Honor of the Pure
White creatures you control get +1/+1.
|Have (4)||DudeMan1031 , PostContact , orzhov_is_relatively_okay819 , metalmagic|
Printings View all
|Modern Event Deck (MD1)||Rare|
|2012 Core Set (M12)||Rare|
|2011 Core Set (M11)||Rare|
|2010 Core Set (M10)||Rare|
|Promo Set (000)||Rare|
Combos Browse all
|Commander / EDH||Legal|
Honor of the Pure occurrence in decks from the last year
All decks: 0.07%
Commander / EDH:
All decks: 0.01%
Honor of the Pure Discussion
3 days ago
Just a heads up that Balance is banned in the format. Maybe your group is cool with it though.
You might like these: Tome of Legends, Idol of Oblivion, Skullclamp, Arch of Orazca, Throne of the High City, Mantle of Leadership, Hope Against Hope, Veteran's Armaments, Eidolon of Countless Battles, Cathars' Crusade, Goldnight Commander, Valor in Akros, Leonin Warleader, Hero of Bladehold, Crescendo of War, Honor of the Pure
3 weeks ago
Option 1: Functional Reprints
Yes Crusade has an alternate with Honor of the Pure, but before this ban a mono white EDH deck could choose to run both cards, now they are limited to one. Crusade should get another printing like Honor of the Pure but not Honor of the Pure so that decks can run both again. The other big one Invoke Prejudice is actually a shockingly strong hate piece for mono blue EDH, and there are no effects even close to replacing it. A functional reprint is exactly that -- it does the same thing as the original card, so no Ice Cave is not a functional reprint of Invoke Prejudice.
Wizards could very easily have printed a special edition card with the same mana cost, type, and abilities on the card, but with a new name and new art. Run a special promotion: Mail in your old racist card and receive the new special promotion card + a booster pack.
At the moment, they're punishing the player base for Wizard's OWN mistakes. The players didn't print the racist cards, they didn't commission the art and name for the racist cards, and they didn't contract a neo-nazi. The mono blue player who just dropped $200 on an Invoke Prejudice just got screwed for a series of mistakes Wizards made 20 years ago that went from design, to art, to playtesting, and approved by the higher ups. The players are the ones who take the ding in fun and in the wallet for the racist mistakes of a company. Plenty of people sought the card for the powerful and unique effect, and are now left with a very expensive card they can't play. Functional reprints to impacted players should be the bare minimum for implementing this ban. Gatherer should have the art and card hidden initially and include a note from Wizards acknowledging and apologizing for the mistake, but since it is a database for the game the card should be available see with a toggle option.
Option 2: Disclaimer
I agree that this one doesn't solve the problem in paper formats. It keeps the racist imagery and name in the game. On the flip side, the game also doesn't lose any complexity or amount of choices for deck building. This gives Wizards good-boy-points without making any real substantial change. It doesn't solve situations where a black player will come face to face with this card on the other end of the table. Its a half-measure, where Wizards understands clearly what they should do, but don't want to dip into their profits to correct these printings. I think this is a better option than a direct banning, but still disingenuous.
I highly disagree that we should sacrifice cards for the "greater good". First off, that's an extremely loaded phrase appealing to whatever masses you're imagining without making a solid argument. Second, the erasure of mistakes doesn't allow Wizards to take ownership of the mistake and promotes them sweeping it under the rug. The destruction of shitty history is still the destruction of history. They can't un-print the card, and it certainly looks like they're trying.
Option 3: Ban
Performative at best. I've seen many jaded responses elsewhere on the internet about how this is yet another way for Wizards to chip away at the eternal formats and push their newly printed sets. Personally? I think Wizards doesn't want to get targeted by woke twitter, and this is a preemptive step to protect 2020 profits and beyond.
Cleanse and Deck Usage
Challenging the data was to show that the data is incomplete and misleading. I didn't condone X% as an acceptable amount of racism, I'm talking about how the percent versus the actual raw usage is misleading. 6 decks using Cleanse in a racist way is unfortunate, one person could literally make all those decks in an afternoon. 26% sounds much scarier than the raw number of 6 decks. I can agree that any amount of racism is too much, but we need to also approach numbers in a way that tells the whole story. Removing the cards from the hands of 35 million players because 6 players can't use good judgement is a mistake in my opinion.
you should not tell someone they need to learn more about their culture. I know you are working with educational intent, but telling someone how they should interact with their own culture is racist. Never tell someone to learn more about their own culture, not only are you implying they have a deficit on their culture, you're also implying they have a responsibility to learn it. Check yourself.
3 weeks ago
I agree, it was a quick, attention-grabbing, lazy option for WOTC to take with these cards. But do we really need more? Honestly curious if there are constructive ideas besides the ban for those who find it that distasteful.
Option 1: Functional Reprints:
Would anyone play a functional reprint of Imprison? It would probably color-shifted into white or maybe blue, at which point the card pretty much exists already. What does a functional reprint of Invoke Prejudice even look like? Ice Cave, Erayo's Essence, and Decree of Silence are as close as I can see them printing. They already functionally reprinted Crusade as Honor of the Pure, and they don't print such wide-ranging color hosers as Jihad and Cleanse any more. I could see Jihad is a color-specific Riders of Gavony-type card. The two creatures don't even bear mentioning.
Option 2: Attach a Disclaimer:
This works fine in digital, but it's the paper copies that are the challenge. Someone playing the game isn't going to take time out to Gatherer search a card to see that WOTC doesn't approve. Putting an errata online doesn't do much for cards on a table, especially when it's the art or the card name that's the problem. The flavor is the problem. Not all parts of the history of the game need to be kept for posterity like they're a winning pro-tour play or something as ubiquitous or historic as Lightning Bolt or Black Lotus. Maybe some can be sacrificed for the Greater Good.
Option 3 The Ban-Hammer:
Not a great look, but at least (and most important for the company) it costs minimal resources.
One further comment...perhaps 28 decks out of the whole database is a statistically insignificant number, BUT we're comparing decks that run Cleanse for racist connotations to the ones that don't. At that point we're asking 'how much racism is too much?' Are we setting the racism tolerance at 15% or less? 10%? Is only 10% racist better than 26% racist?
3 weeks ago
surprised they didnt hit Honor of the Pure. Most of these are a stretch and a half. i get invoke prejudice and jihad. But the others are pushing it. especially crusade and the gypsy
3 weeks ago
Today, WotC stated in an article that they would remove from the Gatherer the images of several cards that they feel are racist, as well as banning those cards from all sanctioned formats.
The specific cards are:
WotC has the right to do this, but most of those cards are older cards that barely anyone remembers today. By banning them, WotC has unintentionally drawn attention to them and turned them into collector's items.
I also wonder about the specific choices; while the reasons for banning Invoke Prejudice and Cleanse may seem to be obvious at a first glance, the former card does not in any way glorify prejudice, it merely provides an example of it. In the case of the latter card, the terms "black" and "white" in this game have nothing to do with skin color or ethnicity, they refer to philosophical alignment.
As for the other five cards, I fail to see how they are offensive in any way, so I wonder why WotC chose to ban them, especially considering that WotC did not ban Honor of the Pure, which is functionally identical to Crusade.
I also really hope that this decision does not affect the protection mechanic, as it is one of my favorite mechanics and just recently was returned to evergreen status, so I would like to see it remain.
What does everyone else say about this? How do you feel about this decision by WotC?
1 month ago
Skyhunter Skirmisher and Sword of Vengeance are two cards that fit the theme and synergize with Odric. Other than that, Honor of the Pure and Benalish Marshal would be good additions, but you wouldn't want to pull your curve up to far.
1 month ago
Anyway, nice deck!
1 month ago
This one gives me flashbacks to Agrus Kos, Wojek Veteran and Jor Kadeen, the Prevailer. Not necessarily a bad thing, but I think white and red have enough anthem effects, so I would think the Commander for such a deck could have more interesting abilities than just stats.
If you really wanna double down, I could see something like, "Creatures you control get +X/+X, where X is equal to the number of permanents you control with abilities that says creatures you control on them."
This divulges into the unset-esque terminology to refer to words on cards, but generally it synergies with anything that says "creatures you control" on them. It could be anthem effects, even very defined ones Honor of the Pure, it could be permanents with anthem-like abilities, like Brave the Sands, or it could be active abilities that refer to creatures you control, like Ajani, Wise Counselor.