Conversation: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity

CardName: Interactive Green Cost: G Type: Pow/Tgh: / Rules Text: How to make Green more interactive. Flavour Text: Set/Rarity: Conversation Common

Interactive Green
How to make Green more interactive.
Updated on 04 Nov 2016 by amuseum

History: [-]

2016-09-05 23:34:03: amuseum created and commented on the card Interactive Green

No secret that Green is my least favorite color. I yawn at every green card that gets spoiled. Back in the days, I used to build Stompy and Elf ramp-combos, but that got old.

One thing I noticed is how few spells and abilities Green has that would be used on opponent's creatures. They always pride themselves to make the game more interactive, yet here is an entire color that scarcely target opponents' creatures.

Yea yea green is about creatures and combat, but what color isn't nowadays? Even the bad creature color Blue is forced to prioritize combat.

Green has a few niche effects that target opposing creatures. It has the most anti-flying hosers, but that's too narrow to maindeck. Rarely even worth to sideboard.

Another effect which it almost monopolizes is fighting. However it doesn't fit all archetypes, such as combo and control and tokens. Moreover it just feels like more combat outside combat.

Green occasionally gets fringe effects. Small burn occasionally sneaks into a set, despite Maro's detest.

One effect Green used to get quite a bit is tapping down. I think this could moved from White, who already has so many combat tricks and control effects. In fact, almost the whole Snake tribe in Kamigawa had this ability, and the tapped creatures couldn't untap at the next upkeep. Green also used to have fog spells that sometimes kept the creatures tapped for the next upkeep.

However, this effect overlaps greatly with Blue. Just keep Blue as the primary color, green secondary, and white distant third.

I think resurrecting green a distant third would be more likely if they ever went that route. They seem to be liking (and you seem to be completely ignoring) the new one-sided fight better, though.

I suggested that green be tertiary for prowess though none were receptive to the suggestion.

I think green's draw could be pushed a little, since (though it has been some time since I've checked Blogatog) green is supposed to be the second best color at drawing cards. Of course creature and combat based mechanics should have conditions through which green can draw, and its draw should of course be secondary to blue. Something like a creature with trample having "whenever this creature deals 3 or more combat damage to a player you may draw a card" could be a rare? Draw X cards where X is the number of creature tokens you control?

For what it's worth in Deshub I switched Break, a non-creature morbid, to be centered green instead of red since the mechanics were shard-colored and break had no business on mono-black cards.

One-sided fight is one-sided fight. Not much to say, it's not new interaction. It's just upgrade like shroud to hexproof.

Green being way too creature-focused is a huge liability and frankly stale. Like you just said, you want more green card draw, but must be creature based. Everything from green must be creature based. Why so narrow and one-dimensional?

By interaction I mean dealing with opponents' creatures directly. Not indirectly through combat, not creature-based like fight.

Ideally is to make mono-green control viable. One crazy idea to differentiate it from other control is prison-style. The least oppressive way is to force opponents to pay more mana to do stuff. Since green is color of ramp, then these prison could affect the green player as well, to feel less oppressive and fairer.

Again steps on white's toes, but again white already has too many control effects which aren't used to their potential.

Part of the problem with Green is that it's the color with the most upside on its creatures. This idea that Green isn't very interactive could be solved by making a number of riddle creatures. For example, the Tribute mechanic from Born of the Gods, or a number of Sphinx abilities would add a lot of depth to potentially powerful Green creatures, and open the door to player interaction. But thinking itself seems to be antithesis to Green's slice of the color pie, so that doesn't happen to often.

Personally, I've always liked Monger-type abilities: Abilities that can be used by any player, but are probably best for the player controlling the creature. For example, something like this:

Armor-Weaving Spider
Creature - Spider
­{4}: Put a +1/+1 counter on target creature. Any player may use this ability, but only when they could cast a sorcery.

Letting everyone share the abilities seems 'green-ish' (especially when the player with the most mana is the one being the most rewarded), while opening up the possibility for players to interact with each other more. Not much, I admit, but it's at least more interactive than just stapling trample and vigilance on this creature.

I suppose that to move away from green's creature emphasis there could be an focus on lands and enchantments, or at least find new ways to utilize lands and ramp. I think the hard part would be finding ways for green to be interactive and innovative and now tread upon other colors' territories. I always like punishing mana bases and I would put non-damage or destruction punishment for lands in green.

To test some these ideas I created Worldchanneler, Swell and Ruin, and Anticipatory Ambush.

I hear some of what you're saying, but it feels like, creature combat is THE most interactive part of the game, how is it that green isn't providing enough interaction?

Even cards like green removal and green card draw, which I like, feel like... surely there'd be a way to solve this creature with creatures. It's not like you don't have a creature-based removal -- fight on bigger creatures. It's not like you don't have creature-based card advantage -- multiple tokens, creatures that come back to life, auras which come back round again, etc.

­Divergent transformations should have been green instead of red. Polymorphing creatures is Simic, not Izzet. Red could transform lands and artifacts as alternative to losing land destruction. Transforming spells would be even more interesting for Izzet.

Restricting green to only creature -based interaction is the entire problem. People saying green pie is too small compare to blue. The problem is designers are shutting out an entire form of interaction from green. So of course it will be limited in its share of the pie. There are 7 card types, and you're saying green is only allowed to interact via 1 card type. Yeah that makes sense, no balance issue at all.

So in the end green has narrow card designs, narrow flavor, and narrow decks.

Nobody's saying green is only allowed to interact via creatures. It's just only allowed to interact with creatures using its own creatures.

On a side note: I miss provoke. How come that isn't evergreen and based in green?

@jmgariepy, it STILL is in green as far as I can tell (Avalanche Tusker, Lurking Arynx, Culling Mark). Clearly R&D don't see the need to use it any further (much less bring back provoke as a named mechanic) with fight as part of their green toolbox.

Add your comments:

(formatting help)
Enter mana symbols like this: {2}{U}{U/R}{PR}, {T} becomes {2}{u}{u/r}{pr}, {t}
You can use Markdown such as _italic_, **bold**, ## headings ##
Link to [[[Official Magic card]]] or (((Card in Multiverse)))
Include [[image of official card]] or ((image or mockup of card in Multiverse))
Make hyperlinks like this: [text to show](destination url)
How much damage does this card deal? Lightning Blast
(Signed-in users don't get captchas and can edit their comments)