| [Theory] Color Pie Discussion: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics |
|
CardName: Red: Bounce creatures Cost: R Type: Expands Red's Pie Pow/Tgh: / Rules Text: Restricted by? — • sorcery speed • _"you don't control (defending player controls)"_ • _"untapped creature"_ • _tapped creature"_ • other? Flavour Text: Set/Rarity: [Theory] Color Pie Discussion Common |
Active?: true History: [-] Add your comments: |
Premise
Time Spiral alluded to this, but nothing came of it.
MaRo has talked about the possibility of this in the future:
The real question here is how it would exactly be restricted. Also, would this affect
in any way? I don't think 
's self bouncing cares about this shift.
Flavor
??? Up for grabs. I don't think even "normal" (
) bouncing is that flavorful - or at least it isn't a constant as it's seemingly different from card to card.
Color Shifts
Notes
The off-topic section of this MTG Salvation thread has some additional examples and concepts:
Precedent
Examples
Only self bounce, thats it. Can't be controlled by player. No bouncing other stuff: thats strictly blue.
Ex. Viashino, Dash
Aye, self-bounce is something I could see red having, executed in a Nor in the Wary type flavor or like dash.
The issue is that self-bounce comes in two categories - one as a drawback, which is what red already does in Dash and cards like Archwing Dragon and Glitterfang. The other is self-bounce on reactive spells, like Alley Evasion or Kami of Twisted Reflection, which is more protective or evasive than what lines up with Red's philosophy.
That's my main problem when people talk about self-bounce in Red - either it already has it, or it's not something Red really wants to do. I can see it on a sort of Berserk variant, where you return the creature to your hand instead of sacrificing it, but that's not exactly new ground and not a big design space.
Personally I feel that bouncing opponent's creatures lines up well with red, whether it's tapped, untapped, or has some other restriction on it. I can see the flavor in all of it. When people say "How does Red deal with certain things that it normally can't deal with?", it's usually one of two answers: it can't, or it "kills them before it matters". This is often used in the enchantment argument, which is why I think nonland permanent bounce could be something Red can explore. Other colors have ways to deal with every problem in their own ways - Black deals with cards before they become threats by way of discard. Blue deals with problems by anticipating their cast and countering them. White has taxing, imprisoning, and protective effects to deal with every type of card. Green has bigger creatures and spell resistance, and they can cleanly and directly deal with all noncreature threats. By shoehorning Red's response as "kill it before it matters", you're essentially condemning red to be the aggressive, fast color for all of eternity. Red's creative aspects - something that is woefully unexplored - shouldn't accept this as its only answer. Red shouldn't have straightforward ways of dealing with problems, but it should have a suite of tools that it can use to deal with problems creatively. Bouncing something and then casting Wheel of Fortune - that's a creative solution to a problem. Polymorphing something into something a bit more manageable - that's a creative solution to a problem. In other words, I'm in favor of red getting bounce (with restrictions) as a way to explore the nonaggressive, nonviolent side of red that doesn't involve blowing things up.
@Mal:
You make it sound as though red bounce wouldn't need any other restriction than targeting stuff you don't control. I kinda like that thought. It reminds me of that one rare custom red card that could deal with enchantments. Something like mana cost
with "exile target permanent you don't control; at the beginning of the next end step, the controller of that permanent creates two tokens that are copies of it".
Certainly the question remains as to what to do with
in regards to this. It's a pretty big stretch of the pie and I would assume such a change would come with some sort of a shift instead of a straight-up spread.
> I'm in favor of red getting bounce (with restrictions) as a way to explore the nonaggressive, nonviolent side of red that doesn't involve blowing things up.
Hear hear.
I prefer "slowblink" for red (exile creature opp controls UEOT). Makes the return of the creature that much more inevitable, maybe with a nontoken rider for good form.
Hmm, could it be slightly modified to be used for land disruption as well? Ie. A sorcery with "Exile target land an opponent controls until your next turn."
It's an interesting angle. I added Mirage Maker as an 'example'.
I really like slowblinking lands as an alternative to "freezing" lands as seen in Reduce // Rubble. Mirage Maker would be a perfect name for a creature that did that on ETB. I can get behind slowblinking instead of bounce.
the real issue is why people keep trying to make red become more like other colors, especially blue.
@Mal:
It seems indeed fitting for land disruption though it doesn't mechanically change that much in nature - only in execution.
Hmm, this certainly needs some prototyping...
@amuseum:
Red as it is, is stale. Where else could it expand but outwards? Temporal effects have been by convention listed as something red can do: temporal card draw, reanimation, cloning, ramp, etc...
Don't confuse temporal and temporary!
You say red has become stale, yet it has had the most expansion of all the colors in the last few years. Perhaps your problem lies elsewhere than more stealing of another color's main mechanics.
Temporary stuff is red losing its identity by getting softer. Red used to do hardcore destruction, but you want it be more gimmicky with softer versions of what other colors get.
Probably the whole game seems getting softer and neutered. Land destruction became land tap or bounce. Removal became more situational and conditional. Maybe that's why no matter how much red has gained in the last decade, it's never enough.
's situation has improved slightly over the years. Maybe the following 'statistics' will show what I find so problematic about 
's current affairs...
Seventh Edition (2001)
Red noncreature spells roughly categorized:
Percentages
Magic Origins (2015)
Red noncreature spells roughly categorized:
Percentages
It's really, really sad that I have to yield a planeswalker (of all things) into the strictly "deal(s) N damage" category.
... and what I would like the distribution of effects in
to be closer to...
Silmarillion: The War of the Jewels
Red noncreature spells roughly categorized:
Percentages
@Amuseum The "red expansion", since I started playing (Gatecrash), has been limited to the following: draw variants (rummaging, impulsive draw), land freeze, prowess, one-sided fight, "make a small creature unblockable", menace... and that's pretty much it.
Out of these...
Basically, once you've got your single common rummager, your block mechanic stuff and your lone prowess card... well, it doesn't matter if the set was designed today or eight years ago, your options are no less limited today then they were before Innistrad came out (and that actually adds Fight as new!).
I'm gonna bite.
Does red need more options? It's got the best option. It gets to blow stuff up. If it has a physical existence, be it land, artifact, creature - or your opponents face - you get to make it go boom.
Why would you ever have "Return target creature of power 2 or less to its owners hand" when you can have "Deal 3 damage to target creature or player"?
Bounce is already very well established and prolific part of blue and white. That there isn't much to go around for new design space.
Instead look at and expand less used forms of red trickery that it can claim as its own. Such as swapping cards or permanents.
Tuck permanent, put target permanent on bottom of library. Perhaps compensate former owner with draw a card. Ex. Leave
Swap control of permanents. Alternatively, steal, then compensate former controller with token or equivalent.
More taunt / provoke, I agree. Force opponent into unfavorable combat situations.
Red's "temporariness" isn't about granting temporariness to opponents' permanents. It's about red player himself giving up long term benefit for a short term gain. Hence self-bounce is what red should be doing, not using bounce as offense.
Red is allowed to gain temporary resources, i.e. mana, creature, token, card. That's the realm of temporariness red mechanics should aim for.
Ex. Swinging Goblin red creature trades tempo for bigger hit.
Landeating Giant Return your permanent to hand could be red cost (instead of blue Moonfolk).
Menace isn't really "new" in red - just from the top of my head I can think of Goblin War Drums; it certainly has become more prolific though.
> One (single-sided fight) has been outright removed from red.
Erm, since when? Is there some kind of statement by MaRo? Fairly recent cards: Mutiny, Fall of the Hammer, and Burning Anger. Not that I much care for one-sided fight in
since it's barely outside of that "only deals damage" category - it's just tied to you having a creature.
I agree with your other points.
> Does red need more options? It's got the best option. It gets to blow stuff up. If it has a physical existence, be it land, artifact, creature - or your opponents face - you get to make it go boom.
Artifact removal is most of the time limited to sideboard slots. Land destruction is no longer preferred. So we're down to one. Out of all various ways to remove a creature, burn is the most restricted and the easiest to safeguard against. Most removal resistant creatures ignore damage by default, heck, just having a large butt on a creature can put the red player into a spot where they have to use multiple burn spells to get rid of a single creature - at which point the have most likely already lost. Arguably the best place to place that burn is face, which is quite non-interactive - and boring if you ask me.
So, as far as "blowing things up" goes, I would rather pick black since it can get rid of any creature without any pesky restrictions. White might be even better since it can get rid of any nonland permanent while it might (or not) at times be more restricted in targeting or be "reversible" (ie. Banishing Light). Most of the time it actually exiles which is better than destroying.
> Why would you ever have "Return target creature of power 2 or less to its owners hand" when you can have "Deal 3 damage to target creature or player"?
Power restricted bouncing was never mention - that would IMO be more home in
, which strangely we haven't seen much. It was more along the lines of "untapped / your opponent controls" restrictions because once those fatties go beyond 6+ toughness, burn isn't really a good solution anymore.
> Bounce is already very well established and prolific part of blue and white. That there isn't much to go around for new design space.
This has to be a bit disingenuous. Prolific part of white? Recently we've gotten Aviary Mechanic, Alley Evasion, and... that's about it. White's space in this is very limited here so obviously it means that the larger part of bounce-space is still untapped.
> Tuck permanent, put target permanent on bottom of library. Perhaps compensate former owner with draw a card. Ex. Leave
I really don't know where are you coming with this - putting cards on bottom of library is perhaps the best kind of removal. I could it as a white card as a mix of Oblation and those common Path to Exile variants that make you draw instead of ramping. Definitely not
. Maybe your idea was inspired by Chaos Warp?
> Swap control of permanents. Alternatively, steal, then compensate former controller with token or equivalent.
Yeah, this is something red could do if it isn't already doing it. Matches well with Bazaar Trader / Act of Treason.
> More taunt / provoke, I agree.
I'm gonna namedrop Tongshan Pathmaker here; a really nice card.
> Red's "temporariness" isn't about granting temporariness to opponents' permanents. It's about red player himself giving up long term benefit for a short term gain. Hence self-bounce is what red should be doing, not using bounce as offense.
Hmm, this sounds fairly reasonable.
So, would you shift one or both white and blue out of self-bouncing with this? Like, would boros colors be the self-bouncing colors now?
I kinda like
self-bouncing its lands since it has that time manipulation feeling of Rewind and friends. Also, the flavor of tides rising and falling. Singer of the Shore for example.
All in all, it might be worth of note that IMO bouncing in
would be one of many things that needs to be changed in the color for it to be revitalized. Having one effect cover over 50% of your cards of the color is laughably to the point of being a bad joke. Red: Color Fixing is another in this "card set". Also, feel free to post your own color shifting ideas as "cards" here.