Thanks to Tahazzar for convincing me that tapped bounce could be used in Red.

Hmm, I find that comment somewhat amusing since I've been going with the idea of bouncing untapped - not tapped - creatures in .

I think tapped bounce works better in Red, mechanically. Red already has a good number of ways to deal with untapped creatures (AKA blockers) - X can't block, menace, attacks each turn if able. But it has relatively few ways to deal with aggression other than racing. Tapped bounce allows it to be a bit more tempo-oriented (which is what I'm going for) without improving its aggressive suite.

That was kinda the thing there, returning untapped creatures doesn't indeed mechanically really change that much, just extends its already existing abilities. It keeps the color thematically the same.

Obviously something that the color doesn't currently do "works better in" it, but it's more of a bleed IMO. Ie. Creature destruction would "work better" in than discard since it has few ways to permanently deal with resolved threats.

To argue from another perspective, why give yet another way to disrupt and remove blockers to if they already have so many tools? It'd be like giving the ability to only counter creature spells. It provides some marginal benefit and doesn't really change how the color functions mechanically outside of giving it a few extra upsides, but why would you use it as a tool for design when other mechanics fulfill similar functions? I feel like untapped bounce would be more akin to extending 's discard abilities - it's a softer way to deal with a weakness that extends its suite (making it more proactive rather than reactive) but still makes it less effective than a color that is suited for it (making discard weaker than black discard). In tapped bounce's case, White and Blue are much better suited to deal with opposing aggression.

I assume it's due to our differing philosophies of the color wheel - I view "color is weak in X" not as "color shouldn't have X" but rather "color should get X if its weaker than other color's versions of X". Similar to your opinions regarding artifacts.

Hey! See Black: Counter Creature Spells.

> I assume it's due to our differing philosophies of the color wheel - I view "color is weak in X" not as "color shouldn't have X" but rather "color should get X if its weaker than other color's versions of X".

So you would green light Hornet Sting/Bee Sting and such? That kind of position would shift basically all the color pie issues heavily onto development's responsibility, which is quite weird. Usually, keeping the color pie intact is seen as design's thing. After all, the task does coincidence much of the time with flavor and mechanical mappings of each set.

Ie.

• http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/101957532473/is-keeping-a-the-power-levels-of-the-colors-close
• http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/92410198448/if-red-cant-get-enchantment-removal-just-because
• http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/72898146385/me-and-my-friend-bought-a-box-of-gatecrash-today

If there's a good reason for Hornet Sting, or if direct damage was done in a manner that was more in line with Green's philosophy (say, ETB hornet sting on a creature, similar to Atzocan Archer), then yes, I'd be all in favor of green getting hornet sting. I wouldn't be in favor of green getting multi-use pinging or anything above 1 damage, though, since that treads on Red's mechanical territory.

Bounce has been okay'd in Red, and limiting it to tapped bounce is like limiting white to only dealing direct damage to attacking/blocking/reflecting. Blue gets all counterspells, but white gets temporary/minor tax counterspells, and black gets punisher counterspells. If there's mechanical reasoning by the creator as to why Green needs a Hornet Sting, why not? If its popular and plays well, the color pie will shift to accomodate eventually just like how the color pie shifted to move direct damage away from Black in favor of -X/-X. We already see Green getting much stronger removal that involves less risk for its creatures - see Rapid Bite and Clear Shot compared to old green removal which involved pumping or lure effects. I see working on reevaluating color identity (not wholly, just seeing what's okay to bend/break in the context of a set design) as a design thing thats curtailed by development.

Color pie, to a player, is determined by the cards available in the pool that they see. A player evaluating the color pool based on 8th Edition is going to see it slightly differently than a player evaluating it based off of Magic Origins. I feel that custom card design gives a bit of leeway into shaping the color pie a bit to the vision of the set, and my vision of Red for this set gives them a bit more tools to deal with aggression that it can't outrace.

> ...and black gets punisher counterspells

Are there any other besides Dash Hopes?

> ... the color pie will shift to accomodate eventually just like how the color pie shifted to move direct damage away from Black in favor of -X/-X.

I'm pretty sure that was made to differentiate black and red. I don't get your point of the color pie "accommodating". This was very surely made with purpose in mind.

And well, okay, 's been getting some love for damage - which I don't personally care for that much - but that wasn't really the point. Let's put it in an another way, would you green lit Hornet Sting? Ie. Aether Storm for example?

What I'm getting is that Psionic Blast's problem by your convention isn't that doesn't do direct damage, but that blast specifically does it too well in a color that isn't specialized in it.

> I feel that custom card design gives a bit of leeway into shaping the color pie a bit to the vision of the set, and my vision of Red for this set gives them a bit more tools to deal with aggression that it can't outrace.

Fair enough. Still the card bugs me. So if can bounce tapped, doesn't it now mean that it can't bounce untapped creatures? That seems backwards considering that bouncing untapped would be more alike to what it's doing already.

Also, since we if aren't exactly saying that things don't belong or "can't be done" in a color, how overcosted would bouncing untapped creatures be in ? Say, in comparison to bouncing tapped creatures?

I'll circle back around to the initial discussion of bouncing tapped creatures. I wouldn't specifically rule out bouncing untapped creatures or bouncing in general, but I don't think it needs to exist. If a set called for it - for example, if there was a mechanic in the set that indirectly nullified a lot of Red's usual ways to push through damage - I could see Red getting untapped bounce at a more expensive rate than typical blue bounce. I'd cost it similar to what it costs here. But that's not because I think red should get untapped bounce within the confines of this design/set - I'd like this to fulfill a certain role for certain decks, so untapped bounce is the way to go.

And yeah, I agree that 's new direct damage spells are not the direction I would take the color. But I see your point. As for Hornet Sting in - and discussion about Psionic Blast - I'd be a little more iffy about it, but if the environment would benefit from blue having access to backlash-direct damage (i.e. 1 to thing, 1 to self), I would be okay with it. I can't imagine a format where blue's reactive and temporary removal suite would weaken so much as to need proactive, permanent, onboard removal, but if there's a good reason for it...

In other words, my idea of the color pie is that it provides a baseline idea for what is acceptable within a color, then bends as needed to meet the color's identity within a set. For example, if White was a more defensive color in a set, I'd look for in-color ways to improve their defensive pool, then branch out to more "out-there" mechanics that are on the fringes of its color pie (say, an Assault Formation effect) if it still felt a little lacking defensively. So I'd be okay with any effect existing in any color, as long as there were very strong reasons for said effect - though the reasoning would need to be very, very good if its a completely wild effect (i.e. Murder in Green) In this case, I am concerned about Red/Blue decks being able to maintain tempo against aggressive decks, so this is a relatively weak defensive spell with an upside that allows red to race better.

Oh, and there's also Withering Boon and a couple of other color-specific counterspells that it gets. But its not a very set-in-stone precedent, much like Blue getting weird protection and White getting tithing counters.

Hmmm. I think you tie color pie much heavily into development number fiddling process - which is usually isn't that related to.

Ie. It can lead to stuff like where

> "Derp, blue has problems dealing with resolved threats. Hey, design just submitted this Rapid Hybridization. Let's make it 'playable' by reducing that cost by and making it an instant."

As far as I know, in the recent years there has been much more of an integration between design and development, with 'devign' and such, so your view could possibly become the norm - even more than it already might be.

> Oh, and there's also Withering Boon and a couple of other color-specific counterspells that it gets. But its not a very set-in-stone precedent, much like Blue getting weird protection and White getting tithing counters.

I don't think there's any precedent to speak of really, but if Eunuch's Laughter is what we're really talking about here, I can say I like it. :)