That looks dangerous IMO.

Cards that may be relevant: Quicken, Leyline of Anticipation, Alchemist's Refuge, Vedalken Orrery

Also Savage Summoning.

It's worth noting that both Quicken and Savage Summoning have bonus effects (Draw a card vs. Can't be countered and +1/+1 counter.) But they're also both restricted to a specific card type.

I couldn't tell you if this is fair or not. I would say, however, that if this was restricted to colorless spells only, then it would seem pretty fair to me (with the bonus of not breaking the color pie, by giving black and red flash.)

The orrery does exist, and so colourless can do this. But yeah, a 0-cost feels risky.

Especially as this itself has flash; the orrery at least lets them see it coming.

"bonus of not breaking the color pie, by giving black and red flash."

That isn't how color pie works. A red deck having access to an effect because of colorless cards, isn't the same thing as a red card having an effect. In general, colorless cards can do just about anything color pie wise (see: Staff of Nin, Solemn Simulacrum, Scour From Existence or basically almost any colorless card at all).

Aside from that, Flash is a mechanic that is at least tertiary in every color (See: Fated cycle)

That "colorless cards can do just about anything color pie wise" is one of the most messed up factors in MTG design that undermines the whole idea of the color pie itself. WotC should really release a statement about rectifying this crucial flaw in the future that has gone unchecked for far too long.

"That "colorless cards can do just about anything color pie wise" is one of the most messed up factors in MTG design that undermines the whole idea of the color pie itself. WotC should really release a statement about rectifying this crucial flaw in the future that has gone unchecked for far too long."

It isn't at all. It's a very intentional and helpful part of the game. Generally artifacts that do something cost a bit more to make up for the fact they give every color access to something.

Let's take ramp for example. Green is supposed to be the best at ramp, so green gets cards that ramp you by 1, for 1 mana (Birds, like, 10 different elves). However, ramping is very important, so every other color can get ramping by 1 at 2 mana. Green is still the best at ramping in this situation, but commander would be hell for some color combinations (like boros) without access to at least /some/ ramp.

Anyways, the reason that this sort of stuff doesn't really hurt the color pie that much: Let's take burn. Because of, Staff of Nin, Gut Shot, Sword of Fire and Ice, ect, every color has access to burn. However, you almost certainly aren't going to make a remotely viable mono-blue burn deck because you can run some artifacts that do burn things.

Also also, aside from that, if colorless spells aren't supposed to be a slightly higher costed way to give each color access to a bit of everything, then we have 2 alternatives:

1. Give colorless it's own identity of things it is allowed to do, which would most likely still have to draw from other parts of color pie, and then would be giving all of that stuff to every color anyways, which is a lot of work and doesn't really do much of anything.

2. Only allow colorless to do things that all 5 colors are allowed to do. I'm not sure if you are aware, but that's /very/ little. Ironically, this card would actually still be okay color pie wise, because all 5 colors have access to flash, but aside from that... vanilla creatures, cantrips?

Honestly, you have a very poor understanding of how color pie works, and that's kinda frustrating because you think you understand it more than you do.

Even still still, even if you think that colorless shouldn't be allowed to do almost anything, that's what Wizard's thinks, and what they have thought, and how they've designed cards for 25 years.

@Aurelia:

Theoretically maybe, but costs are mostly a development thing and not really related to color pie per se. This has led to phenomena such as that colorless (artifacts) has arguably better ramp (among other things) in most formats than green itself.

Not so long ago one of the WotC main designer/developers admitted there being a problem with colorless cards of such that a card that would not be allowed to pass in one color but if the same card was submitted as an artifact then it would be allowed... and since designers only really suggest a mana cost and the development has the final say on power level - while not on the other hand really caring about color pie since that's not directly related to card's power - which can lead to colorless cards costing around the same that a card of certain color would not be "acceptable" at that CMC.

Anywayyy... I might say whatever I say, but you should always take whatever you read on random posts with a grain of salt (and generally as the author's opinion). I never claimed to be the world's expert on color pie. Usually I add "IMO" to such statements, but I don't always remember to do so. Your whole statement about me having a poor understanding of color pie seems almost reflective. What is it exactly that seemingly makes you an expert in this subject either?

Still, I would say that all the worst cards that blatantly ignore the color pie are colorless cards (swords equipment cycle, wayfarer's bauble, wurmcoil, solemn simulacrum, skullclamp, and those are just few of the ones that are also problematic developmentally as well) in that they can easily end up doing better the effect's that its actually corresponding color should do - which renders the whole division of effects between colors hypocritical if not worse.

As for your options, 2 is the obvious choice IMO, and something that I think was at least somewhat in effect before the old mirrodin (or so) came along and (colorless) artifacts became extremely common place. On a purely practical level, "artifact" type is not that different from "enchantment" type (compared to land, creature, and planeswalker that all carry their own rules baggage) in that it's essentially just a name for a different kind of permanent. Heck, you might have them both be just be permanents which would truly reveal the sickening ways in which colorless artifacts have been abusing their power with their convention based rules - the most crucial of being colorless though they have been breaking that as well. These "breaks" have gone to such lengths that they have non-flavor wise rendered the whole enchantment type quite useless if we consider the game on a purely abstract basis and ignore the phenomena/lore/story the cards are trying to convey.

Sorry if this ramble is exceedingly confusing but I'm not in the mood to go too much into this by gathering various articles, statistics, or whathaveyou to back my claims. Besides, on a truly fundamental level, much of this can be quite subjective - in that "what is it that the color pie is supposed to achieve?" or "what exactly does a break that would topple the color pie include or constitute of?" have no truly objective answers.

My point wasn't that colorless couldn't give red and black flash. My point was that that giving red and black flash was not preferable, if there's a desire to avoid it. Thus, giving flash to only colorless cards comes with a benefit: It doesn't break the color pie.

Giving flash to red and black also comes with a benefit: It breaks the color pie. There's a time and a place for both being in color pie, and breaking color pie. Figuring out the difference is what makes design interesting.

As far as I know, breaking the color pie would be going directly against its "tenets". While I'm not a fan of referring to the "Mechanical Color Pie 2017", in it MaRo states as following:

> Flash
> Primary: blue
> Secondary: green
> Tertiary: white, black, and red
> Everyone gets some access to flash. Blue gets it the most as it plays into the color's reactive play style. Green gets it as one of its versions of creature destruction. White, black, and red get flash when they functionally need it to get an effect to work, most often with reactive enters-the-battlefield effects.

I would "rank" it so that primary: blue & green, secondary: white, and then tertiary: red & black... but whatever.

Anyway, I also agree with this and don't really see anything that wrong with black or red cards with flash - especially when its crucial for the design to work. It still fits pretty well into the flavor, red being "fast" and black being opportunistic.

This card though... well, the fact it costs should immediately start running warning bells in designers minds.

I still really don't think that this breaks color pie in any way. Also, flash is actually more common in white than in green.

I understand how this design could be seen as a bit dangerous, but I really don't think it is. I really can't imagine a case where this would be broken. Leyline of Anticipation is 0 mana, and does the same thing, but for the entire game. 0 mana doesn't mean free, because it costs a card.

Also, if this just granted flash to colorless spells, that would be really underpowered.

Imagine that with the cost of one card in your hand (no mana), you could turn ANY non-land centered combo into an instant-speed trick. So you could drop it on the opponent's end step or whenever. For example, let's say you were playing against draw-go with a combo deck, and they were waiting on your turn with a counterspell and an instant speed draw. You "skip" so they would tap their mana for that draw spell on your end step, to which you can response with this and drop your combo.

If that's doesn't sound the least bit dangerous, I don't know what does.

What you just described is giving up a card in order to protect a combo, in a pretty specific situation. No part of that sounds dangerous to me. It only applies against 1 type of deck, which makes it maybe sideboard-able. It only works in a very narrow type of deck.

I really think you're over-evaluating this card, but I can't be sure as I haven't playtested it, but I think if this card was actually printed it'd see almost no serious competitive play aside from maybe a sideboard spot on a couple combo decks.

Yeah, like I said, it does cost a card and so does Pact of Negation - doesn't mean it's not dangerous. The thing is, that if we compare, say, a cost like to a , it can be said that one of those is 3x (300 %) greater. However, the difference between and is infinitely less, and this is even when we ignore that there are usually specific color requirements involved with non- costs.

My example was of vs one deck, but some similar trick could against any deck where there is any moment of them tapping out or being otherwise unable to answer (supposing they would've been able to do so to begin with). Also, "any combo deck ever" isn't that narrow of a definition IMO. Heck, this might be able to spawn a combo decks on its own with it requiring nothing at all from you - no color, nor even mana sources, just any deck you care to slap it in - and it being able to be played either proactively or reactively depending on the situation (where as effects like counterspells are always reactive for example).

None of us can be sure whether a hypothetical card would be busted or just trash. By dangerous I mean it has the potential, the obvious signs that indicate it might, to warp legacy or so, not to mention any newer format.

Where some storm decks are able to win the game on "turn 0" if they are the starting player, with this card they could now theoretically defeat you on upkeep, before the first main phase or draw phase, even if it's the first turn of the game and they are going second. I mean, gods have mercy.

I do kinda see a point about vintage storm, that being said, force of will exists, so it's actually really hard to warp vintage more than it already is.

Also, I don't think 0 mana is infinitely less than 1 mana. A 0 mana spell is 0 mana, /and a card/ instead of 1 mana and a card, so a 0 mana spell costs about half as much as a 1 mana spell. (assuming lotus petal is balanced).

I'm not interested in getting into this central argument. Mostly because I'm not going to pretend I know the answer (I don't.)

But I rather doubt Lotus Petal is balanced. The obvious reason for me: If it was balanced, Wizards would have reprinted it. It's such an obvious choice for a reprint. The ability is simple, and functional. The card is a big warm pile of gooey flavor leading all the way back to the original game. And the message boards would light up at the mention of its return. But Wizards hasn't reprinted it. I have to assume there's a reason for that.

Petal is restricted in Vintage. That's arguably the highest ban a card can receive... though interestingly it's "fully" legal in Legacy. Similarly, Ponder is also restricted in Vintage but legal in Legacy. However, it's banned in Modern so there's that. Petal hasn't been printed in Modern legal environment (as that would no doubt be very ill-advised), so Modern isn't a consideration for it.

For certain, these speak of specific environmental factors, such as combos and "free mana" being more prevalent the larger the card pool becomes. Still, in general, if a card is (possibly) problematic in Vintage, it can't exactly be a exemplar of great design, can it?

In this card's case, I would also fear it in legacy as well. As far as Modern goes, I can't really say off-hand, but the fact that it seems dangerous in Legacy+ formats makes me pretty convinced of it being a non-safe concept.

@Aurelia:

­ costs some mana. also costs some mana. With mana you can cast one of those thrice and the other twice.
­ though? You can cast it any number of times. Granted, spells don't have buyback , but the basic premise should be obvious with land drops being limited and all. Obviously, if it cantripped, then it would be the most broken card ever (likely more so than Black Lotus), but that would still be the case if cantripping was the only thing it did.