn't prove anything wrong in what I said. The rules as they stand were created with the inception of the format.
No it wasn't :Prior to that point, Kobolds weren't legal in non-red deck.There never was any Hybrid banning. There never was any change to color identity from the origin of the format except for enabling Commander like Memnarch to be playable. The on
Actually, that third link above was also where CDAs started to apply to Color Identity (since it's the first time that Color and Color Identity were separated as concepts). Prior to that point, Kobolds were legal in any deck, which was considered an unfortunate loophole.
No it wasn't :
The major impact here is that there are a few Legendary Creatures who no longer invalidate themselves as Commanders: Memnarch, Bosh, Iron Golem, Thelon of Havenwood, Daughter of Autumn, and Rhys, the Exiled. It means that you can have these creatures as Commanders, and you can generate mana of their color identity (so if you’re playing Memnarch, you can generate blue mana, or if you’re playing Thelon, you can generate black and green).
Prior to that point, Kobolds weren't legal in non-red deck.
I'm afraid you're wrong here. That quote you cite (part of the announcement at forum.mtgcommander.net/EDH_Forum/viewtop...) doesn't actually support your case - the major change *was* to the generals, because almost nobody played Kobolds or Transguild Courier. But they could have.
You may also find page 2 of this thread useful: http://forum.mtgcommander.net/EDH_Forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5201&hilit=Kobol...
No it wasn't :Prior to that point, Kobolds weren't legal in non-red deck.[/quote]I'm afraid you're wrong here. That quote you cite (part of the announcement at forum.mtgcommander.net/EDH_Forum/viewtop...) doesn't actually support your case - the majo
I'm afraid you're wrong here. That quote you cite (part of the announcement at forum.mtgcommander.net/EDH_Forum/viewtop...) doesn't actually support your case - the major change *was* to the generals, because almost nobody played Kobolds or Transguild Courier. But they could have.
You may also find page 2 of this thread useful: http://forum.mtgcommander.net/EDH_Forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5201&hilit=Kobolds&start=15
It appears I was indeed wrong. Thanks for pointing it out.
It appears I was indeed wrong. Thanks for pointing it out.
fixing it right now.
they were things I was well aware of previously but had no direct source to quote, though I DID post a link to a long conversation, which I assume you didn't bother to read.
