Login | Register


All times are UTC - 7 hours


It is currently 2019-Nov-20 10:57 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 72 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: In Defense of Devoid
AgePosted: 2016-Jun-21 4:38 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2016-Jun-21 4:31 am
Age: Wyvern
This first argument is irrelevant for reasons discussed below. If you're curious about any ideas I'm playing with or any ancillary thoughts, the full text can still be found in the spoiler tag.

tl;dr or do, but at your own peril




I know
Quote:
that a card's colour and a card's colour identity are not necessarily the same
but this brings up a bit of an inconsistency with how rules are applied under certain conditions.

Suppose I'm building a colorless deck. I can include only cards that have no color identity. Cards with Devoid, like Bearer of Silence, are almost that. They are cards that have no color, despite the presence of a color mana symbol in their casting cost. Mana symbols in the casting cost are ignored because of the card's rule text, but are also not ignored, due to Rule 3.

Quote:
3. A card's colour identity is its colour plus the colour of any mana symbols in the card's rules text.


Quote:
105.2 "An object is the color or colors of the mana symbols in its mana cost ..."


Quote:
Devoid (This card has no color.)


Devoid is a property of a card itself, not a spell on the stack nor a creature on the battlefield, just a card, and cards with Devoid specifically ignore color mana symbols in their casting cost. The symbols aren't removed, erased, replaced, subtracted, deleted, depleted, nor forgotten, just simply ignored for color. Though it isn't explicitly stated that mana symbols are to be ignored, the ignoring of the presence of color mana symbols is an emergent property of the rules text's 'matter-of-factness.' The property of Devoid can be read as, "{Ignore mana symbols in this card's cost for the effect to be that} this card has no color." And this is always true for a card with Devoid. Before being cast, ahead of being included in a deck, prior to boosters containing such cards are opened, it is always true.

Then suddenly once color identity is being determined the mana symbols in casting cost are abruptly not ignored, and it is not true. Even though a card with Devoid is always ignoring color mana symbols in its casting cost in order for the card to have no color, the 'everness' of that 'always' shatters.

Let's take a peak at Rule 3 again.

Quote:
3. A card's colour identity is its colour plus the colour of any mana symbols in the card's rules text.


This can be understood and rewritten as:

Color Identity (CI) = Color (c) + rules text color mana symbols (t)

Remember,
Quote:
105.2 "An object is the color or colors of the mana symbols in its mana cost ..."


Let's generalize for a moment with that; if a card has color, then c = 1, and if no color then c = 0; if a color mana symbol is present in rules text, then t = 1, and if not then t = 0:

CI = 1c + 0t = 1CI = color, example Gisela, Blade of Goldnight

CI = 0c + 1t = 1CI = color, example Memnarch

CI = 1c + 1t = 2CI = color, example Horde of Notions

CI = 0c + 0t = 0CI = colorless, example Karn, Silver Golem

So for a card's color identity to be colorless, then the resulting value must be equal to 0. Anything > 0 will have a color identity. Cool. Let's apply this to the first card I mentioned, Bearer of Silence (BoS). It costs 1B, B is a color, so 'c' will be = 1. In the rules text, there are no color mana symbols, so 't' will be = 0. Plugging the values into our equation:

BoS CI = 1c + 0t = 1CI = color

Cheers. But hold on a second. Isn't BoS a card with Devoid? Yes, it is a card with Devoid, it is a card that has no color. As I defined before, "if a card has color, then c = 1." The only way for c = 1 to be true for a card is for that card to have color. We already know that BoS costs 1B, which satisfies c = 1, but it is a card that has no color. For BoS, c = 1 cannot be true if in fact this card has no color, and as true as day and night, it is the case that this card has no color. It's written clear across the face of the card, Bearer of Silence, "Devoid (This card has no color.)." With this being a truth of this card, then c cannot = 1, that for BoS, c ≠ 1, and the only other value that can be assigned to c, when c ≠ 1, is 0, so it must be that c = 0 for BoS. When c = 0, then:

BoS CI = 0c + 0t = 0CI = colorless

Now let's compare both equations for BoS;

colorless = 0CI = 0c + 0t = BoS CI = 1c + 0t = 1CI = color, or 0CI = 1CI, or 1 = 0

Whozah! How inconsistent, for a card to have color and to not have color. This isn't quantum mechanics. It's game mechanics. This 1 = 0 isn't really happening. It's merely an inconsistent result of a card's rules text conflicting with a game rule. So which rule ought to be superseding the other? If the game rule is to do so, then a mechanic of an entire tribe and class of cards cannot be played with their tribal legendaries in this format, so I'm inclined to favor the card. That's my bias though, and this is only a conflict between one card mechanic and one game rule. Are there any other conflicts between card and game rules that may guide the choice?

Quote:
With the exception of basic lands, no two cards in the deck may have the same english name. Some cards (e.g. Relentless Rats) may have rules text that overrides this restriction.


So there is another game rule that has a class of cards that conflict with it, yet there is no conflict because of the inclusion of a clause for cards that would have conflicted with it to override the rule. The card supersedes. Cheers. There is game rule precedent to support the notion that cards with Devoid ought to have their CI be colorless.

Though there's precedent, it isn't so. An override exception has not been made for cards with Devoid. Cards that have no color somehow still have color. Somehow, it's still 1 = 0. Quantum mechanics.

But isn't that inconsistent? And even more so than before? We don't recognize a card's rules text when establishing color identity, outside a game, or when deck building due to Rule 3, yet an entire override clause is included in Rule 5 for cards, such as Shadowborn Apostle, whose rules text would be in conflict if not for the clause exempting them. If Rule 5 is to be excused for certain cards because of rules text, then shouldn't the same or similar standards be so in all situations? For all of the game rules? For all cards whose particular mechanics are in conflict with any of the game rules? And if no exemptions are going to be made in Rule 3 for cards with conflicting rules text, then what makes Rule 5 so special as to warrant a whole clause for override exemptions? Wahwah! A card inconsistent with a rule exposes an even more fundamental inconsistency within the format!

Now, I'm writing this because I just found out about Rule 4's abolishment a couple weeks ago. Lands and mana stones that can tap to add mana outside your general's color identity is now a thing, even if those mana symbols cannot be included in that general's library. However, there are plenty of cards that can be tapped and what not to add mana of any color to a mana pool. For a colorless legendary, most of which are Eldrazi, if cards with Devoid were to have colorless identities, then those generals would be capable of casting those cards.

And so we're presented with a choice, in the wake of Rule 4 being removed. Should precedent be followed, a clause added to Rule 3 to exempt cards with rules text that conflicts with the rule as it is now? Or should nothing be done to Rule 3, which would exclude an entire card mechanic from being played with the tribal legendaries that the card mechanic was designed to be played with, in doing so setting a new precedent where the game rules are written inconsistently, one rule getting exceptions while this other one doesn't? Or should Rule 3 be rewritten to redefine color identity, striking out 'its colour' and replacing it with something like, 'colors of the mana symbols in its mana cost,' to dodge the conflict with Devoid entirely? Or should Rule 2 be edited, striking out the line that grants overriding authority for cards which conflict with the rule, so that all game rules are applied consistently all the time?

Yeah, I assume that most people who opt to read any of this will completely dismiss it. It's common knowledge in the community that this has been settled. It's been decided in Twitter and Tumblr and all of the forums and everywhere else. Devoid does not exclude color when determining color identity,so for now, let's set all of that aside. So what was color identity again?

Quote:
A card's colour identity is its colour plus the colour of any mana symbols in the card's rules text.


The fact of the matter is, Devoid is ignored when establishing the color identity of a card. That is what takes place, as I'm writing this. And this is done so to simplify everything. We need not change the rules to make exceptions and exemptions and overrides and the like. Devoid is ignored, and all is well.

But just to be safe, let's describe clearly what we, as a community, have agreed upon, to be what exactly we are doing, and treat all rules texts and all cards equally under the rules of the game and the format, written and not written, to keep things simple, to decrease complexity, and to avoid exceptions, exemptions, and overrides, so that we may ignore Devoid when establishing color identity.

The rules text of Devoid is ignored when establishing color identity. But not all rules text is ignored. Only the rules text of Devoid is ignored. The rules text must be ignored, otherwise all cards with Devoid would have colorless, but we cannot ignore all the rules text of cards that have Devoid. If we ignored all the rules texts of cards with Devoid, then we would also be ignoring the rules text where color of any mana symbols in cards' rules text that do not pertain to Devoid reside. So that keyword ability is an exception to the rules we made so we can determine cards' colors, so we can establish color identity.

But if our goal is to simplify everything, to not have to change the rules for exceptions, exemptions, overrides, and the like, to treat all rules texts and all cards equally, so that we may ignore Devoid, then why are we treating Devoid so exceptionally of all things? If that's the goal and we wish to ignore it, to determine cards' colors, to establish color identity, then why must ignoring the rules text of Devoid, of all things, be so exceptional do to? We're trying to get rid of exceptional, to simplify everything and not change the rules. So if we're going to ignore the rules text of Devoid, and not have that be so exceptional, then we ignore all the rules text of cards with Devoid. So cards with that keyword ability is an exception to rules we made so we can determine cards' colors, so we can establish color identity.

But if our goal is to simplify everything, to not have to change the rules for exceptions, exemptions, overrides, and the like, to treat all rules texts and all cards equally, so that we may ignore Devoid, then why are we treating only cards that have Devoid so exceptionally of all things? If that's the goal and we wish to ignore Devoid, to determine cards' colors, to establish color identity, then why must ignoring the rules text of only cards with Devoid, of all things, be so exceptional do to? We're trying to get rid of exceptional, to simplify everything and not change the rules. So if we're going to ignore the rules text of cards with Devoid, and not have that be so exceptional, then we ignore all the rules text of all cards. So now there are no exceptions to rules we made, so we can determine cards' colors, so we can establish color identity.

And now we're here, treating all rules texts and all cards equally under the rules of the game and the format, written and not written, to keep things simple, to decrease complexity, and to avoid exceptions, exemptions, and overrides, so that we may ignore Devoid when establishing color identity. Let's take another look at Rule 3 so we can establish color identity.

Quote:
A card's colour identity is its colour plus the colour of any mana symbols in the card's rules text.


Wait, we need to check cards' rules text to see if there's color of any mana symbols in cards' rules text to establish color identity, which cannot be done if all rules text of all cards is ignored. There must be an exception made, otherwise no color identity can be established. Let's make an exception for cards that do not have Devoid. All of those cards do not ignore their rules text. They are safe.

Wait, we need to check cards' rules text of cards with Devoid to see if there's color of any mana symbols in those cards' rules text to establish color identity too, which cannot be done if all rules text of cards with Devoid is ignored. There must be an exception made, otherwise no color identity can be established. Let's make an exception for all rules text that is not rules text of Devoid. All rules text of cards with Devoid that are not rules text of Devoid are not ignored. Those rules texts are safe.

Wow, there are so many exceptions we needed just to keep the ignoring of Devoid simple. Plus we are forced to make a compromise, to not treat all rules texts and all cards equally under the rules of the game and the format, written and not written, to not keep things simple, nor decrease complexity, not to avoid exceptions, exemptions, and overrides. So let's try something different, and make only one exception. Only the rules text of Devoid is ignored. Of all cards with rules text, it only applies to cards with Devoid, and of all the rules text of cards with Devoid, only the rules text of Devoid is ignored.

This is even more complicated now than from where we began, even though we ultimately undid all the changes we made at the start of this description. Is that the actual rule we agreed upon? When did ignoring the rules text of a card even become an option? Rules text is optional? If we're willing to make such an exceptional exception, to ignore the full rules text of a rules text, just so we can ignore Devoid to establish color identity, then what other unwritten rules do we want to not write so we can ignore other rules text? Rules text is optional, isn't it? We're not treating cards and rules text equally anymore, so I have protection from counterspell, right? Why aren't we willing to instead make an exception that does not ignore rules text? Why aren't we willing to just let the rules text be? Isn't format-sanctioned ignoring of rules text rather dangerous? How much rules text am I free to ignore? Rules text is optional, right? When did establishing color identity become the jurisdiction of house rules? If we're willing to ignore rules text of a card here for this reason, then can we ignore rules text elsewhere for other reasons? Does allowing for the ignoring the rules text of cards increase or decrease clarity and complexity? Why have I spent hours of my day writing this godawful essay when I don't even have any cards with Devoid?

Because the rules text matters. Half of color identity is determined by it, so it cannot be ignored. If color mana symbols within rules text cannot be ignored, then none of it can be, ever. If any little bit is, then this whole format melts.

Quote:
3. A card's colour identity is its colour plus the colour of any mana symbols in the card's rules text. A card's colour identity is established before the game begins, and cannot be changed by game effects.

Quote:
702.113a Devoid is a characteristic-defining ability. “Devoid” means “This object is colorless.”
This ability functions everywhere, even outside the game.

Quote:
105.2c A colorless object has no color

_________________
.•*°*•.oOo.•*Commanders*•.oOo.•*°*•.

Zedruu the Greathearted, Ghave, Guru of Spores, Horde of Notions,

Jeleva, Nephalia's Scourge, Nekusar, the Mindrazer, Daretti, Scrap Savant

.oO9°*Tiny Leaders*°୧Oo.

Kaseto, Orochi Archmage, Saffi Eriksdotter*

*Work in progress


Last edited by Hax_r_us on 2016-Jun-24 4:27 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: In Defense of Devoid
AgePosted: 2016-Jun-22 12:04 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2006-Dec-31 12:26 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
CompRules wrote:
903.4. The Commander variant uses color identity to determine what cards can be in a deck with a certain commander. The color identity of a card is the color or colors of any mana symbols in that card's mana cost or rules text, plus any colors defined by its characteristic-defining abilities (see rule 604.3) or color indicator (see rule 204).

That's how the ability actually works. If you're going to start trying to split hairs, then use the official wording, and not just the "Reading-friendly" version that is on the website here (ie, when you say "rule 3" you're referring to those easy-to-comprehend versions of the rules.)

As you can see - it explicitly uses the mana symbols in the casting cost - and any CDA's only count if they define colours. As Devoid defines an absence of colour - that's not included. In fact, it doesn't reference the "colour" of the card at all - so your "formula" of using the cards colour + colour of mana symbols in the text is a pure fabrication from you, and not actually supported by the rules.

So your base premise is off ... would you like to restart your analysis?

It's also interesting that you used the Comp Rules for some rules quotes, but not for others... were you unaware that the rules for Commander are actually written up in the Comp Rules?


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: In Defense of Devoid
AgePosted: 2016-Jun-22 2:45 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2016-May-16 12:03 pm
Age: Dragon
Location: The Blind Eternities
Carthain wrote:
CompRules wrote:
903.4. The Commander variant uses color identity to determine what cards can be in a deck with a certain commander. The color identity of a card is the color or colors of any mana symbols in that card's mana cost or rules text, plus any colors defined by its characteristic-defining abilities (see rule 604.3) or color indicator (see rule 204).

That's how the ability actually works. If you're going to start trying to split hairs, then use the official wording, and not just the "Reading-friendly" version that is on the website here (ie, when you say "rule 3" you're referring to those easy-to-comprehend versions of the rules.)

As you can see - it explicitly uses the mana symbols in the casting cost - and any CDA's only count if they define colours. As Devoid defines an absence of colour - that's not included. In fact, it doesn't reference the "colour" of the card at all - so your "formula" of using the cards colour + colour of mana symbols in the text is a pure fabrication from you, and not actually supported by the rules.

So your base premise is off ... would you like to restart your analysis?

It's also interesting that you used the Comp Rules for some rules quotes, but not for others... were you unaware that the rules for Commander are actually written up in the Comp Rules?


He does have a fair point though, and Cards like
Quote:
Archangel Avacyn
Being considered white red as color identity when she has only white in her mana cost. Whats preventing devoid spells from technically being considered colorless? Or cards like shadowborn apostle overriding the singleton deck rule?

_________________
Image

RaiRai's Decks of Otherworldlyness:

Unknown Horizons
Bane of the Vast 1.0
Call from Eternity
Twisted Nightmares


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: In Defense of Devoid
AgePosted: 2016-Jun-22 2:52 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2009-Aug-20 7:49 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: New Hampshire
RaiRai wrote:
He does have a fair point though

No he doesn't. His point is based on rules that aren't actually the rules, and is therefore moot.

RaiRai wrote:
Whats preventing devoid spells from technically being considered colorless?

Rule 903.4. The card's back side has a color indicator (that's the little red circle near the creature type line. See also the B/G indicator on Garruk, the Veil-Cursed, for example.

RaiRai wrote:
Or cards like shadowborn apostle overriding the singleton deck rule?

It does.

_________________
"The President's job - and if someone sufficiently vain and stupid is picked he won't realize this - is not to wield power, but to draw attention away from it." -- Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide tot he Galaxy Radio Transcripts predicting the future.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: In Defense of Devoid
AgePosted: 2016-Jun-22 4:05 am 

Joined: 2013-Aug-20 4:37 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Boston
RaiRai wrote:
Cards like
Quote:
Archangel Avacyn
Being considered white red as color identity when she has only white in her mana cost. Whats preventing devoid spells from technically being considered colorless?


It is additive. Archangel Avacyn's CI is (white) from mana symbols and (red) from the color indicator. It adds up to white red.

Something like Ruination Guide has a CI of (blue) from mana symbols and (colorless) from its CDA. That adds up to blue.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: In Defense of Devoid
AgePosted: 2016-Jun-22 4:40 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2006-Dec-31 12:26 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
RaiRai wrote:
He does have a fair point though, and Cards like
Quote:
Archangel Avacyn
Being considered white red as color identity when she has only white in her mana cost.

CompRules wrote:
903.4. The Commander variant uses color identity to determine what cards can be in a deck with a certain commander. The color identity of a card is the color or colors of any mana symbols in that card's mana cost or rules text, plus any colors defined by its characteristic-defining abilities (see rule 604.3) or color indicator (see rule 204).

903.4a. Color identity is established before the game begins.

903.4b. Reminder text is ignored when determining a card's color identity. See rule 207.2.

903.4c. The back face of a double-faced card (see rule 711) is included when determining a card's color identity. This is an exception to rule 711.4a.
Example: Civilized Scholar is the front face of a double-faced card with mana cost {2}{U}. Homicidal Brute is the back face of that double-faced card and has a red color indicator. The card's color identity is blue and red.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: In Defense of Devoid
AgePosted: 2016-Jun-22 5:50 am 
EDH Rules Committee
User avatar

Joined: 2006-May-24 10:14 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Tampa, FL, USA
On reason that color identity was created (I'm pretty sure it was the brainchild of Matt Tabak, but it was a while ago) so that you could play things that didn't have color in their mana costs but had them on the card (like Bosh, Iron Golem). Previously, you could only play things in your commander's mana cost. Color identity expanded on that. Color and color identity are two different (but related) things. Colorless-ness is not part of either.

_________________
"Leave the gun. Take the cannolis."


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: In Defense of Devoid
AgePosted: 2016-Jun-22 8:57 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2012-Feb-07 4:15 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Another way to think about it: Rakdos Signet is a colorless card that contains colored mana symbols. Those symbols make it have a color identity of RB.

Sire of Stagnation is a colorless card with colored symbols on the card. Those symbols make its color identity UB.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: In Defense of Devoid
AgePosted: 2016-Jun-22 12:05 pm 

Joined: 2009-Oct-08 1:00 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Hax_r_us wrote:
This can be understood and rewritten as:

Color Identity (CI) = Color (c) + rules text color mana symbols (t)

I'll say this for your post: you clearly have a future in clever logical sleight-of-hand.

I only quoted this part because it's actually the one part that's relevant, the part where you move the card from your sleeve back into the deck and hope nobody notices. You go out of your way to emphasize how color derives from the mana spent on a card, and then use that as a reason for this (incorrect) rewriting of the CI rules. But in actuality, the situation is as follows:

A is derived from X
B is derived from X
K is an ability that overrides X to set A to a specific value

That doesn't imply that K also overrides B, because it doesn't say it does; it very specifically says it overrides A only. Eliding that distinction makes it look like there's an equivalence here that doesn't exist.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: In Defense of Devoid
AgePosted: 2016-Jun-22 3:30 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2016-Jun-21 4:31 am
Age: Wyvern
Carthain wrote:
were you unaware that the rules for Commander are actually written up in the Comp Rules?


correct, lol. I've been referring to this site for years thinking it was the authority on edh (front page of the site is titled "Official Commander Rules"), but maybe this was the wrong place to present the case. I started a thread on it though, so I'll follow through.

Bearer of Silence is the example I used before, so let's continue with that one. It has Devoid, with the reminder text (This card has no color.) Alright, but what other info do the comp rules have on Devoid?
Quote:
702.113a Devoid is a characteristic-defining ability. “Devoid” means “This object is colorless.”
This ability functions everywhere, even outside the game. See rule 604.3.


Alright, there's a bit more info and specific language: characteristic-defining ability, object, colorless, and rule 604.3. Let's look that stuff up to parse out Devoid.

Quote:
604.3. Some static abilities are characteristic-defining abilities. A characteristic-defining ability
conveys information about an object’s characteristics that would normally be found elsewhere on
that object (such as in its mana cost, type line, or power/toughness box) or overrides information
found elsewhere on that object. Characteristic-defining abilities function in all zones. They also
function outside the game.


Quote:
109.1. An object is an ability on the stack, a card, a copy of a card, a token, a spell, a permanent, or an emblem.


Quote:
105.2c A colorless object has no color.


So a lot of this info seems to be dependent on what the object of the ability is referring to. Bearer of Silence has Devoid, with the reminder text (This card has no color.) That tells us the object being referred to is a card, that a characteristic of the card is being defined, that colorless is the defined characteristic of the card, and this characteristic is overriding information found elsewhere on the card, overriding the color information of the color or colors of mana symbols in the casting cost that would otherwise define the color(s) of the card.

But does this tell us anything new? That hasn't been discussed yet? Not really. So let's dig a bit deeper. What is a card?

Quote:
108.2. When a rule or text on a card refers to a “card,” it means only a Magic card. Most Magic games use only traditional Magic cards, which measure approximately 2.5 inches (6.3 cm) by 3.5 inches
(8.8 cm). ...
108.2a In the text of spells or abilities, the term “card” is usually used to refer to a card that’s not on
the battlefield or on the stack, such as a creature card in a player’s hand. ...


Well that's pretty straight forward, but it doesn't really help much. Let's continue a bit further.

Quote:
108.6. For more information about cards, see section 2, “Parts of a Card.”


Now we're getting somewhere. Cards have parts.

Quote:
200.1. The parts of a card are name, mana cost, illustration, color indicator, type line, expansion
symbol, text box, power and toughness, loyalty, hand modifier, life modifier, illustration credit,
legal text, and collector number. Some cards may have more than one of any or all of these parts.


Cheers. There's a list of all the parts of a card, including our example, Bearer of Silence. So why did we look that up? That's right, to parse out Devoid, because the card is the object defined to be colorless, overriding the information found elsewhere on the card, in the mana cost of the card, but check that out. The mana cost is a part of the card. Devoid doesn't define part of a card to be colorless, it defines the card to be so, the entire thing. If all of it is colorless, then each individual part of it is colorless too, including the mana cost. But what is a mana cost?

Quote:
202.1. A card’s mana cost is indicated by mana symbols near the top of the card. (See rule 107.4.) On most cards, these symbols are printed in the upper right corner. ...
202.1b Some objects have no mana cost. This normally includes all land cards, any other cards that have no mana symbols where their mana cost would appear, tokens (unless the effect that creates them specifies otherwise), and nontraditional Magic cards. ...
202.2. An object is the color or colors of the mana symbols in its mana cost, regardless of the color of its frame.
202.2b Objects with no colored mana symbols in their mana costs are colorless.


Now that is rather important. When colorful symbols are there, then there is color, and when not there, colorless. Some cards have a mana cost while other cards do not. It depends on whether symbols are present or not, their presence determining whether there is a mana cost or not. When a card has a mana cost, the cost consists of the symbols that are present. So why did we look that up? That's right, to parse out Devoid, because the card is the object defined to be colorless, overriding the information found in the mana cost of the card, the mana cost as a part of the card, the part of the card indicated by mana symbols. Devoid doesn't define part of a card to be colorless, it defines the card to be so, the entire thing. If all of it is colorless, then each individual part of the card is colorless too, including the mana cost, a part of the cart indicated by mana symbols. And since all of it is colorless, each individual part of the card is colorless too, including the mana cost, a part of the cart indicated by mana symbols, mana symbols that do not have color when no part of a card has color of a card that has no color.

This is not to confuse mana symbols that do not have color with the mana symbol that represents colorless mana. Representing a color of mana is a quality distinct from having color or not. A mana symbol that represents green mana will represent green mana whether the mana symbol has color or not, and mana symbols can have color.

Quote:
105.2. ... An object is the color or colors of the mana symbols in its mana cost


The color of the mana symbol, not the color of mana the mana symbol represents. Mana symbols that represent color mana naturally have color, and a colorless mana symbol naturally has no color. Yet the presence or absence of color of a mana symbol has no impact on whether a mana symbol can represent a type of mana. The two are independent of each other.

Quote:
105.2. ... An object is the color or colors of the mana symbols in its mana cost

Quote:
106.2. Mana is represented by mana symbols


I can find nothing in the comprehensive rules that connects the representation of mana with having color or not, and though no rules specifically state mana symbols have color, they must have color. How else are objects to have color if not for the color or colors of the mana symbols, the color or colors of the mana symbols in their mana costs?

This is interesting. Not only does Devoid override the color information found in the mana cost, Devoid also desaturates the mana symbols of their color. This brings us to the heart of the problem.

Quote:
903.4. The Commander variant uses color identity to determine what cards can be in a deck with a
certain commander. The color identity of a card is the color or colors of any mana symbols in that
card’s mana cost or rules text, plus any colors defined by its characteristic-defining abilities (see
rule 604.3) or color indicator (see rule 204).


The color identity of a card is the color or colors of any mana symbols in that card’s mana cost, not the color of mana the mana symbols represent, rather the color(s) of mana symbols, plus the other stuff. The mana symbols of a card with Devoid have no color. They can represent color mana, but that is a quality distinct from having color. Cards that have no color due to Devoid should have colorless identities, bar other rules text and characteristics.




*uuuh, i think i messed up some of those quote boxes
**okay, i really messed the boxes up
***figured it out
****okay, i thought i had figured out the boxes, but damn those can get tricky. should be good now

_________________
.•*°*•.oOo.•*Commanders*•.oOo.•*°*•.

Zedruu the Greathearted, Ghave, Guru of Spores, Horde of Notions,

Jeleva, Nephalia's Scourge, Nekusar, the Mindrazer, Daretti, Scrap Savant

.oO9°*Tiny Leaders*°୧Oo.

Kaseto, Orochi Archmage, Saffi Eriksdotter*

*Work in progress


Last edited by Hax_r_us on 2016-Jun-22 7:23 pm, edited 13 times in total.

Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: In Defense of Devoid
AgePosted: 2016-Jun-22 3:57 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2016-Jun-21 4:31 am
Age: Wyvern
charlequin wrote:
Hax_r_us wrote:
This can be understood and rewritten as:

Color Identity (CI) = Color (c) + rules text color mana symbols (t)

I'll say this for your post: you clearly have a future in clever logical sleight-of-hand.

I only quoted this part because it's actually the one part that's relevant, the part where you move the card from your sleeve back into the deck and hope nobody notices. You go out of your way to emphasize how color derives from the mana spent on a card, and then use that as a reason for this (incorrect) rewriting of the CI rules. But in actuality, the situation is as follows:

A is derived from X
B is derived from X
K is an ability that overrides X to set A to a specific value

That doesn't imply that K also overrides B, because it doesn't say it does; it very specifically says it overrides A only. Eliding that distinction makes it look like there's an equivalence here that doesn't exist.


I based that first argument upon the rules listed on this website, but it turns out those rules have incomplete information.
Quote:
A card's colour identity is its colour plus the colour of any mana symbols in the card's rules text.

^ this is what I had to work with because i was ignorant of the proper definition in the comprehensive rules. given what i had to work with at the time, the logic is solid, for that time. though the argument irrelevant now, the ideas shouldn't get thrown out with the bath water. A tribal mechanic is prevented from play with the tribal legendaries, yet the mechanic itself suggests that it should be playable. that's a problem

_________________
.•*°*•.oOo.•*Commanders*•.oOo.•*°*•.

Zedruu the Greathearted, Ghave, Guru of Spores, Horde of Notions,

Jeleva, Nephalia's Scourge, Nekusar, the Mindrazer, Daretti, Scrap Savant

.oO9°*Tiny Leaders*°୧Oo.

Kaseto, Orochi Archmage, Saffi Eriksdotter*

*Work in progress


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: In Defense of Devoid
AgePosted: 2016-Jun-22 7:50 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2013-Aug-06 1:27 pm
Age: Drake
Devoid does not change the color of the mana symbols in a card's mana cost.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: In Defense of Devoid
AgePosted: 2016-Jun-22 10:56 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2009-Aug-20 7:49 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: New Hampshire
Hax_r_us wrote:
this is what I had to work with because i was ignorant of the proper definition in the comprehensive rules.

Yet you referred to the CR repeatedly to make your incorrect case.

Hax_r_us wrote:
A tribal mechanic is prevented from play with the tribal legendaries, yet the mechanic itself suggests that it should be playable. that's a problem

It really doesn't, and it really isn't.

MatthewB wrote:
Devoid does not change the color of the mana symbols in a card's mana cost.

This. An easy counter example would be Transguild Courier. It has a CDA making it all 5 colors. It does not, however, interact with anything that cares about the color of mana symbols, like devotion.

_________________
"The President's job - and if someone sufficiently vain and stupid is picked he won't realize this - is not to wield power, but to draw attention away from it." -- Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide tot he Galaxy Radio Transcripts predicting the future.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: In Defense of Devoid
AgePosted: 2016-Jun-23 12:42 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2006-Dec-31 12:26 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Hax_r_us wrote:
correct, lol. I've been referring to this site for years thinking it was the authority on edh (front page of the site is titled "Official Commander Rules"), but maybe this was the wrong place to present the case. I started a thread on it though, so I'll follow through.

This site is the "front lines" & main/direct source for all things Commander (other than offshoots such as 1v1) -- but that doesn't mean that the rules presented on the front page are written in rules-legalese. The idea is to invite people into the format by providing an easy-to-digest set of rules, not scare them away by making them decipher what the rules are first.

All your logic, and you're missing one crucial point -- Colour Identity doesn't care what colour the card is. Thus, Devoid has no impact.

Check out the Comp Rules quotes I put above. It uses the colour or colours of the mana symbols of the cost, plus any colours defined by CDAs (plus some other things, but those are irrelevant to this discussion.)

So, lets look at your Bearer of Silence:
* Colours of mana symbols: Black.
* Colours defined in CDA: None
End Colour Identity: Black + <nothing> = Black.

Devoid does not define a colour (as colourless is an absence of colour, not a type of colour), thus it is not included in the definition of colour identity.

Also, Colour Identity is all additive. There's no layers of when to apply some things, and then others .. so how would you rectify how an ability that would remove values into the equation?

The logic is that simple. Nothing complex like all the quotes you are throwing around. So, instead of trying to build your case up - perhaps the discussion can be more fruitful if you looked at this and tried to find the flaws here and point those out?

The absolute wall of post that you've done *is* hard to read through (especially when your error is so early in your assumptions.)


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: In Defense of Devoid
AgePosted: 2016-Jun-23 6:11 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2016-Jun-21 4:31 am
Age: Wyvern
Sid the Chicken wrote:
Hax_r_us wrote:
A tribal mechanic is prevented from play with the tribal legendaries, yet the mechanic itself suggests that it should be playable. that's a problem

It really doesn't, and it really isn't.

if a legendary eldrazi is your commander, then all cards must have colorless identities. Devoid is a tribal mechanic of eldrazi, but if those cards don't have colorless identities, then they can't be played when an eldrazi legend is the commander, because all eldrazi legends have colorless identities. so it really does. maybe it isn't a problem, but wouldn't that be a damn shame?

Carthain wrote:

All your logic, and you're missing one crucial point -- Colour Identity doesn't care what colour the card is. Thus, Devoid has no impact.

Check out the Comp Rules quotes I put above. It uses the colour or colours of the mana symbols of the cost, plus any colours defined by CDAs (plus some other things, but those are irrelevant to this discussion.)

So, lets look at your Bearer of Silence:
* Colours of mana symbols: Black.
* Colours defined in CDA: None
End Colour Identity: Black + <nothing> = Black.

Devoid does not define a colour (as colourless is an absence of colour, not a type of colour), thus it is not included in the definition of colour identity.

Also, Colour Identity is all additive. There's no layers of when to apply some things, and then others .. so how would you rectify how an ability that would remove values into the equation?

The logic is that simple. Nothing complex like all the quotes you are throwing around. So, instead of trying to build your case up - perhaps the discussion can be more fruitful if you looked at this and tried to find the flaws here and point those out?

The absolute wall of post that you've done *is* hard to read through (especially when your error is so early in your assumptions.)


yeah, it's hard to read. i cleaned it up as much as i could yesterday, and i might again for clarity. you should have seen the original thing. it was super gross.

The essence of what i'm arguing is that the mana symbols in the mana cost are also Devoid of color.

WotC doesn't take a hole puncher to cards for the mana cost to float off/outside cards, and mana costs don't hover just above the surface of cards. A mana cost is a part of a card. Colour Identity doesn't care what colour the card is, I agree, but they don't happen in vacuums. When a card is Devoid of color, there's no language that exempts a part of the card from being Devoid of color. There is also no language that makes CDAs stop applying when colour identity is being established.

It wouldn't have been a thing a few months ago, but then WotC made a mana symbol that represents colorless mana. That symbol has no color. Meanwhile, traditional symbols that represent colorful types of mana do have color. These are specific symbols that represent types of mana, but it shows us that mana symbols that represent types of mana can both have color and can not have color. There's no rule language that binds representing a type of mana to having color or not, nor is there language that equates representing a type of mana to having the color(less) of the type of mana being represented.

This is the subtly I'm trying to highlight. Mana symbols can have colors that do not correspond to the type of mana they represent, and not having color is something they can do too, independent of what they represent. I'm making that distinction because Devoid is an exceptional ability.

So, lets look at Bearer of Silence:
* Colours of mana represented by mana symbols: Black.
* Colours of mana symbols: None.
* Colours defined in CDA: None.
End Colour Identity: <nothing> + <nothing> = Colorless.

It's a technical and fundamental thing that I'm toying with here, and I wouldn't be doing this if the colorless mana symbol hadn't been introduced
(and if Rule 4 hadn't been abolished, it's no good to argue for this when you can't add color mana to your pool while having a colorless commander, so you couldn't cast the card. wait, have the comprehensive rules been updated with that?)
.

Even if you completely disagree, intend to counter everything i'm arguing for and have rules and examples that support what you have to say, and I'm completely incorrect with my assumptions in truth, just consider the ideas I'm presenting. WotC introduced a new mana symbol, so an entire game rule was abolished. Before that, there were cards that butted heads with that rule, but now they can see play and people can enjoy playing those cards. Rules can be changed &/or removed, exceptions made, and it isn't a bad thing. If I'm completely wrong, that doesn't mean the ideas need to be thrown in the trash.

_________________
.•*°*•.oOo.•*Commanders*•.oOo.•*°*•.

Zedruu the Greathearted, Ghave, Guru of Spores, Horde of Notions,

Jeleva, Nephalia's Scourge, Nekusar, the Mindrazer, Daretti, Scrap Savant

.oO9°*Tiny Leaders*°୧Oo.

Kaseto, Orochi Archmage, Saffi Eriksdotter*

*Work in progress


Last edited by Hax_r_us on 2016-Jun-23 6:32 am, edited 4 times in total.

Top
 Offline Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 72 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: