Assault [cost] ([cost], discard ~: ~ deals damage equal to it's power to target creature.)
Color Alignment: Red, Green, Black... white?
Defend [cost] ([cost], discard ~: Prevent the next X damage target source would deal this turn, where X equals this creature's toughness.)
Color Alignment: White, Green, Blue?
Transcend [cost] ([cost], discard ~: Draw cards equal to this creature's power, then discard cards equal to it's toughness)
Color Alignment: Blue, Black, Green?
Goblin Sparkomancer
Creature - Goblin Wizard (R)
Assault :1mana::symr:
Whenever ~ is put into a graveyard from anywhere, it deals 1 damage to target creature or player.
1/1
Assaulting Dragon :3mana::symr::symr:
Creature - Dragon (R)
Assault :1mana::symr:
Whenever ~ is put into a graveyard from anywhere, discard a card at random.
Flying
5/5
Threshing :3mana::symg::symg:
Creature -Wurm (R)
Assault :2mana::symg::symg:
Whenever ~ is put into the graveyard from anywhere, sacrifice a land.
~ cannot be the target of spells or abilities.
6/5
Pitthrowing Devil
Creature - Devil (C)
Assault
Whenever ~ is put into the graveyard from anywhere, lose 4 life.
2/1
Cursed Scaleback :1mana::symb::symb:
Creature - Demon Snake (U)
Assault
Fear
Whenever ~ is put into the graveyard from anywhere, lose 4 life.
3/2
Brimstone Choaker :2mana::symb::symb::symb:
Creature - Demon Lord (R)
Assault :1mana::symb:
Flying
Other demons you control get +1,+1.
Whenever ~ is put into the graveyard from anywhere, lose 4 life.
5/4
Recompence Angel :2mana::symw::symw:
Creature - Angel Warrior
Flying
Assault :1mana::symw:
Whenevr ~ is put into the graveyard from anywhere, each opponent gains 4 life.
4/4
_________________________________
Wall of Salves
Creature - Wall (C)
Defender
Defend
0/3
Sourcecatcher :2mana::symu:
Creature - Human Wizard (U)
Transcend :1mana::symu:
Whenever ~ is put into the graveyard from anywhere, untap an island you control.
2/2
Denial Minister
Creature - Human Wizard (U)
Transcend :1mana::symu:
Whenever ~ is put into the graveyard from anywhere, you may counter target spell unless it's controller pays :1mana:.
1/1
Denial Master :2mana::symu::symu:
Creature - Human Wizard (R)
Transcend :symu::symu:
Whenever ~ is put into the graveyard from anywhere, you may counter target spell.
Sacrifice ~,:symtap:: Draw a card.
1/2
Subtle Whisperer :1mana::symb:
Creature - Human Rogue (C)
Transcend: :symb:, Pay 2 life.
2/1
Thought Gobbler Rats :1mana::symb::symb:
Creature - Rat (U)
Transcend: :1mana::symb::symb:, Pay 2 life.
When ~ is put into the graveyard from anywhere, each opponent discards a card.
2/1
Thought Gorger Demon :3mana::symb::symb:
Creature - Demon Wizard (R)
Transcend: :2mana::symb::symb:, Pay 5 life.
Flying
5/1
___________________
Lastly, something to pump all this up a notch!
Dictator of Status :1mana::symw::symw:
Creature - Human Lord (R)
Other creatures you control get +1,+1.
Creature cards you own that aren't in play get +1,+1.
2/2
Actually, Assault is similar to: http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=70102
"Slay 2" is a "sacrifice in play" ability that use put color restrictions and a generic cost on. You're TRYING to be like cycling; while Assault is an iconic, staple, intuitive, and cost effective ability.
Slay, for your set, makes it VERY hard to draft or play - what your deck does is so conditional - your creatures depend on what COLORS your opponent plays. It's ad hoc and WOTC has never instigated a color-matters-keyword LIKE THAT.
Assault, on the other hand, offers a second use for creatures. It's a red ability because it's burn, a green ability because it's creature damage, and a black ability because they like putting creatures into the yard and dealing damage. By limiting Assault to creatures - you capture a "creature combat" feel, while keeping their assault cost low.
Transcend is very interesting, but remember - on a 1/1, you're paying U, discarding a card, drawing a card, then discarding a card. Only when the creature has a higher power than toughness does it become card advantage; and as you can see... I've kept them mostly equal.
Defend is actually probably the most problematic of abilities for limited... in limited, inefficient creature burn is a high pick... but add in defend cards, and your opponent can counter your burn spells by pitching their relatively efficient weenies. You wouldn't play Healing Salve, but when it comes on a 1/3 for 2... you might. Because you play 1/3s for 2. And late game, when you draw them, having a healing salve's a good thing.
Assault is not a green ability. Green does not get direct damage and direct creature removal.
Might I suggest the following:
Assault - Red, Black
Transcend - Blue, Black
Defend - White, Green
Defend is also somewhat weak. Damage prevention in general is not really worth an entire card and only in select cases will it ever be used.
Actually, green is #3 at dirrect damage, and has been for a while. While "Bee Sting" was not the bets card; it - along with things like "strength in numbers" and even the new 4/3 uncommon guy from Timespiral, shows that green is the color of creature-based combat.
I'm arguing that thematically, and practically, green ought get Assault. Green gets Shock for 4 mana at sorcery speed; so a shock at 2 mana that doesn't hit players isn't out of the question - making it be on a creature might be a little shocking (no pun intended), but it's the development of a green ability developers tend to ignore since RED is the color of dirrect damage. If green starts getting any reasonable amount of dirrect damage, it turns out that developers have a tough time filling red slots.
Of course this is mainly because designers know red is about "chaos" but rarely design common or uncommon cards that fit this bill. With red being the new color of "fast mana", WOTC designers have been able to fill in some red common slots with rituals; but even then these are either playable in constructed or complete and utter misses.
Will it seem odd to discard a bear and kill your opponent's bear? Maybe; but this is no more "not green" than Provoke. The only relevant difference is that provoke was on a creature in play and reusable, while Assault's a one-time deal. But it's also really good at creating tempo, so whatever...
Of course, Defend ballances out the format... as long as you have one or two mana untapped, your creatures become counterspells for burn and other hate. I see Defend working like this:
Turn 2: I play my 1/3 creature.
Turn 5: I draw my 1/3 creature. I attack with my 3/3 creature. My opponent blocks with their 2/1 first striker and assaults for 2. I prevent the assault damage with my 1/3, kill their 2/1, and call it a day. Functionally Defend is very weak; but it has advantages over traditional damage prevention spells because IT CAN ALSO BE A CREATURE! The weenie strategy is simple: Play small guys, attack, and keep them on the field while negating your opponent's attackers. Defense and Assault and Transcend work pretty much like split spells; you can either get a decent creature or you can play a spell... an uncounterable spell Much like Channel, these allow you to turn creatures into other resources, but unlike channel it's standardized - you get one of three abilities that are tied to the creatures power and/or toughness; thus utilizing the fact that they are creatures. Arashi was a fun creature, but what about the 5/5 said "Pst... I'm also a hurricane." Meanwhile, the bear with assault's saying "pst... I'm also a bee sting... see, 2 power!"
However, you are right that serious players will rarely use Defend creatures for their defend ability UNLESS they are appropriately costed, which is why I tended to give them a small CMC. They're not as broken as flash-gating creatures are in limited, but they provide an effective counter-measure against late-game burn in limited and counstructed (would you play a spell that said :1mana::symw:: Prevent the next 7 damage target creature or spell would deal this turn? NO! But would you play a 3/7 for 5 flyering Vigilance guy in constructed? Maybe... depends on the cost. But would you play them if it's on a split card? Think of it as Assault//Battery... except with healing. The creature is why you play it, the defend ability is just an added bonus that is far more useful than it initially appears... or so I'd argue.
With red being the new color of "fast mana", WOTC designers have been able to fill in some red common slots with rituals; but even then these are either playable in constructed or complete and utter misses.
So you're saying they design constructed-quality cards every so often. I see that as a very good thing. Do you not?
The only relevant difference is that provoke was on a creature in play and reusable, while Assault's a one-time deal. But it's also really good at creating tempo, so whatever...
And that one-time deal usually comes as an instant and as a surprise. It's still not green. No 'whatever'.
We are. Creature based dirrect damage. From creatures. To Creatures. It's a modified Provoke. Yes, radically different - but with the same reasoning behind it. Go play with your red Moat (Form of the Dragon) and tell me I'm making stuff up.
It hasn't gotten a shock at 4 mana for the past 12 years.
1. WOTC has stopped printing "functionally worse" off color non-creature cards.
2. Green got a 4 mana shock on a creature for GGG last year. Green doesn't get efficient burn. But I'm saying that this is thematic creature combat. If you don't buy that argument, you don't agree with me. But we've seen WOTC doing off-color things for flavor before. Jugaan is a 5/5 flyer in green for 6.
It could also be the fact that green doesn't get direct damage. It's most likely due to the fact that red is the color of direct damage.
Red is #1 at DD. Black is #2... because of drain life effects. Green is #3. White is #4. And blue, despite the early years, is #5. We can do the analaysis for counter spells, discard, or haste too... but I trust this is sufficient for now.
Where is the association between 'chaos' and 'direct damage'?
On several occasions WOTC has claimed that red cards are the hardest to design. Red does NOT get efficient creatures... despite their efficient weenies like goblins that stand on their own. Red gets burn... but too much red burn for a format is bad, so they have to make substandard burn. Red gets LD, but too much 3cc LD warps a format too. When all is said and done, red is a much more shallow color than the rest. Were they to make more depth in red, say chaos cards at common/uncommon or give it other abilities, then it would be able to have as many "bad" burn spells in a set w/o warping limited, and give some to green... #2 at ACTUAL burn.
So you're saying they design constructed-quality cards every so often. I see that as a very good thing. Do you not?
All I'm saying is that red is a shallow color. So they fill it with suicidal weenies, inefficient giants, and then burn, burn, burn. Because you identify red with burn, any other color with burn is shocking (so to speak). Black gets way with it because it's life drain. White only when it's "color specific", blue when it's "historic..."
Provoke is to Direct Damage as Creature Destruction is to Counterspells. Provoke is how green selectively destroys creatures, not Direct Damage.
Nice analogy. Call of the Grave (or whatever) is functioanlly similar to Remove Soul.
Provoke is reoccuring creature dirrect damage. It's limited, flavorful, and you'd realize it's green removal. All I'm advocating is a different kind - arguably better - than Provoke. Provoke is to Tim as Assault is to Shock. One is reoccuring (green) removal, one is one-time (green) removal. Or so I'm asserting. Again, if you don't want to buy the theme of creature combat, you don't really believe me. But then again, Form of the Dragon-Style cards must annoy you to no end...
Just so you know, Red, Black, and White are the best at direct damage with blue far behind. Green is somewhere behind blue.
Officially Red is #1. Black is #2 (drain life). Green is #3.. but it doesn't get enough... White is #4 because it gets less dirrect damage than green, and though it's often more powerful - that's bad design. And Blue is #5. BUT... if you want to talk about actual cards, Red is #1, Blue is #2, then Black, then White, then Green. But you clearly don't want to talk about actual cards, or ideals. I'm not sure what you're refering to.
I don't know where you got your statistics from, but let's just take a look at actual cards.
Provoke was features on a total of nine cards in Legions, and has not shown up on cards ever since (Well, Greater Morphling). These nine cards were equally distributed between red, green and white. Meaning that they have three cards each. Among those nine cards, the only rare with Provoke is green. All three red Provoke cards are common, and one of them even gives provoke to other creatures. I don't see how "Green is #1 in Provoke".
That having said, I don't see how Assault fits in any color other than Red, since it's pretty much the only color that changescardsintodamage. There's a difference between 'creatures' (or any other permanent), 'spells' and 'cards'. I wish I could link you to the cake-baking example, but I forgot where have I seen it.
And again that having said, I guess it's still up to you if you insist on Assault to be green, but I'd suggest that it should come so cheap - 6 damage to a creature is very undercosted, not to mention that by itself it's a 6/5 untargetable creature for 5 mana.
These mechanics seem very similar to channel, just explicitly one or two types of abilities. Though if you wanted them to feel connected in some way, I guess this would be the way to do it.
These mechanics seem very similar to channel, just explicitly one or two types of abilities. Though if you wanted them to feel connected in some way, I guess this would be the way to do it.
You're right - this is a very Channel/Cycling style ability. Keywording them does several main things:
1. As keywords, you can tutor for them. Just as you Cycle a card (game term), you can assault a creature or defend against a source or trascend... thus whenever you "transcend" a card, you may do X... a la Astral-Slide style abilities. Joy 3 years later when WOTC brings them back You can also do things like this "Assault costs you 1 less to play"...
2. By tying the keyword to power and toughness, it allows you to do Teferi-like tricks. Teferi gives all your creatures flash... even in your library. That one white guy gives all your creatures +1,+1 anywhere... meaning that your 2/2 assault guy deals 3 damage instead of two. And you really can't do the same so flavorfully. I mean, sure, you can say "Whenever a creature from your hand would assault a creature, instead it assaults that creature for X+1 damage, where X is the amount of damage it would otherwise do."
Channel - a nice ability - would be incapable of such interactions.
Long story short, keywording them makes it so those iconic "power" and "toughness" printed on the card DO SOMETHING even when you "channel" it.
The fact that I've used the mechanic on several cards in the set... upwards of a dozen+ is thanks to the simplicity of the design... instead of wordy Moonfolk, you get a since simple wizard with an ability you probably won't use in limited unless you're searching for your answer/finisher...
Best of all, since it's keyworded, you can stick this stuff on expensive, wordy creatures at the rare level w/o the reminder text. And if Akroma's any evidence, people like that sort of thing...
It's a modified Provoke. Yes, radically different - but with the same reasoning behind it. Go play with your red Moat (Form of the D4gr()n) and tell me I'm making stuff up.
Form of the Dragon is all about flavor. Moat surrounds you with a moat that most creatures can't get over. Form of the Dragon turns you into a dragon. Most creatures cannot WALK up to a FLYING DRAGON and attack it. Provoke is that a creature is so good at hunting it can hunt any prey it wants or engage in combat with whatever it wants. Assault is about forgetting a spell to kill a dude. Where's the flavor?
Quote from raidendart »
But we've seen WOTC do off-color things for flavor before. Jugan is a 5/5 flyer in green for 6.
Where is this flavor, then, for Assault in green? I cannot find it.
raidendart, if you don't mind me asking, did you post your keywords to critique os just to show them? Because you don't seem to take anything in consideration. Seriously, I think it makes much more sense to have Assault in white ("You may only assault ~ during combat") than green (a suicidal explosive elephant? O.O).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Winner is Judge and Club Flaming IIW (get the one on top)
Guild ability being used by another guild
Graveyard effects
Form of the Dragon is all about flavor. Moat surrounds you with a moat that most creatures can't get over. Form of the Dragon turns you into a dragon. Most creatures cannot WALK up to a FLYING DRAGON and attack it. Provoke is that a creature is so good at hunting it can hunt any prey it wants or engage in combat with whatever it wants. Assault is about forgetting a spell to kill a dude. Where's the flavor?
Where is this flavor, then, for Assault in green? I cannot find it.
1. That's the point - there's creature on creature action, and there's someone throwing a fireball at something. Assault is clearly thematically the former, though it is mechanically the latter.
2. Assault is all about flavor... creatures are sent on effectively suicide missions to hunt down other creatures... it's another way of having a creature hunt down another creature. Provoke is long-term, Assault is short term... Much like "bee sting", discarding a bear to do 2 damage to something is a "bear strike"... discarding a dragon is a "dragon blast"... discarding an angel is "divine justice"... that's the theme I'm pushing. It just so happens I'm asking for the theme to be keyworded because as a mechanic, it's instrumentally valuable - single-handedly provinging over 50% of the removal in the format - and certainly 80% of the "inefficient" removal that, were they not on creatures, people would regard as "limited essentials - but poor cards." Strangling Soot's never constructed playable, neither is a 2 mana shock that only hits creatures. But toss that on a 2/2 for 2 or 3, and people start to think twice. It's exactly the motivation that lead to Assault/Battery seeing play. On a lesser note, it's part of my push to make sets have all playable cards. I don't mean cards that are good in all formats, but I mean cards that are good in at least one format.
3. One again, I cast "Bear Strike" on your Bob. I make it so that a wild bear walks up to Bob, claws his face in, then walks away. THAT is the flavor. I don't summon the bear, but I temporalily enlist him to do something for me. Now, I COULD summon him... but it would take time for the bear to get over his "summoning sickness". Then he could be sent at my opponent at will. Long term end - the bear attacks my opponent. Short term sacrifice - I cause the bear to do one limited attack...
raidendart, if you don't mind me asking, did you post your keywords to critique os just to show them? Because you don't seem to take anything in consideration. Seriously, I think it makes much more sense to have Assault in white ("You may only assault ~ during combat") than green (a suicidal explosive elephant? O.O).
I posted them to take criticisms. Power level, theme, etc. But make no mistake, I put at least a little thought into the mechanics. I'm not some kid who says "boy howdy, I'd love to see a green counterspell, I'd love to see a white card that destroyed any creautre, or a black disenchant..."
Thus far, people have been reminding me that green doesn't get dirrect damage - despite the fact that it does. Despite the fact that it gets a lot of straight up dirrect damage, especially based on creatures, etc. Despite the fact that there are only 3 colors that have EVER gotten unconditional damage. Blue got pinging. Red gets shocks/etc. Green gets shocks for 4 mana. Blue's was "out of the current color pie", and red has become THE color to work with. Green, however, gets burn for flyers, burn based off of creatures (strength in numbers), etc. White gets "Combat burn" and to a lesser extent, non-white burn, black gets "life loss" and "drain life" burn varients. If you want to ignore the past; fine. I'm not actually arguing that green should get assault because it's BURN, I'm arguing green should get assault because it's CREATURE DAMAGE, though of a special type.
As for "assault" in white, the problem is you'd need to restrict it to combat... which means it's bad for red and black and all the other "damage" colors. Red gets all sorts of damage, but it also gets creature-only damage... usually as substandard limited filler. Black gets all sorts of damage, but gets a lot of creature kill in general. Green... definately doesn't like player burn. Assault could have any number of restrictions to make it worse. I advocate cutting the ability to hit players, as burn that doesn't hit players can cost a lot less than burn that does (See Lightning Axe... 5 damage for 1 mana and 2 cards that can hit a player is near-broken. Shrapnelblast, for example, is a finisher of choice. Add 5 unrestricted damage onto an optional creature... and it's amazingly powerful... and thus needs to be "overcosted"...). We could make it sorcery speed... to make it harder to have combat tricks - but I take it that combat tricks are both fun and more strategically valuable. We could make it "combat only" - but the theme I'm suggesting is that I see a creature I want to summon... but instead, just gain control of it for a quick attack. Meanwhile the "combat only" theme usually involves people firing arrows or something - and that's nothing like the creature attack I'm advocating...
Before I begin, can I just mention that I do think that these abilities have potential? They're splashy, and work well. But the critique above is pretty much all valid...
I do want to hear criticism on the abilities; thus far people have only commented that Assault isn't a green ability. To which I respond "yes, it is... here's why" and people respond "no, see, it's thematically creature combat, but actually burn!!!!" ... despite the fact that I also argued that green gets burn. Only one of my arguments needs to be true for assault to be green (thematically creature combat, green gets burn) - and I have yet to see anyone to effectively attack both arguments).
In a single-card, legendary cycle, yes. If you did this once in the set, maybe you could get away with it.
Actually, check Oddessy block. Graveyard theme. Traditionally, black and green are the graveyard colors... then some white. But in Oddessy, EVERYONE had the theme. Block themes can go throughout all colors; so legendary cycle pf 5/5s or not, themes can invade the entirety of a set. Remember the "enemy colors" set? But enemy colors don't work together... and it's definately not the norm!
Simple is good... no doubt. But when you see some Akroma Variant with several keyword; you know that'll appeal to some subsection of the population - even if it's not you. Keywording allows you to do this.
I expect (and I'm sure people can attest to this) that many players hear "direct damage" and think non-creatures. Whilst combat damage to players is direct, it is certainly not what most players would think of immediately. When designing cards, if you want people to like them, you have to imagine you're the average MTG player, seeing these cards for the first time. If you get my meaning.
You're right - the primary "problem" with this mechanic to become "constructed playable" is that it doesn't hit players... most players think "burn" its anything. When you show them lava spike, or dead/gone... they're less pleased and rightfully so. But that's where the creature comes in. When you need to burn a creature, burn. When you need a creature to deal damage to an opponent, summon it.
The primary reason "Assault" shouldn't hit players is because if it did, it'd have to go up in cost tremendously... and wouldn't appeal to players. A 2/2 bear that could shock opponents in green would have to cost 2 to cast and 4-5 to shock. A 2/2 in red with the same ability would need to cost 3 to play and 3 to use. And while they're still limited playable, they look a lot less "fun" and a lot less constructed playable. I advocate sacrificing the (degenerate) ability to trade creatures in your hand for dirrect damage to a player in order to make them cheap enough to see play. I'd also argue that creatures like this would surely see play in gruul like decks. Early game, you play your 2 drop. Mid game, you burn their blockers and hit them for 2 with your 2nd turn bear.
Assault is primarily red and white. And for the record, lgmhorus's point here is totally valid. Are you here for critique or for ego-stroking? I don't mean that to sound harsh, but it seems to me very much like you cannot abide criticism and the fact that maybe you got it wrong. Just relax, and let people help out - hey, they're spending their time to give you a hand. Can't you be even a little accomodating?
1. Assault is red. But it is not WHITE! White doesn't get unrestricted burn. And it definately doesn't get creature removal! How can you justify giving white dirrect damage? Even if it's only to creatures?
The kind of things you are mentioning above are featured on cards such as Relentless Assault and Fling. They are both red.
In this......you are just describing the average combat phase. I don't know many bears that last very long anyway.
I hope you do start taking on board to the advice given to you - being able to do that is a sign of a good card creator.
'Fox.
Fling and Assault do two thematically different things. Fling says "Hi, I own you. I'm gonna throw you at something. Swing your swords and bite on the way down. Thanks." Assault says "Listen to me Tick. You're under my control. Go steal that device for me, and I'll let you go afterwards"... radically different things, thematically.
Assault represents - at least in green - a different kind of summoning of creatures.
Assault in red... of course... usually involves some jerk goblin setting something on fire... or some dragon breathing fire then flying off (again, this is akin to the green theme). Assault represents creatures doing what they normally do, but only once instead of several times.
Now, the strange thing is that in that quote I'm not describing a combat step, in a combat step I attack players. Unless my creaturs have provoke, then I can send them to attack creatures.
If you don't buy the theme, fine. I know it might be kind of a stretch. Ignore it then. What do you think of the other (non-green) assault cards. about the transcend cards?
Relentless Assault says creature on creature/player action! Cards like this evoke some of the most creature on creature/player flavour in magic. Even the art shows it.
Relentless Assault says "I attack again"... I fail to see how this is in any way creature on creature combat.
Note: Your best option is to say "look, Magus of the Arena is red..." as it has a similar feature to the keyword's story.
It certainly doesn't come across this way, seemingly to most people who have replied to the thread. The general concensus, it would seem, is that what you are looking to create is not reflected in this ability.
Perhaps. However, I take it that the flavor - the story - can easily tell this tale, while the mechanic - creature-based-burn, is instrumentally valuable.
Blocking doesn't capture "I attack your creature", Provoke does... kind of. This does... kind of... to. Like provoke, I choose a target and my creature goes over and claws in their face. ;P
Kind of? It is a stretch - there's no two ways about it. But you are right, people (including me) are focusing on one part, one negativity of the thread.
If you don't buy it, fine. The flavor is there. The function is there. It's win-win. Now the only question is whether it's green or not.
Defend: Somewhat weak. You could word it like Hellbent, so you could alter the effects for more versatility. For example:
Defend - As long as [condtion, say, this is in your hand an you control a ____], you may pay [cost] and discard this card. If you do, [effect, say you can't be the target of spells or abilities this turn.]
It's still defensive, so long as you keep the effect that way. Toughness increasing, damage prevention, destroying attacking creatures, stopping attacking creatures, redirecting damage, preventing to-your-face spells, untapping etc are all defensive.
Ability words suck; and if we make it like that - it's just damage prevention. If we make it like I suggest, it's targeted damage prevention that trades a card in hand for damage prevention - historically a worthless thing. When it's on a creature, though, the CREATURE will see play (people have been forcing into playing 1/1s for 3...), and every once in a while... people might end up using the ability to do what Healing Salve does. The options make the cards more viable, and "Defend" forced "damage prevention" into the big leagues... as in people will actually play it. Eventually, I take it, that people would even look for cards with defend - take them higher than those without - simply because of the utility.
Transcend: First off, change the name. Phonetically, it doesn't go well with Defend. The ability is nice, and in keeping with fairly simple Cost + Discard = Simple Secondary Effect of all three keywords. Again, it could be made more versatile, but it isn't as necessary. You could make this black (like Night's Whisper), or red (like Browbeat), green (Citanul Woodreaders, Wirewood Savage, Verduran Enchantress), white (Oblation) and blue, well. Obviously.
I take it that this is the most neat keyword - Transcend on equal power-toughness creatures can be costed relatively cheaply, on more expensive creatures it's just card-filtering and in limited a nice way to deck yourself, trigger madness, or generally get threshold. Trancend on creatures with more toughness than power is a funny situation - trancending them becomes a losing proposition... except in extended where turn 1 draw 1, discard 3 is amazing in ichorid-style decks. However, transcend with power greater than toughness makes it so that you net card advantage. Draw 2, discard 1 at instant speed probably costs U2. The fact that this simple, iconic card-filter, card-draw ability is tied in with creature p+t makes it so that "simple" spells - Thirst for Knowledge, council of the soratami could be dropped in the set featuring this ability; much like how assault lets red get less instant/sorcery burn spells overall.
You're right, too, that all colors can get this. Black will probably involve some "cost" like:
Goblin Cronicmancer :1mana::symr::symr:
Creature - Goblin
Transcend - :2mana::symr:
Whenever ~ is discarded, target opponent may pay 4 life. If they do, until end of turn, whenever you would draw a card, instead you don't.
3/1
Green... green's even tougher:
Selection Elemental :1mana::symg::symg:
Creature - Elemental
Transcend - :2mana::symg:
If ~ is in your hand, it gets +1,-1 for each creature you control.
2/2
White seems a bit hard too...
Oblation Mancer :2mana::symw:
Creature - Human Cleric
Transcend - :1mana::symw:, Shuffle creature you control into it's owner's library.
3/1
These boxes really should let you copy + paste stuff into them. Prolly just Firefox.
Raidendart... (in response to post #14)
1: I see you don't get jokes.
2: I get that. I don't see why it's green though. A lion isn't going to attack something it's fairly sure it can't beat. A lion will gladly go after the zebra, but why in the hell would it pick a fight with the elephant?
In White, the ability makes sense. The creature is selflessy sacrificing itself to eliminate a threat for the greater good. That's white all over.
In Red, the ability makes sense. Red is the color that gets hasty creatures and plenty of surprise attacks, so it makes sense that would get creatures that could ambush stuff. In more of a stretch, it also fits into the short-term gain theme of red, where you could get a one-time strike with a creature, or play that creature and probably get more out of it.
The ability is also Black in a way, because Black doesn't care about anything but itself, so the planeswalker would gladly sacrifice it to kill something.
3: Short term gain, long term loss? That's Red, sir.
Assault doesn't make sense in Green because Green cares about Green. Simply put, in nature, if an animal doesn't think it can last in a situation, it tries to get away from that situation. The lion will attack the zebra but not the elephant because it knows it at least has a good chance against the zebra, but not a popsicle's chance in hell against such a big creature as an elephant. Animals in nature don't go on suicide missions, not even hivemind creatures like ants; Ants protect the existence of the hive (wrong word, but whatever) and more importantly the Queen, as she's the most important ant of all. The ant goes into situations where it may very well get killed for the greater good, not to take out as much as possible with it; ants are philosophically white.
Why should Green get creature-based burn, anyways? Flying hosers like Hurricane and Squall Line make sense beyond the whole 'Enemy of Blue, thus Hate Flyers because Flyers are primarily Blue" argument. They work because they're using the environment and the land to do what must be done. Of course a hurricane will affect creatures on the ground, but Hurricane doesn't because of mechanical balances.
Mechanical balances aside, Assault doesn't feel green because it requires the animals to be selfless, which natural order certainly is not. Strength in Numbers works because it's multiple creatures taking on one. The lone ant will die at the fangs of the spider, but a colony of ants will overwhelm and kill it. In Green, Assault is a suicide with no benefit towards the one actually making the strike, which doesn't make sense for green.
In a specific enough case, Green can get burn, i.e. usage of natural terrain or 'strength in numbers' type philosophy. But Assault doesn't fit either of those qualifications.
Green also gets ways to fiddle with creatures, such as Flash and Provoke. Still, they mess with combat in a very direct and physical way. Flash is flavorful as a master of hiding or ambushing, and Provoke is tracking prey. And yet, a King Cheetah can't jump from hiding or catch up to a Shanodin Dryads because it can't fight what it can't see. A King Cheetah with Assault, though, could, because... why?
Green does get burn, and it does get ways to influence damage. Influencing damage, however, is almost ALWAYS dealt with in the combat step, which Assault is not restricted to, and Assault in no way captures the flavor of an overwhelming advantaged attack. It simply does not make sense in Green.
These boxes really should let you copy + paste stuff into them. Prolly just Firefox.
Raidendart... (in response to post #14)
1: I see you don't get jokes.
2: I get that. I don't see why it's green though. A lion isn't going to attack something it's fairly sure it can't beat. A lion will gladly go after the zebra, but why in the hell would it pick a fight with the elephant?
In White, the ability makes sense. The creature is selflessy sacrificing itself to eliminate a threat for the greater good. That's white all over.
In Red, the ability makes sense. Red is the color that gets hasty creatures and plenty of surprise attacks, so it makes sense that would get creatures that could ambush stuff. In more of a stretch, it also fits into the short-term gain theme of red, where you could get a one-time strike with a creature, or play that creature and probably get more out of it.
The ability is also Black in a way, because Black doesn't care about anything but itself, so the planeswalker would gladly sacrifice it to kill something.
3: Short term gain, long term loss? That's Red, sir.
Assault doesn't make sense in Green because Green cares about Green. Simply put, in nature, if an animal doesn't think it can last in a situation, it tries to get away from that situation. The lion will attack the zebra but not the elephant because it knows it at least has a good chance against the zebra, but not a popsicle's chance in hell against such a big creature as an elephant. Animals in nature don't go on suicide missions, not even hivemind creatures like ants; Ants protect the existence of the hive (wrong word, but whatever) and more importantly the Queen, as she's the most important ant of all. The ant goes into situations where it may very well get killed for the greater good, not to take out as much as possible with it; ants are philosophically white.
Why should Green get creature-based burn, anyways? Flying hosers like Hurricane and Squall Line make sense beyond the whole 'Enemy of Blue, thus Hate Flyers because Flyers are primarily Blue" argument. They work because they're using the environment and the land to do what must be done. Of course a hurricane will affect creatures on the ground, but Hurricane doesn't because of mechanical balances.
Mechanical balances aside, Assault doesn't feel green because it requires the animals to be selfless, which natural order certainly is not. Strength in Numbers works because it's multiple creatures taking on one. The lone ant will die at the fangs of the spider, but a colony of ants will overwhelm and kill it. In Green, Assault is a suicide with no benefit towards the one actually making the strike, which doesn't make sense for green.
In a specific enough case, Green can get burn, i.e. usage of natural terrain or 'strength in numbers' type philosophy. But Assault doesn't fit either of those qualifications.
Green also gets ways to fiddle with creatures, such as Flash and Provoke. Still, they mess with combat in a very direct and physical way. Flash is flavorful as a master of hiding or ambushing, and Provoke is tracking prey. And yet, a King Cheetah can't jump from hiding or catch up to a Shanodin Dryads because it can't fight what it can't see. A King Cheetah with Assault, though, could, because... why?
Green does get burn, and it does get ways to influence damage. Influencing damage, however, is almost ALWAYS dealt with in the combat step, which Assault is not restricted to, and Assault in no way captures the flavor of an overwhelming advantaged attack. It simply does not make sense in Green.
1. Deadpan.
2. Lions run into elephants all the time in constructed. The NEAT thing about assault is that you don't worry about the creature... it's not a creature it's a spell that says "this creature attacks this other creature"... it's not unlike provoke or red/black's forcing a creature to attack (although it's "your" creature you're forcing to attack.).
In white, if you look at it as self-sacrifice, then it doesn't count. You're confusing "greater good" with "assasination"... which seems more black to me. But the flavor is that I cast "bear beats you up" on bob. Or I cast "dragon breaths fire on you" on my oponent's 0/5 wall.
You're right about black and red, but I don't see white getting this ability.
But I do see green. Green is all about nature, in which animals stalk their prey and do so without getting in a fight, they just assault them (ambush was another possible term... but I want something generic enough since the ability is intuitive and exciting). Thematically, what color gets "bear gets off his lazy ass and claws your face in"? Since green got Bee Sting, it's got to be green. The fact that it's good removal is just icing on the cake.
3: Yeah... but think of it as a split spell. "Summon bear" or "bear strike"... both seem green to me (flavor wise). Now try it with "summon angel/angel strike" and "summon wizard/wizard strike"... an angel killing something better have a drawback (I'm all for drawbacks to splash this to different colors), but blue damned well better not get this "fighting" mechanism. Green, on the other hand, fights.
Quick asside: Do I want to see green get the bulk of the removal in ever set? No. But in mirrodin this didn't really warp the format - nor would it do so here. The game necessarily goes through cycles - this is a means of giving green dirrect damage - something it deserves (again, not nearly as efficiently as red... but we've seen substandard white naturalize varients see play mind you - before disenchant came back).
Assault is green for the same reason bee sting is green - sometimes animals fight for their own. Note - I'm in no way implying that an assaulted creature is killed; rather when you assault with it, the cards treated like any other spell - put into your yard. The fact you can reanimate a wurm afterwards... is no more thematically daunting than after it's milled to your yard.
As you say yourself, green gets burn, green gets combat damage, green gets creature on creature combat, and green gets to ambush and surprise the enemies. So... what about Assault isn't green? YOU seem to think it's because it's suicide - which means we're just thinking of what's going on differently. I imagine the animal on the card being engaged mid-strike; as if it was a spell card. And I no more expect the "theme" of casting an assault on Bob (losing your bear) to be any more "killing the bear" than angelic blessing (or whatever that +3,+3 sorcery that gives flying is) is killing the angel at the end of turn.
Finally, green doesn't give two-shakes about the combat step - you're thinking white, and you're thinking provoke. Provoke involves the creature hunting down something else. Now green's good at that. Why do green creatures only hunt during your attack phase? Tim shoots things at any time - if I want to send a bear out to eat someone... why wait?
You bring up a lot of interesting criticisms; but I think most can be addressed by looking at the color wheel and then getting the right picture of what "assault" does. It's not flinging a creature at something (although surely I can make some red cards with this flavor), it's asking a favor of the creature instead of summoning it. Which is why it's not a spell and can't be countered As for color wheel concerns; I don't see too much wrong with assault - except it seems a little too widespread, since WOTC has made burn primarily red - by their own admission because red is hard to design for. G/B/R all sacrifice creatures for gain, all do dirrect damage, and all sacrifice long term resources for short term gain (sac a saproling: X).
You really should read the whole lot of these, because understanding the color pie is invaluable for making good cards. I only linked the relevant ones, though.
An animal going to the graveyard after Assaulting definitely seems like it's dying. The 'Bake a Cake' example, on some level, explains the graveyard and library and other such tomfoolery.
And unless you insist on arguing further, that's all I have left to say on the matter.
Now, for the other mechanics and such.
Assault: The mechanic is kinda cool, and it has some space to explore. The 'graveyard from anywhere' drawback is neat, and allows for making the creatures themselves above the curve. However, I think Pitthrowing Devil's loss of 4 life is a tad harsh, especially on a 2/1, and could be lowered to 2 life.
Defend: Preventing damage is pretty weak, stuck on a creature or not. In nearly every card with Defend on here, I'd rather wait and just play the creature instead of using it for Defend. Also, Wilderness Kinsmen is just wrong. It's far too versatile and overall doesn't really make sense.
Transcend: The coolest and most useful of the three. It's also highly abusive and could very quickly get out of hand. The blue ones are okay, except Sourcecatcher is messed up with High Tide, and Denial Minister is flat out too good. A filter effect and Force Spike for 2 is a bit much. The black ones are okay, though I think Thoughtgobbler Rats could make you lose another life or two. The Green one you posted above, though, is busted as all hell. With only two creatures out, it's a cheaper Harmonize. With any more than that, it's broken beyond beleif.
As a bit of an aside, effects that mess with power and toughness are written as "+1/+1", not "+1,+1". It's cleaner, more noticable, and is the correct way of templating it.
More or less. Depends on the card really. I can't see anything under/overcosted so much it is stupid.
I assume you're refering to the green assault creatures as "stupid"... and defense as worthless... of course, I've argued the green has flavor and the white is like an additional ability that sometimes comes into play - more in limited than constructed...
Flavor, function, and fleshing out what green's burn should be. If you want to ignore the fact that green gets burn, fine. But that sure sounds an aweful lot like me "ignoring" that white gets overcosted disenchants, or that red gets boring mid-range fat. You might not look twice at the cards outside of draft - but bee sting is bee sting.
Good stuff, I like these a lot, especially the green. But Scrying Bones is too good, and the Goblin should be worded like Browbeat (damage not life loss). I worry that the green doesn't work like you want it to. Maybe it's P/T are equal to the number of creatures you control?
The green's broken (well... too good). I scatter the seeds, then draw 5 cards for 3 mana... that sounds like a deck.
Black, however, is not. You turn 1 card into... 1 card. At the cost of 2 life and one black mana.
You're probably right, damage - not life loss.
One last thing about the green one. If it said "X has P+T= to the # of creatures you control"... then in your hand it's a 0/0 so tanscending it does nothing. Yes, the rules probably need to be revised slightly to allow creature cards in hand to get +1,+1 but whatever...
How can a creature who doesn't exist yet do you a favour? Hm. Aaanyway. This is getting old - we all agree that the abilities are sound, but Assault is not green. Except you don't agree. Please start listening to what everyone is saying, otherwise this thread really was created just to show off. If I'm wrong and you were looking for constructive responses, prove it!
Card designers who are too 'proud' just end up hacking people off. And if you'd taken on board the advice earlier, but still voiced your opinion, people wouldn't have been so...irritated. They would have seen that you were being honest, but recognising that you were outnumbered and probably wrong. However, you persist to challenge everyone, when all they are doing is offering help. You don't want it? Don't post here.
You don't create creatures - you SUMMON them. They already exist. Perhaps this is the problem we've been having...
You, and others, keep arguing that green doesn't get dirrect damage. But it clearly does. Green is more red than you think. If you think ALL green burn should be overcosted - fine. Add 2 to each of the green card's assault costs - they'll rarely see constructed play, but the flavor is there.
As for listening to others, I am. You've said over and over again that green doesn't get burn. But this is false. If you want to argue that WOTC has secretly nixed green burn - fine. I probably have to agree with you there. But that doesn't mean they should have. The flavor of bee sting is far, far different from that of shock... just like lighting helix is far different from Consume Spirit for 3. Just like Spark Elemental is far different from Savana Lions. Save role -same card types - same mechanics - different flavor.
If I can't sway your mind - fine. Don't pretend I'm not listening to you though, or paying attention to your arguments. I happen to disagree. So let's agree to disagree - and hell, let's agree we both have reasons for what we hold. NOW I take it that if we agree to disagree the question turns back to what I began with - did I cost assault appropriately on the green cards? Or should it cost, say, twice as much to reflect green's historic over-priced dirrect damage?
And you missed the Lion/Zebra/Elephant thing completely. Lions don't pick fights with elephants. Often the elephant comes a-charging, and the Lion just doesn't get out of the way in time.
Never saw Jurassic Park, did you. Raptors do pick fights with the tyrant king. I didn't touch the analogy specifically because it doesn't make sense. Not only are there plenty of suicidal creatures (my savana lions attacks into your untapped elephant...), but your analogy - in nature I take it - is just false. Watch jurassic park. It's a good movie.
Please do not take offense, Iam, once again, offering my advice. Take it or leave it.
'Fox.
I don't take offense - I'm glad someone's willing to offer feedback. I'm just surprised people are so unclear that green gets burn. I guess I blame wizards, as they've said it time and time again - red is hard to design, the hardest - so they just funnel all burn into it. Even green-flavor burn. Even overcosted burn.
Just tell me - how many sets have been and gone since Bee Sting?
Anyways, I give up. I'm fighting a losing battle here. I just hope you realise that the colour of Assault is off before if and when you make this into a set warranting feedback.
'Fox.
Amazing. Simply amazing.
Timespiral isn't a good judge of the color pie. Ravnica isn't a good judge of the color pie. Mirrodin isn't a good judge of the color pie. Kamigawa? Goblins that make tokens? Meloku? Bah!
EVERY ability can be accessed by mupltile colors. Red gets burn 1st, green second. Black gets "drain life" burn - which is far more cost efficient than green burn. Burn is all over the color pie. However, as I've argued in the past - red is hard to design for and WOTC has fallen in the trap of giving it all the "normal" burn spells - not so much because, like blue, it's the only one with access to them - but because it's easy.
But, to recap:
Flavor: It's creature combat, much like provoke - much like bee sting. If you want to argue against this, you've got an uphill battle.
Function: Green historically gets inefficient burn. Creature-only burn is inefficient. Are you going to argue against this? I'm not sure you can - "It's been a while" means nothing -until last year, it's been a while since instant-speed discard. It's been a while since blue got cheap efficient flyers. It's been a while since black reanimated a creature at the cost of life... since black paid life to draw cards... yikes! "It's been a while" isn't an argument against something; it's an argument for it.
SO I fail to see what the problem is. I think that green's "burn" ability has been dramatically underdevelopped. It gets effiicent anti-flying burn, it gets bad "all around" burn... if we make creature-only burn (notoriously the bad not-constructed worthy burn) relatively cheap in green (not as cheap as in red though) - then green starts getting a lot better in limited (though since it's getting bad burn, it's not as good as - say - red). Do it sparingly, and I doubt it'll even warp limited. It's not as if the new green pacifism makes people draft green for removal
Just tell me - how many sets have been and gone since Bee Sting?
Anyways, I give up. I'm fighting a losing battle here. I just hope you realise that the colour of Assault is off before if and when you make this into a set warranting feedback.
'Fox.
Don't worry Shadowfox, the majority of everyone agrees with you.
Green does not get burn.
It's just that many of us have decided not to argue against raidendart any more as he seems rather unyielding in his beliefs despite the overwhelming amount of people that disagree with him.
Constantly citing Bee Sting, a card from over 10 years ago, is not a solid case.
Constantly citing Time Spiral block cards, a throwback to old times, is not a solid case.
Constantly citing Planar Chaos cards and using them as a basis for the current 'colour pie' is not a solid case.
With no offense, raidendart, it seems like you have not been playing this game for too long. This is evident by your constant tendency to cite newer, more familiar sets when critiquing other people's cards and your shaky grasp of the overall grand 'colour pie'. Please take some time to consider the arguments of people that have been playing the games and especially designing cards longer than you have.
I'm getting ignored, so I have to be doing something right.
First off, did you even READ anything that I linked to?
Quote from Raidendart »
You, and others, keep arguing that green doesn't get dirrect damage. But it clearly does.
Why? What about Green, the color of life and growth, says "Yeah, I'm willing to stunt life and/or growth to suit my own needs"?
Quote from Raidendart »
Not only are there plenty of suicidal creatures (my savana lions attacks into your untapped elephant...), but your analogy - in nature I take it - is just false. Watch jurassic park. It's a good movie.
Deadpan.
1. A Savannah Lions attacking into an untapped elephant is either a player with a combat trick or dumb as hell.
2. Jurassic Park... is... a... MOVIE. News flash: Movies aren't necessarily the greatest gauge of reality! The Matrix was a movie, but you don't see us flying around in cyberspace while being sucked dry of life by robots. Spiderman is a movie, but you don't see a geeky news reporter be bitten by a radioactive genus of spider which alters his DNA structure and gives him fantastic, superhuman abilities. Groundhog's Day is a movie, but you don't see a disgruntled weather reporter living the same day of his life for 10 years. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is a movie, but you don't see wonderful candy factories filled with rivers of chocolate and tiny orange dudes. Starship Troopers is a movie, but you don't see us flying into space and killing bug monsters in horrifying bloodbaths. The Lion King is a movie, but you don't see critters on the plains of Africa acting out the story of Hamlet. Snakes on a Plane is a movie, but you don't see devious criminal masterminds sneaking mother****ing snakes onto mother****ing planes to kill witnesses who are supposed to testify against them. Phallus in Wonderland is a movie, but GWAR, the rock band from space, doesn't get the Cuddlefish of Cthulu stolen by Edna Granbo and the Morality Squad, who also bioengineered the mutant beast Tiny whose sole purpose is to destroy GWAR.
Quote from Raidendart »
It's creature combat, much like provoke - much like bee sting. If you want to argue against this, you've got an uphill battle.
Bears don't plop out of the sky, punch something in the face, then poof away. Bigass beast monster things don't plop out of the sky, punch something in the face, then poof away. 3-ton wurms don't plop out of the sky, punch something in the face, then poof away. Summoning these things gives them summoning sickness. It's one of the basest rules for creatures; they tend to have summoning sickness. You can't just transport 6,000 lbs. of wurm through extradimensional barriers and expect it to be able to do something right away by it's own power. Assault happens too fast for it to make sense in green.
I summon a bear to do my bidding
Bear: barfs
Me: Yo. Bear. 'Sup?
Bear: What the hell, man? What was that for?
Me: Well, uh, y'see, I'm kinda in a duel to the death right now, so uh...
Bear: barf Oh god, just get to the point already.
Me: Okay, could you like, hide in a bush and jump out at that? points to orc
Bear: Yeah yeah, fibarfne, just get me back home afterwards. Soo nautious... orc powerbombs me
Bear: Okay, I'm good, let's do this!
Me: What the hell, bear? What is your problem?
Bear: Did... did you NOT just see me puking all over the place?
Me: But I summoned you to do my bidding!
Bear: Wha, wha, wha. jumps on orc
That's how I see it anyways. Creatures with haste have haste because they're fast and quick to adapt to situations. Hell, even Unyaro Bee Sting was 'slow': it's sorcery speed, hinting that you can't just summon bees and expect them to do your bidding immediately.
I summon bees to do my bidding
Bees: barf
et cetera
Quote from Raidendart »
Green historically gets inefficient burn.
Yes, because a Gatherer search for the term 'damage to target' shows 19 green results. Four of those are actually Instants or Sorceries with the intent of dealing damage or destroying creatures. Everything else is on a creature, which is then usually flying hate, or Splintering Wind, which uses the power of nature, not anything creaturelike, to inflict damage.
Quote from Raidendart »
"It's been a while" isn't an argument against something; it's an argument for it.
By that same logic, then Blue should really get some more top-notch burn, because it's been a while. We should reprint the Power Nine, because it's been a while since they've seen Standard play. It's been a while since every game was essentially a coinflip to whoever comboed out first, so let's make some broken engines waiting to be abused. And hey, let's jump outside of Magic! It's been a while since Jewish people have been wrongly persecuted; I think it's time for another Holocaust.
You went way beyond making your point. This is trolling.
Constantly citing Bee Sting, a card from over 10 years ago, is not a solid case.
With no offense, raidendart, it seems like you have not been playing this game for too long. This is evident by your constant tendency to cite newer, more familiar sets when critiquing other people's cards and your shaky grasp of the overall grand 'colour pie'. Please take some time to consider the arguments of people that have been playing the games and especially designing cards longer than you have.
I'm going to put this as delicately as possible: You say I haven't been playing long, but that I keep refering to Bee Sting... a 10 year old card. Thanks for proving yourself wrong. Next time - though - please don't waste our time by saying blatently false things that you KNOW are blatently false because you just typed the proof that they are false in the previous paragraphs.
In case you didn't realize this, the color pie changes... yet stays the same. Green has access to burn. It's had access to it for years - Arashi in Kamigawa, Hurricane in 10th... Squal Line... You DO play magic, right? I mean, I'm not talking to some pokemon player who thinks I'm trying to teach Bulbasaur Fire Blast, am I? Seriously, I think it's mighty bad form to come in, tell someone that your opinion is BETTER than his because "you've been playing longer" - even if it were true (Since Ice Age. You?).
The FACT of the matter is that green gets burn, green is #3 in burn. Now, what BURN does green get? As of 10th, hitting players is okay... as long as it's the symetrical hurricane. Hitting flyers is okay. Bee Sting, a 10 year old card, suggests that hitting creatures is okay... so long as it's flavorful and costs enough. So, when all is said and done - green gets burn. You're wrong. I'd be more than willing to discuss whether or not green gets THIS kind of burn. But since I've argued it does and all you can do is pretend I'm some newbie who doesn't "listen" to your advice; I'm not sure what else we can do. If WOTC prints a green dirrect damage spell within a year; you'll STILL argue it's an exception. If it prints one in 11th edition, you'll call it some kind of fluke.
So, I'll leave you with this: I announce my attack step, I provoke your creature. Sounds an aweful lot like removal, doesn't it champ?
I'm getting ignored, so I have to be doing something right.
What have I ignored? Have you said anything other than "Green doesn't get burn" in the past 3 pages? If so, I missed it and I'm sorry. If not, I've addressed ONLY that criticism for the past week. Thanks for ignoring me.
Why? What about Green, the color of life and growth, says "Yeah, I'm willing to stunt life and/or growth to suit my own needs"?
Hurricane, Squal Line, Giant Growth, Oxidize, every green creature, creeping mold, etc. A good 85 percent of green cards deal with stunting the life of your opponent for your own needs. Oh, this is about whether or not green gets dirrect damage - which has nothing to do with "stunting life/growth" in any relevant fashion. At least no more than when my elf beats you in the face for one each turn...
Congrats for having a dialogue with a barfing bear. I've told you how *I* the designer of the mechanic see it working. Telling me how you imagine it and saying it's different from me doesn't make you right, it just makes it obvious you've not read what I wrote. Funny, considering you began by complaining I'm ignoring you.
Hell, even Unyaro Bee Sting was 'slow': it's sorcery speed, hinting that you can't just summon bees and expect them to do your bidding immediately.
You're right. If only green had some kind of instant speed combat trick that would make you think it could summon creatures fast... maybe if you could play creatures you control at instant speed... I wonder how much a 2/2 with that ability would cost?
Four of those are actually Instants or Sorceries with the intent of dealing damage or destroying creatures.
Like I said, it's room for green to build on - and that would make it a more robust color. Now if you want to argue I should raise the assault cost on green creatures, I'd be more than willing to entertain that sort of discussion. Since you've already admitted several times over that green gets burn...
By that same logic, then Blue should really get some more top-notch burn, because it's been a while.
WOTC has said burn has left blue's color pie. But they've said no such thing about green. Oh, and Psionic Blast was recently reprinted... so... I win again? (tongue in cheek)
We should reprint the Power Nine, because it's been a while since they've seen Standard play.
Suspend Moxen would go well with Lotus Bloom. And I do think they have a timewalk varient in Time spiral. I know you're not serious, or putting any effort into this criticism anymore - but you do realize that the power 9 has made numerous "returns" in various forms over the years, right? In a sense, the signets are mox varients, etc.
It's been a while since every game was essentially a coinflip to whoever comboed out first, so let's make some broken engines waiting to be abused.
There have been several turn 1 wins in standard over the past few years... so what's your point, besides trying to be tremendously uncharitable to my position?
And hey, let's jump outside of Magic! It's been a while since Jewish people have been wrongly persecuted; I think it's time for another Holocaust.
And I'm pretty sure it hasn't been that long since jewish people have been wrongly persecuted; although there are a bunch of people I would like to see shot and burried in a mass grave. Not jewish people per say... terrorists, bush-republicans (not normal republicans, BUSH-republicans), rapists, murderers, pedophiles, etc.
It'd been a while since snow covered lands, and that mechanic came back. I play snow lands in my Dralnu deck. It's been a while since flashback, I play Think Twice. Later.
Moderator Action: Don't double post. Use the edit button.
The reason Bee Sting is not an acceptable card to use as a color pie reference is not simply because it is 10 years old, but because Bee Sting was printed before the color pie had a major overhaul. Just about any card that's not legal in Extended is an untrustworthy reference. Bee Sting would never be printed in today's color pie because in the current color pie green's direct damage is only done via Hurricane-style cards.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Golden Rule of forums: If you're going to be rude, be right. If you might be wrong, be polite.
The reason Bee Sting is not an acceptable card to use as a color pie reference is not simply because it is 10 years old, but because Bee Sting was printed before the color pie had a major overhaul. Just about any card that's not legal in Extended is an untrustworthy reference. Bee Sting would never be printed in today's color pie because in the current color pie green's direct damage is only done via Hurricane-style cards.
To an extent you're right -green rarely gets "all out" dirrect damage cards, and when it does - they're far-far overcosted. Don't say "it'd never happen" -since, sadly, it has happened in Timespiral (I know, I know... timespiral doesn't count...).
But green gets solid "anti-flying" dirrect damage, as well as some other varients.
Two things though:
1. Any color can have access to any ability if costed enough. So if I want to have the assault cost on a 2/2 for 1G be 9G, surely the color pie would allow that.
2. "Damage only to creatures" has historically been "bad red burn" - filler. It carries with it a much different flavor than "unrestricted" burn. I'm arguing that green should dab into this element of the color pie - that it should get bad burn. It would make green far, far more robust a color - even if it is slightly overcosted.
Still, thanks for your comments.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Color Alignment: Red, Green, Black... white?
Defend [cost] ([cost], discard ~: Prevent the next X damage target source would deal this turn, where X equals this creature's toughness.)
Color Alignment: White, Green, Blue?
Transcend [cost] ([cost], discard ~: Draw cards equal to this creature's power, then discard cards equal to it's toughness)
Color Alignment: Blue, Black, Green?
Examples:
Goblin Slinger
Creature - Goblin Warrior (C)
Assault
1/1
Ogre Runner :1mana::symr::symr:
Creature - Ogre Warrior (C)
Assault
Haste
2/1
Elder Fang :1mana::symr:
Creature - Cat (U)
Assault
Defender
5/1
Goblin Sparkomancer
Creature - Goblin Wizard (R)
Assault :1mana::symr:
Whenever ~ is put into a graveyard from anywhere, it deals 1 damage to target creature or player.
1/1
Assaulting Dragon :3mana::symr::symr:
Creature - Dragon (R)
Assault :1mana::symr:
Whenever ~ is put into a graveyard from anywhere, discard a card at random.
Flying
5/5
Stalking Bears :1mana::symg:
Creature - Bear (C)
Assault :1mana::symg:
2/2
Hunched Mauler :2mana::symg::symg:
Creature - Beast (U)
Assault :2mana::symg::symg:
4/4
Threshing :3mana::symg::symg:
Creature -Wurm (R)
Assault :2mana::symg::symg:
Whenever ~ is put into the graveyard from anywhere, sacrifice a land.
~ cannot be the target of spells or abilities.
6/5
Pitthrowing Devil
Creature - Devil (C)
Assault
Whenever ~ is put into the graveyard from anywhere, lose 4 life.
2/1
Cursed Scaleback :1mana::symb::symb:
Creature - Demon Snake (U)
Assault
Fear
Whenever ~ is put into the graveyard from anywhere, lose 4 life.
3/2
Brimstone Choaker :2mana::symb::symb::symb:
Creature - Demon Lord (R)
Assault :1mana::symb:
Flying
Other demons you control get +1,+1.
Whenever ~ is put into the graveyard from anywhere, lose 4 life.
5/4
Recompence Angel :2mana::symw::symw:
Creature - Angel Warrior
Flying
Assault :1mana::symw:
Whenevr ~ is put into the graveyard from anywhere, each opponent gains 4 life.
4/4
_________________________________
Wall of Salves
Creature - Wall (C)
Defender
Defend
0/3
Spiritual Header :1mana::symw:
Creature - Angel Cleric (C)
Flying, Vigilance
Defend
1/2
Daru Mediator :1mana::symw:
Creature - Human Cleric (C)
Vigilance
Defend :1mana::symw:
2/2
Steadfast Militia :2mana::symw::symw:
Creature - Human Soldier (U)
Defend :2mana::symw:
2/5
Guardian Angel Choir :3mana::symw::symw:
Creature - Angel Cleric (R)
Flying, Vigilance
Defend :1mana::symw:
3/7
Homestead Grafter :1mana::symg:
Creature - Elf (C)
:symtap:: Add to your mana pool.
Defend
2/1
Mothering Tiger :1mana::symg::symg:
Creature - Cat (C)
Defend
3/2
Mothering Wurm :3mana::symg::symg:
Creature - Wurm (U)
Defend
5/3
Wilderness Kinsmen :1mana::symg::symg:
Creature - Elf Shaman (U)
Assault :1mana::symg:
Defend :1mana::symg:
Transcend :1mana::symg:
:1mana::symg:: Regenerate ~.
2/2
Bewildering Prodogy :2mana::symu:
Creature - Human Wizard (U)
Defend :1mana::symu:
1/3
__________________
Transcendence Prodogy
Creature - Human Wizard (C)
Transcend
1/1
Puzzled Mage :1mana::symu:
Creature - Human Wizard (C)
Transcend
1/3
Aggressive Researcher :2mana::symu:
Creature - Human Wizard (U)
Transcend :1mana::symu::symu:
3/1
Sourcecatcher :2mana::symu:
Creature - Human Wizard (U)
Transcend :1mana::symu:
Whenever ~ is put into the graveyard from anywhere, untap an island you control.
2/2
Denial Minister
Creature - Human Wizard (U)
Transcend :1mana::symu:
Whenever ~ is put into the graveyard from anywhere, you may counter target spell unless it's controller pays :1mana:.
1/1
Denial Master :2mana::symu::symu:
Creature - Human Wizard (R)
Transcend :symu::symu:
Whenever ~ is put into the graveyard from anywhere, you may counter target spell.
Sacrifice ~,:symtap:: Draw a card.
1/2
Aven Dream Searcher :2mana::symu::symu:
Creature - Bird Wizard (R)
Flying
Transcend :2mana::symu::symu:
4/2
Subtle Whisperer :1mana::symb:
Creature - Human Rogue (C)
Transcend: :symb:, Pay 2 life.
2/1
Thought Gobbler Rats :1mana::symb::symb:
Creature - Rat (U)
Transcend: :1mana::symb::symb:, Pay 2 life.
When ~ is put into the graveyard from anywhere, each opponent discards a card.
2/1
Thought Gorger Demon :3mana::symb::symb:
Creature - Demon Wizard (R)
Transcend: :2mana::symb::symb:, Pay 5 life.
Flying
5/1
___________________
Lastly, something to pump all this up a notch!
Dictator of Status :1mana::symw::symw:
Creature - Human Lord (R)
Other creatures you control get +1,+1.
Creature cards you own that aren't in play get +1,+1.
2/2
Slay
Slay Sacrifice this creature: It deals damage equal to it's power to target (enemy colour) creature. Damage dealt this way cannot be prevented.
The other Two abilities are interesting.
though Transcend apears to be the most powerfull and abusive of the three abilities.
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=70102
"Slay 2" is a "sacrifice in play" ability that use put color restrictions and a generic cost on. You're TRYING to be like cycling; while Assault is an iconic, staple, intuitive, and cost effective ability.
Slay, for your set, makes it VERY hard to draft or play - what your deck does is so conditional - your creatures depend on what COLORS your opponent plays. It's ad hoc and WOTC has never instigated a color-matters-keyword LIKE THAT.
Assault, on the other hand, offers a second use for creatures. It's a red ability because it's burn, a green ability because it's creature damage, and a black ability because they like putting creatures into the yard and dealing damage. By limiting Assault to creatures - you capture a "creature combat" feel, while keeping their assault cost low.
Transcend is very interesting, but remember - on a 1/1, you're paying U, discarding a card, drawing a card, then discarding a card. Only when the creature has a higher power than toughness does it become card advantage; and as you can see... I've kept them mostly equal.
Defend is actually probably the most problematic of abilities for limited... in limited, inefficient creature burn is a high pick... but add in defend cards, and your opponent can counter your burn spells by pitching their relatively efficient weenies. You wouldn't play Healing Salve, but when it comes on a 1/3 for 2... you might. Because you play 1/3s for 2. And late game, when you draw them, having a healing salve's a good thing.
Assault is not a green ability. Green does not get direct damage and direct creature removal.
Might I suggest the following:
Assault - Red, Black
Transcend - Blue, Black
Defend - White, Green
Defend is also somewhat weak. Damage prevention in general is not really worth an entire card and only in select cases will it ever be used.
Actually, green is #3 at dirrect damage, and has been for a while. While "Bee Sting" was not the bets card; it - along with things like "strength in numbers" and even the new 4/3 uncommon guy from Timespiral, shows that green is the color of creature-based combat.
I'm arguing that thematically, and practically, green ought get Assault. Green gets Shock for 4 mana at sorcery speed; so a shock at 2 mana that doesn't hit players isn't out of the question - making it be on a creature might be a little shocking (no pun intended), but it's the development of a green ability developers tend to ignore since RED is the color of dirrect damage. If green starts getting any reasonable amount of dirrect damage, it turns out that developers have a tough time filling red slots.
Of course this is mainly because designers know red is about "chaos" but rarely design common or uncommon cards that fit this bill. With red being the new color of "fast mana", WOTC designers have been able to fill in some red common slots with rituals; but even then these are either playable in constructed or complete and utter misses.
Will it seem odd to discard a bear and kill your opponent's bear? Maybe; but this is no more "not green" than Provoke. The only relevant difference is that provoke was on a creature in play and reusable, while Assault's a one-time deal. But it's also really good at creating tempo, so whatever...
Of course, Defend ballances out the format... as long as you have one or two mana untapped, your creatures become counterspells for burn and other hate. I see Defend working like this:
Turn 2: I play my 1/3 creature.
Turn 5: I draw my 1/3 creature. I attack with my 3/3 creature. My opponent blocks with their 2/1 first striker and assaults for 2. I prevent the assault damage with my 1/3, kill their 2/1, and call it a day. Functionally Defend is very weak; but it has advantages over traditional damage prevention spells because IT CAN ALSO BE A CREATURE! The weenie strategy is simple: Play small guys, attack, and keep them on the field while negating your opponent's attackers. Defense and Assault and Transcend work pretty much like split spells; you can either get a decent creature or you can play a spell... an uncounterable spell Much like Channel, these allow you to turn creatures into other resources, but unlike channel it's standardized - you get one of three abilities that are tied to the creatures power and/or toughness; thus utilizing the fact that they are creatures. Arashi was a fun creature, but what about the 5/5 said "Pst... I'm also a hurricane." Meanwhile, the bear with assault's saying "pst... I'm also a bee sting... see, 2 power!"
However, you are right that serious players will rarely use Defend creatures for their defend ability UNLESS they are appropriately costed, which is why I tended to give them a small CMC. They're not as broken as flash-gating creatures are in limited, but they provide an effective counter-measure against late-game burn in limited and counstructed (would you play a spell that said :1mana::symw:: Prevent the next 7 damage target creature or spell would deal this turn? NO! But would you play a 3/7 for 5 flyering Vigilance guy in constructed? Maybe... depends on the cost. But would you play them if it's on a split card? Think of it as Assault//Battery... except with healing. The creature is why you play it, the defend ability is just an added bonus that is far more useful than it initially appears... or so I'd argue.
You just named two out of three
Time Spiral block is not a very good reference when talking about what colors get what
I thought we were talking about direct damage...
It hasn't gotten a shock at 4 mana for the past 12 years.
It could also be the fact that green doesn't get direct damage. It's most likely due to the fact that red is the color of direct damage.
Where is the association between 'chaos' and 'direct damage'?
So you're saying they design constructed-quality cards every so often. I see that as a very good thing. Do you not?
Provoke is to Direct Damage as Creature Destruction is to Counterspells. Provoke is how green selectively destroys creatures, not Direct Damage.
And that one-time deal usually comes as an instant and as a surprise. It's still not green. No 'whatever'.
Be careful when you use the term 'counterspell'. It means something completely different.
That's usually the case with all cards.
Flash-gating creatures are not broken. They're just any other combat trick.
Yes I would in limited.
Yes...
I wouldn't play it on a split card. A 3/7 vigilance creature is too slow and too defensively-oriented. It also doesn't deal enough damage.[/quote]
Just so you know, Red, Black, and White are the best at direct damage with blue far behind. Green is somewhere behind blue.
Yup. But Green is #1 with Provoke... or would be if WOTC can make a green card that doesn't suck. Green gets CREATURE-based "burn" spells...
Right. But when something is introduced in Time Spiral, it is. Green now gets "combat only-damage" in this way. Live with it.
We are. Creature based dirrect damage. From creatures. To Creatures. It's a modified Provoke. Yes, radically different - but with the same reasoning behind it. Go play with your red Moat (Form of the Dragon) and tell me I'm making stuff up.
1. WOTC has stopped printing "functionally worse" off color non-creature cards.
2. Green got a 4 mana shock on a creature for GGG last year. Green doesn't get efficient burn. But I'm saying that this is thematic creature combat. If you don't buy that argument, you don't agree with me. But we've seen WOTC doing off-color things for flavor before. Jugaan is a 5/5 flyer in green for 6.
Red is #1 at DD. Black is #2... because of drain life effects. Green is #3. White is #4. And blue, despite the early years, is #5. We can do the analaysis for counter spells, discard, or haste too... but I trust this is sufficient for now.
On several occasions WOTC has claimed that red cards are the hardest to design. Red does NOT get efficient creatures... despite their efficient weenies like goblins that stand on their own. Red gets burn... but too much red burn for a format is bad, so they have to make substandard burn. Red gets LD, but too much 3cc LD warps a format too. When all is said and done, red is a much more shallow color than the rest. Were they to make more depth in red, say chaos cards at common/uncommon or give it other abilities, then it would be able to have as many "bad" burn spells in a set w/o warping limited, and give some to green... #2 at ACTUAL burn.
All I'm saying is that red is a shallow color. So they fill it with suicidal weenies, inefficient giants, and then burn, burn, burn. Because you identify red with burn, any other color with burn is shocking (so to speak). Black gets way with it because it's life drain. White only when it's "color specific", blue when it's "historic..."
Nice analogy. Call of the Grave (or whatever) is functioanlly similar to Remove Soul.
Provoke is reoccuring creature dirrect damage. It's limited, flavorful, and you'd realize it's green removal. All I'm advocating is a different kind - arguably better - than Provoke. Provoke is to Tim as Assault is to Shock. One is reoccuring (green) removal, one is one-time (green) removal. Or so I'm asserting. Again, if you don't want to buy the theme of creature combat, you don't really believe me. But then again, Form of the Dragon-Style cards must annoy you to no end...
So... when you attack, and I flash into play a 2/2 bear, and say "Surprise" I'm lying? Green gets Flash and Provoke.
Practically.
You obviously don't play limited. In limited, they cancel creature removal and give you an extra creature.
Then you're a bad player. Or a brilliant one. Depends on the draft format...
Officially Red is #1. Black is #2 (drain life). Green is #3.. but it doesn't get enough... White is #4 because it gets less dirrect damage than green, and though it's often more powerful - that's bad design. And Blue is #5. BUT... if you want to talk about actual cards, Red is #1, Blue is #2, then Black, then White, then Green. But you clearly don't want to talk about actual cards, or ideals. I'm not sure what you're refering to.
Provoke was features on a total of nine cards in Legions, and has not shown up on cards ever since (Well, Greater Morphling). These nine cards were equally distributed between red, green and white. Meaning that they have three cards each. Among those nine cards, the only rare with Provoke is green. All three red Provoke cards are common, and one of them even gives provoke to other creatures. I don't see how "Green is #1 in Provoke".
That having said, I don't see how Assault fits in any color other than Red, since it's pretty much the only color that changes cards into damage. There's a difference between 'creatures' (or any other permanent), 'spells' and 'cards'. I wish I could link you to the cake-baking example, but I forgot where have I seen it.
White obviously gets more direct damage than green, though most often it's conditional and reactive.
And again that having said, I guess it's still up to you if you insist on Assault to be green, but I'd suggest that it should come so cheap - 6 damage to a creature is very undercosted, not to mention that by itself it's a 6/5 untargetable creature for 5 mana.
Level 2 Judge
Token and Playmat Store
Beyond the Guildpact
You're right - this is a very Channel/Cycling style ability. Keywording them does several main things:
1. As keywords, you can tutor for them. Just as you Cycle a card (game term), you can assault a creature or defend against a source or trascend... thus whenever you "transcend" a card, you may do X... a la Astral-Slide style abilities. Joy 3 years later when WOTC brings them back You can also do things like this "Assault costs you 1 less to play"...
2. By tying the keyword to power and toughness, it allows you to do Teferi-like tricks. Teferi gives all your creatures flash... even in your library. That one white guy gives all your creatures +1,+1 anywhere... meaning that your 2/2 assault guy deals 3 damage instead of two. And you really can't do the same so flavorfully. I mean, sure, you can say "Whenever a creature from your hand would assault a creature, instead it assaults that creature for X+1 damage, where X is the amount of damage it would otherwise do."
Channel - a nice ability - would be incapable of such interactions.
Long story short, keywording them makes it so those iconic "power" and "toughness" printed on the card DO SOMETHING even when you "channel" it.
The fact that I've used the mechanic on several cards in the set... upwards of a dozen+ is thanks to the simplicity of the design... instead of wordy Moonfolk, you get a since simple wizard with an ability you probably won't use in limited unless you're searching for your answer/finisher...
Best of all, since it's keyworded, you can stick this stuff on expensive, wordy creatures at the rare level w/o the reminder text. And if Akroma's any evidence, people like that sort of thing...
What other kind of combat is there?
Form of the Dragon is all about flavor. Moat surrounds you with a moat that most creatures can't get over. Form of the Dragon turns you into a dragon. Most creatures cannot WALK up to a FLYING DRAGON and attack it. Provoke is that a creature is so good at hunting it can hunt any prey it wants or engage in combat with whatever it wants. Assault is about forgetting a spell to kill a dude. Where's the flavor?
Where is this flavor, then, for Assault in green? I cannot find it.
Guild ability being used by another guild
Graveyard effects
Done:
1 Mana Legendary Permanent
Kamigawa re-done
1. That's the point - there's creature on creature action, and there's someone throwing a fireball at something. Assault is clearly thematically the former, though it is mechanically the latter.
2. Assault is all about flavor... creatures are sent on effectively suicide missions to hunt down other creatures... it's another way of having a creature hunt down another creature. Provoke is long-term, Assault is short term... Much like "bee sting", discarding a bear to do 2 damage to something is a "bear strike"... discarding a dragon is a "dragon blast"... discarding an angel is "divine justice"... that's the theme I'm pushing. It just so happens I'm asking for the theme to be keyworded because as a mechanic, it's instrumentally valuable - single-handedly provinging over 50% of the removal in the format - and certainly 80% of the "inefficient" removal that, were they not on creatures, people would regard as "limited essentials - but poor cards." Strangling Soot's never constructed playable, neither is a 2 mana shock that only hits creatures. But toss that on a 2/2 for 2 or 3, and people start to think twice. It's exactly the motivation that lead to Assault/Battery seeing play. On a lesser note, it's part of my push to make sets have all playable cards. I don't mean cards that are good in all formats, but I mean cards that are good in at least one format.
3. One again, I cast "Bear Strike" on your Bob. I make it so that a wild bear walks up to Bob, claws his face in, then walks away. THAT is the flavor. I don't summon the bear, but I temporalily enlist him to do something for me. Now, I COULD summon him... but it would take time for the bear to get over his "summoning sickness". Then he could be sent at my opponent at will. Long term end - the bear attacks my opponent. Short term sacrifice - I cause the bear to do one limited attack...
I posted them to take criticisms. Power level, theme, etc. But make no mistake, I put at least a little thought into the mechanics. I'm not some kid who says "boy howdy, I'd love to see a green counterspell, I'd love to see a white card that destroyed any creautre, or a black disenchant..."
Thus far, people have been reminding me that green doesn't get dirrect damage - despite the fact that it does. Despite the fact that it gets a lot of straight up dirrect damage, especially based on creatures, etc. Despite the fact that there are only 3 colors that have EVER gotten unconditional damage. Blue got pinging. Red gets shocks/etc. Green gets shocks for 4 mana. Blue's was "out of the current color pie", and red has become THE color to work with. Green, however, gets burn for flyers, burn based off of creatures (strength in numbers), etc. White gets "Combat burn" and to a lesser extent, non-white burn, black gets "life loss" and "drain life" burn varients. If you want to ignore the past; fine. I'm not actually arguing that green should get assault because it's BURN, I'm arguing green should get assault because it's CREATURE DAMAGE, though of a special type.
As for "assault" in white, the problem is you'd need to restrict it to combat... which means it's bad for red and black and all the other "damage" colors. Red gets all sorts of damage, but it also gets creature-only damage... usually as substandard limited filler. Black gets all sorts of damage, but gets a lot of creature kill in general. Green... definately doesn't like player burn. Assault could have any number of restrictions to make it worse. I advocate cutting the ability to hit players, as burn that doesn't hit players can cost a lot less than burn that does (See Lightning Axe... 5 damage for 1 mana and 2 cards that can hit a player is near-broken. Shrapnelblast, for example, is a finisher of choice. Add 5 unrestricted damage onto an optional creature... and it's amazingly powerful... and thus needs to be "overcosted"...). We could make it sorcery speed... to make it harder to have combat tricks - but I take it that combat tricks are both fun and more strategically valuable. We could make it "combat only" - but the theme I'm suggesting is that I see a creature I want to summon... but instead, just gain control of it for a quick attack. Meanwhile the "combat only" theme usually involves people firing arrows or something - and that's nothing like the creature attack I'm advocating...
I do want to hear criticism on the abilities; thus far people have only commented that Assault isn't a green ability. To which I respond "yes, it is... here's why" and people respond "no, see, it's thematically creature combat, but actually burn!!!!" ... despite the fact that I also argued that green gets burn. Only one of my arguments needs to be true for assault to be green (thematically creature combat, green gets burn) - and I have yet to see anyone to effectively attack both arguments).
Actually, check Oddessy block. Graveyard theme. Traditionally, black and green are the graveyard colors... then some white. But in Oddessy, EVERYONE had the theme. Block themes can go throughout all colors; so legendary cycle pf 5/5s or not, themes can invade the entirety of a set. Remember the "enemy colors" set? But enemy colors don't work together... and it's definately not the norm!
Simple is good... no doubt. But when you see some Akroma Variant with several keyword; you know that'll appeal to some subsection of the population - even if it's not you. Keywording allows you to do this.
You're right - the primary "problem" with this mechanic to become "constructed playable" is that it doesn't hit players... most players think "burn" its anything. When you show them lava spike, or dead/gone... they're less pleased and rightfully so. But that's where the creature comes in. When you need to burn a creature, burn. When you need a creature to deal damage to an opponent, summon it.
The primary reason "Assault" shouldn't hit players is because if it did, it'd have to go up in cost tremendously... and wouldn't appeal to players. A 2/2 bear that could shock opponents in green would have to cost 2 to cast and 4-5 to shock. A 2/2 in red with the same ability would need to cost 3 to play and 3 to use. And while they're still limited playable, they look a lot less "fun" and a lot less constructed playable. I advocate sacrificing the (degenerate) ability to trade creatures in your hand for dirrect damage to a player in order to make them cheap enough to see play. I'd also argue that creatures like this would surely see play in gruul like decks. Early game, you play your 2 drop. Mid game, you burn their blockers and hit them for 2 with your 2nd turn bear.
1. Assault is red. But it is not WHITE! White doesn't get unrestricted burn. And it definately doesn't get creature removal! How can you justify giving white dirrect damage? Even if it's only to creatures?
Fling and Assault do two thematically different things. Fling says "Hi, I own you. I'm gonna throw you at something. Swing your swords and bite on the way down. Thanks." Assault says "Listen to me Tick. You're under my control. Go steal that device for me, and I'll let you go afterwards"... radically different things, thematically.
Assault represents - at least in green - a different kind of summoning of creatures.
Assault in red... of course... usually involves some jerk goblin setting something on fire... or some dragon breathing fire then flying off (again, this is akin to the green theme). Assault represents creatures doing what they normally do, but only once instead of several times.
Now, the strange thing is that in that quote I'm not describing a combat step, in a combat step I attack players. Unless my creaturs have provoke, then I can send them to attack creatures.
If you don't buy the theme, fine. I know it might be kind of a stretch. Ignore it then. What do you think of the other (non-green) assault cards. about the transcend cards?
No, the effect is the same. The story is not. Lighting Helix is not a Consume Spirit. It's functionally similar, but not story-line similar.
Relentless Assault says "I attack again"... I fail to see how this is in any way creature on creature combat.
Note: Your best option is to say "look, Magus of the Arena is red..." as it has a similar feature to the keyword's story.
Perhaps. However, I take it that the flavor - the story - can easily tell this tale, while the mechanic - creature-based-burn, is instrumentally valuable.
Blocking doesn't capture "I attack your creature", Provoke does... kind of. This does... kind of... to. Like provoke, I choose a target and my creature goes over and claws in their face. ;P
If you don't buy it, fine. The flavor is there. The function is there. It's win-win. Now the only question is whether it's green or not.
But is it costed right?
Ability words suck; and if we make it like that - it's just damage prevention. If we make it like I suggest, it's targeted damage prevention that trades a card in hand for damage prevention - historically a worthless thing. When it's on a creature, though, the CREATURE will see play (people have been forcing into playing 1/1s for 3...), and every once in a while... people might end up using the ability to do what Healing Salve does. The options make the cards more viable, and "Defend" forced "damage prevention" into the big leagues... as in people will actually play it. Eventually, I take it, that people would even look for cards with defend - take them higher than those without - simply because of the utility.
I take it that this is the most neat keyword - Transcend on equal power-toughness creatures can be costed relatively cheaply, on more expensive creatures it's just card-filtering and in limited a nice way to deck yourself, trigger madness, or generally get threshold. Trancend on creatures with more toughness than power is a funny situation - trancending them becomes a losing proposition... except in extended where turn 1 draw 1, discard 3 is amazing in ichorid-style decks. However, transcend with power greater than toughness makes it so that you net card advantage. Draw 2, discard 1 at instant speed probably costs U2. The fact that this simple, iconic card-filter, card-draw ability is tied in with creature p+t makes it so that "simple" spells - Thirst for Knowledge, council of the soratami could be dropped in the set featuring this ability; much like how assault lets red get less instant/sorcery burn spells overall.
You're right, too, that all colors can get this. Black will probably involve some "cost" like:
Scrying Bones :1mana::symb::symb:
Creature - Skeleton
:symb:: Regenerate ~
Transcend - :symb:, Pay 2 life.
2/1
Red is harder...
Goblin Cronicmancer :1mana::symr::symr:
Creature - Goblin
Transcend - :2mana::symr:
Whenever ~ is discarded, target opponent may pay 4 life. If they do, until end of turn, whenever you would draw a card, instead you don't.
3/1
Green... green's even tougher:
Selection Elemental :1mana::symg::symg:
Creature - Elemental
Transcend - :2mana::symg:
If ~ is in your hand, it gets +1,-1 for each creature you control.
2/2
White seems a bit hard too...
Oblation Mancer :2mana::symw:
Creature - Human Cleric
Transcend - :1mana::symw:, Shuffle creature you control into it's owner's library.
3/1
Raidendart... (in response to post #14)
1: I see you don't get jokes.
2: I get that. I don't see why it's green though. A lion isn't going to attack something it's fairly sure it can't beat. A lion will gladly go after the zebra, but why in the hell would it pick a fight with the elephant?
In White, the ability makes sense. The creature is selflessy sacrificing itself to eliminate a threat for the greater good. That's white all over.
In Red, the ability makes sense. Red is the color that gets hasty creatures and plenty of surprise attacks, so it makes sense that would get creatures that could ambush stuff. In more of a stretch, it also fits into the short-term gain theme of red, where you could get a one-time strike with a creature, or play that creature and probably get more out of it.
The ability is also Black in a way, because Black doesn't care about anything but itself, so the planeswalker would gladly sacrifice it to kill something.
3: Short term gain, long term loss? That's Red, sir.
Assault doesn't make sense in Green because Green cares about Green. Simply put, in nature, if an animal doesn't think it can last in a situation, it tries to get away from that situation. The lion will attack the zebra but not the elephant because it knows it at least has a good chance against the zebra, but not a popsicle's chance in hell against such a big creature as an elephant. Animals in nature don't go on suicide missions, not even hivemind creatures like ants; Ants protect the existence of the hive (wrong word, but whatever) and more importantly the Queen, as she's the most important ant of all. The ant goes into situations where it may very well get killed for the greater good, not to take out as much as possible with it; ants are philosophically white.
Why should Green get creature-based burn, anyways? Flying hosers like Hurricane and Squall Line make sense beyond the whole 'Enemy of Blue, thus Hate Flyers because Flyers are primarily Blue" argument. They work because they're using the environment and the land to do what must be done. Of course a hurricane will affect creatures on the ground, but Hurricane doesn't because of mechanical balances.
Mechanical balances aside, Assault doesn't feel green because it requires the animals to be selfless, which natural order certainly is not. Strength in Numbers works because it's multiple creatures taking on one. The lone ant will die at the fangs of the spider, but a colony of ants will overwhelm and kill it. In Green, Assault is a suicide with no benefit towards the one actually making the strike, which doesn't make sense for green.
In a specific enough case, Green can get burn, i.e. usage of natural terrain or 'strength in numbers' type philosophy. But Assault doesn't fit either of those qualifications.
Green also gets ways to fiddle with creatures, such as Flash and Provoke. Still, they mess with combat in a very direct and physical way. Flash is flavorful as a master of hiding or ambushing, and Provoke is tracking prey. And yet, a King Cheetah can't jump from hiding or catch up to a Shanodin Dryads because it can't fight what it can't see. A King Cheetah with Assault, though, could, because... why?
Green does get burn, and it does get ways to influence damage. Influencing damage, however, is almost ALWAYS dealt with in the combat step, which Assault is not restricted to, and Assault in no way captures the flavor of an overwhelming advantaged attack. It simply does not make sense in Green.
1. Deadpan.
2. Lions run into elephants all the time in constructed. The NEAT thing about assault is that you don't worry about the creature... it's not a creature it's a spell that says "this creature attacks this other creature"... it's not unlike provoke or red/black's forcing a creature to attack (although it's "your" creature you're forcing to attack.).
In white, if you look at it as self-sacrifice, then it doesn't count. You're confusing "greater good" with "assasination"... which seems more black to me. But the flavor is that I cast "bear beats you up" on bob. Or I cast "dragon breaths fire on you" on my oponent's 0/5 wall.
You're right about black and red, but I don't see white getting this ability.
But I do see green. Green is all about nature, in which animals stalk their prey and do so without getting in a fight, they just assault them (ambush was another possible term... but I want something generic enough since the ability is intuitive and exciting). Thematically, what color gets "bear gets off his lazy ass and claws your face in"? Since green got Bee Sting, it's got to be green. The fact that it's good removal is just icing on the cake.
3: Yeah... but think of it as a split spell. "Summon bear" or "bear strike"... both seem green to me (flavor wise). Now try it with "summon angel/angel strike" and "summon wizard/wizard strike"... an angel killing something better have a drawback (I'm all for drawbacks to splash this to different colors), but blue damned well better not get this "fighting" mechanism. Green, on the other hand, fights.
Quick asside: Do I want to see green get the bulk of the removal in ever set? No. But in mirrodin this didn't really warp the format - nor would it do so here. The game necessarily goes through cycles - this is a means of giving green dirrect damage - something it deserves (again, not nearly as efficiently as red... but we've seen substandard white naturalize varients see play mind you - before disenchant came back).
Assault is green for the same reason bee sting is green - sometimes animals fight for their own. Note - I'm in no way implying that an assaulted creature is killed; rather when you assault with it, the cards treated like any other spell - put into your yard. The fact you can reanimate a wurm afterwards... is no more thematically daunting than after it's milled to your yard.
As you say yourself, green gets burn, green gets combat damage, green gets creature on creature combat, and green gets to ambush and surprise the enemies. So... what about Assault isn't green? YOU seem to think it's because it's suicide - which means we're just thinking of what's going on differently. I imagine the animal on the card being engaged mid-strike; as if it was a spell card. And I no more expect the "theme" of casting an assault on Bob (losing your bear) to be any more "killing the bear" than angelic blessing (or whatever that +3,+3 sorcery that gives flying is) is killing the angel at the end of turn.
Finally, green doesn't give two-shakes about the combat step - you're thinking white, and you're thinking provoke. Provoke involves the creature hunting down something else. Now green's good at that. Why do green creatures only hunt during your attack phase? Tim shoots things at any time - if I want to send a bear out to eat someone... why wait?
You bring up a lot of interesting criticisms; but I think most can be addressed by looking at the color wheel and then getting the right picture of what "assault" does. It's not flinging a creature at something (although surely I can make some red cards with this flavor), it's asking a favor of the creature instead of summoning it. Which is why it's not a spell and can't be countered As for color wheel concerns; I don't see too much wrong with assault - except it seems a little too widespread, since WOTC has made burn primarily red - by their own admission because red is hard to design for. G/B/R all sacrifice creatures for gain, all do dirrect damage, and all sacrifice long term resources for short term gain (sac a saproling: X).
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/daily/mr57
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/daily/mr196
You really should read the whole lot of these, because understanding the color pie is invaluable for making good cards. I only linked the relevant ones, though.
An animal going to the graveyard after Assaulting definitely seems like it's dying. The 'Bake a Cake' example, on some level, explains the graveyard and library and other such tomfoolery.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/arcana/954
And unless you insist on arguing further, that's all I have left to say on the matter.
Now, for the other mechanics and such.
Assault: The mechanic is kinda cool, and it has some space to explore. The 'graveyard from anywhere' drawback is neat, and allows for making the creatures themselves above the curve. However, I think Pitthrowing Devil's loss of 4 life is a tad harsh, especially on a 2/1, and could be lowered to 2 life.
Defend: Preventing damage is pretty weak, stuck on a creature or not. In nearly every card with Defend on here, I'd rather wait and just play the creature instead of using it for Defend. Also, Wilderness Kinsmen is just wrong. It's far too versatile and overall doesn't really make sense.
Transcend: The coolest and most useful of the three. It's also highly abusive and could very quickly get out of hand. The blue ones are okay, except Sourcecatcher is messed up with High Tide, and Denial Minister is flat out too good. A filter effect and Force Spike for 2 is a bit much. The black ones are okay, though I think Thoughtgobbler Rats could make you lose another life or two. The Green one you posted above, though, is busted as all hell. With only two creatures out, it's a cheaper Harmonize. With any more than that, it's broken beyond beleif.
As a bit of an aside, effects that mess with power and toughness are written as "+1/+1", not "+1,+1". It's cleaner, more noticable, and is the correct way of templating it.
I assume you're refering to the green assault creatures as "stupid"... and defense as worthless... of course, I've argued the green has flavor and the white is like an additional ability that sometimes comes into play - more in limited than constructed...
Blocking is volintary. When a wolf attacks you in the middle of nowhere, it's not volintary - is it?
Flavor, function, and fleshing out what green's burn should be. If you want to ignore the fact that green gets burn, fine. But that sure sounds an aweful lot like me "ignoring" that white gets overcosted disenchants, or that red gets boring mid-range fat. You might not look twice at the cards outside of draft - but bee sting is bee sting.
The green's broken (well... too good). I scatter the seeds, then draw 5 cards for 3 mana... that sounds like a deck.
Black, however, is not. You turn 1 card into... 1 card. At the cost of 2 life and one black mana.
You're probably right, damage - not life loss.
One last thing about the green one. If it said "X has P+T= to the # of creatures you control"... then in your hand it's a 0/0 so tanscending it does nothing. Yes, the rules probably need to be revised slightly to allow creature cards in hand to get +1,+1 but whatever...
You don't create creatures - you SUMMON them. They already exist. Perhaps this is the problem we've been having...
You, and others, keep arguing that green doesn't get dirrect damage. But it clearly does. Green is more red than you think. If you think ALL green burn should be overcosted - fine. Add 2 to each of the green card's assault costs - they'll rarely see constructed play, but the flavor is there.
As for listening to others, I am. You've said over and over again that green doesn't get burn. But this is false. If you want to argue that WOTC has secretly nixed green burn - fine. I probably have to agree with you there. But that doesn't mean they should have. The flavor of bee sting is far, far different from that of shock... just like lighting helix is far different from Consume Spirit for 3. Just like Spark Elemental is far different from Savana Lions. Save role -same card types - same mechanics - different flavor.
If I can't sway your mind - fine. Don't pretend I'm not listening to you though, or paying attention to your arguments. I happen to disagree. So let's agree to disagree - and hell, let's agree we both have reasons for what we hold. NOW I take it that if we agree to disagree the question turns back to what I began with - did I cost assault appropriately on the green cards? Or should it cost, say, twice as much to reflect green's historic over-priced dirrect damage?
Never saw Jurassic Park, did you. Raptors do pick fights with the tyrant king. I didn't touch the analogy specifically because it doesn't make sense. Not only are there plenty of suicidal creatures (my savana lions attacks into your untapped elephant...), but your analogy - in nature I take it - is just false. Watch jurassic park. It's a good movie.
I don't take offense - I'm glad someone's willing to offer feedback. I'm just surprised people are so unclear that green gets burn. I guess I blame wizards, as they've said it time and time again - red is hard to design, the hardest - so they just funnel all burn into it. Even green-flavor burn. Even overcosted burn.
Amazing. Simply amazing.
Timespiral isn't a good judge of the color pie. Ravnica isn't a good judge of the color pie. Mirrodin isn't a good judge of the color pie. Kamigawa? Goblins that make tokens? Meloku? Bah!
EVERY ability can be accessed by mupltile colors. Red gets burn 1st, green second. Black gets "drain life" burn - which is far more cost efficient than green burn. Burn is all over the color pie. However, as I've argued in the past - red is hard to design for and WOTC has fallen in the trap of giving it all the "normal" burn spells - not so much because, like blue, it's the only one with access to them - but because it's easy.
But, to recap:
Flavor: It's creature combat, much like provoke - much like bee sting. If you want to argue against this, you've got an uphill battle.
Function: Green historically gets inefficient burn. Creature-only burn is inefficient. Are you going to argue against this? I'm not sure you can - "It's been a while" means nothing -until last year, it's been a while since instant-speed discard. It's been a while since blue got cheap efficient flyers. It's been a while since black reanimated a creature at the cost of life... since black paid life to draw cards... yikes! "It's been a while" isn't an argument against something; it's an argument for it.
SO I fail to see what the problem is. I think that green's "burn" ability has been dramatically underdevelopped. It gets effiicent anti-flying burn, it gets bad "all around" burn... if we make creature-only burn (notoriously the bad not-constructed worthy burn) relatively cheap in green (not as cheap as in red though) - then green starts getting a lot better in limited (though since it's getting bad burn, it's not as good as - say - red). Do it sparingly, and I doubt it'll even warp limited. It's not as if the new green pacifism makes people draft green for removal
Green does not get burn.
It's just that many of us have decided not to argue against raidendart any more as he seems rather unyielding in his beliefs despite the overwhelming amount of people that disagree with him.
Constantly citing Bee Sting, a card from over 10 years ago, is not a solid case.
Constantly citing Time Spiral block cards, a throwback to old times, is not a solid case.
Constantly citing Planar Chaos cards and using them as a basis for the current 'colour pie' is not a solid case.
With no offense, raidendart, it seems like you have not been playing this game for too long. This is evident by your constant tendency to cite newer, more familiar sets when critiquing other people's cards and your shaky grasp of the overall grand 'colour pie'. Please take some time to consider the arguments of people that have been playing the games and especially designing cards longer than you have.
Thank you.
First off, did you even READ anything that I linked to?
Why? What about Green, the color of life and growth, says "Yeah, I'm willing to stunt life and/or growth to suit my own needs"?
Deadpan.
1. A Savannah Lions attacking into an untapped elephant is either a player with a combat trick or dumb as hell.
2. Jurassic Park... is... a... MOVIE. News flash: Movies aren't necessarily the greatest gauge of reality! The Matrix was a movie, but you don't see us flying around in cyberspace while being sucked dry of life by robots. Spiderman is a movie, but you don't see a geeky news reporter be bitten by a radioactive genus of spider which alters his DNA structure and gives him fantastic, superhuman abilities. Groundhog's Day is a movie, but you don't see a disgruntled weather reporter living the same day of his life for 10 years. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is a movie, but you don't see wonderful candy factories filled with rivers of chocolate and tiny orange dudes. Starship Troopers is a movie, but you don't see us flying into space and killing bug monsters in horrifying bloodbaths. The Lion King is a movie, but you don't see critters on the plains of Africa acting out the story of Hamlet. Snakes on a Plane is a movie, but you don't see devious criminal masterminds sneaking mother****ing snakes onto mother****ing planes to kill witnesses who are supposed to testify against them. Phallus in Wonderland is a movie, but GWAR, the rock band from space, doesn't get the Cuddlefish of Cthulu stolen by Edna Granbo and the Morality Squad, who also bioengineered the mutant beast Tiny whose sole purpose is to destroy GWAR.
Bears don't plop out of the sky, punch something in the face, then poof away. Bigass beast monster things don't plop out of the sky, punch something in the face, then poof away. 3-ton wurms don't plop out of the sky, punch something in the face, then poof away. Summoning these things gives them summoning sickness. It's one of the basest rules for creatures; they tend to have summoning sickness. You can't just transport 6,000 lbs. of wurm through extradimensional barriers and expect it to be able to do something right away by it's own power. Assault happens too fast for it to make sense in green.
I summon a bear to do my bidding
Bear: barfs
Me: Yo. Bear. 'Sup?
Bear: What the hell, man? What was that for?
Me: Well, uh, y'see, I'm kinda in a duel to the death right now, so uh...
Bear: barf Oh god, just get to the point already.
Me: Okay, could you like, hide in a bush and jump out at that? points to orc
Bear: Yeah yeah, fibarfne, just get me back home afterwards. Soo nautious...
orc powerbombs me
Bear: Okay, I'm good, let's do this!
Me: What the hell, bear? What is your problem?
Bear: Did... did you NOT just see me puking all over the place?
Me: But I summoned you to do my bidding!
Bear: Wha, wha, wha. jumps on orc
That's how I see it anyways. Creatures with haste have haste because they're fast and quick to adapt to situations. Hell, even Unyaro Bee Sting was 'slow': it's sorcery speed, hinting that you can't just summon bees and expect them to do your bidding immediately.
I summon bees to do my bidding
Bees: barf
et cetera
Yes, because a Gatherer search for the term 'damage to target' shows 19 green results. Four of those are actually Instants or Sorceries with the intent of dealing damage or destroying creatures. Everything else is on a creature, which is then usually flying hate, or Splintering Wind, which uses the power of nature, not anything creaturelike, to inflict damage.
By that same logic, then Blue should really get some more top-notch burn, because it's been a while. We should reprint the Power Nine, because it's been a while since they've seen Standard play. It's been a while since every game was essentially a coinflip to whoever comboed out first, so let's make some broken engines waiting to be abused. And hey, let's jump outside of Magic! It's been a while since Jewish people have been wrongly persecuted; I think it's time for another Holocaust.
You went way beyond making your point. This is trolling.
Huricane begs to differ. (Or "Saying it doesn't make it true.")
It's amazing how you just look the other way when green's been getting specialized burn all along.
All I'm arguing is that it's time it gets better, more useful burn.
I'm going to put this as delicately as possible: You say I haven't been playing long, but that I keep refering to Bee Sting... a 10 year old card. Thanks for proving yourself wrong. Next time - though - please don't waste our time by saying blatently false things that you KNOW are blatently false because you just typed the proof that they are false in the previous paragraphs.
In case you didn't realize this, the color pie changes... yet stays the same. Green has access to burn. It's had access to it for years - Arashi in Kamigawa, Hurricane in 10th... Squal Line... You DO play magic, right? I mean, I'm not talking to some pokemon player who thinks I'm trying to teach Bulbasaur Fire Blast, am I? Seriously, I think it's mighty bad form to come in, tell someone that your opinion is BETTER than his because "you've been playing longer" - even if it were true (Since Ice Age. You?).
The FACT of the matter is that green gets burn, green is #3 in burn. Now, what BURN does green get? As of 10th, hitting players is okay... as long as it's the symetrical hurricane. Hitting flyers is okay. Bee Sting, a 10 year old card, suggests that hitting creatures is okay... so long as it's flavorful and costs enough. So, when all is said and done - green gets burn. You're wrong. I'd be more than willing to discuss whether or not green gets THIS kind of burn. But since I've argued it does and all you can do is pretend I'm some newbie who doesn't "listen" to your advice; I'm not sure what else we can do. If WOTC prints a green dirrect damage spell within a year; you'll STILL argue it's an exception. If it prints one in 11th edition, you'll call it some kind of fluke.
So, I'll leave you with this: I announce my attack step, I provoke your creature. Sounds an aweful lot like removal, doesn't it champ?
What have I ignored? Have you said anything other than "Green doesn't get burn" in the past 3 pages? If so, I missed it and I'm sorry. If not, I've addressed ONLY that criticism for the past week. Thanks for ignoring me.
Yes. Did you?
Hurricane, Squal Line, Giant Growth, Oxidize, every green creature, creeping mold, etc. A good 85 percent of green cards deal with stunting the life of your opponent for your own needs. Oh, this is about whether or not green gets dirrect damage - which has nothing to do with "stunting life/growth" in any relevant fashion. At least no more than when my elf beats you in the face for one each turn...
Didn't watch bluff weak, did you?
Lions hunt in packs... and you, sir, are grasping at straws. And watch Jurassic Park. It's a GOOD movie.
True. They get hyponotised, walk out of the forest, smack something in the face, then walk away. That's the sound of me winning this argument.
Congrats for having a dialogue with a barfing bear. I've told you how *I* the designer of the mechanic see it working. Telling me how you imagine it and saying it's different from me doesn't make you right, it just makes it obvious you've not read what I wrote. Funny, considering you began by complaining I'm ignoring you.
Like a raging goblin? Point: Raidendart
You're right. If only green had some kind of instant speed combat trick that would make you think it could summon creatures fast... maybe if you could play creatures you control at instant speed... I wonder how much a 2/2 with that ability would cost?
I win?
Like I said, it's room for green to build on - and that would make it a more robust color. Now if you want to argue I should raise the assault cost on green creatures, I'd be more than willing to entertain that sort of discussion. Since you've already admitted several times over that green gets burn...
WOTC has said burn has left blue's color pie. But they've said no such thing about green. Oh, and Psionic Blast was recently reprinted... so... I win again? (tongue in cheek)
Suspend Moxen would go well with Lotus Bloom. And I do think they have a timewalk varient in Time spiral. I know you're not serious, or putting any effort into this criticism anymore - but you do realize that the power 9 has made numerous "returns" in various forms over the years, right? In a sense, the signets are mox varients, etc.
There have been several turn 1 wins in standard over the past few years... so what's your point, besides trying to be tremendously uncharitable to my position?
And I'm pretty sure it hasn't been that long since jewish people have been wrongly persecuted; although there are a bunch of people I would like to see shot and burried in a mass grave. Not jewish people per say... terrorists, bush-republicans (not normal republicans, BUSH-republicans), rapists, murderers, pedophiles, etc.
It'd been a while since snow covered lands, and that mechanic came back. I play snow lands in my Dralnu deck. It's been a while since flashback, I play Think Twice. Later.
Moderator Action: Don't double post. Use the edit button.
Please read the Forum Rules
The reason Bee Sting is not an acceptable card to use as a color pie reference is not simply because it is 10 years old, but because Bee Sting was printed before the color pie had a major overhaul. Just about any card that's not legal in Extended is an untrustworthy reference. Bee Sting would never be printed in today's color pie because in the current color pie green's direct damage is only done via Hurricane-style cards.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
To an extent you're right -green rarely gets "all out" dirrect damage cards, and when it does - they're far-far overcosted. Don't say "it'd never happen" -since, sadly, it has happened in Timespiral (I know, I know... timespiral doesn't count...).
But green gets solid "anti-flying" dirrect damage, as well as some other varients.
Two things though:
1. Any color can have access to any ability if costed enough. So if I want to have the assault cost on a 2/2 for 1G be 9G, surely the color pie would allow that.
2. "Damage only to creatures" has historically been "bad red burn" - filler. It carries with it a much different flavor than "unrestricted" burn. I'm arguing that green should dab into this element of the color pie - that it should get bad burn. It would make green far, far more robust a color - even if it is slightly overcosted.
Still, thanks for your comments.