Pinpoint Avalanche deals 4 damage to target creature. The damage can't be prevented.
Fugitive Bard2G
Creature — Human Druid Rogue [C]
:symtap:: Add to your mana pool.
[3/1]
It's important to have good cards in an environment, but it's also important to have crap. These five cards represent five mechanics that are going to be on low tide in my DOM-XI-CtG metagame. In order:
- Creature buffs
- Hard counters
- Graveyard manipulation
- Creature removal
- Mana dorks
That said, I'd still like Circle the Wagons, Pinpoint Avalanche, and Fugitive Bard to be Limited-playable. I'm satisfied with the other two being 14th-pick material.
Circle the Wagons is an actually good combat trick.
I kind of like Rough Idea. Huh.
I don't think Tomb's Treasure will ever be playable but it's about away from being kickass.
I seriously hope red gets actual quality creature removal and/or there are reasons to at least 'board in something with unpreventable damage. Glittering Lynx full vertical cycle? It's Limited-playable if it's hosing something for real.
Fugitive Bard is secretly amazing. Give it good flavor text and art of a cute chubby young lady, preferably with freckles and large bosoms, and I'll fall in love with it as much as I did with Tavern Swindler.
Could Circle the Wagons cost 2W? I'm pretty sure Bar the Door was a periodic 14th pick.
Rough Idea both hasn't been done before and is worse than Lay Bare, so you've hit the mark nicely on that one.
I really like the story Tomb's Treasure is telling. Power level wise, it looks just good enough to potentially do interesting things until you realize it's a bad Divination and an even worse Gravepurge.
Pinpoint Avalanche looks like solid mid-pack removal -- instant speed probably makes it a smidge better than Rage of Purphoros, though holding up 5 mana is an issue in itself (hence my disdain for Circle the Wagons).
Fugitive Bard, while not a high pick, is shockingly solid for a "bad card" and I would have a hard time cutting it from any green deck, since it works pretty well in both beatdown and midrange decks.
Yeah, Rough Idea is neat. And not very good. Perfect!
Tomb's Treasure should probably just target two cards of whatever and cantrip. Too much headacheyness for a common, and too much potential for actual card advantage to be considered "bad."
3/1s have always felt weird in green to me. The Bard is actually way better than Sacred Wolf, for instance. Maybe :1mana::symg::symg: for that supreme Viridian Betrayers feel?
Circle the Wagons reminds me of one of my favorite all time bad cards, Solidarity. By george, I think he's done it!
Mount Up! W
Instant
Target creature gains horsemanship until end of turn.
Head'em Off At The Pass! W
Instant
Target attacking creature becomes blocked.
Deputize (Uncommon) 2R
Sorcery
Attach target Equipment you control to target creature you don't control.
You control that creature for as long as that equipment is attached to it.
Giddy Up! UR
Instant
Target creature gains flying and haste until end of turn.
I seriously hope red gets actual quality creature removal and/or there are reasons to at least 'board in something with unpreventable damage. Glittering Lynx full vertical cycle? It's Limited-playable if it's hosing something for real.
Red will still have creature removal, but since I'm positioning red to be the color-to-be-answered in this environment, there's going to be more of an emphasis on spot removal in other colors. Red will have decent stuff that hits the dome. It will also get an exception for combat-phase-related stuff in Call to Glory block.
Prevent the next 3 damage that would be dealt to target creature this turn, and put a +1/+1 counter on that creature for each 1 damage prevented this way.
Red will still have creature removal, but since I'm positioning red to be the color-to-be-answered in this environment, there's going to be more of an emphasis on spot removal in other colors. Red will have decent stuff that hits the dome. It will also get an exception for combat-phase-related stuff in Call to Glory block.
Red has often been accused of being a shallow color. If burn is on low cycle, what aspects of the color are you planning to highlight other than "attack attack attack"?
More interesting by making it a legit scry, without actually being much better:
Rough Idea Salt in the Wound2UU
Instant [C]
Counter target spell. Look at the top card of its controller's library. You may put that card on the bottom of its controller's library.
Why do there have to be horrible cards. Some cards are going to be worse than others, but there don't have to be cards that make you cringe when you open them in your booster packs.
Edit: Also, I agree with people's concerns about red not having much to do.
Why do there have to be horrible cards. Some cards are going to be worse than others, but there don't have to be cards that make you cringe when you open them in your booster packs.
Edit: Also, I agree with people's concerns about red not having much to do.
Because Limited. And because some people like the challenge of using bad cards.
Because Limited. And because some people like the challenge of using bad cards.
I am not a limited player, so please tell me how making Circle the Wagons 3 mana, making Rough Idea Fateseal, making Fugitive Bard 2 mana and a 2/1, making Pinpoint Avalanche 4 mana, and making Tomb's Treasure able to exile 2 creatures or 2 artifacts to draw 2 cards would break Limited. Also, I don't think anyone likes the challenge of using a mediocre creature buff.
Worldslayer + burn deck? You get to equip it for cheaper than normal and you don't have to pay for or wait for a dude to wield it - instead your opponent wastes mana to do that for you, and you choose whichever of his critters has flying or trample to help it get through. Bonus points if you have a reckless abandon on hand to cast right on top of the worldslayer's triggered ability =P
Or something like Demonmail Hauberk - it makes anything you steal a moderate threat while sidestepping the usual annoying equip cost, removes the creature for you when you're done with it so the opponent never gets it back, by sacrificing IT as the next equip cost, and as a convenient bonus, you get to have the very nicely buffing hauberk attached to one of your own dudes without having to have given up anybody of your own to equip it.
Or Argentum armor, for half normal equipping cost + the dude its attached to will become such a major threat that your opponent will be obligated to take care of the removal of their own creature for you for free as soon as possible, while you hopefully get to attack at least once in the meantime.
Red has often been accused of being a shallow color. If burn is on low cycle, what aspects of the color are you planning to highlight other than "attack attack attack"?
Well, I wouldn't sell short the idea of "attack attack attack." Lots of good stuff there.
But, no, I get what you're saying. And I could give you some convenient answer du jour, like "there will be lots of looting and bottling," but I'm factoring that stuff into my thinking already. So, besides taking it old school with some beat-based aggro, what is my big aspiration for red in this environment?
Because math dictates that there must be. Even if I made every card in the environment as cutthroat and undercosted as possible (cough... Urza's block) half the cards are still going to be below average for that environment, and thus will not be relevant to competitive play. That's just statistics being the cruel mistress that she is.
If I push every card to the raggedy edge of plausibility, I also create two much more egregious problems: power creep and anomy. It's hard to undo power creep once you've committed it. It's easy to make a bad card better, later. By anomy, I mean the lack of sense, meaning, or purpose for the environment. If my red burn is just as good as my red aggro, and they're all just as good as my white control, and my green midrange, then the only archetype that's going to emerge from my environment is goodstuff.deq. That is no fun for anybody. I try to be intentional about the highs and lows in the environment I'm creating so that potential players feel like there's a purpose to designing a custom deck.
To go back and invoke Mark Rosewater, it's also important to remember that not every card is made for you. If I know that a card isn't going to fall into that upper half of competitive cards, I'm going to try to give it another reason to exist. For Tomb's Treasure, I tried to give it a strong flavor. For Rough Idea, I'm throwing down a challenge to Johnny to see if he can crack it.
I don't want any of these cards to go ignored and unloved, but I simply have to acknowledge that there's no way to make Spike care about 100% of the cards in an environment. So, I might as well go and define my lower boundary and make some cards bad by design.
Well, I wouldn't sell short the idea of "attack attack attack." Lots of good stuff there.
But, no, I get what you're saying. And I could give you some convenient answer du jour, like "there will be lots of looting and bottling," but I'm factoring that stuff into my thinking already. So, besides taking it old school with some beat-based aggro, what is my big aspiration for red in this environment?
OK, now it's time to go once again into the "bad card" breach:
Because math dictates that there must be. Even if I made every card in the environment as cutthroat and undercosted as possible (cough... Urza's block) half the cards are still going to be below average for that environment, and thus will not be relevant to competitive play. That's just statistics being the cruel mistress that she is.
If I push every card to the raggedy edge of plausibility, I also create two much more egregious problems: power creep and anomy. It's hard to undo power creep once you've committed it. It's easy to make a bad card better, later. By anomy, I mean the lack of sense, meaning, or purpose for the environment. If my red burn is just as good as my red aggro, and they're all just as good as my white control, and my green midrange, then the only archetype that's going to emerge from my environment is goodstuff.deq. That is no fun for anybody. I try to be intentional about the highs and lows in the environment I'm creating so that potential players feel like there's a purpose to designing a custom deck.
To go back and invoke Mark Rosewater, it's also important to remember that not every card is made for you. If I know that a card isn't going to fall into that upper half of competitive cards, I'm going to try to give it another reason to exist. For Tomb's Treasure, I tried to give it a strong flavor. For Rough Idea, I'm throwing down a challenge to Johnny to see if he can crack it.
I don't want any of these cards to go ignored and unloved, but I simply have to acknowledge that there's no way to make Spike care about 100% of the cards in an environment. So, I might as well go and define my lower boundary and make some cards bad by design.
Timmy isn't going to play Circle the Wagons, Rough Idea, or Pinpoint Avalanche. There just isn't anything fun about them. Johnny isn't going to play Circle the Wagons, Pinpoint Avalanche, Fugitive Bard, or Rough Idea, there isn't much of a challenge there. Spike isn't going to play any of these. Printing cards that nobody likes just because you need to have something horrible is just wrong.
I think Spike will be quite happy with Circle the Wagons, Pinpoint Avalanche, and Fugitive Bard when Spike is at the end of his pack and desperately searching for playables in his draft colors.
These cards probably have no business in a Constructed environment. But designing low-pick Limited cards is not the same as designing cards that nobody wants to play. Late-pick drafting has a unique competitive element to it.
Timmy isn't going to play Circle the Wagons, Rough Idea, or Pinpoint Avalanche. There just isn't anything fun about them. Johnny isn't going to play Circle the Wagons, Pinpoint Avalanche, Fugitive Bard, or Rough Idea, there isn't much of a challenge there. Spike isn't going to play any of these. Printing cards that nobody likes just because you need to have something horrible is just wrong.
This is why I don't play limited. Playing with horrible cards just because somehow there is strategy involved in being able to play with horrible cards doesn't appeal to me.
I think Spike will be quite happy with Circle the Wagons, Pinpoint Avalanche, and Fugitive Bard when Spike is at the end of his pack and desperately searching for playables in his draft colors.
These cards probably have no business in a Constructed environment. But designing low-pick Limited cards is not the same as designing cards that nobody wants to play. Late-pick drafting has a unique competitive element to it.
That's the problem. If these are playable, almost anything is. Nobody wants to play these. You are just being forced to in Draft.
Because math dictates that there must be. Even if I made every card in the environment as cutthroat and undercosted as possible (cough... Urza's block) half the cards are still going to be below average for that environment, and thus will not be relevant to competitive play. That's just statistics being the cruel mistress that she is.
This is not accurate.
it may be DIFFICULT to avoid horrible cards while also avoiding power creep. But "math dictates" no such thing by necessity, because nothing says you HAVE to have a perfectly normal curve distribution of goodness of cards. You can have a skew distribution instead.
(ember shot is found somewhere off to the left of your monitor on this graph)
Notice the blue distribution does not have power creep (whether you define it as most powerful OR average power), still has the same occasional awesome cards on the high end, and yet its worst cards are not at all horrible, or are VERY rarely so by comparison. This blue curve would be an ideal distribution, not the red one, so as not to waste space with pointless cards that just frustrate people.
It's fine to have an occasional mistake where you err too far on the bad side, but i agree that nobody should be setting out to INTENTIONALLY make bad cards. "Because limited" is not a good argument for doing that, because although limited players can better make do with jank, there's no reason why limited players NEED jank. There's still tons of range to differentiate between good card pickers and bad. And the difficult, skill-testing decisions were not the ones way on the left of the graph anyway.
Nobody wants to play these. You are just being forced to in Draft.
If that's how you feel, I agree, you probably shouldn't play Limited.
As the guy who has entered drafts with the intention of sweeping up all the unclaimed Tome Scours in the 10th-14th passes, I love operating in low-pick territory. That is where your whole draft makes it or breaks it. IMO, making "bad" cards work for you is one of the most fun parts of the drafting experience.
I never spoke to the shape of the (theoretical) distribution, just that some card would occupy the (theoretical) 50th percentile on some norm-referenced index of card merit, which is accurate.
I think that your graph is flawed because it is assuming some independent criterion of card merit. It is not meaningful to establish such a criterion.
Even assuming that we can measure cards against such an independent criterion, I'm not sure that I agree with you that the graph exhibiting skewness is the way to go. What you're advocating is a big pool of medium-to-low-powered, undifferentiated slush, with relatively few standouts, and an environment defined by extreme outliers at the top of the scale. If you shoot for a normal curve, you get more cards above the power "midpoint," which is exactly what you'd want for a healthy Constructed environment. I think I prefer the normal curve, here.
It's fine to have an occasional mistake where you err too far on the bad side, but i agree that nobody should be setting out to INTENTIONALLY make bad cards. "Because limited" is not a good argument for doing that, because although limited players can better make do with jank, there's no reason why limited players NEED jank. There's still tons of range to differentiate between good card pickers and bad. And the difficult, skill-testing decisions were not the ones way on the left of the graph anyway.
Disagree on all points. Some card is going to end up as the least-competitive card in the set, or tied for least-competitive, and you might as well try to take control of that fact and give that card another reason to exist.
"Because Limited" is a GREAT reason to design bad cards. And a good Limited environment DOES need jank. Again, there are entire draft archetypes that are dependent on a card being awful to 99% of players. Intentionally designing a playable card to be a late pick is a great way to make sure that meaningful decisions persist throughout the entire drafting process.
And I don't think highly of the idea that skilltesting should just be an exercise in identifying the best cards in a format. That's not skilltesting, that's just trivia. In draft, skilltesting should come from your ability to read the signals of your flight and maximize the benefit of each selection that you make, whether that selection is your first or your fourteenth.
This is why I don't play limited. Playing with horrible cards just because somehow there is strategy involved in being able to play with horrible cards doesn't appeal to me.
That's the problem. If these are playable, almost anything is. Nobody wants to play these. You are just being forced to in Draft.
People play limited because its an even playing field uninfluenced by monetary investment. Once you get past "I'm paying :1mana::symw::symu: for a creature and it isn't Geist of Saint Traft :(" you realize why you can appreciate cards like Geist so much. Limited is a lot of fun for a lot of people, and people like me who enjoy the minigame of trying to get the most out of "horrible cards."
Instant [C]
Creatures you control get +1/+3 until end of turn.
Instant [C]
Counter target spell. Look at the top card of its controller's library.
Sorcery [C]
Exile up to one target artifact card and up to one target creature card from graveyards, then draw as many cards as you exiled this way.
Instant [C]
Pinpoint Avalanche deals 4 damage to target creature. The damage can't be prevented.
Creature — Human Druid Rogue [C]
:symtap:: Add to your mana pool.
[3/1]
Circle the Wagons is an actually good combat trick.
I kind of like Rough Idea. Huh.
I don't think Tomb's Treasure will ever be playable but it's about away from being kickass.
I seriously hope red gets actual quality creature removal and/or there are reasons to at least 'board in something with unpreventable damage. Glittering Lynx full vertical cycle? It's Limited-playable if it's hosing something for real.
Fugitive Bard is secretly amazing. Give it good flavor text and art of a cute chubby young lady, preferably with freckles and large bosoms, and I'll fall in love with it as much as I did with Tavern Swindler.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
Rough Idea both hasn't been done before and is worse than Lay Bare, so you've hit the mark nicely on that one.
I really like the story Tomb's Treasure is telling. Power level wise, it looks just good enough to potentially do interesting things until you realize it's a bad Divination and an even worse Gravepurge.
Pinpoint Avalanche looks like solid mid-pack removal -- instant speed probably makes it a smidge better than Rage of Purphoros, though holding up 5 mana is an issue in itself (hence my disdain for Circle the Wagons).
Fugitive Bard, while not a high pick, is shockingly solid for a "bad card" and I would have a hard time cutting it from any green deck, since it works pretty well in both beatdown and midrange decks.
Avatar by Numotflame96 of Maelstrom Graphics
Sig banner thanks to DarkNightCavalier of Heroes of the Plane Studios!
Tomb's Treasure should probably just target two cards of whatever and cantrip. Too much headacheyness for a common, and too much potential for actual card advantage to be considered "bad."
3/1s have always felt weird in green to me. The Bard is actually way better than Sacred Wolf, for instance. Maybe :1mana::symg::symg: for that supreme Viridian Betrayers feel?
Circle the Wagons reminds me of one of my favorite all time bad cards, Solidarity. By george, I think he's done it!
Mount Up!
W
Instant
Target creature gains horsemanship until end of turn.
Head'em Off At The Pass!
W
Instant
Target attacking creature becomes blocked.
Deputize (Uncommon)
2R
Sorcery
Attach target Equipment you control to target creature you don't control.
You control that creature for as long as that equipment is attached to it.
Giddy Up!
UR
Instant
Target creature gains flying and haste until end of turn.
Oh, I hate that cliche!
But I love this card.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
It's a pretty weak Curtain of Light. Maybe it could target two creatures at a higher cost?
The 5 cards in the OP do what they're supposed to, although I agree the black one is pretty wordy for common.
Interested in Custom Card Creation.
My Cube:Cardinal Custom Cube
A custom version of a third modern masters: MM2019
(filter->rarity to see in set rarity).
Red will still have creature removal, but since I'm positioning red to be the color-to-be-answered in this environment, there's going to be more of an emphasis on spot removal in other colors. Red will have decent stuff that hits the dome. It will also get an exception for combat-phase-related stuff in Call to Glory block.
Anyway here are some cards that should satisfy:
Instant [C]
Prevent the next 3 damage that would be dealt to target creature this turn, and put a +1/+1 counter on that creature for each 1 damage prevented this way.
Creature — Pegasus [U]
Flash
Flying
If a spell would deal damage to a creature or player, prevent 1 damage that spell would deal to that creature or player.
[1/2]
Diagonal Step3UEnchantment — Aura [U]
Enchant creature or planeswalker
Prevent all damage that would be dealt to and dealt by enchanted permanent.
I think Test of Faith at common would manufacture relevance for Pinpoint Avalanche pretty effectively.
[EDIT]: Realized the set already has Gideon's Helm, so I'm nixing Diagonal Step.
Red has often been accused of being a shallow color. If burn is on low cycle, what aspects of the color are you planning to highlight other than "attack attack attack"?
Avatar by Numotflame96 of Maelstrom Graphics
Sig banner thanks to DarkNightCavalier of Heroes of the Plane Studios!
Rough IdeaSalt in the Wound 2UUInstant [C]
Counter target spell. Look at the top card of its controller's library. You may put that card on the bottom of its controller's library.
Edit: Also, I agree with people's concerns about red not having much to do.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
Because Limited. And because some people like the challenge of using bad cards.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
I am not a limited player, so please tell me how making Circle the Wagons 3 mana, making Rough Idea Fateseal, making Fugitive Bard 2 mana and a 2/1, making Pinpoint Avalanche 4 mana, and making Tomb's Treasure able to exile 2 creatures or 2 artifacts to draw 2 cards would break Limited. Also, I don't think anyone likes the challenge of using a mediocre creature buff.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
Worldslayer + burn deck? You get to equip it for cheaper than normal and you don't have to pay for or wait for a dude to wield it - instead your opponent wastes mana to do that for you, and you choose whichever of his critters has flying or trample to help it get through. Bonus points if you have a reckless abandon on hand to cast right on top of the worldslayer's triggered ability =P
Or something like Demonmail Hauberk - it makes anything you steal a moderate threat while sidestepping the usual annoying equip cost, removes the creature for you when you're done with it so the opponent never gets it back, by sacrificing IT as the next equip cost, and as a convenient bonus, you get to have the very nicely buffing hauberk attached to one of your own dudes without having to have given up anybody of your own to equip it.
Or Argentum armor, for half normal equipping cost + the dude its attached to will become such a major threat that your opponent will be obligated to take care of the removal of their own creature for you for free as soon as possible, while you hopefully get to attack at least once in the meantime.
Well, I wouldn't sell short the idea of "attack attack attack." Lots of good stuff there.
But, no, I get what you're saying. And I could give you some convenient answer du jour, like "there will be lots of looting and bottling," but I'm factoring that stuff into my thinking already. So, besides taking it old school with some beat-based aggro, what is my big aspiration for red in this environment?
Here's my "develop red" agenda:
Because math dictates that there must be. Even if I made every card in the environment as cutthroat and undercosted as possible (cough... Urza's block) half the cards are still going to be below average for that environment, and thus will not be relevant to competitive play. That's just statistics being the cruel mistress that she is.
If I push every card to the raggedy edge of plausibility, I also create two much more egregious problems: power creep and anomy. It's hard to undo power creep once you've committed it. It's easy to make a bad card better, later. By anomy, I mean the lack of sense, meaning, or purpose for the environment. If my red burn is just as good as my red aggro, and they're all just as good as my white control, and my green midrange, then the only archetype that's going to emerge from my environment is goodstuff.deq. That is no fun for anybody. I try to be intentional about the highs and lows in the environment I'm creating so that potential players feel like there's a purpose to designing a custom deck.
To go back and invoke Mark Rosewater, it's also important to remember that not every card is made for you. If I know that a card isn't going to fall into that upper half of competitive cards, I'm going to try to give it another reason to exist. For Tomb's Treasure, I tried to give it a strong flavor. For Rough Idea, I'm throwing down a challenge to Johnny to see if he can crack it.
I don't want any of these cards to go ignored and unloved, but I simply have to acknowledge that there's no way to make Spike care about 100% of the cards in an environment. So, I might as well go and define my lower boundary and make some cards bad by design.
Timmy isn't going to play Circle the Wagons, Rough Idea, or Pinpoint Avalanche. There just isn't anything fun about them. Johnny isn't going to play Circle the Wagons, Pinpoint Avalanche, Fugitive Bard, or Rough Idea, there isn't much of a challenge there. Spike isn't going to play any of these. Printing cards that nobody likes just because you need to have something horrible is just wrong.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
I think Spike will be quite happy with Circle the Wagons, Pinpoint Avalanche, and Fugitive Bard when Spike is at the end of his pack and desperately searching for playables in his draft colors.
These cards probably have no business in a Constructed environment. But designing low-pick Limited cards is not the same as designing cards that nobody wants to play. Late-pick drafting has a unique competitive element to it.
In a word - "Limited".
This is why I don't play limited. Playing with horrible cards just because somehow there is strategy involved in being able to play with horrible cards doesn't appeal to me.
That's the problem. If these are playable, almost anything is. Nobody wants to play these. You are just being forced to in Draft.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
This is not accurate.
it may be DIFFICULT to avoid horrible cards while also avoiding power creep. But "math dictates" no such thing by necessity, because nothing says you HAVE to have a perfectly normal curve distribution of goodness of cards. You can have a skew distribution instead.
(ember shot is found somewhere off to the left of your monitor on this graph)
Notice the blue distribution does not have power creep (whether you define it as most powerful OR average power), still has the same occasional awesome cards on the high end, and yet its worst cards are not at all horrible, or are VERY rarely so by comparison. This blue curve would be an ideal distribution, not the red one, so as not to waste space with pointless cards that just frustrate people.
It's fine to have an occasional mistake where you err too far on the bad side, but i agree that nobody should be setting out to INTENTIONALLY make bad cards. "Because limited" is not a good argument for doing that, because although limited players can better make do with jank, there's no reason why limited players NEED jank. There's still tons of range to differentiate between good card pickers and bad. And the difficult, skill-testing decisions were not the ones way on the left of the graph anyway.
If that's how you feel, I agree, you probably shouldn't play Limited.
As the guy who has entered drafts with the intention of sweeping up all the unclaimed Tome Scours in the 10th-14th passes, I love operating in low-pick territory. That is where your whole draft makes it or breaks it. IMO, making "bad" cards work for you is one of the most fun parts of the drafting experience.
[EDIT]: Oh boy.
I never spoke to the shape of the (theoretical) distribution, just that some card would occupy the (theoretical) 50th percentile on some norm-referenced index of card merit, which is accurate.
I think that your graph is flawed because it is assuming some independent criterion of card merit. It is not meaningful to establish such a criterion.
Even assuming that we can measure cards against such an independent criterion, I'm not sure that I agree with you that the graph exhibiting skewness is the way to go. What you're advocating is a big pool of medium-to-low-powered, undifferentiated slush, with relatively few standouts, and an environment defined by extreme outliers at the top of the scale. If you shoot for a normal curve, you get more cards above the power "midpoint," which is exactly what you'd want for a healthy Constructed environment. I think I prefer the normal curve, here.
Disagree on all points. Some card is going to end up as the least-competitive card in the set, or tied for least-competitive, and you might as well try to take control of that fact and give that card another reason to exist.
"Because Limited" is a GREAT reason to design bad cards. And a good Limited environment DOES need jank. Again, there are entire draft archetypes that are dependent on a card being awful to 99% of players. Intentionally designing a playable card to be a late pick is a great way to make sure that meaningful decisions persist throughout the entire drafting process.
And I don't think highly of the idea that skilltesting should just be an exercise in identifying the best cards in a format. That's not skilltesting, that's just trivia. In draft, skilltesting should come from your ability to read the signals of your flight and maximize the benefit of each selection that you make, whether that selection is your first or your fourteenth.
If it helps, think of Pinpoint Avalanche as affordable anti-Gideon Jura tech.
Anyway, here's a classically "bad" card that might be unexpectedly good in this meta:
Instant [U]
Any number of target creatures become black until end of turn.