This card's color is difficult to place. I decided to put it in black because:

1. Black's philosophy wants you to have one very powerful creature and no one else.

2. Black can use this card as a discard effect, especially with removal.

3. Black can take advantage of this card using sacrifice outlets.

Imo this is super green. Green is all about having the biggest creature, much more so than black. Your arguments suggest it would be best in a BG deck, but the card is green

The 'each player' bit, too. You could aspect the discard as compost-heap style recycling :)

One could argue that the discard number being equal to the number of creatures you control is anti-green, since it's not uncommon for green to swarm with decks like elves. That being said, the draw aspect is very green.

Well, white is supposed to be the go-wide color these days, whereas green is the go-tall color

Imagine playing this after a board wipe and other players have dropped some low-power creatures, but you have not yet done so. Should green get that kind of anti-creature discard spell? No.

The fact that this conversely is a form of looting without the typical "blood price" blach pays for card draw (life payment or a sacrifice) makes this also questionable in pure black.

We have a technology that resolves such issues: Multicolor cards. The cost should just require both black and green.

That's like saying Healing Salve should be a red card because there might be a Tainted Remedy in play. You can construct a scenario in which any card has an off-color interaction with other cards; that doesn't make the card in a vacuum a different color.

Your example is disingenuous, because the life loss effect cannot be achieved without the presence of a black card within your examplw.

That's what happens: A black card turns a white effect into a black effect. That is the specific purpose of that black card and the part of that card that makes it black (and not red, that's silly considering the effect comes from the interaction of white and black).

In my example the thing that turns the cards effect from (as suggested before) green to something nongreen is the presence of multiple creatures which is something rather unspecific. I'm not asking for those creatures being the result of a specific card's presence - especially not a card with a specific color.

If my example was based on using Words of Waste to turn the card draw into discard, then your example would be applicable, but I don't introduce the presence of a black enchantment and use the specific purpose of that enchantment to twist the effect'S color.

The discard is already on the card and since it doesn't take another black card to get the discard effect, the black should be part of this card's cost.

That's my argument.

Doesn't that make any wheel effect black, then?

I'm surprised no one mentioned Red. This has:

­

Red is the second worst color about creatures. It shouldn't get an effect that cares about your creatures, nor should it get looting

> Doesn't that make any wheel effect black, then?

No? Notice that when I talk about discard, I call it "nongreen". And when I talk about card draw/looting without "blood price" I call it "nonred".

My comment is a response to the comments made before mine which suggest two options for the card: Black and green (both implied monocolored by context). Hence my comment focuses on explaining why I think neither of the two colors alone should have the effect, but a multicolored gold card with both colors could.

I (up to now) have not even taken red into consideration in my arguments. Red is indeed both "nonblack" and "nongreen". So, it is still an option to consider. Which I have not done yet.

To once again use an analogy: Your question about red wheel effects is like the following scenario:

• somebody asks whether "~ deals 4 damage to target any target. You gain 4 life." could be red.
• somebody else suggests the effect is "super white".
• I add that the life gain is "nonred" and direct damage is "nonwhite" (since it uses only a subset of direct damage effects and this is not fitting the criteria imposed on white)
• Then someone says my argument is like saying Thorncaster Sliver is white because Essence Sliver
• I reply that the interaction between two monocolored cards of different colors are allowed to create an effect available to multicolor, but not a monocolored card interacting with a fairly common board state that doesn't imply anything about color
• I am asked "Doesn't that make any drain effect red, then?"

And my response to that would be: No. My position that Warleader's Helix could be red-white, but neither mono-red nor mono-white does not imply that Vampiric Feast could not be mono-black. I did not talk about the option to make this card black yet.

Even the next comment after your IMO unwarranted question acknowledges:

> I'm surprised no one mentioned Red.

Because despite red getting mentioned in context with analogies and examples no one has actually applied it to this card until then.

Now it is time to talk about red: I can see where the idea is coming from, but I think the card is actually "nonred" as well. The card does some things red has access to including a combination of "draw X" and "discard Y".

Here is the thing I belief, a monocolored red card should not get: An effect where the X routinely gets much bigger than the Y (e. g. playing this if all you control is an Onakke Ogre).

The only way red is usually able to cheat this, is by putting the Y first and setting it to "infinite", which is what the second ability on Chandra Ablaze and the trigger effect on Sensation Gorger do. (Note both being symmetric as well - which is why I think red should be considered having access to a certain subset of cards that can attack an opponent's hand size by the standards of the current mechanical color pie)

I think red's looting/rummaging is outside of the true "wheel" effect that sets everyone to the same number (which could be a variable though) should have a hard cut-off at X<=Y+1 (plus one to set off the card disadvantage casting the spell itself otherwise would create, so this is talking explixtly about "on an instant or sorcery" here. I'd rather we understand it as X=Y plus a cantrip.)

That's, in my opinion, why Control of the Court/Goblin Lore is (mechanically) fine in red (though today it would be preferable to use rummaging over looting), but Thoughtflare gets to be a blue-red gold multicolor card.

I can see, why people would think otherwise, though, but this card as monocolored red would violate one of the four weaknesses red had since at least 2004:

• pinpoint creature destruction without damage
• enchantment destruction
• life gain
• "raw" card advantage through card draw

Now if this card made certain the two variables for card draw and discard were tied (e. g. "Each player draws cards equal to the greatest power among creatures they control, then discards that many cards." even with a "If you control only one creature, draw one more card instead" (or best wording for this)) or the same variable was used universally ("Each player discards their hand, then draws cards equal to the greatest power among creatures you control.") this might be a different argument.

But for the current wording (Note: "Each player draws cards equal to the greatest power among creatures they control, then each player discards cards equal to the number of creatures they control.") I personally would not opt for monocolored red - possibly if the game state where this produces were harder to achieve or an outlier, and more of a "combo" (similar to rummaging spells with spell copying "combo" into card advantage in red through synergy effects), but a mere vanilla common three-drop is not the kind of setup I'd consider "hard to achieve" in that sense.

> Red is the second worst color about creatures. It shouldn't get an effect that cares about your creatures

Red shouldn't get Soul's Fire or Massive Raid? I even disagree that red doesn't care about controlling multiple creatures in the sense that often it can and will e. g. Kolaghan Forerunners.

The thing is red is the second worst color at creatures (i. e. they are usually not cost efficient outside of a certain cost window, and it gets less creatures at common) but I'm not certain it's particularly bad at caring about creatures. Depedning on the environment red often has one strategy out of going wide with tokens and Trumpet Blast shenanigans and going large only in power (which is why it is - with green - the shared color of Naya/Temur/Atarka).

I also kinda think that the truism about getting weaker creature's than green needs to be reflected upon comparing Onakke Ogre to Centaur Courser - red can clearly hold itself next to "the creature color" within the bounds of its own strength - and with a focus on creatures with greater power than toughness.

> nor should it get looting

It's certainly a bend. If this were to go red, there are required changes, but on a blue-red hybrid card, blue could get rummaging and red could get looting, so it's less egregious than e. g. life gain.

Maybe you want to make an argument towards the composite effect of using both together? As each imndividually is a nonstandard focus, they shouldn't be combined? I could see that line of thinking.

Red gets both fling and oriflamme effects. But not often.

I can certainly see this in . Pure black doesn't feel massively wrong; after all, this is also perfectly playable as "You - discard your hand. We also mill a bit."

Maybe a change in phrasing would help make it more obviously sacrifical or selfish?

Or perhaps outright symmetry break; you get to discard then draw; they have to draw then discard?

That seems backwards. Draw then discard is the more powerful version, so why would your opponents get that?

Because you're about to make them discard everything because they have several creatures in play. (It's also nice how the usually-more-powerful is the "ooops, bad" outcome for this card)

> That seems backwards. Draw then discard is the more powerful version, so why would your opponents get that?

Which version is more powerful depends on the gamestate/hand if you have a quality hand, you want to draw, then discard, because you don't want to lose the quality. If you have an empty hand, then discard first means you actually don't have to discard. Draw first means you always have cards to discard.

The way to break the symmetry of this card is already built-in: Play less more powerful creatures. Making the effect different for different players does add complexity without much depth that is not already there.

This seems to me. Triumph of Ferocity and Greater Good come to mind - though Good seems like an obvious bend.

The card loots, so obviously, and then it cares about having creatures with large power. Given that has a history of effects that link drawing to some creature's power, it seems like an obvious fit.

Oh wait, it can indeed make players discard more cards than they draw... Hmm... Like Dark Deal. ?