Are all multi-color permanents of colors C1,C2 also non-C1 and non-C2 simultaneously?

Example: Battle Frenzy: does a Red/Green creature gain +1/+1 and +1/+0 by being both green and nongreen?

Section 105 of the Official Rules: http://mtgsalvation.gamepedia.com/Colors_(rules)

The official rules do not explicitly mention how to interpret the meaning of "non[color]" where [color] is one of the 5 listed colors.

Example A:
If Gruul Ragebeast is both red and green, then: (A.1) Gruul Ragebeast is a red permanent; (A.2) Gruul Ragebeast is a green permanent.
(A.3) Gruul Ragebeast (if a creature) cannot be assigned to block any creature with "Protection from Red".
(A.4) Gruul Ragebeast (if a creature) cannot be assigned to block any creature with "Protection from Green".

Assuming all statements A.1, A.2, A.3, and A.4 are true, I ask:

Question: Per statement A.1 (Gruul Ragebeast is red) then is it true that (Q.1) Gruul Ragebeast is nongreen?

  • 1
    Can you explain why you think A.1 would possibly imply Q.1? There's a logic step there I totally don't see.
    – murgatroid99
    Jun 26, 2015 at 20:14
  • 2
    I feel like this would be clearer if you just asked in a form more like your example, e.g. "Is a multicolored card whose colors include green also non-green?" or if you really want to keep it generic, "Is a multicolored card whose colors include a color C also be non-C?"
    – Cascabel
    Jun 26, 2015 at 21:14
  • What is the relevance of A.3 and A.4?
    – murgatroid99
    Jun 26, 2015 at 21:53
  • @murgatroid99 I believe the idea of that step is that "nongreen" means "has a nongreen color". Of course, that doesn't make sense - then colorless creatures wouldn't be nongreen!
    – Cascabel
    Jun 27, 2015 at 2:36

2 Answers 2


Multicolored cards are only considered "non-[color]" if they do not have that color.

"Non-green" is not explicitly defined in the Comprehensive Rules because it has its standard English meaning: "Not green". An object either is green, or it is not. In the example you gave, the object is green, so it is not "Not green".

Another way of putting it is that, when a card specifies some restrictions (like "untapped green Elf creature"), those restrictions are all predicate functions, and any object with matching zone, characteristics, and status can be affected by the effect. If the example I gave is a targeting restriction, then any object can be targeted as long as it is on the battlefield ("creature" implies "permanent"), has "Creature" and "Elf" among its types, has "Green" among its colors, and is not tapped.

From that point of view, "non-green" is the negation of the predicate function "green", which means that it matches any creature that does not have "Green" among its colors.


Gruul Ragebeast is Green and Red. We know this from comprehensive rule (CR) 202.2:

202.2. An object is the color or colors of the mana symbols in its mana cost, regardless of the color of its frame [...]

The prefix "non" in English literally means "not". Here is your original question, with "not" substituted for "non-" and with references inlined to make it easier to read:

Question: If Gruul Ragebeast is red, then is it true that Gruul Ragebeast is not green?

No. Gruul Ragebeast is Green. Therefore, Gruul Ragebeast is not "not Green".

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .