How Can Mono-Colored Cards be Superior to Multicolored Cards of the Same Costs?
General forum
Posted on March 16, 2025, 3:19 p.m. by DemonDragonJ
Employees of WotC have said that multi-colored cards can be more powerful and/or more efficiently costed than are mono-colored cards with the same cost or similar effects (such as comparing Aurelia's Fury to Rolling Thunder or Merciless Eviction to Final Judgment), but I have noticed that there are certain mono-colored cards that are strictly better than are certain multi-colored cards (for example, compare Thought Collapse to Psychic Strike or Farewell to Merciless Eviction), so I wonder how WotC can justify that, as that seems to contradict their previously-stated opinion on the matter.
What does everyone else say, about this? Why are some mono-colored cards more powerful than are multi-colored cards that are very similar? I certainly am very interested to hear your thoughts on this subject.
DemonDragonJ says... #3
wallisface, I see, and that makes sense, to me, so I thank you, for that explanation.
March 16, 2025 4:19 p.m.
Just a side note-Farewell is not strictly better than Merciless Eviction as the latter can hit planeswalkers.
March 16, 2025 10:49 p.m.
jethstriker says... #5
Just to answer the main question, mono colored cards are easier to cast. No color fixing required on your deck building to help you cast it efficiently. Another is color hosers. Multi-colored spells are more exposed to color hosers than its mono colored counterpart.
March 17, 2025 5:14 a.m.
wallisface says... #6
jethstriker what question are you answering? You’ve given reasons to justify printing stronger multicoloured cards - but that’s not what this thread is asking at all
March 17, 2025 5:26 a.m.
jethstriker says... #7
^
"How Can Mono-Colored Cards be Superior to Multicolored Cards of the Same Costs?"
March 17, 2025 7:51 a.m.
plakjekaas says... #8
So you'd say that Phyrexian Vindicator is easier to cast than Omnath, Locus of Creation? is really restrictive as a cost.
March 17, 2025 10:12 a.m.
FormOverFunction says... #9
I think the topic is a good one, as the restrictive nature of multicolored cards has fallen dramatically in the past few years. I’ve always enjoyed the ability to trade access to certain cards for the benefit of not getting hung up on color requirements. The nonbasic lands available are pretty significant (while obviously not guaranteed). I’d love to see more rewards, for lack of a better term, give my to mono-colored decks. This was a cool aspect of devotion, if you get right down to it.
March 17, 2025 10:47 a.m.
plakjekaas says... #10
The problem with printing cards that are rewards for monocolor decks, is that they're either just not good enough, like Slaying Fire or instant expensive staples, like Nykthos, Shrine to Nyx. Because if the effect is good enough, the two-color decks will consider playing it too, think Cabal Coffers+Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth. Monocolor decks make the sacrifice of devoting to that color, and accepting its weaknesses. The best way to combat those weaknesses, is to add a color. The payoff is the manabase consistency, and leveraging the strength of the color you picked. There's a few Caged Sun or Throne of Eldraine-type cards that possibly could slot in every monocolor deck. But the fun of building a monocolor deck (I'm talking commander here) is to deepen out your limited cardpool to get the job done in a way most multicolor decks won't expect because it uses cards you normally wouldn't see in multicolor decks.
To get back on topic, in the OPs examples, if the monocolored option for similar effect is actually better, it's probably printed more recently and therefor more powerful. That's the case with Psychic Strike vs Thought Collapse and for as similar as they are (differences were already pointed out) for Merciless Eviction and Farewell. Final Judgment in its turn is older than that, and therefor more limited in application than Merciless Eviction, which is the newer card out of the two.
Aurelia's Fury vs Rolling Thunder is a bad comparison. The silence- and tap effects make the card a lot more versatile. With Aurelia's Fury you could ping a player to stop them from comboing, tap down three blockers to swing in for lethal, where Rolling Thunder only offers straight up removal or burn to the face, which Fury can do as well. Still, Rolling Thunder was printed in 1997 where Aurelia's Fury was printed in 2015.
What OP's describing is powercreep, and it's not restricted by colors.
March 17, 2025 1:30 p.m.
wallisface says... #11
jethstriker ah I see. You’ll see from the OPs full description/commentary that they were asking something a bit more elaborate though
March 17, 2025 1:48 p.m.
Why do you think the colors in a card cost matter for power level?
March 20, 2025 7:37 a.m.
Sliverguy420 says... #14
plakjekaas: Aurelia's Fury vs Rolling Thunder seems like a good comparison, specifically for the reasons you mentioned. it requires more colors, thus does more things to make it more powerful.
March 20, 2025 4:07 p.m.
plakjekaas says... #15
It's also mythic vs. uncommon, that alone would explain the increase in power. The added effects are very white, which is enough reason to explain why it's multicoloured. Aurelia's Fury as a mono red card would make no sense at all, bringing it up in a discussion about cards that, according to the title of the topic, are weaker in multicolored than in monocolored with the same effect for the same cost, is a) literally disproving the theory and b) not applicable because the effects are not the same in this case, and can only be explained by the mono-/multicoloured nature of the card.
That's why I didn't think it fits in the discussion, but it made a good point in my argument for powercreep as explanation of the suggested trend nonetheless.
March 20, 2025 6:20 p.m.
Sliverguy420 says... #16
plakjekaas the effects not being the same is the point. you can't have a card that's weaker or stronger if the effects are the same. the cards that are weaker in multicolored are the exception, not the norm, so it doesn't disprove any theory. it was brought up as an example of the norm, not the exceptions the OP was asking about.
March 20, 2025 6:24 p.m.
wallisface yeah, because wizards has never been wrong before
March 22, 2025 6:47 p.m.
Sliverguy420 says... #18
magwaaf wrong about what exactly? are you saying wotc deliberately did the opposite here, and that monocolored cards are more often stronger than their multicolored counterparts?
March 22, 2025 7:45 p.m.
plakjekaas says... #19
It's the color that enables the type of effect, it's time of printing, rarity and amount of pips that could account for a scaling in power of specified effect. A more restrictive mana cost, making the spell harder to cast, allows for more powerful effects.
Colors have overlap in their effects, that's why mono- and multicolored cards can look similar.
But multicolor cards are usually a combination of effects from the different colors, that combination making the card usually more powerful in a vacuum. The card, not the effect. And when that's the case, there is no monocolored counterpart. Therefor there is no comparison.
"that monocolored cards are more often stronger than their multicolored counterparts?" - Sliverguy420
That's the topic of discussion yes, that's exactly the question that was asked in the original post, with given examples where exactly that is the case, and if there were any rule behind it. It was not magwaaf who said that, it was DemonDragonJ.
"you can't have a card that's weaker or stronger if the effects are the same."
Yes you can. Thought Collapse and Psychic Strike have the same effect, one is stronger. That's the whole effing point of discussion.
March 22, 2025 8:26 p.m.
Sliverguy420 says... #20
plakjekaas, yes, there are monocolored counterparts. i never said magwaaf said anything. Thought Collapse and Psychic Strike do NOT in fact have the same effect. thats the "whole effing point". one mills 2, the other mills 3. not the same effect.
March 22, 2025 8:32 p.m.
plakjekaas says... #21
Or, hear me out, mill X is the effect I'm talking about, and mill 3 is stronger than mill 2, that way you can actually compare strength instead of just derail a discussion to have the last word.
March 23, 2025 10:37 a.m.
Sliverguy420 says... #22
plakjekaas i didn't derail anything. thats a "similar" effect, not the "same" effect.
March 23, 2025 1:34 p.m.
wallisface says... #23
I think you’re going to have a hard time convincing anyone else that these cards aren’t showcasing ”the sane effect but with different levels of power”, with the effect clearly being ”counter a spell and have the spells owner mill some cards”.
I think what you’re trying to express is that the cards aren’t identical, which feels like a mute-point. I’m sure if a poll were done the community would be overwhelmingly in favour of agreeing these cards have the same effect. Functionally these cards do the same thing, with one just doing that thing slightly stronger.
March 23, 2025 3:57 p.m.
Sliverguy420 says... #24
wallisface i'm not concerned about what the majority of people think. that doesn't make them right. "identical" is literally a synonym of "same". an example of "same" effect would be Accorder's Shield and Cathar's Shield. even the OP upvoted my comment saying that the effects are similar, not the same.
March 23, 2025 5:49 p.m.
wallisface says... #25
I just googled “same vs identical”, and google provided this exact response:
”While "same" and "identical" often seem interchangeable, "identical" implies a more precise and absolute likeness, while "same" can be used in a broader sense to describe things that are alike, but not necessarily in every detail.”
The OP upvotes a lot of comments - including the one I just posted prior. I wouldn’t suggest that adds any weight to your argument here.
In any case, plakjekaas is entirely correct that this is a complete derailment of the OPs thread. You know the points others are making and choosing to off-road this thread in semantics.
March 23, 2025 6:51 p.m.
Sliverguy420 says... #26
wallisface you can also google synonyms of "same" and see that "identical" is the first one. what you found however, is from "google ai" which is quite often wrong. i did not derail anything, because semantics matter here. same means identical. same means equal. this is of primary importance in this thread. the whole point of the original question is about differences in card effects, therefore not same. i was debunking someones factually incorrect point, not "derailing" anything. point being, to say that Aurelia's Fury vs Rolling Thunder is "not a valid comparison", is just blatantly incorrect. the cards are in fact a valid comparison.
March 23, 2025 7:40 p.m.
wallisface says... #27
Sliverguy420 you also understand that synonym-words aren’t always identical, right? The very definition for synonym states the words can be “nearly the same”…, so using this metric to prove a point doesn’t seem practical.
In any case, we’re clearly both just beating our heads against brick-walls here, so there’s no need for us to keep rattling on with these semantics.
On the Aurelia's Fury vs Rolling Thunder, it’s an extreme case of comparison - AF has two additional effects which aren’t even mentioned on RT, as well as being Instant instead of Sorcery, and Mythic rarity instead of Uncommon (the rarity alone could easily explain the vast difference in card complexity/power). I would say however that its a fine comparison, but fails in that it deviates entirely from the OPs initial question, which was asking why some mono-coloured cards have stronger effects than their multicoloured counterparts. Providing an example to the opposite does nothing towards answering the OPs initial question
March 23, 2025 8:14 p.m.
Sliverguy420 says... #28
wallisface the 2 additional affects are the point. thats WHY the effect is stronger. same with instant vs sorcery. making a card an instant makes it more powerful than the same effect at sorcery speed. the op was the one providing that example, as the "norm". they asked about the exception, and gave examples of both the norm and the exception.
March 23, 2025 9:45 p.m.
wallisface says... #29
The OPs exact question is ”Why are some mono-colored cards more powerful than are multi-colored cards that are very similar?”. If we’re trying to be helpful and on-topic, our responses should be aiming to provide some kind if answer/insight into that.
March 23, 2025 10:24 p.m.
Sliverguy420 says... #30
wallisface: i was debunking someone elses reply to OP. that seems pretty relevant to me.
March 23, 2025 10:32 p.m.
wallisface says... #31
The comment which you supposedly “debunked” has the very relevant point of ”What OP's describing is powercreep, and it's not restricted by colors.”, which far more easily illustrates the difference in power between these two specific cards, moreso than any of your rebuttals. The comparison between them is disingenuous because they were printed 18 years apart and at completely different rarities. I’m suprised you think those two very-big factors still somehow makes this a fair comparison
March 23, 2025 10:41 p.m.
Sliverguy420 says... #32
wallisface: yes it's still a fair comparison. Merciless Eviction came 8 years after Final Judgment yet i don't see you making a stink about that. what OP was describing was difference in colors. someone ELSE tried to attribute it to powercreep. the comparison is not disingenous. now you're the one derailing the argument.
March 23, 2025 10:48 p.m.
wallisface says... #33
My “making a stink” was from other including some pretty well-thought out responses to the OPs question, and your responses largely feeling extremely combative and counterproductive. Unfortunately my own nature is to push against that rhetoric when I see it, for better-or-worse.
I also think 8 years is too big a gap to fairly compare those other cards you mentioned.
The powercreep response to the OPs question is an entirely valid one in a lot if cases, as comparing cards from entirely different design-eras doesn’t yield much use.
March 23, 2025 10:55 p.m.
Sliverguy420 says... #34
wallisface my responses aren't the combative ones, yours are. you're the one nitpicking "but the year" and "but the rarity". you can't objectively quantify and measure powercreep, so arguing an imaginary line in the sand for how many years makes a comparison valid or not is arbitrary and subjective. my comments were no more counterproductive than you or plakjekaas nitpicking the year and the powercreep. you wanna tell someone to "stay on topic", then tell that to plakjekaas. if he's allowed to give a nonanswer to op's question by bringing that up, i'm allowed to refute it.
March 23, 2025 11:30 p.m.
wallisface says... #35
Sliverguy420 I had already made my position on the topic very clear in my very first post - that is, that effects have different ceilings for power and that "multi-colored cards can be more powerful" is NOT the same as "multi-colored cards will be more powerful".
On the specific question the OP asked of "Why are some mono-colored cards more powerful than are multi-colored cards that are very similar?", in my mind there are only 3 potential answers for that. One, what I have just mentioned above. Two, powercreep of design between years. Three, design mistakes.
^ We know all three of these things exist between cards, because for points One and Three Mark Rosewater specifically discusses them at various times on his blog. For powercreep, we know that design philosophies change over time, and that the power-limits Wotc is willing to allow for effects usually gets stronger over time... there's sooo many examples of this i'm not sure how you could argue otherwise.
To address your latest comments specifically:
-
"you can't objectively quantify and measure powercreep, so arguing an imaginary line in the sand for how many years makes a comparison valid or not is arbitrary and subjective." - ignoring it is also deliberate and willful ignorance. We don't have to quantify powercreep to know that it exists, and that it has an impact on card design and power. Ignoring it entirely seems super counterproductive. Magic has changed untold in 18 years. Heck, it's changed by a huge amount in just 5 years. We don't have to "draw lines in the sand" to acknowledge that comparing 2 cards from 2 different time periods comes with its own set of difficulties.
-
" my comments were no more counterproductive than you or plakjekaas nitpicking the year and the powercreep." - hard disagree. I will agree that my comments directed towards you weren't remotely productive, but neither of our comments towards eachother have been. My initial post gives a pretty well-thought-out answer to the OPs question. From scrolling through your comments on this thread, I don't see a single one that tries to answer the OPs actual question in any meaningful way.
-
"you wanna tell someone to "stay on topic", then tell that to plakjekaas. if he's allowed to give a nonanswer to op's question by bringing that up, i'm allowed to refute it." - I'm not here to defend plakjekaas, but at least they've made an attempt at answering the OPs question. In any case, i'm not sure why you're dragging them into the conversation when we're talking to eachother. I have no intention of slandering someone that i'm not directly addressing, and i'd hope you'd be able to show them the same respect.
March 24, 2025 12:16 a.m.
plakjekaas says... #36
I'll admit I misinterpreted the first mention of Aurelia's Fury. However, Sliverguy420 you have just been correcting and fighting people in this thread. You called me out on my mistake, now let me return the favor:
"i never said magwaaf said anything."
"magwaaf wrong about what exactly? are you saying wotc deliberately did the opposite here, and that monocolored cards are more often stronger than their multicolored counterparts?"
Yes, you "technically" didn't say he said it, but you were asking. I answered you. Then:
"Thought Collapse and Psychic Strike do NOT in fact have the same effect. thats the "whole effing point". one mills 2, the other mills 3. not the same effect."
While the actual question was:
"What does everyone else say, about this? Why are some mono-colored cards more powerful than are multi-colored cards that are very similar?"
You suddenly denied the entire premise of the post just to spite me. That's not contributing, that's derailing. My argument about Aurelia's Fury was that they're not very similar. You start arguing that "very similar" is not exactly the same. That's not gathering or sharing any insight in the discussion at hand. You lose yourself in semantics to feel better about yourself correcting someone online on the Internet. And you dig your heels in the sand when someone else calls you out on it. I thought about making the point of your posts not contributing to the original question in my previous post, but someone beat me to it.
The exact same card with a different name you tried to pass on as the only true meaning of same, which only works for cards, not effects, has its own name. A functional reprint. That's the term to use when discussing cards that are the same, except for the name. They have no place in a discussion about similar cards with different measurements of power, because by definition they're the same in every way, and there is no difference in power.
Effects in Magic are things that happen as the result of a spell or ability. Countering a spell is an effect. Making a player mill cards is an effect. Dealing damage is an effect. Shock and Lightning Bolt both have the same effect, where one of the cards is more powerful than the other. Because they're both monocolored, I've not used the example in this topic. They make my powercreep argument a bit weaker as well. But the thing is: when somebody would claim they're the same card, they would obviously be wrong. But stating: these are not the same card, 2 damage is not 3 damage, you can't compare them, while no lies in the words, is also obviously wrong. Lightning Bolt is said to be "strictly better" than Shock. The same mana cost, card types, same effect, but one with higher numbers.
If Psychic Strike would also cost , we could just say Thought Collapse is strictly better. The discussion would end there, comparison easily handled. Because the mana cost is actually different, you could question if the mana cost causes the difference. That's what OP did, thinking that was the only difference between the cards. Limited environments, rarity and powercreep are all contributing to how strong a card could be, and could explain the mentioned deviation from the expected trend.
Saying similar cards are not exactly the same, does not explain anything about that. Asking if fellow forum user is saying [topic of discussion] is actually the case, does not explain. Denying to derail the discussion after not trying to contribute to the topic and being called out on it, does not help OP's insight to the case. Deflecting that the one you're fighting about it is now also derailing the topic, does not help.
That's what I think it's wrong about your presence in this topic, the ad hominem nature of every post you make, and whenever you're pointed to that, trying to cover it up with more of the same, unwilling to change your own perspective, but expecting us all to join yours. Seems I'm not the only one.
March 24, 2025 6:35 a.m.
Please take incredible care when participating in the discussions other people start in the forums and as decks to ensure the topic is kept to and to ensure the discussion does not devolve into something other than the poster intended and maintains respect and civility.
March 24, 2025 2:22 p.m. Edited.
It isn't yours or anyone's job to psychoanalyze why a person makes any posts here. If you don't appreciate the nature of some discussion the only move is to move on from it.
wallisface says... #2
I believe you’ve misunderstood Wotcs statement - saying that ”multi-colored cards can be more powerful” is NOT the same as saying ”multi-colored cards will be more powerful”.
There is no requirement for Wotc to ensure that every multicoloured card is stronger than every monocoloured card. The Wotc statement is simply saying that multicoloured cards have a higher ceiling of power for what they can do. Most cards don’t even approach the ceiling of a cards limitations (and for the health of Mtgs future, they generally shouldn’t), indeed the ones you’ve listed above are quite low in power.
March 16, 2025 4:03 p.m.