Community

Nov 22, 2012 -- 3:03PM, K9GM3 wrote:

Cunning (When attacking, this creature may assign its combat damage to a nonblocking creature.)

This is basically burn. Red gets all burn, to make up for having the smallest amount of other stuff. I could see this secondary in white, with blocking and attacking reversed. It's not blue.

SpellStronger(When attacking or blocking, this creature gets +1/+1 until end of turn if you cast an instant or sorcery this turn)

I'm bad at naming, but this is simple, low memory issues, nonevasion, and feels blue. It works well with unsummon and such, and encourages playing those effects before attacking, which reduces board complexity. A slightly more complicated version that might play better would be;

SpellStronger2(Whenever you cast an instant or sorcery, if its the first one you've cast this turn, this creature gets +1/+1 until end of turn)

Again, low memory issues, simple, nonevasion, and clearly blue. This one encourages playing your spells during combat, however, which might increase board complexity.

Nov 22, 2012 -- 8:21PM, EyeHunter wrote:

Nov 22, 2012 -- 3:03PM, K9GM3 wrote:

Cunning (When attacking, this creature may assign its combat damage to a nonblocking creature.)

This is basically burn. Red gets all burn, to make up for having the smallest amount of other stuff. I could see this secondary in white, with blocking and attacking reversed. It's not blue.

Burn is direct damage from spells or abilities. Cunning is combat damage. It's really not the same thing.

Nov 23, 2012 -- 12:01AM, K9GM3 wrote:

Nov 22, 2012 -- 8:21PM, EyeHunter wrote:

Nov 22, 2012 -- 3:03PM, K9GM3 wrote:

Cunning (When attacking, this creature may assign its combat damage to a nonblocking creature.)

This is basically burn. Red gets all burn, to make up for having the smallest amount of other stuff. I could see this secondary in white, with blocking and attacking reversed. It's not blue.

Burn is direct damage from spells or abilities. Cunning is combat damage. It's really not the same thing.

End effect: Damage is dealt to creatures who aren't attacking or blocking. It's Burn.

That's like saying +0/+1 counters allow creatures to survive things they wouldn't have survived otherwise, so it's 'basically regeneration'. Yeah, the end result is the same, but the way of getting there is different. Besides, even if it was giving blue burn, that's not necessarily a bad thing. The colour pie isn't set in stone: just this year, red got looting, which was formerly a blue mechanic. The difference is that blue draws, then discards, while red discards first and then draws. The end result is the same, but they feel different.

Here, we have two mechanics (burn and cunning) that both deal damage to a creature not in combat.

Burn can often target any creature/player and can usually be activated at any time, signifying an unpredictable, direct attack. Being activated abilities or spells also makes burn feel fairly obvious and straight-forward.

Cunning can only target nonblocking creatures, and only during combat. It signifies going after a creature that isn't paying attention, rather than your original target (the opponent) or the immediate threat before you (a blocking creature).

The red equivalent of cunning would be targeting a creature when you declare attackers. Then once you get to the combat damage step, your attacker just rushes past defenders and whacks the targeted creature, not caring how much damage it takes along the way. (Incidentally, that's also how I imagine the flavour for red trample to be. Green at least notices the blocking creature is there. Red just wonders what that speed bump was.)
For blue and black, the flavour is more about adjusting your plan. You target an opponent, but there's a big scary creature in the way, so you switch to plan B: pick off their weak, non-scary creature instead. (Or, if your creature is unblocked, it realises that a better target is available and goes after that instead.) It wouldn't work in red because red doesn't bother with a plan B.

Cunning does seem pretty similar to the Laccolith ability: Laccolith Grunt Laccolith Titan That didn't have the trick to avoid it by blocking something else, but I'm not sure what that adds to cunning anyway: my 1/1 utility creature is going to die whether it blocks the Cunning creature or your random other attacker.

Nov 23, 2012 -- 7:03AM, alextfish wrote:

Cunning does seem pretty similar to the Laccolith ability: Laccolith Grunt Laccolith Titan That didn't have the trick to avoid it by blocking something else, but I'm not sure what that adds to cunning anyway: my 1/1 utility creature is going to die whether it blocks the Cunning creature or your random other attacker.

It's mostly for flavour reasons, and to prevent two attackers from ganging up on a big creature. Teamwork like that feels more white than blue.

Cunning just doesn't seem blue at all. That sort of targeting only feels good in red and black, the colors that would attack someone for not fighting in the first place. Also, it's eerily close to provoke in actual application, which is just a neater ability.

I'm relatively new to MtG, so tell me if I'm way off base here. I recently re-read the ability for Theiving Magpie and it struck me as all wrong. You can "steal" what's already yours, so getting to draw one of your own cards as a reward for combat damage seems illogical. You have to take something that belongs to your opponent.

So, I propose: [pick-pocket] or simply [steal]. "Whenever this creature deals damage to another player...

Option #1: Draw X cards from your opponents library and put them in your hand.

Option #2: That opponent reveals his or her hand and you select X cards. Put those cards in your hand.

Option #3: Randomly select X cards from your opponents hand and put them into yours.

I don't want this to be too over-powered, but I like the mechanic. What you have may be worthless (unplayable) to me, but priceless to you. If my hand is already full, I can simply discard your cards instead.  If I draw one of your lands, I can tap it for my own needs.

Which option do you like best? Which is the most fair?

I like the mechanic in and of itself, but there's a bit of a practical problem with it: putting an opponent's cards into your hand/graveyard could very easily lead to accidental theft when the game ends, especially if you don't use sleeves.

Dec 13, 2012 -- 3:39AM, K9GM3 wrote:

I like the mechanic in and of itself, but there's a bit of a practical problem with it: putting an opponent's cards into your hand/graveyard could very easily lead to accidental theft when the game ends, especially if you don't use sleeves.

I figured this might be a concern for some. Couldn't you just keep two piles for your graveyard? One for "my" cards and one for "yours."

One important element of my idea is that the card really does become yours for the rest of the game. If it's a creature card that you eventually cast and it dies, it goes in your graveyard. If you can recur it from there again, more power to you. The card only returns to it's original owner if another effect/ability directs it to so or when the game ends.

You could, but that creates other problems. For instance, how do you determine the top card of your graveyard when there are two piles?

And what if you have to shuffle your graveyard into your library ? Or your hand ? If you don't use sleeves, you can't keep track of which cards belong to your opponent. If you do use sleeves, you can't have a properly shuffled library: you always know where your opponent's cards are.

Also, if it becomes yours for the rest of the game, who is the owner?

Dec 13, 2012 -- 2:53AM, SamaHorn2017 wrote:

I'm relatively new to MtG, so tell me if I'm way off base here. I recently re-read the ability for Theiving Magpie and it struck me as all wrong. You can "steal" what's already yours, so getting to draw one of your own cards as a reward for combat damage seems illogical. You have to take something that belongs to your opponent. So, I propose: [pick-pocket] or simply [steal]. "Whenever this creature deals damage to another player... Option #1: Draw X cards from your opponents library and put them in your hand. Option #2: That opponent reveals his or her hand and you select X cards. Put those cards in your hand. Option #3: Randomly select X cards from your opponents hand and put them into yours. I don't want this to be too over-powered, but I like the mechanic. What you have may be worthless (unplayable) to me, but priceless to you. If my hand is already full, I can simply discard your cards instead. If I draw one of your lands, I can tap it for my own needs. Which option do you like best? Which is the most fair?

No. Just no. Wizards are very clear about not allowing any effects that puts an opponent's cards in your owned zones (hand, graveyard, library). It will never happen, simply because of the "accidental theft" thing, and also because of the rules issues K9GM3 already pointed out.

The only way to do this ability that would work within the rules is this:
"Whenever [cardname] deals combat damage to a player, that player exiles a card from his or her hand. You may play cards that have been exiled this way."

or possibly:

"Whenever [cardname] deals combat damage to a player, that player reveals his or her hand. You may play a card from it."

However, both of those mechanics are still way too powerful and complicated to be a keyword mechanic. You could maybe put it on one or two creatures in a set, but no more than that. It gives you tremendous card advantage if you get it going early, and having your cards stolen is quite unfun, and not something they would want a lot of.

So basically, yes, you are way off base here. 

Also note that flavor doesn't always match mechanics. Thieving Magpie 's mechanic doesn't fit it perfectly and that's gonna happen A LOT. It did make me think of something quirky that is probably a really bad idea:

Thieving Thrush
Creature - Bird
Flying
Ensnare 4 (You may declare Thieving Thrush as attacking a non-planeswalker permanent. Combat damage it would deal to that permanent instead puts that many ensnare counters on that permanent. Then if that permanent has four or more ensnare counters on it, remove them all and gain control of it.)
1/3

Trying my hand at this again... two abilities, reminder text, and the actual rules.

Renew (Nonlethal damage is not marked on this creature.)
702.XX. Renew is a static ability that modifies the rules for marking damage on creatures.
702.XXa. When a source deals damage to a creature with renew, if that damage is lower than the creature's toughness, it is not marked on that creature.
702.XXb. Renew does not prevent damage. In particular, sources with deathtouch do destroy creatures with renew, and sources with wither and/or infect do cause –1/–1 counters to be placed on creatures with renew.
702.XXc. Multiple instances of renew on the same object are redundant.

Truesight (Whenever this creature deals damage, the affected player reveals the top card of his or her library.)
702.YY. Truesight is a triggered ability.
702.YYa. Whenever a source with truesight deals damage to a player, that player reveals the top card of his or her library.
702.YYb. Whenever a source with truesight deals damage to an object, that object's controller reveals the top card of his or her library.
702.YYc. The truesight rules function no matter what zone an object with truesight deals damage from.
702.YYd. If an object changes zones before an effect causes it to deal damage, its last known information is used to determine whether it had truesight.
702.YYe. Multiple instances of truesight on the same object are redundant.

Renew isn't blue, and Truesight is marginal.

Renew sounds more green to me, in particular as a replacement for Regeneration . Truesight is largely redundant, but you have it worded as a triggered ability, which actually meant that multiple instances are not redundant (a person could change their top card after the first trigger resolves).

The trouble with both Renew and Truesight is that they have extremely limited effects and don't create interesting play scenarios. That's the death knell for a keyword mechanic.

Dec 16, 2012 -- 5:49PM, LunaStik wrote:

Renew sounds more green to me, in particular as a replacement for Regeneration . Truesight is largely redundant, but you have it worded as a triggered ability, which actually meant that multiple instances are not redundant (a person could change their top card after the first trigger resolves).

I would argue that renew can be either green or blue, depending on how you flavour it. If it's very rapid healing, then it's green. If the permanent 'resets' itself, it's blue.
As for truesight, the 'multiple instances are redundant' thing is actually there to prevent it from triggering multiple times on a single attack. Like how a creature with double lifelink doesn't cause its controller to gain twice as much life as it deals damage, even though lifelink is basically a triggered ability in disguise.

Dec 17, 2012 -- 3:03PM, Rush_Clasic wrote:

The trouble with both Renew and Truesight is that they have extremely limited effects and don't create interesting play scenarios. That's the death knell for a keyword mechanic.

Mh, good point. What about: Whenever this creature deals damage to a player, that player reveals his or her hand.

Still rather narrow. Why not actually do something with that reveal?

Vendilize [NUMBER] (Whenever this creature deals combat damage to an opponent, that player reveals [NUMBER] cards from his or her hand. You may have that player put one of those cards on the bottom of his or her library. If you do, that player draws a card.)

Meddle (Whenever this creature deals combat damage to an opponent, that player reveals his or her hand. Name a card. Spells with that name cost that player more to cast until the end of his or her next turn.)

 

I considered doing something like that, but decided against it because it seemed a bit too complicated for an evergreen mechanic. The current ones are all pretty simple and intuitive — except for regenerate, but even that one's only complicated when you examine it closely. If an ability absolutely needs reminder text, it's not evergreen material.

What about something like "shadowy": On your turn, after defenders are chosen, you can switch your shadowy creatures, the switched creatures are attacking what the other one was attacking, and being blocked by what the other one was being blocked by.
It feels blue/black, allows R&D to easily control its power level and playstyle by choosing which creatures to put it on, and is aggressive.

Balduvian Warlord gives us the text needed to change the block(ing) assignments associated with one creature and even after being changed twice still doesn't work the way players would expect in several corner cases. So messing with blocking assignments after the fact is a very bad candidate for a keyword.

Still, I believe there is something to be done there. Either some replacement effect, either a variant of Ninjutsu. Or maybe simply some better wording than with the Balduvian Warlord.

If the ability is keyworded then you can have a detailed and complex explanation in the rules then just have the reminder text summaries the effect. 

What about one of these:
"Erase (Whenever this creature deals damage to a permanent or player, you may remove that many counters from that permanent or player.)"
"Erase (If this creature would deal damage/combat damage, you may have it remove that it remove up to that many counters from any one permanent or player instead.)

Absorb.

It can work in blue AND it's a combat ability.
Bird + Bird + Stone = Win get

Dec 27, 2012 -- 10:51AM, HairlessThoctar wrote:

Absorb.

It can work in blue AND it's a combat ability.
Bird + Bird + Stone = Win get

Absorb feels very Bant-ish. It actually feels more than , but as a secondary color it fits blue perfectly.

For obvious reasons, red would never get absorb. We haven't killed all those birds just yet.

I seriously doubt they would ever give green absorb since white is the native color and green and white have entirely too much overlap as is.
 

Dec 30, 2012 -- 1:19PM, HairlessThoctar wrote:

I seriously doubt they would ever give green absorb since white is the native color and green and white have entirely too much overlap as is.
 

Yeah, but Fog says there's precedent for damage prevention in green.

Jan 4, 2013 -- 11:28AM, bay_falconer wrote:

Dec 30, 2012 -- 1:19PM, HairlessThoctar wrote:

I seriously doubt they would ever give green absorb since white is the native color and green and white have entirely too much overlap as is.
 

Yeah, but Fog says there's precedent for damage prevention in green.

Not the point. White and green, at common, share too many things to get even more.
The most efficiently costed dudes
Combat tricks
Life gain
Artifact/enchantment destruction
Fog effects
Vigilance

R&D tries their best to keep colors distinctive, especially at lower rarities because we see more cards there.
Green isn't going to get damage reduction/prevention on bodies any time soon, lest they take it away from white.
Besides, they already have regeneration for that, admittedly with all of its baggage.         

Only white and green get combat tricks? I'm sure any blue creature with flash, -X/-X effects, and +X/+0 effects would like to have a word with you.

How is absorb blue (the flavor and mechanic don't look blue to me)?

I would see some kind of aggressive ability like:
Blink (when this creature becomes blocked, you can put it in its owner's hand)
or
Blink (if this creature would be dealt damage while attacking, you can put it in its owner's hand instead)

Jan 6, 2013 -- 1:10PM, bay_falconer wrote:

Only white and green get combat tricks? I'm sure any blue creature with flash, -X/-X effects, and +X/+0 effects would like to have a word with you.

I never said only.
As the colors with the most creatures they tend to get more combat tricks than the other three.

The ability everybody wants:

Skillhaste (This creature can as soon as it comes under your control.) 

Hi! the other day while I was browsing these boards I came around this thread. I found this discussion quite appealing so I gave some thoughts on the subject and came with the following mechanic:
(First I would like to state that english is not my native language and that I DO NOT have comprehensive knowledge of the MTG game although I plan to have someday, so there may be bad synergy between the following mechanics and previous MTG mechanics and abilities.)

Ability: Flood X;(Whenever a creature  with Flood deals combat damage to a player that player gets one Flood counter; if the player this creature is targeting have X flood counters on him, this creature can not be blocked by that player.)

Blue is known to be the colour of intricate strategies and if the strategy doesn´t work blue is most likely to be won over and won´t succeed whereas if it does work it can be devastating to the enemy, the same feeling is applied to the Flood mechanic, if the player doesn´t find a way to deal combat damage to the other player his creatures abilities won´t work, BUT if he does manage to do things right and hit the player he will find himself in a good spot where he can do constant damage to the other player even with the naturally weak blue creatures, which otherwise would have a hard time going around the stronger creatures of the other colours.
Another thing that I find interesting with this mechanics is that it is also "very blue" by another reason, it slowly takes the advantage of the game and in the long run match it allows the blue player to have a formidable force for the late game, and this is interesting for a colour famous for its game-controling potential which usually leads to prolonged matches.

I hope you liked it  and I´m expecting critics, either good or bad.

Jan 7, 2013 -- 5:05PM, Rush_Clasic wrote:

The ability everybody wants:

Skillhaste (This creature can as soon as it comes under your control.) 

Doesn't haste already do that?

As for flood: blue already has evasion abilities aplenty, and I'm generally not a fan of snowball abilities — if you're already winning, this lets you win harder, which isn't fun for the opponent; if you're losing, this will not help you.

Jan 11, 2013 -- 2:53PM, K9GM3 wrote:

Jan 7, 2013 -- 5:05PM, Rush_Clasic wrote:

The ability everybody wants:

Skillhaste (This creature can as soon as it comes under your control.) 

Doesn't haste already do that?

It does, but this would be a strictly worse version.

Jan 11, 2013 -- 2:53PM, K9GM3 wrote:

Jan 7, 2013 -- 5:05PM, Rush_Clasic wrote:

The ability everybody wants:

Skillhaste (This creature can as soon as it comes under your control.) 

Doesn't haste already do that?

Sure, but haste is out-of-pie for blue. Skillhaste however could work fine on blue cards.

It's a reference to Bonded Fetch . In design Wizards considered giving Bonded Fetch a new keyword ability, "skillhaste", which would be precisely as Rush_Clasic describes. But development or templating (can't remember which) suggested it could be replaced with "Defender, haste". That was still a silly enough combination to get it futureshifted. Skillhaste is also what Thousand-Year Elixir grants. (OK, technically that allows abilities as well. Skillhaste probably should too, but since the only way to grant them is Umbral Mantle it really doesn't need to be in the normal reminder text.)

Skillhaste does have a couple of problems though:

* It is worse than a currently-existing ability. Admittedly this is true of reach (flying) and first strike (double strike) too.
* It doesn't accomplish anything at all unless the creature has (or can gain) an activated ability. This is a problem because one of the times they most often want a blue creature keyword is when creating a cycle of cards with some other effect as well. (See for example Frost Titan , where they had to use a four line ability because blue's general creature keyword ability, flying, wouldn't have fit the cycle.) Skillhaste would only be useful in the fairly small subset of those cases when the cycle's other ability is a effect.

Jan 14, 2013 -- 8:31AM, alextfish wrote:

* It is worse than a currently-existing ability. Admittedly this is true of reach (flying) and first strike (double strike) too.

I don't think that's too big an issue though considering how even though those abilities are better or worse, they're used differently.
The way they cost and design first strike creatures is worlds apart from how they cost and design double strike creatures.
This would be no different.  

Psionic

Reveal an unrevealed card from your hand until end of turn : If the revealed card is a blue instant, this creature gains shroud until end of turn. If the revealed card is a blue sorcery, this creature is unblockable until end of turn. If the revealed card is a blue creature, this creature gets +1/+0 until end of turn.

Seems like it might have some memory issues...

Jan 16, 2013 -- 7:54AM, 2goth4U wrote:

Psionic

Reveal an unrevealed card from your hand until end of turn : If the revealed card is a blue instant, this creature gains shroud until end of turn. If the revealed card is a blue sorcery, this creature is unblockable until end of turn. If the revealed card is a blue creature, this creature gets +1/+0 until end of turn.

That's way too complex for an evergreen keyword.

Alternative to hexproof:

Displace [MANA} (Spells that target this cost you [MANA] less to cast and your opponents [MANA] more to cast. The same is true for activating abilities.)

Lightning Rod

 If spell or ability your opponent controls targets a permanent you control, if this card is a valid target, you may pay  for it to target this card instead

Example cards(possibly unbalanced) Show

Jan 16, 2013 -- 6:53PM, Siphor.Magic wrote:

Lightning Rod

 If spell or ability your opponent controls targets a permanent you control, if this card is a valid target, you may pay  for it to target this card instead

Example cards(possibly unbalanced) Show

[cardname]
Creature - Wizard
Lightning Rod
1/1

[cardname]
Creature - Wall
Defender
Lightning Rod
0/4

Wall of Illusions
Creature - Illusion, Wall
Defender
Indestructible
Lightning Rod 
If Wall of Illusions is targeted by a spell or ability put a -1/-1 counter on it
1/3

[cardname] 
Enchantment Artifact
When [cardname] enters the battlefield put 2 charge counter on it
Lightning Rod 
If this card would be destroyed, you may remove a charge counter from it instead

Like Spellskite or the flagbearers. I like.

I actually think lightning rod could also be red or white (white for selflessness, red because lolgoblins), so we've solved every problem.

Nov 22, 2012 -- 8:21PM, EyeHunter wrote:

SpellStronger(When attacking or blocking, this creature gets +1/+1 until end of turn if you cast an instant or sorcery this turn)

I'm bad at naming, but this is simple, low memory issues, nonevasion, and feels blue. It works well with unsummon and such, and encourages playing those effects before attacking, which reduces board complexity. A slightly more complicated version that might play better would be;

SpellStronger2(Whenever you cast an instant or sorcery, if its the first one you've cast this turn, this creature gets +1/+1 until end of turn)

Again, low memory issues, simple, nonevasion, and clearly blue. This one encourages playing your spells during combat, however, which might increase board complexity.

No one told me why my idea is terrible. I assume it is, becuase almost everything else here is, and people paid to do this haven't solved the problem.

They look kind of boring, and I'm not sure how much design space there is.

I believe that this doesn't really feel blue. Creature boosts are not usual for this color.
If you were to flip a coin to know if you apply it or not and removed the first spell and other constraints, it could feel very red, though.

Its something that red and blue share .

Jan 18, 2013 -- 6:53AM, HairlessThoctar wrote:

Its something that red and blue share .

Wee Dragonauts is a gold card, which means it's both colors, not either or. The Blue part is the cheap Flying and high toughness.

Jan 18, 2013 -- 7:48AM, Fireballmage wrote:

Jan 18, 2013 -- 6:53AM, HairlessThoctar wrote:

Its something that red and blue share .

Wee Dragonauts is a gold card, which means it's both colors, not either or. The Blue part is the cheap Flying and high toughness.

Okay fine, better example .

Creature boosts exist in all colors, but instant/sorcery-triggered ones are more blue/red.

Jan 17, 2013 -- 1:38PM, EyeHunter wrote:

Nov 22, 2012 -- 8:21PM, EyeHunter wrote:

SpellStronger(When attacking or blocking, this creature gets +1/+1 until end of turn if you cast an instant or sorcery this turn)

I'm bad at naming, but this is simple, low memory issues, nonevasion, and feels blue. It works well with unsummon and such, and encourages playing those effects before attacking, which reduces board complexity. A slightly more complicated version that might play better would be;

SpellStronger2(Whenever you cast an instant or sorcery, if its the first one you've cast this turn, this creature gets +1/+1 until end of turn)

Again, low memory issues, simple, nonevasion, and clearly blue. This one encourages playing your spells during combat, however, which might increase board complexity.

No one told me why my idea is terrible. I assume it is, becuase almost everything else here is, and people paid to do this haven't solved the problem.

It's too small to want a keyword in the same sense that bushido was too small to want a keyword.

Hairless Thoctar, this is a multicolor card all the same.

Traditionally, hybrid design can be used as justification for an ability existing in either particular color, though admittedly WOTC likes to use that mechanic to bleed a bit .

Jan 18, 2013 -- 10:02AM, PurpleFive wrote:

Hairless Thoctar, this is a multicolor card all the same.

Hybrid cards are meant to be read as Or, compared to gold's and.  It could be cast in a mono-blue deck.   

 

Jan 18, 2013 -- 10:06AM, Rush_Clasic wrote:

Traditionally, hybrid design can be used as justification for an ability existing in either particular color, though admittedly WOTC likes to use that mechanic to bleed a bit .

Those two are the worst possible exceptions.

Solifuge was an eleventh hour change.
Originally it was and some other card was the rare hybrid, but the other card got scrapped at the last second, so they had to improvise.

As for Adept, I know MaRo for one fought tooth and nail to not let this card to print because it should clearly be .
White doesn't get magpies and blue doesn't get life gain.

Generally though, yes, bleed does occur at a higher level with hybrid cards, sometimes out of necessity for pairs with less in common.

Jan 18, 2013 -- 1:58PM, HairlessThoctar wrote:

Hybrid cards are meant to be read as Or, compared to gold's and.  It could be cast in a mono-blue deck.

That's a misconception. Hybrid cards are designed as cards that are both colors, not as cards that are either. Oona's Gatewarden is a good example of that: wither comes from its black part, while defender comes from its blue part.

Jan 18, 2013 -- 2:22PM, PurpleFive wrote:

That's a misconception. Hybrid cards are designed as cards that are both colors, not as cards that are either. Oona's Gatewarden is a good example of that: wither comes from its black part, while defender comes from its blue part.

Nnnnnnnno, it's really not.
They're meant to be or.
Wither was allowed in all five colors because it was new and played well against Persist. 

Jan 18, 2013 -- 2:38PM, HairlessThoctar wrote:

Wither was allowed in all five colors because it was new and played well against Persist. 

Was it? I'd suggest you check this fact.

God, I hate fact-checking things I've read in design or development articles.

I'm probably thinking of persist.
I know they said one of those was allowed in all five colors because it was new and poorly defined but would probably be more defined the next time they did it.

  

Thanks for the feedback. The boring I was aware of, but it may be more of an issue than I thought. Unleash was on my mind when I created it. Comparing it to unleash also makes clear that there isn't much design space for it. However, the main use MaRo wants one for is to be the blue memeber of a cycle. Perhaps the cycle's thing could make up for the lack of space?

I think +1/+1 to a single creature is something any color can do if the method of granting it is still color-relevent.

Wither was only allowed in black, red and green (I don't understand why red, though, it doesn't really feel red).
I believe that hybrid cards are hybrid in order to allow decks to get some abilities they wouldn't usually get for their colors without breaking the color-pie.

Jan 18, 2013 -- 2:57PM, PurpleFive wrote:

Wither was only allowed in black, red and green (I don't understand why red, though, it doesn't really feel red).

Severe burns.

I believe that hybrid cards are hybrid in order to allow decks to get some abilities they wouldn't usually get for their colors without breaking the color-pie.

Kinda sorta.
The very nature of hybrid bleeds the color pie somewhat, as there are just some combos that don't have a lot in common. Especially at lower rarities where they can't do big flashy things (blue-black, I'm looking at you).

I feel like to some degree they like to give kind of bleedy effects in hybrid, and to some degree they're forced to.   
Furthermore, I think, though I can't prove it, that they use hybrid as a testing ground for new mechanical space for colors.
Alexis Janson said in an article that she designed Mercy Killing to see what the boundary was for creature kill in green, for example.
Or I've noticed that black has gotten more straight-milling effects after  Memory Sluice was printed.

I had an idea based on how both Red and Blue seem to get a lot of self-bounce ( Viashino Sand-Stalker , Archwing Dragon , Glitterfang ).

Skittish (Whenever this creature becomes the target of a spell or ability, you may return it to its owner's hand.)

This could fit into both Blue and Red, as well as maybe Black from a flavor perspective (Your creatures are self-preserving). It also could be a lot of fun, since it doesn't necessarily have to be your opponent that triggers the effect.

The worst flaw I see is that Skittish very similar to Hexproof, which Blue aready has.

Red gets very specific self-bounce effects. If you are going to make the player flip a coin for this ability, then it'll be red, if not, it'll be blue. It can't be both.

They don't do drawback mechanics, and even though this isn't strictly so, it reads like such. 

I can't remember the older pages on this thread. Has the Propaganda variant been proposed? It's an evasion ability, so that's a shame.

Disguise (Creatures can't block ~ unless its controller pays for each creature blocking it.)

And one that requires a lot more work, also known as two declare attacker/blocker steps:

Patience (You may attack with this creature after your opponent has declared blockers. It can't be blocked by those creatures.)

How about this:
Shadowstep (When this creature attacks, you can remove it from combat. If you do, put a token onto the battlefield that's a copy of this creature except it gains "When this creature attacks, exile it at end of combat." and it loses all its activated abilities.)

Is it too complicated for an evergreen ability? Are there other issues?


Mown, as you already said, Disguise is yet another evasion ability. As for Patience, either the changes to combat are too important, either you need two combat steps, which probably isn't good for an evergreen ability.

Jan 19, 2013 -- 8:10AM, PurpleFive wrote:

Is it too complicated for an evergreen ability?

God yes.

Jan 18, 2013 -- 2:22PM, PurpleFive wrote:

Jan 18, 2013 -- 1:58PM, HairlessThoctar wrote:

Hybrid cards are meant to be read as Or, compared to gold's and.  It could be cast in a mono-blue deck.

That's a misconception. Hybrid cards are designed as cards that are both colors, not as cards that are either. Oona's Gatewarden is a good example of that: wither comes from its black part, while defender comes from its blue part.

Wall of Bone would like to have a word with you.

Jan 19, 2013 -- 5:31AM, Rush_Clasic wrote:

They don't do drawback mechanics, and even though this isn't strictly so, it reads like such. 

It's not a drawback mechanic at all. Hexproof is not a drawback mechanic just because it says "This creature can't be the target of spells or abilities", since we would be ignoring the section that reads "your opponents control."

Because there is a "may", people can choose not to return the creature when they don't want to.

Jan 19, 2013 -- 1:25AM, PurpleFive wrote:

Red gets very specific self-bounce effects. If you are going to make the player flip a coin for this ability, then it'll be red, if not, it'll be blue. It can't be both.

Red should not be "does everything, but worse and random." If self bounce doesn't fit in Red, it doesn't fit in Red, period.

I think it should, simply because Red already has several effects that are close and Red getting more color pie isn't a particularly big issue. The Skittish ability would be mostly limited to Blue with some in Red and would give the two colors a shared ability (something Design needs in addition to another Blue creature ability). It could even leak into Black, which would allow Blue and Black creatures at common to have a shared ability too.

I agree with Fireballmage.

Taking effects and adding randomness or coin flipping doesn't make interesting red cards, it makes frustrating red cards that no one wants to play because they're terrible.
Just being random isn't good enough, it has to be aggressive enough to be appealing or something that red can normally do at a discounted price bcause the effect isn't guaranteed.  

Jan 19, 2013 -- 1:41PM, bay_falconer wrote:

Jan 18, 2013 -- 2:22PM, PurpleFive wrote:

Jan 18, 2013 -- 1:58PM, HairlessThoctar wrote:

Hybrid cards are meant to be read as Or, compared to gold's and.  It could be cast in a mono-blue deck.

That's a misconception. Hybrid cards are designed as cards that are both colors, not as cards that are either. Oona's Gatewarden is a good example of that: wither comes from its black part, while defender comes from its blue part.

Wall of Bone would like to have a word with you.

I'm catering to the larger audiences. I have 5 times as many blue cards with defender as I have black ones in Modern.

And as for the discussion about self-bounce in red, we have self-bounce at end of turn (those creatures also have haste) and self-bounce due to a random factor: coin flips. Both aren't even that common. I believe that standard self-bounce effects do not have any correlation with red.

Jan 19, 2013 -- 4:50PM, PurpleFive wrote:

I'm catering to the larger audiences. I have 5 times as many blue cards with defender as I have black ones in Modern.

That's because blue's nature as one of the more defensive colors lends itself to more defensive designs that black does.
No one color favors defender by virtue of itself.

Jan 19, 2013 -- 4:50PM, PurpleFive wrote:

And as for the discussion about self-bounce in red, we have self-bounce at end of turn (those creatures also have haste) and self-bounce due to a random factor: coin flips. Both aren't even that common. I believe that standard self-bounce effects do not have any correlation with red.

Self-bounce with a random factor should not be in Red if you think self-bounce should not be in Red. Red should not be treated as "The color that does anything, but does it in an annoyingly random way." It's no different from "Black can do anything if it pays life," except in this case Red is getting horrible cards that people don't even like to play. See Tibalt, the Russian Roulette Planeswalker.

People do not like playing cards that say "at random" or "flip a coin". Mark Rosewater wrote on his column about how much people hate explicitly random abilities, citing the failures of the WotC Star Wars and Neopets TCGs. So why on Earth are we saying "Red should get stuff, but have it be explicitly random" when few people enjoy playing explicitly random stuff in the first place? 

I think limited forms of self-bounce could easily be shifted to include Red; in the case of Skittish, it requires a condition, so you can't just do it at any time. It would still primarily be in Blue (This topic is about finding abilities for Blue), but it could also be on a few Red cards and Blue-Red hybrid cards to give the two colors a shared creature ability.

Fireballmage, you are misinterpreting what I said:
There are some things red can't do, whatever the reason, such as gaining life.
There are some things red can do if the reasons are correct (self-bounce as a handicap: either you have to play the creature each turn, either the risk of your creature getting back to your hand at a random moment). In some cases a random factor IS needed.

Red never got any completely positive (self-bounce at end of turn isn't completely negative) spell-bounce effects.

Jan 19, 2013 -- 4:50PM, PurpleFive wrote:

Jan 19, 2013 -- 1:41PM, bay_falconer wrote:

Jan 18, 2013 -- 2:22PM, PurpleFive wrote:

Jan 18, 2013 -- 1:58PM, HairlessThoctar wrote:

Hybrid cards are meant to be read as Or, compared to gold's and.  It could be cast in a mono-blue deck.

That's a misconception. Hybrid cards are designed as cards that are both colors, not as cards that are either. Oona's Gatewarden is a good example of that: wither comes from its black part, while defender comes from its blue part.

Wall of Bone would like to have a word with you.

I'm catering to the larger audiences. I have 5 times as many blue cards with defender as I have black ones in Modern.

And as for the discussion about self-bounce in red, we have self-bounce at end of turn (those creatures also have haste) and self-bounce due to a random factor: coin flips. Both aren't even that common. I believe that standard self-bounce effects do not have any correlation with red.

Doran, the Siege Tower is , tho. It fits into "defender matters" (which why doesn't white get more of this?)

Jan 20, 2013 -- 2:58AM, PurpleFive wrote:

Fireballmage, you are misinterpreting what I said:
There are some things red can't do, whatever the reason, such as gaining life.
There are some things red can do if the reasons are correct (self-bounce as a handicap: either you have to play the creature each turn, either the risk of your creature getting back to your hand at a random moment). In some cases a random factor IS needed.

Red never got any completely positive (self-bounce at end of turn isn't completely negative) spell-bounce effects.

Where are the random bounce cards you keep bringing up?

Returning to your hand at end of turn is not random.

Jan 20, 2013 -- 1:11PM, Fireballmage wrote:

Returning to your hand at end of turn is not random.

It's still something very specific, not something as large as you make it to be. Which cards would you use as justification to add this kind of power to red?

Reflect (Whenever this creature becomes the target of a spell or ability, you may copy that spell or ability and choose new targets for the copy.)

Fits in both blue and red, fairly easily understood, and useful without shutting your opponent down like hexproof or protection do.

On the other hand, it's kind of obvious, so there's probably a reason it hasn't been done yet :') 

Jan 20, 2013 -- 5:09PM, K9GM3 wrote:

Reflect (Whenever this creature becomes the target of a spell or ability, you may copy that spell or ability and choose new targets for the copy.)

Fits in both blue and red, fairly easily understood, and useful without shutting your opponent down like hexproof or protection do.

On the other hand, it's kind of obvious, so there's probably a reason it hasn't been done yet :') 

Limited design space. Also, as written, it lets you use one giant growth to give Infinite +X/+X. Also, It's not combat related.

If that spell is not a copy, you may copy it.

You may copy it, if you do, choose new targets for the copy.

There's ways around it.   

They should just make ninjutsu a permanent part of the game. It's neat and rather simple to grasp, plays unlike anything else, and is just so damn cool. They could reflavor it if they wanted, but I think you could spread ninja flavor through Magic easily.

Jan 21, 2013 -- 5:54PM, Rush_Clasic wrote:

They should just make ninjutsu a permanent part of the game. It's neat and rather simple to grasp, plays unlike anything else, and is just so damn cool. They could reflavor it if they wanted, but I think you could spread ninja flavor through Magic easily.

And on top of that, there's a lot you can do with it in other colours. Blue can use it for damage triggers (i.e. "Whenever ~ deals combat damage, draw a card."), black can use it with negative effects like deathtouch or infect, and red can use it with straight-up damage. Flavourwise, it works in all three colours.

I'm not sure if I like that it's an activated ability cast from the hand, though. In a specific block, that's fine: your opponent knows it could be there. But when you make it evergreen, it could suddenly be anywhere and your opponent won't know if it is. A retooled version that returns the creature with 'ninjutsu' from the battlefield to your hand might be better.

Jan 18, 2013 -- 9:59AM, Rush_Clasic wrote:

Jan 14, 2013 -- 8:31AM, alextfish wrote:

Skillhaste does have a couple of problems though:
* It doesn't accomplish anything at all unless the creature has (or can gain) an activated ability. This is a problem because one of the times they most often want a blue creature keyword is when creating a cycle of cards with some other effect as well. (See for example Frost Titan , where they had to use a four line ability because blue's general creature keyword ability, flying, wouldn't have fit the cycle.) Skillhaste would only be useful in the fairly small subset of those cases when the cycle's other ability is a effect.

I agree that its a short coming of the ability that is has to be attached to activated abilities to be meaningful. But I also find that to be acceptible; you wouldn't need to rewrite the comp rules much for this ability. It can just be a subset of haste, the way landcycling and multikicker are. It doesn't solve the cycle problem. Weird that you chose an example where two parts of the cycle aren't keyworded.

Not weird at all. That's the point: blue is so short of creature keyword abilities that on cycles where they'd really like to have keyword abilities for all five colours, they sometimes just can't. And in some of those cases they'll then change another one like red to be nonkeyworded so as to avoid breaking the rule of five. 

The development power of the Titans is a very different topic, but as a design issue, Frost Titan illustrates the problem of a shortage of blue keyword abilities.

I do like the red hasty self-bouncers: Viashino Sandstalker , Viashino Sandswimmer , Glitterfang , etc. Glitterfang in particular was great in its set because it let you trigger Spiritcraft abilities every turn. In Gatecrash a similar card would have been great with extort (and plausibly also with battalion).