Login | Register


All times are UTC - 7 hours


It is currently 2019-Nov-22 1:30 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 72 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: In Defense of Devoid
AgePosted: 2016-Jun-23 6:14 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2009-Jun-12 7:46 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
I think the additive nature of the colour identity really works against Devoid here. You get rid of one thing, the colour of the card, but the keyword doesn't interact with mana symbols and making it interact that way, while possible, would be to do something special specifically for Devoid.

_________________
Cheethorne


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: In Defense of Devoid
AgePosted: 2016-Jun-23 7:55 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2006-Dec-31 12:26 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Hax_r_us wrote:
The essence of what i'm arguing is that the mana symbols in the mana cost are also Devoid of color.

... that I can work with (and I'm gonna go re-read what your last post said with this in mind.)
...

Okay. You're still making a leap of logic - one that is incorrect.

You're stating that the Devoid ability removes the colour from the mana symbols in the mana cost. But there's nothing to support this.

When determining a colour of a card (not CI, just normal colour), you check the colour(s) of the mana symbols of the card, and any colour indicator on it. Then, possible CDA's (such as Devoid) can alter the end result.

However, just because it alters the colour of the card does not mean that it alters the colour of the mana symbols on the card. This is the (pretty huge) leap of logic you are making which you have no basis for.

What your suggesting, is that if you have a Llanowar Elf and use a Chaoslace on it to make it red, that the mana symbols on the elf would now become red. Does that really make sense to you? And if you do think it makes sense -- what in the rules support this supposition of yours?

Hax_r_us wrote:
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.

Riiiigt. But you're not listening; Colour Identity only cares about which colours are defined by CDAs. "colourless" is not a colour, thus we ignore Devoid for CI.

Hax_r_us wrote:
There's no rule language that binds representing a type of mana to having color

But there's nothing that changes the colour of a symbol. Your supposition that Devoid does this is ... devoid(!) of supporting rules.

Hax_r_us wrote:
Mana symbols can have colors that do not correspond to the type of mana they represent
False. I dare you to prove otherwise.

I'm going to stop there -- as there are two issues facing your claim and both completely counter your point.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: In Defense of Devoid
AgePosted: 2016-Jun-23 9:49 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2009-Aug-20 7:49 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: New Hampshire
Hax_r_us wrote:
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.

What cards, exactly, could people not play before because of rule 4? It made Sen Triplets slightly less powerful (but still completely playable) and... what?

Hax_r_us wrote:
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.

Making little exceptions like you're proposing kinda IS a bad thing. It's needlessly complex for little to no gain. Your proposal is kinda like the "remove off-color fetches" debate - it could be done, but it's not worth doing. And you ARE completely incorrect in your interpretation of the current rules. Carthain explained it quite well, so I'll not add to what he said.

Hax_r_us wrote:
so it really does

The only people who think devoid suggests it should be playable are those that don't understand how the rules work.

_________________
"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 10:28 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2016-Jun-21 4:31 am
Age: Wyvern
Carthain wrote:
Hax_r_us wrote:
The essence of what i'm arguing is that the mana symbols in the mana cost are also Devoid of color.

... that I can work with (and I'm gonna go re-read what your last post said with this in mind.)
...

Okay. You're still making a leap of logic - one that is incorrect.

You're stating that the Devoid ability removes the colour from the mana symbols in the mana cost. But there's nothing to support this.


Yes, yes yes yes yes, and I could not agree more. It's uncharted territory. There is no language in the rules that describes this interaction. This is where I'm playing, the fringes of what is defined.


Carthain wrote:
When determining a colour of a card (not CI, just normal colour), you check the colour(s) of the mana symbols of the card, and any colour indicator on it. Then, possible CDA's (such as Devoid) can alter the end result.

However, just because it alters the colour of the card does not mean that it alters the colour of the mana symbols on the card. This is the (pretty huge) leap of logic you are making which you have no basis for.


Yup, I am making that leap. I may not have a specific foundation in the rules to support it, but I make the leap because there is no language in the rules that prevent me from making that leap. It's a gap in the rules, where the nature of mana symbols haven't been defined.

Carthain wrote:
What your suggesting, is that if you have a Llanowar Elves and use a Chaoslace on it to make it red, that the mana symbols on the elf would now become red. Does that really make sense to you? And if you do think it makes sense -- what in the rules support this supposition of yours?


I'm unable to answer the second question due to the gap, but I'll attempt to answer the first one. It did occur to me that mana symbols can appear in the text box, though I did not put any effort to research or address it. My focus has been on the mana cost after all. I'll need to dig into that later because I don't have enough time immediately available to do so now, but I promise you that I will. I'll post that once I have.

For now though, I can leave a provisional answer. Yes, it does make sense to me, but it is a subtle yes. The mana symbol would be red, but when Llanowar Elves is tapped to add mana to a pool, the mana added to the pool would still be green mana, the type of mana represented by the mana symbol.

One of the ideas I was playing with is the graphic nature of mana symbols that represent types of mana. A green mana symbol has a glyph of a tree. That mana symbol has that form, that shape, distinct from the shapes of other mana symbols. It has color too, but I'm imaging that the type of mana being represented corresponds to the shape.
yeah, total bs I know, but I'm working conceptually here. then again, there's not much description about mana symbols in the rules


Again, that's provisional, and subject to change. My concern was, 'do the mana symbols of rules contained in the text box interact with the whole card the same way as I'm arguing for mana symbols that indicate the mana cost?'

Carthain wrote:
Hax_r_us wrote:
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.

Riiiigt. But you're not listening; Colour Identity only cares about which colours are defined by CDAs. "colourless" is not a colour, thus we ignore Devoid for CI.


I thought that I was listening D: I stated that with my (pretty huge) leap taken to be true

Carthain wrote:
Hax_r_us wrote:
There's no rule language that binds representing a type of mana to having color

But there's nothing that changes the colour of a symbol. Your supposition that Devoid does this is ... devoid(!) of supporting rules.


I see what you did there Kappa.

Again, I'm playing in da void in the rules that describes the nature of mana symbols. There aren't any stop signs on this road. I see that I keep shielding the argument with the same baselessness, but the baselessness is the argument. There is a lack of clarity in the rules, and the ambiguity is what I'm exploiting.

Carthain wrote:
Hax_r_us wrote:
Mana symbols can have colors that do not correspond to the type of mana they represent
False. I dare you to prove otherwise.


It may appear at face value for this to be another issue, but this situation is described by the Llanowar Elves scenario you mentioned previously, though it's indirect.

Let's assume the interaction I'm arguing for is true. In that scenario, the mana symbol that represents green mana in the Elves' casting cost would have the color red. The mana symbol itself does not change to a mana symbol that represents red mana. It's the same mana symbol as before. It still represents green mana. It just has the color red.


For me, this seems like a simplification. Cards have the color(s) of the mana symbol(s) in their mana cost. When something makes the color of a card be something else, it's easier to understand when the mana symbols have the new color. While the mana symbol(s) have the new thing, the card continues to pull that information from the symbols rather than from somewhere else or from nowhere.


I started this topic about Devoid, but I've sort of pivoted. It's the mana symbols that's caught my focus. Does anyone else see the gap in rules that I am referring too? Is the nature of mana symbols much more fleshed out than what I am reading in the rules? I'm reading into the rules my own ideas about the nature of mana symbols, for sure; but what rule language is there that invalidates how I have read into it? Yeah, my own ideas are at odds with the general understanding; but are my ideas at odds with the rules? if so, which rules?

_________________
.•*°*•.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-23 11:05 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2009-Aug-20 7:49 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: New Hampshire
Magic rules are additive. You can't do anything unless a rule in the CR says you can. Therefore;

Quote:
202.2f Effects may change an object’s color, give a color to a colorless object, or make a colored object become colorless; see rule 105.3.


says that you can change the color of an object. Object is defined in the rules;

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.


Mana symbols aren't defined as objects, nor is there a rule elsewhere in the CR that says you can change their colors. Therefore, it cannot happen. The mana symbol will always be the color it is, and no effect can change that.

_________________
"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 11:13 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2016-Jun-21 4:31 am
Age: Wyvern
Sid the Chicken wrote:
You can't do anything unless a rule in the CR says you can.

That would be a really useful rule to cite. Why hasn't anyone done so yet?

Sid the Chicken wrote:
Quote:
202.2f Effects may change an object’s color, give a color to a colorless object, or make a colored object become colorless; see rule 105.3.


says that you can change the color of an object. Object is defined in the rules;

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.


Mana symbols aren't defined as objects, nor is there a rule elsewhere in the CR that says you can change their colors. Therefore, it cannot happen. The mana symbol will always be the color it is, and no effect can change that.


I can dig that, but
Quote:
105.2. An object can be one or more of the five colors, or it can be no color at all. ...

it appears only objects can have color. How can a mana symbol have color if it is not an object?

This is the exact subtly I've been grappling with for days. What is the nature of mana symbols? The CR provides little detail.

_________________
.•*°*•.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-23 11:50 am 

Joined: 2014-Jul-26 11:35 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Hax_r_us wrote:
Yes, yes yes yes yes, and I could not agree more. It's uncharted territory. There is no language in the rules that describes this interaction. This is where I'm playing, the fringes of what is defined.


No, you are not.

Colour is well defined. It is the combination of the mana symbols in an objects cost, or its colour indicator or the colours given based on any characteristic defining abilities.

Mana symbols are well defined. They are the symbols for WUBRG which can appear anywhere on a card. They are static symbols which are used to represent a mana or a mana cost.

Devoid is well defined. Devoid is a CDA which means an object with devoid is colourless.

Colourless is well defined. An object with no colour is colourless. Colourless is not a colour.

Colour Identity is well defined. The colour identity of a card is the colour or colours of any mana symbols in that card's mana cost or rules text, plus any colors defined by its characteristic-defining abilities or color indicator. This is clearly an additive process as shown by the use of the word "plus", which is directly from the comprehensive rules.

So the colour identity of sire of stagnation breaks down like this:
We start with the mana symbols, which are U and B
CDA adds no colour
There is no colour indicator
Hence the colour identity is UB

No matter what you do to the colour of a card, the mana symbols remain the same. Removing the colour of a card does not remove or change the mana symbols in any way. As long as the mana symbols exist on the object, it's colour identity will be defined by them.

Hax_r_us wrote:
it appears only objects can have color. How can a mana symbol have color if it is not an object?

This is the exact subtly I've been grappling with for days. What is the nature of mana symbols? The CR provides little detail.

It's in the glossary as well as rule 107.4a. Mana symbols dont have colour, they represent colour for the purpose of mana costs and colour identity. In the same way that symbols are used to represent which bathroom you should go into. The picture of a male figure is not male, it has no gender, it's a picture, but it represents male.

All of these things are definitions taken from the rules, and a definition is, by definition, a statement of the exact meaning of the word. There is no fuzziness, there is no grey area or fringes, and if your argument exists in the fringes or grey area, then you have no argument, because it's location does not exist.

_________________
Favourite Deck:
Ghost Council of Orzhova

Playing Online:
Noyan Darr & Sedris Zombie Guy


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: In Defense of Devoid
AgePosted: 2016-Jun-23 12:35 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2009-Aug-20 7:49 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: New Hampshire
For convenience:

Quote:
107.4a There are five primary colored mana symbols: {W} is white, {U} blue, {B} black, {R} red, and {G} green. These symbols are used to represent colored mana, and also to represent colored mana in costs. Colored mana in costs can be paid only with the appropriate color of mana. See rule 202, “Mana Cost and Color.”

_________________
"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 12:39 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2016-Jun-21 4:31 am
Age: Wyvern
specter404 wrote:
It's in the glossary as well as rule 107.4a. Mana symbols dont have colour, they represent colour for the purpose of mana costs and colour identity. In the same way that symbols are used to represent which bathroom you should go into. The picture of a male figure is not male, it has no gender, it's a picture, but it represents male.


I like that analogy. It describes the distinction very well, between representation of a quality and having a quality.

I've italicized key phrases that seem important to me

Quote:
Mana Symbol An icon that represents mana or a mana cost. See rule 107.4.


Quote:
107.4a There are five primary colored mana symbols: ... These symbols are used to represent colored mana, and also to represent colored mana in costs. Colored mana in costs can be paid only with the appropriate color of mana. See rule 202, “Mana Cost and Color.”


Quote:
202.2. An object is the color or colors of the mana symbols in its mana cost, regardless of the color of its frame.


Is an object the color or colors of the mana symbols?
Or is an object the color of colors of the mana represented by the mana symbols?

compare and contrast with

Is the restroom for the gender of the sign?
Or is the restroom for the gender represented by the sign?

_________________
.•*°*•.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-23 2:26 pm 

Joined: 2009-Apr-21 3:38 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Palm Springs Area, CA
if words can have gender (la mano, or das mädchen) then a green mana symbol can be green.

So effing what?

this is a silly conversation.

_________________
3DH4L1F3


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: In Defense of Devoid
AgePosted: 2016-Jun-23 2:48 pm 

Joined: 2014-Jul-26 11:35 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Thank your for the effort you have clearly put into your informed and considered response.

If mana symbols have colors then an argument could be made that those colours can be removed. You cant remove what isn't there, so devoid couldnt make the symbols colourless.

Even if you could make mana symbols colourless, devoid would not be the thing to do it, since devoid affects the object it is on, and it is on the card not the mana symbol, but it is a component of an argument that was being challenged in order to destabilize the overarching argument.

So that's effing what.

_________________
Favourite Deck:
Ghost Council of Orzhova

Playing Online:
Noyan Darr & Sedris Zombie Guy


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: In Defense of Devoid
AgePosted: 2016-Jun-23 6:25 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2016-Jun-21 4:31 am
Age: Wyvern
specter404 wrote:
Thank your for the effort you have clearly put into your informed and considered response.

If mana symbols have colors then an argument could be made that those colours can be removed. You cant remove what isn't there, so devoid couldnt make the symbols colourless.


Yet that is exactly what i'm doing and is exactly what the rules allow for as they are written.

specter404 wrote:
Even if you could make mana symbols colourless, devoid would not be the thing to do it, since devoid affects the object it is on, and it is on the card not the mana symbol, but it is a component of an argument that was being challenged in order to destabilize the overarching argument.

So that's effing what.


When a card is Devoid of color, the whole card is colorless. There are no rules that exclude any part of the card from being Devoid of color. The mana cost, indicated by mana symbols, is a part of the card. When the whole card is Devoid of color, the mana symbols indicating the mana cost aren't excluded.

If mana symbols have some special property that does exclude them, then that property should be clearly defined somewhere in the CR. It would likely be found somewhere in sections 105, 106, or 202, but I can't seem to find the line or subsection that describes this special property anywhere in the CR.

_________________
.•*°*•.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-23 7:26 pm 

Joined: 2009-Apr-21 3:38 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Palm Springs Area, CA
specter404 wrote:
Thank your for the effort you have clearly put into your informed and considered response.

If mana symbols have colors then an argument could be made that those colours can be removed. You cant remove what isn't there, so devoid couldnt make the symbols colourless.
.
.
.

So that's effing what.

yes obviously. the point of the conversation is not lost on me. its still a silly conversation.

_________________
3DH4L1F3


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: In Defense of Devoid
AgePosted: 2016-Jun-23 7:37 pm 

Joined: 2009-Apr-21 3:38 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Palm Springs Area, CA
Hax_r_us wrote:
When a card is Devoid of color, the whole card is colorless. There are no rules that exclude any part of the card from being Devoid of color. The mana cost, indicated by mana symbols, is a part of the card. When the whole card is Devoid of color, the mana symbols indicating the mana cost aren't excluded.

If mana symbols have some special property that does exclude them, then that property should be clearly defined somewhere in the CR. It would likely be found somewhere in sections 105, 106, or 202, but I can't seem to find the line or subsection that describes this special property anywhere in the CR.

devoid cards are colorless as game objects. before the game starts devoid is just a word on a piece of cardboard.

by way of illustrative example- relentless rats had to undergo some rules fixing as its deck construction rules didnt technically work during deck construction.

so, just suppose that a green mana symbol has a quality we call color. Devoid might take that away. the green mana symbol is still a green mana symbol given it counts towards devotion and chroma, regardless if its color quality is being taken away. Then we have to consider that devoid only works on game objects and so does nothing during construction.


Silly conversation.

_________________
3DH4L1F3


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: In Defense of Devoid
AgePosted: 2016-Jun-23 10:06 pm 

Joined: 2016-Feb-13 2:14 pm
Age: Dragon
Location: Orlando, Florida
We've had cards with this issue before. Once upon a time, there were two legendary creatures that couldn't be used because there was no such thing as color identity. They were Bosh, Iron Golem and Memnarch. They were colorless cards, but because they had colored symbols on them, you couldn't use them as a commander, due to how the rules were set up at the time. Now, at about the time Wizards picked it up and made it an official format, the concept of color identity was introduced. Color identity was completely separate entity from color, only affecting the deck construction of Commander decks.

Devoid is just like those artifact legends. Just because they're colorless does not mean they don't have a color identity.


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

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 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: