11/15/2010 MM: "Feel the Burn"

34 posts / 0 new
Last post
This thread is for discussion of this week's Making Magic, which goes live Monday morning on magicthegathering.com.
I think Direct Damage is one of the larger ones, no question, but I definitely want to see where MaRo would put Card Draw, since it's technically something every color (but White) currently has.
the tracker ability also shows up pretty often in red, generally with an Arena flavor, on cards like Cyclops Gladiator, or Magus of the Arena.
Mark has obviously not done his homework as a writer. If he had; he would have known how important it is to actually showcase the weaknesses loud and clear, and not just to hide them.

This is easily illustrated with a simple question: Who do you think fears snakes the most - Indiana Jones or Rocky Balboa?

Indy, right? Yes, that's obviously the right answer. Because we've all *seen* Indy freak out about snakes. But in the wacky world of Rosewater logic; the answer would be Rocky Balboa, because Rocky did not defeat a single snake in all of his movies - unlike Indiana Jones, who at least overcame his fears once.

And sure, Mark: For all we know, Rocky Balboa might be completely terrified about snakes. But that's hardly the message we take with us from watching a Rocky movie.  

---

I started playing Magic with Revised, and when I saw Grizzly Bears alongside a Gray Ogre and a  Pearled Unicorn, it was clear to me that green was the creature color. Everyone understood this early on (people don't get this message as clearly these days, ironically, since Grizzly Bears (well, Runeclaw Bears) can't perform the job of appearing better than the competition when you don't have guys like Gray Ogre and Pearled Unicorn to compare it to). But I remember that I had a really hard time coming to grips with red lacking means to deal with circle of protections. I thought it was just me who lacked any such cards in my collection. I was sure that such cards existed, however. Why wouldn't it? Just as with Rocky - you don't just naturally assume out of the blue that he's scared of snakes just because we've never seen him kill one.
did anyone else feel like this article was just filler?

sure, i was interested at first, thinking we would hear something cool about design creating burn spells.  and i started to read patiently through the different categories of burn, expecting maro to launch into a 'and now that you know the many forms burn can take...'.  but then he just wrapped them up, wrote a conclusion, and called it done...where's the article?
I feel like this article was a cop-out. Everything he said just seemed too obvious. Color: Red. He spent a quarter of the article talking about Bolt / Axe / Ray.

Bolt. Staple. Let's start here.

Axe. Design can be clever by removing one bit of flexibility.

Ray. Design can be clever by removing one bit of flexibility.

I feel silly just repeating it. The GDS2 is an interesting read though. That's probably where he's spending his time.
ANd not long ago, I was waiting for the GDS2 to complete so we could get back to "real" articles. Now, I think I will spend my spare time on the GDS2 "top 8." It's actually more interesting reading by far. At least I know that I have another entire week off of article reading again so I won't miss anything.

I am glad to see that Mark "finally" got a chance to explain his dislike of Hornet Sting for the fourth or fifth time. Let's just all be grateful Devin isn't here to stretch the controversey over an M11 common everyone already forgot about into next year.

Lackluster article considering the topic. Not much to say really, no real insight here.

* Then again he's been busy.

… and then, the squirrels came.

There WAS something new in this article:

MaRo hates Hornet Sting so much he never even finished reading its last two words Tongue out
(or was that known already)


But with green getting anti-flyer and tracker, it's just not that out of place. Only Blue shouldn't get direct damage of any kind. If "not destroying creatures outside of combat" was really core of green's pie, it shouldn't get Leaf Arrow either, but only cards like Crosswinds and reach. Tracker is cool, that's direct combat.

As it stands now, Hornet Sting is not only very resonant but also not that much a violation of the pie

The paragraph where he defines direct damage is a bit of a train wreck, which was my first clue to what I take it others are noticing too - the article seems to have been written in kind of a hurry.

"Design is very focused on the nuances of different styles of effects, so we tend to like to clump large similar groupings of mechanics together." - Huh? Is there a "not" missing from the first part of this sentence? If not, it seems like a complete non sequitur.

'With that caveat out of the way, I'm going to define direct damage as "noncombat damage created by a spell or ability that produces damage which hits a creature or player."' - This definition brought to you by the Department of Redundancy Department. That definition is seventeen words long, fifteen of which are useless; it's exactly equivalent to saying "noncombat damage". (Well, okay, in theory it excludes effects that can damage only planeswalkers, but given R&D's reluctance to print the word "planeswalker" on a non-Planeswalker card, that's not really a meaningful exclusion.)

"For purposes of my definition, I'm assuming that the spell or permanent with the effect is the source of that damage (a.k.a. it is dealt directly to the creature or player)."" - This looked redundant as well, at first, but it isn't quite. It would exclude at least one category of effects - a Fling-like effect that stated that the sacrificed creature, rather than the spell or permanent itself, was the source of damage. So the problem isn't that this is redundant, it's that it's stupid and arbitrary; why should Fling count as DD, but not the effect I just described? Also, the bit in parentheses is another non sequitur; it is in no way equivalent to the previous part of the sentence.

MaRo is a better writer than this. I can only assume this column was a product of tremendous time pressure.
Jeff Heikkinen DCI Rules Advisor since Dec 25, 2011
What a lousy article, Mark!

@ Lightning Bolt:
When it returned, I wrote that I rather had Chain Lightning back, because Lightning Bolt had caused many problems and even toughness-4-weirdness (see Tradewind Rider).

@ Lava Axe:
3 damage instant for cmc1, 5 damage sorcery for cmc5. Calculation at it's best!

I understand the concept of different power levels making the game more interesting, but this is too much. In my opinion, Magic would be more interesting, if R&D would rather print more balanced cards, since then it's up to you which one you prefer.

@ Heat Ray:
This gets close to the power-level I would like to see more often. You aren't able to kill a cmc6 creature with a cheap removal, unless the creature has a low toughness... prefectly against blue!

Two unmentioned parts: the card is not predictable & requires colorless mana. These two things fit perfectly into the red flavor. But there is one thing that bothers me: 'colorless' mana doesn't fit to a fire spell. A 'colorless mana' spell should be linked to an earth/stone spell. An Earthquake feels flavorful. Fire (see Heat Ray) should require mostly red mana. I would prefer "replicate" or "multikicker" with an activation cost.

@ Pyroclasm:
MUCH too powerful and dedicated destruction. If someone prefers to play a weenie deck, he should be able to do so. WotC shouldn't disrupt his choice with spells like this. So if creature-push spells cost 2-3 mana, disruption spell should cost even more... just to give both sides a chance.

@ Damage as a side effect:
Differ between a 'cookie' bonus and a 'backlash' drawback. Red already uses the backlash. That's why Hatred is a red flavored spell, imo. The 'cookie' bonus doesn't feel red, as it increases the casting cost without a significant power increase. It combines two effects, forming a "meh" spell rather then focusing on two "BAAAM!!!" spells instead.

@ Pyromancers:
Repeatable equals minor effect. A high investment cost for a long term benefit - Doesn't feel red!!! "Pay now, get an effect later!" Come on, R&D, you must been kidding! What's about "BAAM". I mean "BAAAAAAMMMM!!!!!"

@ Flameshot Kavu:
Beside the absurd power of the Kavu, ETB effects increase the mana cost, but red should be more dedicated. You could have either a more powerful creature OR a more powerful spell instead, so red should focus on the latter.

The'dies' trigger though fits perfectly, but not the 'sacrifice' ability. Red creatures act reckless and revengeful, but they still prefer to live.

@ Life leech:
'Drain life' and black lifelink wasn't the all-time stable. This is a shift towards black. Vampiric Link is even a color-shifted card. For me, lifegain shouldn't be bound to any color. Instead, every color should have a unique way to gain life. and I proposed that Drain Life and lifelink could also be red.

Red seeks emotions, experience and satisfaction. And a good way to transfer this onto cards is via lifegain. If gaining life is added and limited to a destructive or harmful effect, it feels perfectly red. Therefore a Fracturing Gust is a massive destruction effect that could be a red spell granting satification.

@ Ballista:
I never understood, why elves are soo bad at hitting ground targets! The restriction on attacking/blocking equals an restriction on combat ... and green is the color linked to this restriction. So why is "archery" still bound to white?

It would make green more aggressive and less vulnerable. When you attack with a green creature with trample, any damage dealt to a blocking creature increases the trample damage. Likewise, archers could stop combat-avoiding attackers, not just the flying ones, but also those with shadow Doesn't this sound like "realism vs. illusion"?

@ Damage to Flyers:
Green has the most hate against flying creatures, but green's ally - white - has become the color of the most flyers? Best at killing the own ally?
______________________________

Imagine the following:

red => destroy all enchantments
black => gain control of target enchantment / remove enchantment
blue => remove enchantment, enchantment loses all abilities or named enchantment can't be played
white => bounce enchantment
green => destroy enchantment on combat damage or once per turn

I can see the unique concept of each color. I can see that white is less destructive than red. I see the reckless & self-destuctive behavior of red, the amorale and corrupting nature of black, the blue control nature and the green combat focus.

There is absolutely no reason to exclude one color from being able to handle enchantments. And ther is no reason to inbalance the casting cost.
_____________________________________

PS:
I hate the R&D cost calculation - just an example: (> means "better than")

reducing the power of a creature > preventing damage dealt by target creature (double strike, etc.)
tap target creature > reducing the power to 0 (effect stays 'till the next turn, not to the end step)
bouncing a creature > tapping a creature (you have to recast it)
destroying a creature > bouncing a creature (you have lost the card & can't recast it)
removing a creature > destroying it (no regeneration, no graveyard abusal)

But still, R&D isn't able to balance the cost for all of those effects. They rather prefer cmc1 removals and sacrifice design space.
Yes, we get it Mark, you think the colour pie is very important for making sure green doesn't get nice things. Isn't it about time to add more creature keywords to blue or white?
I agree that this was one of those articles from Mark that you finish reading and feel like you learned nothing.  I'm sure Mark will enjoy linking to it every time he mentions burn in a future article.

Back then, I have suggested that WotC should have reprinted Chain Lightning instead. It's a sorcery and has a drawback = perfect!!!



I stopped reading after this point.  Lightning Bolt and Chain Lightning serve completely different roles in the game.  One is simple and iconic, the other offbeat and wonky.
The "indiana jones / rocky point" mentioned above, while solid logic in a vacuum,  is not valid at all from a game design standpoint. That logic would make for a terrible game.  Should all colors get to do everything the other colors can do, but weaker, just to show that the ability it isn't in their color pie? If I saw the card

Holy Discard
W
sorcery
Target opponent discards a card and gains 5 life

I wouldn't say to myself "Wow. white is bad a discarding, that must be its weakness."  I would say "Why the hell did they print a card to show me what a color CAN'T do well?"  Which is what I thought when I saw hornet sting. 

Also, I agree that this article seemed like MaRo just phoned it in this time, and I'm sure he deliberately used the gratuitous artwork to make it seem longer than it was, but with the GDS2 going, I'm willing to give him a break here.   
The big problem is that people are arguing that there's a good reason to have Hornet Sting that somehow supports the color pie. They don't need to do that. Just say "yes, it violates the color pie, and when green gets a real Lightning Bolt, yell at me then." Then it's over, and we have to wait for time to tell us if this one card really turned the color pie into a laughingstock - unlike how making 5-color decks possible snd easy doesn't already do that, or creating an entire set devoted to doing just that somehow doesn't actually do that. 

Red never got another shroud creature, blue has not gotten any new life gain, and green is not going to get a Hornet Sting variant in every set. In fact you can probably write it out of M12 right now. So,three color pie violations in more than five years, and none of them have set any expectation or precedence as of yet. In fact the closest they came is white getting creatures-based card draw in Wall of Omens, which Mark defended. At this pace, and with this track record, it's never going to be the problem he pretends it already is.

The only plus I can see is, as long as he offers this much resistance to it every time, they probably won't do this often at all. I admit, keeping it in check is important. I am defending those three times in five years, not advocating it as a regular occurrence. They should be free to make the card they want to make once in a while and until we see otherwise, there's no evidence to show that their judgement cannot be trusted.
temparus: I agree that Holy Discard would've been an awful card. But some people are actually playing Hornet Sting. It's a pretty viable sideboard option for some decks; and it's something that a green deck really, really wants to be able to do. That's not awful at all; it gives green decks more deckbuilding options: "do you take Hornet Sting, or do you splash red for better direct damage?" It's an interesting question for players of a certain level; and Hornet Sting is a flavorful card with cool art that is a lot of fun.

I would have loved a card that made it possible for a monored deck to kill circle of protections back in the day. It was something that those decks really wanted to be able to do; and if we had to make do with underpowered cards it would've conveyed a much stronger message about what red is bad at, than us just thinking that we for some reason never got to open any of the cards that would allow us to do what we wanted.
temparus: I agree that Holy Discard would've been an awful card. But some people are actually playing Hornet Sting. It's a pretty viable sideboard option for some decks; and it's something that a green deck really, really wants to be able to do. That's not awful at all; it gives green decks more deckbuilding options: "do you take Hornet Sting, or do you splash red for better direct damage?" It's an interesting question for players of a certain level; and Hornet Sting is a flavorful card with cool art that is a lot of fun.

I would have loved a card that made it possible for a monored deck to kill circle of protections back in the day. It was something that those decks really wanted to be able to do; and if we had to make do with underpowered cards it would've conveyed a much stronger message about what red is bad at, than us just thinking that we for some reason never got to open any of the cards that would allow us to do what we wanted.



Those are all fine points from a development standpoint, but this is a design article. I (and I believe MaRo as well, though i don't claim to speak for him) am not saying that hornet sting dosen't have any practical use.  The argument is that a color shouldn't be able to grab other color's abilities just because "its interesting,"  or because "some decks will be better if their colors can do that".  A good design will help a color to find solutions within its own philosphy and style, not just copy the other color's abilities at a lower power level. 

I'll have to agree, this was a disapointing article.
On a side note:


3. Damage Dealt by an Instant or Sorcery Directly to a Creature. Color: Red
[...]
This is the category that Hornet Sting falls into [...]


I know you hate the card, but you could at least re-read it before writting about it!  Hornet sting fits in category #1; it CAN hit players.

On hurricane effects, he talks as if cloudthresher was ancient history.
I agree, this was a rather weak article.   Probably a 1 in MaRo's upcoming Five Hundred and Counting.

I wanted to highlight this bit of nonsense:

"The reason that drain life is damage rather than life loss (and yes, I know damage generally causes life loss) is that we need the parallel of damage to life to make the effect feel right."

Because the parallel of life loss to life gain doesn't work?!

No, the reason that drain life is damage rather than life loss is so that it can hit creatures!

When the effect hits only players, life loss works just fine: Exsanguinate; Bleak Coven Vampires; Blood Tithe; Blood Tribute; Essence Feed; Bloodrite Invoker; Malakir Bloodwitch; Bloodchief Ascension; Absorb Vis; Circle of Affliction; Agent of Masks; Entropic Eidolon; Kokusho the Evening Star; Devouring Greed; Urborg Syphon-Mage; Brush with Death; Cabal Archon; Exotic Disease; Subversion; Ebony Charm; Dakmor Ghoul, etc., etc., etc.

There are, of course, plenty of drain life spells that deal damage while only affecting players; the point is that drain life is not always damage and doesn't need to be.


I have nothing useful to add except to point out my favorite burn or direct damage spell is blue.

psionic blast has always been my favorite way of dealing damage.

There's something about punching someone for 4 (even if you take two) from a colour they never expected that appeals to me too much!
According to everyone on these forums. You should only play the best decks in whatever format you want. You are a bad player and should just quit if you intend on using anything else.
I agree, this was a rather weak article.   Probably a 1 in MaRo's upcoming Five Hundred and Counting.

I wanted to highlight this bit of nonsense:

"The reason that drain life is damage rather than life loss (and yes, I know damage generally causes life loss) is that we need the parallel of damage to life to make the effect feel right."

Because the parallel of life loss to life gain doesn't work?!

No, the reason that drain life is damage rather than life loss is so that it can hit creatures!






This also struck me as weird, especially since the parallel between life loss and life gain actually reads BETTER than that between damage and life gain.  I'm just going to give MaRo the benefit of the doubt that he made a conscious choice to put more effort into the GDS2 this week than into his article, which is hardly something to beat him up over. 

"For purposes of my definition, I'm assuming that the spell or permanent with the effect is the source of that damage (a.k.a. it is dealt directly to the creature or player)."" - This looked redundant as well, at first, but it isn't quite. It would exclude at least one category of effects - a Fling-like effect that stated that the sacrificed creature, rather than the spell or permanent itself, was the source of damage. So the problem isn't that this is redundant, it's that it's stupid and arbitrary; why should Fling count as DD, but not the effect I just described? Also, the bit in parentheses is another non sequitur; it is in no way equivalent to the previous part of the sentence.

It is a meaningful statement for another reason, even though his "aka" states exactly the opposite of what he actually said in the sentence, as you said. This impacts things like the Heavy Arbalest in Scars of Mirrodin. They are very different cards if the equipped creature deals the damage vs if the "permanent with the effect is the source of the damage" and it has nothing to do with it being dealt directly to the creature or player. Is he saying Heavy Arbalest isn't direct damage? It seems like he is. What, he classifies that as "indirect damage"? What a useless distinction. They obviously made Arbalest have the creature deal damage specifically to interact with Infect, but that doesn't mean it isn't a direct damage equipment.

Anyway, this article may be the worst article Mark Rosewater has ever written. 

It's also a well-known fact that the only sets that "count" when he's talking about Design are the ones still in Standard; sometimes even just the newest set. Cloudthresher IS ancient history to him. So was the common pinger in SHARDS OF ALARA on the design test. To be honest, I'm surprised that he even considers Zendikar "modern design" at this point.  
It's also a well-known fact that the only sets that "count" when he's talking about Design are the ones still in Standard; sometimes even just the newest set. Cloudthresher IS ancient history to him. So was the common pinger in SHARDS OF ALARA on the design test. To be honest, I'm surprised that he even considers Zendikar "modern design" at this point.

I think you hit upon an excellent insight. "Modern design" is, by definition, always in motion. Perhaps, given Mark Rosewater's unusual perspective, the sets that "count" to his brain are even further out than you say. After all, according to a recent interview, he is working on "Rattle", "Roll", and "Hook", which all come out in 2012!
Evasion would be interesting.  It seems like each color gets their share of good evasion now:
Argent sphinx
Indomitible Archangel
Kuldotha Phoenix
Carnifex Demon
Bellowing Tanglewurm?
Steel Hellkite

Also, The best fliers seem to have shifted from blue to white.
HOLD THE PHONE. I just noticed the Fire & Lightning plug at the bottom. DOES THAT MEAN GRIM LAVAMANCER HAS THE JUDGE PROMO ALTERNATE ART? SOLD.
I think Mark Rosewater was wrong on a lot of the points he gave, so in that aspect he wrote a well article: it will have plenty of people talking about and a lot of assumptions will have to be reconsidered.

One of the points that I disagree with him is to think that black won't get direct damage anymore because it's better to use -X/-X effects and life loss. The problem with this approach is that sometimes it's a design mistake to use a -X/-X effect or life loss. For example, a lot of players have said that Tendrils of Agony wouldn't have been so broken if it had use damage instead of life loss, because there would be a whole lot more ways to defend from the effect in all colors, including offbeat cards like Simulacrum.

Cards like Pestilence, Evincar's Justice and even Pestilence Demon get printed from time to time because they have to hit both players and creatures, yet according to Mark Rosewater, these effects don't exist in black.

Another point of contention is that Mark Rosewater thinks that green shouldn't get Hornet Sting because it's bad to give a color an effect it shouldn't have (as long as that color is not blue or red, because Mark constantly gives these colors effects they shouldn't have, and many times in a much more powerful version than the color that does it well). Fortunately, the set of people that disagrees with him includes both his boss and the person that made the game (just look at any set designed by Richard Garfield, and you'll find in them green direct damage that is not solely tied to flying creatures), so it's a battle he has already lost. Note also that Mr. Rosewater was the lead designer of Mirage, which contains Unyaro Bee Sting, so all this beating of Hornet Sting is incredibly ironic.

Mark also didn't mention the cards that either damage themselves or their controller, found specially on lands, but also on black, red and some old blue creatures. 

Finally, Mark points at Tracker as an effect that is on green's color pie. Well, for people that don't know how "The Dark" works, it's a set were each color did precisely what it shouldn't be doing, so using it as an example is even worse than using cards from "Planar Chaos". While I think the ability should appear more in green, it appears mostly in red. I think that's a mechanic that should be keyworded so that it can be printed on more cards, so Mark is maybe foretelling the future.
Another point of contention is that Mark Rosewater thinks that green shouldn't get Hornet Sting because it's bad to give a color an effect it shouldn't have (as long as that color is not blue or red, because Mark constantly gives these colors effects they shouldn't have, and many times in a much more powerful version than the color that does it well). Fortunately, the set of people that disagrees with him includes both his boss and the person that made the game (just look at any set designed by Richard Garfield, and you'll find in them green direct damage that is not solely tied to flying creatures), so it's a battle he has already lost.



What cards are you talking about?

Mark has also forgotten about the cards that either damage themselves or their controller, found specially on lands, but also on black, red and some old blue creatures. 



I don't think R&D consider those burn cards. Those are more punishing cards.

Finally, Mark points at Tracker as an effect that is on green's color pie. Well, for people that don't know how "The Dark" works, it's a set were each color did precisely what it shouldn't be doing, so using it as an example is even worse than using cards from "Planar Chaos". Note also that Mark Rosewater was the lead designer of Mirage, which contains Unyaro Bee Sting, so all this beating of Hornet Sting is terribly ironic.



The tracker abiilty has been used througout magic in green (and red). Most recently Master of the Wild Hunt. It's not like the ability was used once in green and Mark is dragging it up from the past.

Also being on a design team (or even the head of design) doesn't mean you can throw out any card you don't like. It actually happend with hornet sting.
… and then, the squirrels came.
Well, for people that don't know how "The Dark" works, it's a set were each color did precisely what it shouldn't be doing, so using it as an example is even worse than using cards from "Planar Chaos".

Precedent is irrelevant when discussing Pie, unless that precedent somehow happens to agree with whatever the vague definition of Pie is right damn now.

Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
What cards are you talking about?


The ones you didn't bother to search.

I don't think R&D consider those burn cards. Those are more punishing cards.


You are right, now I think that's why Mark said there was a fight about the differences between direct damage and burn.

The tracker abiilty has been used througout magic in green (and red). Most recently Master of the Wild Hunt. It's not like the ability was used once in green and Mark is dragging it up from the past.

Also being on a design team (or even the head of design) doesn't mean you can throw out any card you don't like. It actually happend with hornet sting.

Master of the Wild Hunt comes from a set designed by Aaron Forsythe (the lead designer of both M10 and M11), where he specifically went to magic past to retrieve cards and effects that Mark Rosewater had (wrongly) taken out from each color's share of the color pie, such as Fog. Aaron, like me, thinks that Fog is good for green as much as Hornet Sting, and if both cards got printed is because he as a Lead Designer had the final say on the matter. That those sets have outsold all other core sets by an obscene amount also points to something that I leave as an exercise for the readers to discover.
That those sets have outsold all other core sets by an obscene amount also points to something that I leave as an exercise for the readers to discover.

What, that Rosewater's fanatical devotion to Absolute Pie is actually bad for the game?
Welcome to seven years ago.

Master of the Wild Hunt comes from a set designed by Aaron Forsythe (the lead designer of both M10 and M11), where he specifically went to magic past to retrieve cards and effects that Mark Rosewater had (wrongly) taken out from each color's share of the color pie, such as Fog. Aaron, like me, thinks that Fog is good for green as much as Hornet Sting, and if both cards got printed is because he as a Lead Designer had the final say on the matter. That those sets have outsold all other core sets by an obscene amount also points to something that I leave as an exercise for the readers to discover.



Predatory Urge Laughing

MaRo hates Hornet Sting so much he never even finished reading its last two words
(or was that known already)



I don't understand MaRo's disdain for the card. It doesn't really seem all that weird or out of place, much less the target of such hatred.

Throughout my life, I've been damaged by more things that fit into green's color pie (sticks and bushes, the grassy ground, and animals) than I have by fire, water, (the sun?), or a swamp all combined.

One damage doesn't seem out of place in green to me.

Orzhova Witness

Restarting Quotes Block
58086748 wrote:
58335208 wrote:
Disregard women acquire chase rares.
There are a lot of dudes for whom this is not optional.
97820278 wrote:
144532521 wrote:
How;s a 2 drop 1/2, Flying broken? What am I missing?
You're missing it because *turns Storm Crows sideways* all your base are belong to Chuck Norris and every other overused meme ever.
It's simple, and someone else already hit on it over the summer.

When he does it, it's redefining the color pie. When he does not, it is a violation of it. If only the rest of R&D could read his mind, we'd never have this issue because everything would simply fit in the former category.
What cards are you talking about?


The ones you didn't bother to search.



If you want to make a point using a card... autocard it. I'm not going to search gatherer for cards. Especally when you list a half dozen of them.

You still haven't answered the question though, which card or cards does blue/red get that aren't within thier color?

Edit: I went over your original post, and i actually found no cards that are either blue or red that are modern that have abilities they shouldn't have. Did you think you mentioned them? Or am I missing something?

The only place such cards would exist is in the core sets since they get top down cards now. But even that's not all that crazy.
… and then, the squirrels came.