[Theory] Color Pie Discussion: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity
Mechanics

CardName: Blue: Lifegain == #cards in hand Cost: U Type: Shift Pow/Tgh: / Rules Text: Gain life equal to number of cards in hand. Flavour Text: Set/Rarity: [Theory] Color Pie Discussion Common

Blue: Lifegain == #cards in hand
{u}
 
 C 
Shift
Gain life equal to number of cards in hand.
Updated on 26 Sep 2017 by Tahazzar

Active?: true

History: [-]

2017-09-22 09:08:11: Tahazzar created and commented on the card Blue: Lifegain == #cards in hand

Premise

Would gain life gain restricted to very limited set of parameters. {u} could gain life equal to number of cards in hand in one-shot effects.

I don't think these kind of effects play/fit that well in {w} since it doesn't have many ways to refuel.


Flavor

­Ivory Tower and Venser's Journal already indicate them being {u}.


Color Shifts


Notes

Planar Chaos suggested this could be {g} with Sophic Centaur.

I'm also been thinking of something like

> {1}, Put a card from your hand on top of your library: You gain 3 life

in {u}. It's kinda like time reversal in that you revert your draw and the (assumedly) received damage.


Examples

Didn't you mention in a comment somewhere that you felt that blue already had too much of the pie within it's ability set? Why do you feel that blue needs access to life gain?

I'm in particular agreement with Sophic Centaur - life gain and card draw are green, this mechanic is following both. Flawowise Gerrard's Wisdom and Presence of the Wise fit very well with green, which is the color of wisdom/intuition over blue's smarts/knowledge.

What is the idea of putting this scaled life gain into blue.

What do you mean with your reference to Ivory Tower and Venser's Jounal. Both cards are colorless, so how are they indicative of blue?

I assume he's talking about the flavour of both, which are very blue. Venser is a primarily blue character (secondarily white), and just read Ivory Tower's flavour text.

@Link:

Yes, but I specified that {u} has too many effects to which it holds monopoly on. Ie. effects that have no real secondary or tertiary color contenders. There are also some effects I would move out entirely from the color so giving something little as "compensation" there and there is reasonable.

@SecretInfiltrator:

­{g} life gain is in a strange place where pretty much everything the color does (including card draw) is related or requires creatures. Somehow life gain doesn't match to that at all though. Actuality, it's like the opposite: {w} is the one with the lifelink dudes which is pretty weird considering. Also the flavor of {w} lifelink is questionable IMO: in {b} as a parasite/leech flavor it makes sense, but in {w}... While {g} lifelink is something I've played with I haven't found it satisfactory enough. That's another topic though.

I was indeed referring to the flavor of the two artifacts: I listed that statement under "Flavor" header.

Some of your ideas for shifts I question, but I really don't find this one appropriate or necessary at all.

These are here to be questioned: "discussion" is in the name after all.

Thinking in terms of "necessity" it becomes pretty hard to justify anything the colors do really IMO.

While you might be right about this not being "appropriate" could you articulate a particular reason for that?

Well, the entirely of the color pie is, of course, arbitrary, so there's no one perfect, right answer for why it feels wrong. What follows are the reasons that spring to mind for me:

• Three colors are already capable of providing life gain, with a variety of different triggers. If blue was allowed to gain life, red would be the only color incapable of it.
• Blue's focus is generally on preventing and delaying harm rather than recovering from it. This is reflected in it's counter spells, tap effects, and bounce.
• Blue's focus, more than any of the other colors, is on the mind rather than the body.
• I don't believe that blue and white need more mechanical overlap.
• Blue already plays the tempo game through other means. I don't think adding life gain to blue's suite is beneficial to gameplay.

I could probably think of more, but I'm very tired.

This is very good as it's much easier to comment on.

1) I'm seeing a theme with my way of thinking since this came up in the other topics as well: I seemingly prefer for an ability to only have a single color that absolutely can't do it. Defined by negation I guess.
2) Could this also mean that {u} could get damage prevention? Its creatures certainly do it from time to time (ie. Fog Bank). Energy Field is an interesting, yet flawed, design... Also, I originally conceived Walking the Edge as a mono-{u} card.
3) This is a good point. However, since this effect is tied to hand size, it has this "Mind Over Matter" vibe going for it that could justify it regardless I think.
4) Fair enough. Still, if lifegain is centered on {w} shouldn't its allies {g} and {u} have at least some access to it? Also, why does {b} have lifegain again? It's flavored as draining yes, but what life gain does is make you healthy - even over your starting life total. {b} is a bit questionable there... Maybe: "(((Black: Temporal Life)))"?
5) Hmmm, hard to say. This would be a quite confined ability so I'm not sure how many various things you could do it without pushing it too much. I mean, I like playing Ivory Tower and Venser's Journal a lot in my {u} decks - much more so than in non-{u} decks. However, I don't think I would be comfortable with a blue enchantment having this ability as a repeatable effect so maybe that point is null.

Regarding #4: I don't see why allies should be able to have tertiary access to something just because one color is primary in it. It's a common theme among a lot of mechanics, but I don't see it as a rule or guideline for bleed. Blue rarely pays life for things, but black does. Red's allies do not get rummaging/looting - that's more closely linked with Blue. Personally I feel like {b} has a better claim in lifegain than {u} does.

­{u} already has enough tools to stall opponents - no need to add lifegain to that list.

Should they though? That could increase mechanical structure (juxtaposition of colors) within color pie, couldn't?

Pretty much each color has access to stalling stuff. For example, {b} can do mass creature removal - something that blue can only dream of.

Red and white are primary in first strike their allies should be secondary in it? Is that the level of argument we are getting here, because that's not what allied and enemy status should be about - even if you care about these labels beyond having a decriptor of color relations.

Black has lifelink because black has drain spells and hence probably the best claim on that keyword for all colors, because one of the two ways black gets to gain resources is through parasitism: I gain by making others lose. Arguably this stealing of resources is even more definitely black than "power at a cost"/"deal with the devil" kind of effects since those overlap with red's shortsightedness.

The flavor of Ivory Tower is not blue. It's not "you have life gain, because life gain is how we represent knowledge", but "we want to reward your behavior, so have a cookie for behaving like you are supposed to", which seems more white. Both of these artifacts flavorwise hint at something white-blue (Venser's color identity in the set the artifact is from IIRC).

How often do you want this effect at all? Life gain per se is already incredibly narrow.

It wasn't that much of an argument. It was more of a "What if?" Like, imagine if we didn't know the order in which the colors are listed in the color pie. You were told that there existed ally and enemy relations. Then you would be given a bunch of hybrids cards to determine which of the color pair relations are enemies and which are allies. Could one do it? I doubt it. So that could be another standpoint when it comes to restructuring the color pie (amplify ally relations). I might create a topic for that at some point...

Okay, so black drain spells. Let's say we have this card: Sanguine Helix

  • {b}{b}: We've been taught that this is okay. Flavor trumps all ;)
  • {w}{r}: Damage color + life gain color -> makes perfect sense.
  • {b}{r}, {w}{b}: Acceptable but feels quite awkward.

So a color has an effect that can be mimicked if one of its allies and of its enemies are combined. Isn't that nonsensical?

Also, how is "sacrifice power for knowledge" not blue? That's crazy, man. Hand size is many times determined by your capability to draw cards so mechanically it's {u}-related as well.

> How often do you want this effect at all? Life gain per se is already incredibly narrow.

Eh, Idk. That's the thing I'm thinking of as well. However, it's not like all the effects in the color pie exists because they are especially required.

Regarding your comments about Sanguine Helix:

• "We've been taught this is okay. Flavor trumps all." Ignoring that the entire structure of the color pie is arbitrary, this effect is entirely in black's mechanical color pie. It's been that way for a long time, so if course it's okay. It's not even a flavor thing.
• What do you mean by saying that {r}{b} is an acceptable color for the spell but {b}{r} isn't?
• I think you're way too stuck on the fact that colors are "allies" and "enemies." We still use these terms because of where the colors are placed on the pentagram, but really, they aren't that literal anymore. Each color has something in common with each other color and each color somehow opposes each other color.

I don't foresee you finding an ally in your argument for life gain in blue, because 1) blue would not benefit from it, 2) the game would not be better for it, and 3) it just doesn't feel right.

I like most of these shifts, thank you for discussing them.

I'm not seeing this one. It just doesn't feel unique enough, since it wouldn't feel very out of place in G or W. I wouldn't be opposed to a niche lifegain ability that did feel blue but I can't think of one.

I'm afraid I really rather disagree with most of Tahazzar's statements in this whole set. But just picking up on this one part:

"a color has an effect that can be mimicked if one of its allies and of its enemies are combined. Isn't that nonsensical?"

Not at all. Really, this argument can't work. For one thing, there's the entire Peculiar Distortion family. They demonstrate that many colours have effects that can be combined to generate effects from another colour. Peculiar Infiltration shows that two red effects combine to make a blue effect: is that nonsensical? Peculiar Savagery and Peculiar Righteousness show that you can combine two white effects or two green effects to produce a black effect: is that nonsensical? No, it's just the way the colour pie works. Green is allowed to have cards that interact with creatures, including at instant speed. Put enough of them together, you can end up with something that'll pretty much kill a creature. But it's not a green effect to do it "all at once".

You seem to be really over-attached to the idea of the colour alliances and enmities. Those alliances and enmities inform the philosophy of the colours a great deal, but they don't have much mechanical impact. A game where the colour alliances are strongly reflected in mechanical overlap would be interesting, but it's definitely not current Magic design.

If you're wanting to make a big proposal to re-examine all of the colour pie to re-emphasise the ally and enemy relationships, then make that big proposal; don't tiptoe up to it with things like this that are hard to justify unless you're making big sweeping changes.

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)
What is this card's power? Merfolk of the Pearl Trident
(Signed-in users don't get captchas and can edit their comments)