Instead of counting towards the minimum number of cards of one color Gold and hybrid cards count towards no color of cards. They essentially count as artifacts.
Hmm, interesting. It would definitely make decks more diluted and take out all possible chance of playing mono-color decks, thanks to eliminating hybrid.
If anything though, I don't think it would have that insane of an impact simply because gold/hybrid cards are played so little. I imagine that you are including the split cards in this restriction (if that is what it should be referred to as) as well. Beyond a few universals, such as Fire/Ice, not many decks play gold/hybrid/split cards.
However, I think the idea is rather intriguing. It would be interesting to see how deck construction would flow from such a standpoint.
I can tell you that if gold cards counted as "colorless," I would have to cut about 50 cards from my aggro deck. It would be one thing to say that Hybrid cards count as colorless since they're really "easier" to cast, but why on earth would my burning tree shaman not count towards the color requirement when it's actually harder to cast than if it cost 1GG?
I'm sure this isn't going to be seriously considered by anyone, but a bad idea should be nipped in the bud before someone (*cough*philly*cough*) starts to run with it.
Posted By: DipstikWhy? You getting overrun by cheaty red?
Nah, but I will say Lance's mono-black was a nightmare. I swear that kid drew three cards a turn when no one was looking.
I don't think this is supposed to be taken seriously, but more for discussions sake.
Not sure if I agree with your saying Burning Tree Shaman (1RG) is harder to cast than an Eternal Witness (1GG). Double colored cards are generally harder to cast due to the chance of hitting two seperate colors being higher and more valuable in this format than hitting two of the same color... unless your playing Mana Drain, that's just the nuts.
Speaking of Philly, did they ever go through with banning Chaos Orb like they were thinking about?