Cool Card Design of the Day 12/10/2015 - Can Tail Slash be green? Seems like red doesn't necessarily need it, but it easily fits green's removal-via-creatures shtick.
I don't think this is green because green's usage of creatures-as-removal is meant to work only if the creature is 'better' than the opposing creature in some way, as far as I can tell.
Yes, this line has been blurred with effects like Epic Confrontation, but MaRo has said that deathtouch+fight and indestructible+fight aren't monogreen because they negate the fundamental aspects of green fight - the first guarantees a kill, and the second guarantees survival.
The intent is that, after factoring in pump, your creature be 'bigger' than the other creature in the right ways. It should never be a 'sure shot'. I think, since this effect doesn't put your creature at risk at all, it is the equivalent of granting indestructible, and thus can't be monogreen.
Of course, this is operating off of the precedence we have, and the current color pie philosophy. I can understand the argument to move this into green and while I'm not sure I agree with it - I haven't thought about it a lot - I can certainly understand it.
This is a reasonable and interesting question. I think this has ended up in Red rather than Green because Green has too much of the color pie and Red has too little.
That said, this is definitely not the kind of thing Red needs in its color pie (yay, more ways to say "damage on a card) and it could definitely enhance Green, which despite having a lot of the color pie, is drastically short at the Common level.
Fight cards of late have tended to include a pump to the creature anyway (e.g. Hunt the Weak and Wild Instincts), so I think needing a "better" creature as Inanimate says is not quite an issue.
I do worry if this effect would be too powerful for Green, but I think it is worth a try. WOTC moves very, very slowly in efforts to fix longstanding color pie issues, but I think a couple years of being less cautious about it could get us to a better equilibrium.
Hm. Interesting question. I think red does have some use for it -- red has lots of direct damage effects, but it's useful to have DIFFERENT ones, so there's some genuine question in deckbuilding.
And it would be a departure. Red has always, always, had all direct damage (apart from some very narrowly defined exceptions).
And you could do something similar with pump+fight.
But OTOH, it feels like it DOES make sense in green. Maybe it should happen.
Are the exceptions that narrow? White gets direct damage during combat, black gets it with lifegain attached, and green gets it against flying creatures.
Well, maybe not that small, but they're tightly bound, they don't really bleed outside them. I was surprised to see something like Leeching Bite (target +1/+1, target -1/1) outside black, ever, but Mark Rosewater complains about Hornet Sting because it's almost the ONLY example of non-red direct damage outside those exceptions.
Maybe in a red-influenced block, like Phyrexia was black-influenced block? :)
I'm leery of this, because it feels like a strictly better fight. And fight is one of the few really cool things green has got in common as of late.
Hunt is disproportionately good with deathtouch (usually your Sedge Scorpion has to die in order to kill another creature). It's also much better against creatures with high power and low toughness, but then again, direct burn kind of does the same thing as an already established red mechanic.
I think it's a problem it looks to much like fight abilities. And it isn't that cool. Making stronger green fight cards look way cooler if you put +2/+2 or indistrutable on it or something
"One day in Cardcrafting (a weekly meeting the design and development teams have to talk about more hardcore design and development issues), we began talking about fighting, the keyword action. Who was supposed to be the best at fighting? Green, everyone said. Then why did we give one-sided fighting to red (defined as a card where one creature damages another but that second creature doesn't fight back)? One-sided fight is just better than fight, and red, with all its direct damage, doesn't really need one-sided fight. So we're trying something new. We've moved one-sided fight to green. It still requires a creature to use (green's big restriction when it comes to removal), but allows green to deal with creatures, often without losing its own creature. I'm not quite sure where we're going to end up with this as the dust settles, but I'm curious to hear people's thoughts."
Cool Card Design of the Day
I don't think this is green because green's usage of creatures-as-removal is meant to work only if the creature is 'better' than the opposing creature in some way, as far as I can tell.
ReplyDeleteYes, this line has been blurred with effects like Epic Confrontation, but MaRo has said that deathtouch+fight and indestructible+fight aren't monogreen because they negate the fundamental aspects of green fight - the first guarantees a kill, and the second guarantees survival.
The intent is that, after factoring in pump, your creature be 'bigger' than the other creature in the right ways. It should never be a 'sure shot'. I think, since this effect doesn't put your creature at risk at all, it is the equivalent of granting indestructible, and thus can't be monogreen.
Of course, this is operating off of the precedence we have, and the current color pie philosophy. I can understand the argument to move this into green and while I'm not sure I agree with it - I haven't thought about it a lot - I can certainly understand it.
DeleteYou still need to have a bigger creature for this card to work as removal.
DeleteThis is a reasonable and interesting question. I think this has ended up in Red rather than Green because Green has too much of the color pie and Red has too little.
DeleteThat said, this is definitely not the kind of thing Red needs in its color pie (yay, more ways to say "damage on a card) and it could definitely enhance Green, which despite having a lot of the color pie, is drastically short at the Common level.
Fight cards of late have tended to include a pump to the creature anyway (e.g. Hunt the Weak and Wild Instincts), so I think needing a "better" creature as Inanimate says is not quite an issue.
I do worry if this effect would be too powerful for Green, but I think it is worth a try. WOTC moves very, very slowly in efforts to fix longstanding color pie issues, but I think a couple years of being less cautious about it could get us to a better equilibrium.
Yeah, this actually rewards/requires big creatures _more_ than Wild Instincts.
DeleteHm. Interesting question. I think red does have some use for it -- red has lots of direct damage effects, but it's useful to have DIFFERENT ones, so there's some genuine question in deckbuilding.
ReplyDeleteAnd it would be a departure. Red has always, always, had all direct damage (apart from some very narrowly defined exceptions).
And you could do something similar with pump+fight.
But OTOH, it feels like it DOES make sense in green. Maybe it should happen.
Are the exceptions that narrow? White gets direct damage during combat, black gets it with lifegain attached, and green gets it against flying creatures.
DeleteWell, maybe not that small, but they're tightly bound, they don't really bleed outside them. I was surprised to see something like Leeching Bite (target +1/+1, target -1/1) outside black, ever, but Mark Rosewater complains about Hornet Sting because it's almost the ONLY example of non-red direct damage outside those exceptions.
DeleteMaybe in a red-influenced block, like Phyrexia was black-influenced block? :)
I agree, Jack, I'm totally fine with this in red, but I think green could really use it too (and if only one can have it, green needs it more).
DeleteFor what it's worth, I think Leeching Bite was a straight-up color pie break.
DeleteIs the implication that so too is Hunt?
DeleteI'm leery of this, because it feels like a strictly better fight. And fight is one of the few really cool things green has got in common as of late.
ReplyDeleteHunt is disproportionately good with deathtouch (usually your Sedge Scorpion has to die in order to kill another creature). It's also much better against creatures with high power and low toughness, but then again, direct burn kind of does the same thing as an already established red mechanic.
I definitely wouldn't replace fight with Hunt effects, just sprinkle Hunt in occasionally.
DeleteStill, good points as always.
I think it's a problem it looks to much like fight abilities. And it isn't that cool. Making stronger green fight cards look way cooler if you put +2/+2 or indistrutable on it or something
ReplyDeleteMaRo talks about Nissa's Judgment:
ReplyDelete"One day in Cardcrafting (a weekly meeting the design and development teams have to talk about more hardcore design and development issues), we began talking about fighting, the keyword action. Who was supposed to be the best at fighting? Green, everyone said. Then why did we give one-sided fighting to red (defined as a card where one creature damages another but that second creature doesn't fight back)? One-sided fight is just better than fight, and red, with all its direct damage, doesn't really need one-sided fight. So we're trying something new. We've moved one-sided fight to green. It still requires a creature to use (green's big restriction when it comes to removal), but allows green to deal with creatures, often without losing its own creature. I'm not quite sure where we're going to end up with this as the dust settles, but I'm curious to hear people's thoughts."