There is a new keyword in Gatecrash called “Extort”. From the Gatecrash FAQ, the official rules for this Orzhov Keyword are attached below.

The question is, can you play cards with Extort in a Commander deck where the general is either white or black, but not both?

I'm not sure, but I think this is the first time a Keyword Ability has a specific color (or colors, rather) associated with it.

Thanks, Steve.
L2, Poughkeepsie NY



———————————————————————————————————————-
903.4. The Commander variant uses color identity to determine what cards can be in a deck with a
certain commander. The color identity of a card is the color or colors of any mana symbols in that
card’s mana cost or rules text, plus any colors defined by its characteristic-defining abilities (see
rule 604.3) or color indicator (see rule 204).
Example: Bosh, Iron Golem is a legendary artifact creature with mana cost {8} and the
ability “{3}{R}, Sacrifice an artifact: Bosh, Iron Golem deals damage equal to the
sacrificed artifact's converted mana cost to target creature or player.” Bosh’s color identity
is red.

903.4b Reminder text is ignored when determining a card’s color identity. See rule 207.2.

Orzhov Keyword: Extort

The white-black guild is the Orzhov Syndicate. The profiteering pontiffs and wealthy nobles of the Orzhov thrive on the devotion—and debt—of their followers. Extort is a new ability that can drain your opponents 1 life at a time.

Basilica Screecher
{1}{B}
Creature — Bat
1/2
Flying
Extort (Whenever you cast a spell, you may pay {W/B}. If you do, each opponent loses 1 life and you gain that much life.)

The official rules for extort are as follows:

702.99. Extort

702.99a Extort is a triggered ability. “Extort” means “Whenever you cast a spell, you may pay {W/B}. If you do, each opponent loses 1 life and you gain life equal to the total life lost this way.”

702.99b If a permanent has multiple instances of extort, each triggers separately.

* You may pay {W/B} a maximum of one time for each extort triggered ability. You decide whether to pay when the ability resolves.

* The amount of life you gain is based on the total amount of life lost, not necessarily the number of opponents you have. For example, if your opponent’s life total can’t change (perhaps because that player controls Platinum Emperion), you won’t gain any life.

* The extort ability doesn’t target any player.

From the deck construction rules on the Commander website (http://mtgcommander.net/rules.php):

“While hybrid mana symbols may be played with either colour mana, they contribute both colours to the card's colour identity. Therefore they may only be played with a Commander whose identity includes ALL of the hybrid symbols' colours.”

On the other hand, we ignore reminder text for color identity, and it
doesn't seem like B/W is present anywhere on those cards *except* in
reminder text.

Also, from the Rules Manager:
https://twitter.com/TabakRules/status/290636506459156480

Extort cards can be played just fine in mono-W or Mono-B (assuming the rest of the card is copacetic).

There is no hybrid mana in the rules text of the card. Reminder text is not rules text.

I should learn to read the wall of rules text below the line ;)

Time to track down a member of the engimatic Commander rules committee (Edit: Ninja'ed by one!)

Edited Kim Warren (Jan. 25, 2013 02:40:34 PM)

From the MTG Commander Forum:

“As an RC member, I can tell you that the rules-as-written allow you to play extort cards in mono-coloured decks, and that we've got a meeting planned tomorrow where we'll make the final decisions for this quarter, including whether to tweak the rules to make extort count as black/white multicolour.

As Ban Ki-moon I may as well insinuate that it seems like the rules are unlikely to change, and extort will end up not affecting the card's colour identity in any way. Don't quote me on that tho.”

Source: http://mtgcommander.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=15125&start=240

An official ruling is expected to be released with the updated ban list this weekend.

Edited Adam Zakreski (Jan. 25, 2013 04:37:01 PM)

I love that you literally quoted the part asking not to be quoted on this

:)