COMMANDER/EDH BANNED LIST ANNOUNCEMENT: January 2016
Commander (EDH) forum
Posted on Jan. 18, 2016, 11:39 a.m. by Ender666666
Summary:
- Commander-specific mulligan rules are removed
- Rule 4 (mana generation restriction) is removed
- Prophet of Kruphix is banned
Mulligans:
We promised in the last update that, with the advent of the Vancouver Mulligan, we'd be evaluating the mulligan process in Commander. This announcement is the culmination of that research. After examining several popular options, and coming up with a few of our own, we've concluded that the Vancouver Mulligan (with the standard first-one-free in multiplayer and a scry once you go to 6 or fewer) is the best option. The RC continues to use and recommend the Gis ("Mulligan 7s to a playable hand. Don't abuse this") for trusted playgroups, but that's not something that can go in the rules.
Ultimately, the goal of mulligans in Commander is to ensure that you start the game with enough lands to be a participant. With Commander games running an hour plus, it's unfortunate if you can't play anything because you miss land drops and get run over quickly.
We didn't want to solve the problems of Magic itself - mana screw and mana flood are part of the game - and players need to make a reasonable effort with their land counts, but we wanted a mulligan rule that tried to minimize unplayable opening hands. So, we brainstormed, and ran computer simulations. And what ultimately came out was... it didn't much matter. Nothing provided a clear enough upgrade to justify having additional rules for mulligans. For example, with 37 lands, Partial Paris was "successful" (which we defined as playing a 4th land on turn 4) 89% of the time versus Multiplayer Vancouver at 86%, but it came at a cost of about a fifth of a card on average. On the whole, 86% success is a rate that seems reasonable.
If you find yourself playing 1v1 (perhaps while waiting for a friend to show up), you should still use the free multiplayer mulligan. With a deck this size, variance is high enough to make not having the free mulligan potentially punishing - without the free mulligan you drop down to about 80% success rate, which, combined with being the only opponent to focus on, leads to too many unfortunate games.
Finally, its not an official rule, but we recommend setting aside the hands you're mulliganning away until you get a keeper. That saves shuffling time, and we're all for minimizing shuffling 100-card decks.
Rule 4:
We still love Rule 4. It's a nice piece of flavor and reinforces the idea that this format goes beyond simple mechanical restrictions into a deeper philosophical approach around color and mana symbols. Its effect on the game was pretty small, but that flavor message made it worthwhile to preserve.
However, the mana system of Magic is very complicated, and trying to insert an extra rule there has consequences in the corners. Harvest Mage. Celestial Dawn. Gauntlet of Power. And now, colorless-only mana costs.
Being able to generate colorless mana more easily in Commander wasn't going to break anything. But, it represented another "gotcha" moment for players, who were now likely to learn about Rule 4 when someone exploited the colorless loophole. We could paper over it (both "mana generated from off-color sources can only pay generic costs" and "you can't pay a cost outside your color identity" were considered), but a lot of the flavor would be lost in the transition, defeating the purpose. Without the resonant flavor, Rule 4 was increasingly looking like mana burn - a rule that didn't come up enough to justify it's existence.
We don't expect removing the rule to have a big impact. Some Sunburst and Converge cards might get a bit more of a look. Sen Triplets works more like you'd expect, as does Praetor's Grasp. The clone-and-steal deck, already one of the most popular archetypes, gets better, but less than you might think. It turns out there really aren't that many impactful non-blue activated abilities on cards that commonly get stolen in Commander. It's OK if you can regenerate that creature you just stole, and you'll need to work for it a bit anyway.
One side benefit to the removal of both the color production and mulligan rules is that, in terms of game play, Commander becomes a normal game of multiplayer Magic with a higher life total and a set of additive rules to bring a new piece (your Commander) into the game. That's good streamlining in terms of teaching people the format and reducing gotcha moments while still preserving the essential flavor of Commander.
Prophet of Kruphix:
This was challenging. Prophet is not a traditionally obvious problem card for Commander, so we chose to take a conservative approach and see if casual groups could adapt. In the past, we've seen unpopular cards generate a lot of outcry, but be handled reasonably well. Powerful cards existing is OK and exploring them responsibly is an essential part of Commander.
This didn't happen with Prophet. Casual groups haven't been able to work around it and problematic play has not dropped off in hoped-for ways. Instead, the primary approach has been to steal it, clone it, run it yourself, or get run over. Ultimately, it seems the card is too perfect - it does everything U/G Commander players want to be doing and it does it in a way that makes counterplay difficult. With traditional boogeymen such as Consecrated Sphinx, you're forced to expend a lot of your mana to cast it and will have a challenge protecting it as the turn goes around the table. With Prophet, it has virtual protection built in, negating that disadvantage almost immediately.
Prophet becomes only the second multicolored card on the banlist (after the structurally-problematic Coalition Victory). It's telling just how pervasive Prophet is despite such a restriction. Yes, U/G is the most popular color combination in Commander, but we've reached the point where Prophet is driving U/G deck choice, rather than vice-versa. That's centralizing in ways we can't ignore, so it's time for Prophet to take a break.
Whenever we decide to ban a card, we take a long look at the current list to see if any cards can come off, as we believe a casual format is better served by a minimalist banlist. After extensive discussion, however, we concluded that everything on the list served a purpose, so we won't be unbanning anything. It's been two years since the last (non-consolidation) card got banned, which is an acceptable growth rate!
http://mtgcommander.net/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=18057
There seems to be some confusion about what the removal of Commander Rule #4 means, so here is some clarification.
The normal Commander rules regarding Colour Identity still apply. You may only include Spells, Artifacts, Planeswalkers, Creatures and Lands in your deck that match your commander's Colour Identity. The ONLY exception is with cards where mana symbols show up in reminder text which explain a mechanic, for example, cards with the "Extort" mechanic. Crypt Ghast is an example of a card that is purely Black, even though there is a 
symbol in the reminder text that explains how the "Extort" mechanic works.
Your commander's Colour Identity is determined by each and every COLOUR of mana symbol, printed anywhere on it (Again, with the exception of reminder text).
Cards with the mechanic of "Devoid" are colourless, but still fall under the normal rules in Commander when determining its legality for your deck. Want to play Transgress the Mind, but your commander is Green? Sorry, you can't. Transgress the Mind may be colourless, but it has a Black Colour Identity when you are determining if you can legally include it in your deck because it has 
in its casting cost.
What the removal of Commander Rule #4 means is that lands like Forbidden Orchard, Mana Confluence, City of Brass, and cards like Birds of Paradise can now legally make you mana of ANY colour (
), regardless of your Commander's Colour Identity. In the past, if something caused a mana of a colour that wasn't part of your Commander's Colour Identity to be added to your mana pool, it INSTEAD added that many 
to your mana pool.
Oh, and IS NOT A COLOUR. Got it?
So what about Command Tower? Can it create any colour of mana now? NOPE. Because of the wording on Command Tower, it will still only create 1 mana of any colour IN YOUR COMMANDER'S COLOUR IDENTITY
I hope that this helps clarify things for anyone who might be confused.
Epochalyptik says... #2
Powerful is not the same as banworthy. If you want to advance a credible argument on the topic, you need to define the purpose of bans, define criteria for what is and isn't banworthy, then prove that given cards do or don't meet those criteria. Just stating that you think a card is or isn't broken doesn't actually prove anything, not should it be entertained as a metric by which to gauge the format.
January 18, 2016 11:41 p.m.
@ MrEggCream: Gaea's Cradle + Eye of Ugin. Serra's Sanctum. The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale. Strip Mine. Mishra's Workshop. Cabal Coffers. Nykthos, Shrine to Nyx. Volrath's Stronghold. Bazaar of Baghdad. All can be incredibly broken. The first two alone win the game the following turn. Prime Time isn't coming back any time soon.
January 18, 2016 11:42 p.m.
Both Loyal Retainers and Survival of the Fittest (Serra too of course) are awesome but take an entire turn to become useful. Titan has immediate impact and doesn't let up until removed, same for Prophet since (I believe?) the abilities are not not activated abilities, more like ETB/enchantment.
January 18, 2016 11:43 p.m.
To be honest, I want deadeye banned too. He unlocks so many combos. And the fact that sure spot removal is the key to killing deadeye (or dissipate). But honestly, deadeye becomes a response to spot removal himself. Plus if you're playing blue, youre probably going to have backup for keeping him alive. Same as prophet. I'd rather see primordial unbanned and deadeye banned.
January 18, 2016 11:44 p.m.
When I was more new to EDH I believed Serra Ascendant was too strong, in many cases I often see the card as what I would call a casual-nightmare roadblock. The card is one of the first big problems for a player to solve the first few times they encounter it. Once they have encountered it a few times they should now have a greater knowledge of the game and the card to be able to tackle it with little-to-no problems.
In higher level play the Ascendant gets naturally removed of means by dealt with by other cards that deal with multiple targets.
January 18, 2016 11:46 p.m.
Not to mention the fact that prime time keeps generating advantage even after you've played him. The fact that you ramp just for attacking is nuts.
Plus the reason he was banned was because he was format warping, not just that he was good. Every deck either ran him or ways to steal/clone him.
January 18, 2016 11:46 p.m.
ComradeJim270 says... #8
I really don't think DEN is banworthy. It can be a powerful combo engine, but there are tons of those already. Those combos tend to just end the game. He does not warp games and change the format being played from EDH to "whack-a-prophet" in the way Prophet does.
January 18, 2016 11:48 p.m.
DiamondFlavor says... #9
MrEggCream Serra Ascendant is just a 6/6 flying lifelink, no matter what it costs. It's good, and efficient, but EDH is rarely decided by one efficient beater. It has no protection, really no interactions except for life gain, and doesn't produce any advantage. There is no reason to ban it.
Primeval Titan is totally ridiculous and absolutely needs to stay banned for good. "Most people don't run super crazy lands" is likely based on your personal experience, but I find that to be extremely untrue. EDH is packed with "crazy" lands, everything from fetches to karoos to Ancient Tomb, Temple of the False God, Maze of Ith, Academy Ruins, Kor Haven, etc. etc.
Loyal Retainers is a very expensive card, and thus rarely seen (and therein not problematic to most players) and it's effect is far from broken. It's a very picky Karmic Guide for slightly less mana. Again, it's good, but in no way overpowered or format-warping. Cards generally have to be both--or represent some other significant threat to the health of format--to be banned.
Survival of the Fittest is the only card you named that I also find to be ridiculously good. But there are answers to it, notably graveyard hate. It enables a whole lot of potent tutoring, but as Epoch said above about Consecrated Sphinx, it's really generating potential advantage and not actualized advantage, meaning you still have to cheat in the creatures from your graveyard or hand to do degenerate things, and then you're talking about synergies or broken creatures unto themselves. A powerful enabler, one of the best, but probably not in need of banning.
Please don't say Sylvan Primordial should be unbanned, because as much as I love that guy he was seriously lopsided as well.
January 19, 2016 12:07 a.m.
DiamondFlavor says... #10
Oh I see he was thoroughly answered before I got here :)
January 19, 2016 12:08 a.m.
PreZchoICE1 says... #11
@ Epochalyptik why do they have their own banlist then? just curious
January 19, 2016 12:15 a.m.
DiamondFlavor says... #12
I don't know about you guys, but DEN is absolutely kill-on-sight in my experience. And like I suggested somewhere above, it's not just a combo piece, it's also a huge source of advantage with any of the ubiquitous ETB/LTB effects in the format. It doesn't just combo, it gets you to the combo, does the combo, and turns the combo into an instant win.
Also, DEN is part of a two-card combo with Palinchron, and both cards protect themselves. And Palinchron can come in and set up the mana to go straight into Deadeye. You only need 8 lands to initiate the whole combo, and then you have unlimited access to any ETB you can find.
A pretty tame play is Fierce Empath into Deadeye, flick the Empath for Palinchron, get infinite mana, tutor all your 6+ drops (Rune-Scarred Demon, Prime Speaker Zegana, Woodfall Primus, Draining Whelk, Triskelion).
Compare that to something like Mikaeus, the Unhallowed and Triskelion. Triskelion is almost completely dead outside the combo, and Mikaeus does not protect himself. Mikaeus, similarly to Deadeye, interacts well with other creatures, but then he needs a sac outlet to get anything done.
My point is not that it's just a piece in a combo. It's the bread and butter of a very resilient combo that has virtually endless angles of attack. And it's a nearly degenerate card even without going infinite.
I'm not saying ban it necessarily, I'm just saying I can't believe how easily it keeps getting dismissed in this thread like it's not warping or even particularly threatening.
January 19, 2016 12:20 a.m.
PreZchoICE1 says... #13
sorry Epoch mb I see they merged the two finally. disregard.
January 19, 2016 12:24 a.m.
PreZchoICE1 says... #14
I feel like anything with an ETB that untaps lands is just asking to be broken especially in EDH.
January 19, 2016 12:26 a.m.
Personally I don't have a problem with PoK being banned, I went through extensive games between both my bant and sultai edh decks and the vast majority of the games that it won Prophet was not involved the game's winning decisions so yeah, that's my two cents.
January 19, 2016 12:37 a.m.
Here is something I think we might all benefit from more than just complaining or praising the RC Ban of Prophet of Kruphix.
What cards do you think are suitable replacements for her? Ideally Cards that cost <$10 and are within 
Color Identity.
I know I have an open slot in my Simic Deck now, so it's gotta get filled with something.
January 19, 2016 12:41 a.m.
Seedborn Muse >$10 so it's out. I am looking for cards that can generate mana advantage in a powerful fashion, possibly less optimally than PoK but that can be viable as a replacement. PoK was maybe $2 even though she was so powerful. Surely there is something similar we can find on a budget.
January 19, 2016 12:51 a.m.
Seedborn Muse if you don't already have it in the deck is likely the best replacement for Prophet of Kruphix but it also largely depends on if you need more of the untap or the flash. So basically you have to attempt to return to EDH before Prophet of Kruphix.
My deck needed more for the untap so I went with Seedborn Muse.
January 19, 2016 12:51 a.m.
ComradeJim270 says... #20
@DiamondFlavor: I'm familiar with how the card works. It's a powerhouse, like you say. How does any of that make it something the RC would consider banning, though?
January 19, 2016 12:56 a.m.
I feel as though people are viewing the RC and their decisions wrong. Many people, including highly respected people on the forums keep saying that EDH as a social format can decide to play with the banlist or not. The problem lies with tournament play.
Tournaments follow the banlist. Competitive players MUST follow the banlist, regardless of whether the RC makes good decisions or not. Prophet of Kruphix as has been mentioned, wasn't huge in competitive play. Deadeye Navigator sees more play and often has a larger impact on the game if it ever resolves. From my personal experience, playing either in a competitive deck is pointless as they won't resolve or will be removed quickly, the vast majority of the time never seeing a full turn in play.
The RC should work the banlist with Competitive/Tournament play in mind. Those are the only people that HAVE to follow the list. Obviously any social group can choose whether they follow it or not, competitive players don't have that luxury. This is especially bad when they are making rulings that are targeted at the low tiers of play.
With that said, am I to understand that Devoid cards are fair game in any deck? The cards are technically colorless and it was my understanding that the only rule that was keeping them from being played was the fact that you couldn't produce the mana to cast them. With the rule change, it seems perfectly logical that you could play any Devoid cards in any deck, regardless of the mana needed to cast them, or pay for abilities.
January 19, 2016 1:13 a.m.
hippienproud says... #22
Devoid cards still have a color identity, regardless of the fact that they are technically colorless. Rule 4 being removed just means that you can tap Command Tower for in a mono green deck, in the corner case where that would be relevant.
January 19, 2016 1:18 a.m.
_SeriosSkies_ says... #23
@iAzire:
Devoid cards:
Color - Colorless
Color identity - Any symbol on the face of the card + color indicators
The ability to produce off color mana wasnt what stopped them. the Color identity rule was what was stopping you. Since you could legally only play the in color ones anyhow.
January 19, 2016 1:19 a.m.
_SeriosSkies_ says... #24
You cant tap Command Tower for red in a mono green EDH. But things like City of Brass or Mana Confluence it rings true.
January 19, 2016 1:21 a.m.
I understand what Rule 4 being removed means. I understand how the rule worked. That is not the question. Devoid cards do not have color identity due to the Devoid being colorless.
From Wizards website:"A card with devoid is colorless, even though it has colored mana in its mana cost. Barrage Tyrant is a colorless card, not a red card. Devoid works in all zones, so if a card instructs you to search for a colorless card in your library, you can find Barrage Tyrant."
Devoid cards by the rules are colorless. They have no color identity as their Devoid rule makes them colorless. What kept us from using them was the fact that we couldn't produce the mana to cast them.
January 19, 2016 1:24 a.m.
hippienproud says... #26
Oops, forgot Command Tower cares about color identity.
January 19, 2016 1:24 a.m.
hippienproud says... #27
Memnarch is a blue commander, and has a color identity of due to the presence of that symbol on the card, even though the card itself is colorless. Devoid works the same way.
January 19, 2016 1:27 a.m.
DiamondFlavor says... #28
ComradeJim270 that's a fair question, and I suppose I don't have a solid answer off the top of my head.
I just see the reasons as similar to PoK; it's basically an auto-include, it protects itself, and it's very frustrating to deal with.
The main difference that I can see between PoK and Deadeye in terms of game-warping is that it isn't much good to steal or clone Deadeye, unless you're also playing blue (in which case it's probably easier to get your own Deadeye because you're most likely playing it). But to that you can argue that stealing is difficult (because DEN can flick itself against most attempts) and that cloning was simply not lucrative because of the U cost in its activated ability. But they just changed the rules so that non-U decks can now create mana for that ability, though I doubt that will change anything significantly.
But DEN is, in my eyes, just as much answer-now-or-lose as PoK, and more often than that you don't even get the turn to respond, where PoK necessarily depends on passing the turn. And it's harder to answer off-turn because it dodges spot removal.
Bottom line: the reason to ban it is because it is the way to win in U.
I played Zegana and PoK was an essential piece, but it was there to soak up threats and ultimately facilitate a Deadeye combo. I'll just replace that slot with Tooth and Nail and take the drama out of trying to protect Prophet around the board a few times ;)
January 19, 2016 1:33 a.m.
I understand Memnarch. I understand how the ruling works. Devoid cards are COLORLESS. By ruling they have no color identity. They can be effected by cards that effect colorless cards. They can't be targeted by cards that specifically target whatever color they have. You can't use tutors that look for a specifically colored card as they have no color identity, in any zone.
January 19, 2016 1:34 a.m.
hippienproud says... #30
They have no color, but color identity is different. Memnarch can't be affected by cards that specifically look for a color, but it is still a blue commander. You can't Blue Elemental Blast a Kozilek's Return, but that doesn't mean you can run Kozilek's Return in non- commander decks.
If you don't believe me, check the EDH RC site and read the Color Identity rules.
January 19, 2016 1:41 a.m.
The rules still follow what is printed on the card as the RC specifically states on their website.
Using the same example as the RC on their website, a Commander deck can run as many Relentless Rats in their deck as they want because the card's rule text specifically states it. Thus Relentless Rats can break the Singleton rule because the card says it can.
The same is seen with Devoid cards where it specifically states that the card is Colorless and remains so in all zones.
January 19, 2016 1:49 a.m.
Yep. Color identity doesn't really care about the color of the cards, only the color symbols in the mana cost and rules text (ignoring reminder text). That's why we can't run forests in Azami, Lady of Scrolls EDH, or Taiga in Oloro, Ageless Ascetic.
Just because Rule 4's gone doesn't mean that color identity rules have changed.
January 19, 2016 1:51 a.m.
Again I understand that. There is no confusion there.
Card text can allow it to break the rules. You can run 70 Relentless Rats in a deck if you so desire. Devoid as a rule makes the card colorless. It is the specific rule text on the card that allows it to disregard color identity.
What the RC means is to follow the rules they have laid out unless Wizards prints a card that allows that card to break the rules. Devoid does exactly that by making the card colorless.
January 19, 2016 1:57 a.m.
Not happy at all about losing Prophet of Kruphix and having to fill the gap in several decks now, but... considering the last EDH game I played with my Progenitus deck was won solely with Prophet + Consecrated Sphinx I can accept why. Still don't like to see it go, though.
January 19, 2016 1:58 a.m.
ComradeJim270 says... #36
@iAzire: Incorrect. A card's color identity is not the same as its color. It's a specifically EDH/Tiny Leaders rule that does not exist in any other format. It's an immutable property of the card and cannot be changed, ever. It is determined solely by the colored mana symbols in mana cost and rules text. A card with devoid that costs would have a red color identity. Bosh, Iron Golem does too.
@DiamondFlavor: You've hit on a big part of it. DEN needs something to enable it. It's good only under specific circumstances (though it's really good, then). PoK is good on its own and warps games around it. As soon as it shows up the game revolves around it. It produces a problem simply by being present. That problem is as much a social one as a mechanical one.
Also, if you're having trouble killing DEN, respond to the soulbond trigger when it comes back in. Fun times! People don't realize you can do that. Not sure if you did.
January 19, 2016 2 a.m.
hippienproud says... #37
Being colorless and having no color identity are different things, which is the main point that you aren't understanding. General Tazri is a white card, but has a 5 color identity. Yasova Dragonclaw is a green card, with a Temur color identity. It's how EDH has always functioned, and it isn't any different now.
January 19, 2016 2:01 a.m.
But it doesn't. Again, refer to lands, who are the living example of "devoid" in action. Lands are colorless, yet Plains has a white color identity, Island has a blue color identity, Swamp has a black color identity, Mountain has a red color identity and Forest has a green color identity, similar to how Eldrazi Displacer has a white color identity (white symbol in its mana cost), Drowner of Hope has a blue color identity (blue symbol in its mana cost), Transgress the Mind has a black color identity (black symbol in its mana cost), Barrage Tyrant has a red color identity (red symbol in its rules text and mana cost) and Scion Summoner has a green color identity (green symbol in its mana cost).
I think you just need to take another look at color identity rules, because this has already been ruled on by the RC. Devoid cards have a color identity pursuant to the already existing rules on color identity. It's not hard.
January 19, 2016 2:03 a.m.
PoK still really wasn't an issue in competitive play. The RC said they looked at casual play to justify the ban.
How can the RC look at casual play to justify a banlist that effects competitive and tournament play where the card wasn't a problem?
While the PoK ban doesn't effect me or any deck I'm currently running, I would still strongly support Wizards taking over the rules. At least have Wizards make the banlist for tournament play, especially now that Commander is a recognized format at FNM.
On the color identity: All cards being mentioned are all lacking specific rules text stating that the card has no color. Devoid was made to make cards colorless and ignore any mana symbols except for casting.
Again my point of specific rules text allowing cards to break the rules. That is also stated on their website.
January 19, 2016 2:14 a.m.
You know I would love it if WotC made Eratta on all the Eldrazi with "Devoid" that said "This cards color identity is colorless".
January 19, 2016 2:15 a.m.
But their colorlessness doesn't fucking matter.
Again, Forest. It's colorless. But has a GREEN color identity. Color=/= color identity. Color =\=color identity.
The RC has something on it, don't make me go all Pheonix Wright on your ass.
January 19, 2016 2:20 a.m.
hippienproud says... #42
Devoid doesn't say that the card has no color identity, just that it has no color. Which, has been stated repeatedly, is a difference.
January 19, 2016 2:21 a.m.
iAzire - How many sources will make you happy? One? Two? Three? Give me a number and I'll cite that many sources that say you're wrong.
Also, I'm sure that there are Modern players that would tell you to have Wizards stay far away from Commander based on Modern's banned list. So don't think that Wizards taking control of the banned list is better for Commander. (Spoiler alert: It's not)
January 19, 2016 2:25 a.m.
ComradeJim270 says... #44
@iAzire: Devoid does not reference color identity in any way, shape or form. It only references color. It has no bearing on color identity.
As for the RC... they're running the show. Your idea for WotC having a seperate banlist is interesting, but if it were possible it would still add an unnecessary level of complication in my opinion. Also, if PoK wasn't a problem in competitive play, why does it matter one way or another?
January 19, 2016 2:28 a.m.
Well, I guess everyone can make that Sen Triplets deck they wanted now. And Muse Vessel is now good.
January 19, 2016 2:35 a.m.
JWiley129 I will refer you to your third posted example. It was posted by a guy on the RC and he justified that decision by stating you can't produce Black mana in a deck that doesn't run Black. The justification for that decision was Rule 4, my point is that Rule 4 is null and void. If Rule 4 doesn't exist then logically the restrictions to Devoid cards is also null.
ComradeJim270 My point on whether the card is banned or not is it only creates a larger banlist for a card that will only be removed at a later date and time. It is pointless to ban. It isn't on the same level as Tinker.
It is about on the same level as Kokusho, the Evening Star which was removed from the banlist.
January 19, 2016 2:38 a.m. Edited.
hippienproud says... #47
...but Rule 4 is about mana production, not what constitutes a cards color identity.
January 19, 2016 2:42 a.m.
iAzire - So you're going to ignore my other sources? Also Matt Tabak who is Magic's Rules Manager, not a member of the Commander Rule's Committee, stated that a black devoid card can only be played in Black commander decks. So Inverter of Truth is OK in Drana, Liberator of Malakir but not ok in Munda, Ambush Leader. Why? Because while Inverter of Truth is a colorless card, it has a black color identity. Which is the crux of Tabak's original tweet: that Devoid does not change Color Identity.
And there are other sources I can find if you aren't satisfied.
January 19, 2016 2:43 a.m.
Greendawg81 says... #49
RIP Prophet of Kruphix. Oh well she had a good run. My Angus Enchantment deck already runs Seedborn Muse so Leyline of Anticipation will likely replace prophet. I have an extra copy of Vedalken Orrery i can throw in temporarily. In Animar im prob just gonna grab Teferi, Mage of Zhalfir but i still need Palinchron too so whichever one i can get first.
January 19, 2016 3:22 a.m.
MentalBlok says... #50
As much as I've loved Prophet, I've gotta admit that it kind of relieves me to have it banned. I've hemmed and hawed about taking it out of my Mimeoplasm deck just because every time I tutor for something, I'm tempted to search for Prophet. To those saying, "Just remove it", consider this--you essentially only have the chance to do that if they have tapped out to play it and you kill it on their end step. I run it in a graveyard recursion deck that has access to counterspells, reanimation, and copying effects. Even if you do kill it without me countering your removal or simply copying it before your spot removal hits, I can just dig it back up.
All it really takes are two or three untap steps for the advantage I've accrued to become nearly insurmountable, which means that even if you do manage to kill Prophet before it's my turn, the damage is already done.The point is, Prophet is really, really good at protecting itself, and can get you such a huge advantage that the game doesn't feel worth playing anymore. I've recently had two three-player games in which the person with Prophet was immediately ganged up on by the other two--and still ended up winning. I'm sad to see it go, but very much looking forward to other new and interesting ways of creating interaction. It makes the deck-building puzzle more fun when there isn't a card that feels like an auto-include just because of the colors I run. I'm not saying it's a dominant card in all settings of the game (my meta is very anti-infinite combos or super expensive cards--looking at you, Silvan Library) So I can't speak to that. Nor am I saying that DEN isn't banworthy; just saying that prophet makes the game feel like the player who has it gets 2, 3, sometimes 4 turns to your one, and that's not very enjoyable from my perspective
MrEggCream says... #1
@ Epochalyptik It's 6/6 flying lifelink for one. In a format with 20 life is fair but in Edh it's ridiculous. Prime evil gets you to lands but most people don't run super crazy lands. I'm just saying they look over incredibly powerful cards like Loyal retainers and survival of the fittest.
January 18, 2016 11:34 p.m.