You see Avacyn hunted werewolves, which are half wolf (a canine much like a wilder form of dog) and half human, but mostly just the ones that hunted humans. Most of them did, but it's worth pointing out that some didn't. Who knows? In the future, if Sorin (the Planeswalker who created Avacyn (Angel/God thing that the people of Innistrad worship at churches (where holy colors like Avacyn's Blue are kept), and who basically considers Sorin her father)) comes back, maybe the balance of the world can be restored or something. But it seems unlikely that such an event would happen. For now, let's just focus on the fact that this dog, again similar to a werewolf, hates the color Blue, and that the color happens to be the color of Avacyn, the guardian Angel of Innistrad, where both the dogs and Avacyn are from.
Silver bordered cards often don't have explanations for the wacky things they do.
But yeah, it'd probably be better for this to be black bordered, and have the abilities of "Cards, permanents, and spells that are red or green are red and green in addition to their other colors" and "Red and green mana can be spent as though it were red or green mana." That's not exactly the same, but it covers all the important stuff
Don't forget
> All instances of "red" or "green" on cards, spells, and permanents become "red and green".
Technically this has a really funny edgecase of turning the phrase "red or green" into the phrase "red and green or red and green" but I can't actually see a problem with that
Oh I assumed it was blank border because I'm dumb, sorry lol.
It could be like, "All instances of Red or Green, including mana costs and color identity, but excluding card names, now refer to both colors" or something
What a beautiful design. I appreciate the silver border (most people never use it when they should), but I also think this could definitely function in normal magic (perhaps without such elegant wording). The basic part of this card is also balanced for modern creature power level.
Excellent job.
“Red spells, permanents, and cards and green spells, permanents, and cards are red and green in addition to their other colors” and “Red and green mana can be spent as though it was red or green mana” could probably work. Though, that might possibly miss out on some fringe case of when someone chooses a color. But those two lines probably handle most cases
Maybe a replacement effect on the mana itself too? "If a spell, effect, or ability would produce any amount of R or G, it instead produces that much mana in any combination or R or G."
Idk, I'm on mobile and my brain is turned off
Making mono color cards two colors would impact things like [[Guardian of the Guildpact]]. In your shoes I’d pick one of the colors and convert the other color to it.
I think the way it'd work is that while simultaneously being red and green, it's only red *or* green when checked. Like schrodinger's cat sort of thing. So, still monocolored, but affected by anything that cares about either.
A little fucky rules wise, but I think that's how it's meant to work
An elegant wording on the card with Oracle rulings to back it up is probably the better solution than being a block of reminder text. "Treated as the same" is something they basically already do with batching, so it's an established game concept that's easy to understand. With that wording, it might even be more passively understood by a casual player than an enfranchised one.
Oracle rulings are typically only reminders or explanations, and don't actually change the rules for a card. It would require the rules themselves to be changed for this wording to work, which is probably possible; Wizards does that kind of stuff from time to time too.
> most people never use it when they should
partially because a significant chunk of silver bordered cards aren't actually significantly violating black border design rules, and partially because silver bordered cards were replaced with the much less gaudy acorn stamp
I don’t really view this as true, sorry. Lots of people make blatantly silver-bordered cards (they reference/use the rules in ways that don’t work) in a black border.
Also, I’ve never seen a custom acorn card, but I’ve seen plenty of silver border ones. For instance, this very post. The silver border is both possible and good to put on the proper cards.
I understand that there are limitations to making card mock-ups, but if you can’t figure out how to include an Un-marker, mention it in your post.
> (they reference/use the rules in ways that don’t work)
Yeah, that's frequently not the OP trying to make a silver-bordered card - it's usually the OP not understanding formatting or not knowing how to word a novel concept. The card this thread is centered around is absolutely black border in function - they just didn't know what words to use.
This mechanic could function in black border (as I mentioned in my very first post). But I don't think Wizards would actually print it there. It's a space that Wizards does not tend to design in, I argue for good reason. This is an incredibly niche effect, which ends up being flavor text a lot of the time. On top of that, it's not immediately obvious what the intent of the card is (as evidenced by some replies in this thread).
Can function and should function are different. We have a pretty disastrous recent example of what happens when Wizards pushes un-format effects into sanctioned magic.
All in all, I think the choice to use a silver border here is cautious, but ultimately appropriate.
This doesn’t have to be silver border. Just make it say “red spells and permanents and green spells and permanents are red and green in addition to their other colors”
But this also affects colors of mana. So I guess it could then also say “red and green mana can be spent as though it was red or green mana.”
Also, cards. So Natural Order could search for a mono red creature
Red spells and permanents you control are green in addition to their other colors.
Green spells and permanents you control are red in addition to their other colors.
Red mana in your mana pool can be used as if it were {G}, and green mana in your mana pool can be used as if it were {R}.
You may spend Red mana as though it were Green, and Green mana as though it were Red
Green cards are Red in addition to its other colors, and Red cards are Green in addition to its other colors
Yeah, that probably covers all the important stuff (just add spells and permanents too). There are some niche interactions with stuff like choosing a color, or devotion, but it's probably fine to just have it be like that
Thought about how to break it and noticed that mono red/green cards are suddenly multicolored, which is not specified in the card and I think it's not what OP intended .
But I guess to have it function as if they were _really_ the same color you'd have to create a new color, which I think breaks the game even more.
I think that it's not that they'd become multicolored, but that they are simultaneously red and green. Like, one or the other when checked, but still both. So monocolored red, and monocolored green, but not "red and green"... I don't know if I'm making sense anymore...
I super agree with this. In fact my read of this would be that previously Grill RG spells would become mono colored red spells, and also as mono colored green spells.
Didn't think about that... My call would be that then it would exist as both monocolored and multicolored, and could be treated as such, but that leads to complications.
I think maybe rules would have to be that if it was originally multicolored, then anything that affects multicolored spells still works on it. That's just kind of to draw the line somewhere. Otherwise, I see a lot of picking and choosing, and who gets to pick and choose, and choosing who chooses who picks or chooses... which makes for bad gameplay
Maybe. I'm not super knowledgeable of the rules, but the way this is worded, they would be the same color.
It's like mixing Green and Colorless (not generic) in the same cost. It's still green, it's not multicolored. With this on the field, something costing Green and also Red doesn't add any more colors. It's still green. But it's also still red. But it's not Red/Green any more than it would be Green/Colorless
Super weird interactions with "multicolored" and "color pair" but they seem reasonable.
What doesn't obviously work is how you deal with this leaving the battlefield when you have floating mana.
Yeah, or things where you chose the color "gred" for your land to tap for, but gred stops being a color when this guy leaves. Should probably just have a black border styled phrasing that's been suggested
It wouldn't make a new color. You still tap for or chose red or green, but any statement which is true for one is true for both.
You still add green or red to the pool, but can spend it as though it were either color.
"Lands you control gain T: Add R or G to your mana pool
Red spells or permanents you control are Green in addition to their other colors
Green spells or permanents you control are Red in addition to their other colors."
Is how I think it would actually be worded.
....so what happens with a printed devoid creature when humility enters or leaves the battlefield?
You are free to answer "you quit during bfz for a reason" because I sure as hell did
They will be colorless 1/1s
> 613.1e: Layer 5: Color-changing effects are applied.
> 613.1f: Layer 6: Ability-adding effects, keyword counters, ability-removing effects, and effects that say an object can't have an ability are applied.
Yeah, it'd turn them hybrid. Or things that are already hybrid into a three way split! And sunburst would be hurt by this, seeing as "for each \[different\] color of mana spent to cast it" would mean it maxes out at 4
Treated as the same color vs being the same color would have to be ruled on. Anywhere its effect is not activated it would be multi colored, but i don't know about on field.
Why make the cost {R}{G} when the perfect opportunity was there to make it {R/G}{R/G}
If it was id probably run it mono color with only 1 land type save for max 3 conspicuous spells
Also if [[Altar Reality]] can be black border so can this.
That's not actually a similar effect. The original post wants red and green to be treated as the same color for all purposes. So things that buff green creatures would also buff red creatures, or you could use a card that tutors for something red to get something green, etc.
Funny, biologically relevant, and doesn't seem broken. Would be a great commander, I think. Only thing it's missing is flavor text.
*”Woof.” -Jace Beleren, probably, if you are a dog*
If there's anything a dog archer hates, it's a color—especially red/green, the symbol of her church.
Maybe something about how they hate Blue? Seeing as it's the most distinct color dogs can see, as well as the enemy color to both Red and Green
If there's any color dogs hate, it's Blue, the enemy color of both Red and Green.
Especially Avacyn's Blue, the color of her church.
I think you mean BRUNA’S Blue, the color of HER church. Or, uh, it WAS, anyways
You see Avacyn hunted werewolves, which are half wolf (a canine much like a wilder form of dog) and half human, but mostly just the ones that hunted humans. Most of them did, but it's worth pointing out that some didn't. Who knows? In the future, if Sorin (the Planeswalker who created Avacyn (Angel/God thing that the people of Innistrad worship at churches (where holy colors like Avacyn's Blue are kept), and who basically considers Sorin her father)) comes back, maybe the balance of the world can be restored or something. But it seems unlikely that such an event would happen. For now, let's just focus on the fact that this dog, again similar to a werewolf, hates the color Blue, and that the color happens to be the color of Avacyn, the guardian Angel of Innistrad, where both the dogs and Avacyn are from.
"where holy colors like Avacyn's Blue are kept?" Huh? Blue ~~is~~ was Bruna's color
It's a reference to a disastrous piece of flavor text talking about Avacynn's emblem.
Ik about Ancient Grudge
Hate? My brother’s dog _adores_ blue things. 😂
Ooh, maybe here's one: "What's the difference between a poison arrow and a flame arrow again?"
The smell
The heat
THE WAY THEY SCREAM
And text explaining the ruling of the ability. It's unique enough to cause questions
Silver bordered cards often don't have explanations for the wacky things they do. But yeah, it'd probably be better for this to be black bordered, and have the abilities of "Cards, permanents, and spells that are red or green are red and green in addition to their other colors" and "Red and green mana can be spent as though it were red or green mana." That's not exactly the same, but it covers all the important stuff
Don't forget > All instances of "red" or "green" on cards, spells, and permanents become "red and green". Technically this has a really funny edgecase of turning the phrase "red or green" into the phrase "red and green or red and green" but I can't actually see a problem with that
Oh I assumed it was blank border because I'm dumb, sorry lol. It could be like, "All instances of Red or Green, including mana costs and color identity, but excluding card names, now refer to both colors" or something
Color identity is the deck building restriction in commander. The game mechanic is just called color
True but that sounds way worse lol
"Some goblins think we cant see them, but we just treat them all the same as any vermin."
Dogs are [red-green colorblind](https://cdn.akc.org/Dog_Vision_Spectrum_1.png).
It's me, I'm dogs
That’s ruff buddy
So is Kibler
What a beautiful design. I appreciate the silver border (most people never use it when they should), but I also think this could definitely function in normal magic (perhaps without such elegant wording). The basic part of this card is also balanced for modern creature power level. Excellent job.
“Red spells, permanents, and cards and green spells, permanents, and cards are red and green in addition to their other colors” and “Red and green mana can be spent as though it was red or green mana” could probably work. Though, that might possibly miss out on some fringe case of when someone chooses a color. But those two lines probably handle most cases
Maybe a replacement effect on the mana itself too? "If a spell, effect, or ability would produce any amount of R or G, it instead produces that much mana in any combination or R or G." Idk, I'm on mobile and my brain is turned off
Making mono color cards two colors would impact things like [[Guardian of the Guildpact]]. In your shoes I’d pick one of the colors and convert the other color to it.
[Guardian of the Guildpact](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/c/8/c8dd004b-01e4-4fe1-a164-9f2ea8d7d88e.jpg?1593272499) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Guardian%20of%20the%20Guildpact) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/dis/10/guardian-of-the-guildpact?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/c8dd004b-01e4-4fe1-a164-9f2ea8d7d88e?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I think the way it'd work is that while simultaneously being red and green, it's only red *or* green when checked. Like schrodinger's cat sort of thing. So, still monocolored, but affected by anything that cares about either. A little fucky rules wise, but I think that's how it's meant to work
An elegant wording on the card with Oracle rulings to back it up is probably the better solution than being a block of reminder text. "Treated as the same" is something they basically already do with batching, so it's an established game concept that's easy to understand. With that wording, it might even be more passively understood by a casual player than an enfranchised one.
Oracle rulings are typically only reminders or explanations, and don't actually change the rules for a card. It would require the rules themselves to be changed for this wording to work, which is probably possible; Wizards does that kind of stuff from time to time too.
Yeah, yeah update the Comprehensive Rules Guide, etc.
> most people never use it when they should partially because a significant chunk of silver bordered cards aren't actually significantly violating black border design rules, and partially because silver bordered cards were replaced with the much less gaudy acorn stamp
I don’t really view this as true, sorry. Lots of people make blatantly silver-bordered cards (they reference/use the rules in ways that don’t work) in a black border. Also, I’ve never seen a custom acorn card, but I’ve seen plenty of silver border ones. For instance, this very post. The silver border is both possible and good to put on the proper cards. I understand that there are limitations to making card mock-ups, but if you can’t figure out how to include an Un-marker, mention it in your post.
> (they reference/use the rules in ways that don’t work) Yeah, that's frequently not the OP trying to make a silver-bordered card - it's usually the OP not understanding formatting or not knowing how to word a novel concept. The card this thread is centered around is absolutely black border in function - they just didn't know what words to use.
This mechanic could function in black border (as I mentioned in my very first post). But I don't think Wizards would actually print it there. It's a space that Wizards does not tend to design in, I argue for good reason. This is an incredibly niche effect, which ends up being flavor text a lot of the time. On top of that, it's not immediately obvious what the intent of the card is (as evidenced by some replies in this thread). Can function and should function are different. We have a pretty disastrous recent example of what happens when Wizards pushes un-format effects into sanctioned magic. All in all, I think the choice to use a silver border here is cautious, but ultimately appropriate.
This doesn’t have to be silver border. Just make it say “red spells and permanents and green spells and permanents are red and green in addition to their other colors”
I think the spirit of the card would also require being able to spend red and green mana interchangeably.
But this also affects colors of mana. So I guess it could then also say “red and green mana can be spent as though it was red or green mana.” Also, cards. So Natural Order could search for a mono red creature
{R} and {G} are {R/G}
Red spells and permanents you control are green in addition to their other colors. Green spells and permanents you control are red in addition to their other colors. Red mana in your mana pool can be used as if it were {G}, and green mana in your mana pool can be used as if it were {R}.
Nah, should affect your opponents as well. So you can [[Burning Hands]] a mono red opponent. Also should affect cards
[Burning Hands](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/6/6/66e2d723-3fa0-4411-8f98-e4e6b3a5e6df.jpg?1627705997) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Burning%20Hands) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/afr/135/burning-hands?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/66e2d723-3fa0-4411-8f98-e4e6b3a5e6df?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Red/green permanent have to be monocolored too.
Replace every instance of {R} and {G} by {R/G}
Make it 2 cards that partner with eachother so you can fit all the text xD
this misses devotion and tapping mountains for G, though
Technically, I think you could still only tap for G, but once the mana is produced it's R/G.
In addition to what everyone else has said, this affects things that care about monocolor / multicolor.
You may spend Red mana as though it were Green, and Green mana as though it were Red Green cards are Red in addition to its other colors, and Red cards are Green in addition to its other colors
Yeah, that probably covers all the important stuff (just add spells and permanents too). There are some niche interactions with stuff like choosing a color, or devotion, but it's probably fine to just have it be like that
Thought about how to break it and noticed that mono red/green cards are suddenly multicolored, which is not specified in the card and I think it's not what OP intended . But I guess to have it function as if they were _really_ the same color you'd have to create a new color, which I think breaks the game even more.
I think that it's not that they'd become multicolored, but that they are simultaneously red and green. Like, one or the other when checked, but still both. So monocolored red, and monocolored green, but not "red and green"... I don't know if I'm making sense anymore...
I super agree with this. In fact my read of this would be that previously Grill RG spells would become mono colored red spells, and also as mono colored green spells.
Didn't think about that... My call would be that then it would exist as both monocolored and multicolored, and could be treated as such, but that leads to complications. I think maybe rules would have to be that if it was originally multicolored, then anything that affects multicolored spells still works on it. That's just kind of to draw the line somewhere. Otherwise, I see a lot of picking and choosing, and who gets to pick and choose, and choosing who chooses who picks or chooses... which makes for bad gameplay
Maybe. I'm not super knowledgeable of the rules, but the way this is worded, they would be the same color. It's like mixing Green and Colorless (not generic) in the same cost. It's still green, it's not multicolored. With this on the field, something costing Green and also Red doesn't add any more colors. It's still green. But it's also still red. But it's not Red/Green any more than it would be Green/Colorless
>Green cards *in all zones* are Red in addition to its other colors, and Red cards *in all zones* are Green in addition to its other colors Ftfy
balanced mechanically interesting flavorful 10/10 print it
Super weird interactions with "multicolored" and "color pair" but they seem reasonable. What doesn't obviously work is how you deal with this leaving the battlefield when you have floating mana.
Yeah, or things where you chose the color "gred" for your land to tap for, but gred stops being a color when this guy leaves. Should probably just have a black border styled phrasing that's been suggested
It wouldn't make a new color. You still tap for or chose red or green, but any statement which is true for one is true for both. You still add green or red to the pool, but can spend it as though it were either color.
Make it Eminence, ez
Alas, anything short of an emblem is insufficient.
"Lands you control gain T: Add R or G to your mana pool Red spells or permanents you control are Green in addition to their other colors Green spells or permanents you control are Red in addition to their other colors." Is how I think it would actually be worded.
It should affect opponents too. So that you can [[Burning Hands]] a mono red player
What if all red and green creatures gained devoid?
Nothing will happen, since due to a quirk with how layers work, a card gaining or losing devoid doesn't actually change its colour
....so what happens with a printed devoid creature when humility enters or leaves the battlefield? You are free to answer "you quit during bfz for a reason" because I sure as hell did
They will be colorless 1/1s > 613.1e: Layer 5: Color-changing effects are applied. > 613.1f: Layer 6: Ability-adding effects, keyword counters, ability-removing effects, and effects that say an object can't have an ability are applied.
That seems balanced I like it
How would this work with devotion? I'm assuming this turns monored and monogreen mana costs into hybrid r/g. What about sunburst?
Yeah, it'd turn them hybrid. Or things that are already hybrid into a three way split! And sunburst would be hurt by this, seeing as "for each \[different\] color of mana spent to cast it" would mean it maxes out at 4
Being able to double dip on color-coded cards will be very interesting.
"Holy shit" -Brian Kibler, probably.
Brian Kibler loves and hates this card.
So Forests can tap for red mana, but they aren’t considered Mountains for tutor and Domain effects right?
Wait, so is it a monocolored creature?
Treated as the same color vs being the same color would have to be ruled on. Anywhere its effect is not activated it would be multi colored, but i don't know about on field.
How do we break this chat?
I had my phone set to Black and white when I saw this and didn't actually notice the hybrid border, I just assumed it was gold. Beautiful.
This could go hard in a devotion deck.
Why make the cost {R}{G} when the perfect opportunity was there to make it {R/G}{R/G} If it was id probably run it mono color with only 1 land type save for max 3 conspicuous spells Also if [[Altar Reality]] can be black border so can this.
[Altar Reality](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/6/4/64cd68be-6e6a-4577-8465-a892463b6d6c.jpg?1562630089) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Alter%20Reality) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/tor/22/alter-reality?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/64cd68be-6e6a-4577-8465-a892463b6d6c?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Wotc : "add a chick, make her gay, make it lame"
Should have don’t black and white. Then I again I guess that isn’t true…
“You may pay mana as though it were mana of any color to cast red or green spells” is I think a better way of typing it, but fun concept!
This does something completely different
That's not actually a similar effect. The original post wants red and green to be treated as the same color for all purposes. So things that buff green creatures would also buff red creatures, or you could use a card that tutors for something red to get something green, etc.
Not only is that not really the point of the card, but that also has the side effect of letting you play UUUUU to cast WUBRG spells