(This is primarily addressed to the RC because I'd like to hear from them, but please feel free to discuss)
First, let me start by saying that I understand what the rulings are that allows Blind Obedience to be in an Iona deck or a Crypt Ghast to be in a Sheoldred deck (specifically, rule 207.2 stating that italicized text has no game function).
However, I completely disagree with that ruling dictating color identity rules, especially in the case of Extort.
Rules 702.1 and 702.100a are the crux of my argument on this.
Because Extort
means "Whenever you cast a spell, you may pay {W/B}..." rather than
printing on the card "Whenever you cast a spell, you may pay {W/B}...," it is able to subvert the color identity rules.
Here's a for instance that is admittedly a little far-fetched, but shows where my frustrations come in.
So, let me show you an old school
This card has the phrase "Attacking doesn't cause Serra Angel to tap." (or if you look back far enough, "Does not tap when attacking.") We all know the later incarnations, but for proof, here's the most recent physical printing of
Now, imagine for a moment that Vigilance was a triggered ability that meant something like, "Whenever you start your combat phase, you may pay {G}. If you do, attacking doesn't cause this creature to tap." I know, that would be a crazy world, but there is no other keyword ability in existence that has an innate cost built into the keyword ability, so we have to just picture it. Anyway, that would mean the first Serra Angel would have the aforementioned phrase on the card in regular text and would have a color identity of WG, while the later printing with the keyword ability being listed as Vigilance would put the phrase in italicized text, pushing the identity to W.
Let me also curtail the people who would want to say, "Oh, he's just butthurt because he's lost to a Sheoldred with a Crypt Ghast in it," or "He thinks an Isamaru deck with Blind Obedience is too strong." I feel like Extort is an extremely powerful mechanic in a format focused primarily on multiplayer, but I don't think any are too powerful in any deck (with the exception of the extremely rare Pontiff token deck that is literally built around Extort, but even that's manageable). I just feel like it goes against color identity rules by using a ruling loophole.
A further gripe is that this could have been avoided easily. If they had printed them like they printed Inspire or Kicker or other keyword abilities that have mana costs associated with it (specifically, listing the cost next to it or not using italicized text for the cost), this loophole would have never existed. That being said, hindsight is 20/20, and it's highly probable that R&D wasn't thinking of Commander when these cards were being designed.