A way Red can interact with Blue counter spells.
Custom Cards forum
Posted on Dec. 21, 2015, 12:08 a.m. by StopShot
So it's important that the color pie stay balanced and in a way where each color stays true to its theme.
I've often felt blue as a color seems to be a bit too powerful. To counter act this color a player should resort to green and red for solution spells that work against blue's theme. I feel green already does so with its handful of un-counterable spells, but I feel red doesn't have an answer to this problem which is why blue is stronger from the other colors that are kept more in check with their enemy colors.
For red I wouldn't suggest making un-counterable red spells since that aspect seems more affiliated under green. Instead I want to propose red should have an ability I call "ransack" which interacts with counter spells.
Ransack is an effect that works like Wild Guess, Tormenting Voice, Faithless Looting, and Abbot of Keral Keep however it only grants card advantage when the spell is countered.
Ransack states that as an additional cost to cast the spell, you must draw a card, however when the spell resolves as an added on effect to the spell you must then exile a card from your hand.
This effect doesn't gain card advantage, however when countered the red caster still draws a card as part of the cost, whereas the exile effect along with the rest of the spell is countered.
Red traditionally is the most powerful by obtaining strength faster than any other color, but at the cost of burning itself out in the process. For the more methodical blue player, they're not able to stop the speed of the red player until they're countering the burn out portion that hinders them.
Granted the overall spell is countered, yet it only gives red more incentive and fuel to burn itself out even more, and in the process it only helps the blue player in stalling that potential another turn longer. After all, red is the color that I feel would do anything to be controlled the least.
As for applying ransack to spells I do feel spells with ransack should generally cost a little more than mirror copies without ransack, or cost the same for spells that already put you at a lack of card advantage like Pyretic Ritual, Fiery Conclusion, and Spark Elemental.
I feel red already uses a lot of potential card disadvantage as it is, which can only play out ever so favorably to blue control mages. Red as a color should only act more aggressively when control is enforced unto them, and with heavier emphasis on this I think it would really help in balancing out the red-blue gap that there is in the color pie that makes blue so adept. (Legacy and Commander are the biggest examples of this gap.)
Please feel free to leave your thoughts below on the ability "Ransack" and how you feel it fits in with the color pie.
VampireArmy says... #4
Burnout Molten Influence Guttural Response are cards as well.
December 21, 2015 12:18 a.m. Edited.
Red has a way of dealing with Counterspells, it's one of the colors primary with "Can't be Countered". See Banefire or Vexing Shusher.
December 21, 2015 12:21 a.m.
Adding to the above, Red throws so much stuff at a blue mage so quickly, that a counter or two means next to nothing.
December 21, 2015 12:30 a.m.
@PutridLeech, VampireArmy, Okay, red does have options for only blue, but those cards are useless in the sense they do nothing outside of other decks.
Firstrike is made to counteract Deathtouch but still has use against non-deathtouch creatures.
Trample is made to counteract tiny chump blockers but still has use against non-tiny creatures.
Regenerate was made to counteract removal, but still has use against non-removal through its use in combat.
The spells you two listed do not apply in the same way, and are only helpful in a blue dominated meta, something that says a. the colors aren't balanced and b. a certain color is doing a poor job maintaining equal power.
Ransack though meant to counteract blue counterspells still has use in sifting out lands and unneeded cards for those that are more effective. Take Magma Jet, Knollspine Dragon, Wheel of Fortune. It fits flavor-wise, has application outside of what its intended for and helps balance the color pie by giving red more merit and blue less.
The red counterspells don't even exist with modern red spells. Counterspells are held almost entirely to blue and though blue seems to always get new cards like True-Name Nemesis, Snapcaster Mage, Dig Through Time, the fact red has to stick to out-dated cards with no change is entirely unfair and shows a tremendous power creep if you haven't noticed. It's really pitiful.
Besides, the topic is meant for interpretation of the "ransack" ability. Sidetracking on technicalities is not something I want to be doing after taking the time to write out an idea I feel strongly about. I refuse to be dismissed until this is addressed.
December 21, 2015 12:38 a.m.
@JWiley129, Take a look at the number of green uncounterable spells and note how it dwarfs that of red. Note how only Akroma, Angel of Fury is the only red uncounterable red creature that was printed in the color warping set of Planar Chaos. Being able to not be countered is not red's library unless its attached to a burn spell or is part green.
@Scouty, In standard yes, in modern not as much. Red's ability diminishes with age and in commander red can't even live up to its own theme, because a 40 life start and lack of consistency. If we increase power of red cards they'll ruin standard and modern to some extent to balance the legacy and commander issue. Red needs to not get lockdown as easy if it wants to continue in its theme of providing the damage and the burn.
December 21, 2015 12:49 a.m.
Dude, red has just a fine shot vs blue, in any format. Legacy, red has Red Elemental Blast and Pyroblast, and in modern, they have a clock that blue in that format has a hard time catching up to. Sure blue has some powerful cards, but red has been right up there as well. If you feel as though red has no power vs blue, then that's your problem. A competent red pilot can easily deal with blue's shenanigans
December 21, 2015 12:51 a.m.
I think this is actually pretty cool. I'm sure there are technicalities and rules that this might come in conflict with but the overall idea sounds nice. Either this or giving red some better way to refuel, which Abbot of Keral Keep is nice for.
December 21, 2015 12:52 a.m.
Im just gonna quote this first and then respond "I refuse to be dismissed until this is addressed."
Your Highness, StopShot
Just some future advice here, If u want to work on a new keyword often times an example of a card with that keyword helps
Second, long walls of text do not induce conversation surrounding your idea
Third, You, in your argument say that the meta is blue dominated, and then when we suggest spells that counter blue spells only, you say that it is not only for blue spells
Finally, regarding ransack I think it maybe too overpowered again an example goes along way, just adding a keyword gives us no idea of the power level of cards with this keyword
Also, I don't know if u play modern but red has a lot of support in both modern and leagcy, Blood moon is one of the best cards in the modern meta right now, as it can completely hose some decks.
Regarding commander I do agree that red maybe underpowered but tribal decks such as krenko goblins as well artifact based decks such as feldon can still be great and win tables just as much as blue decks
December 21, 2015 12:53 a.m. Edited.
also adding ransack to Pyretic Ritual would be terrible
storm would become way more consistent something and that would ruin the modern metagame
December 21, 2015 12:59 a.m. Edited.
StopShot - I hope you're ready for a beating. First, Red is primary in Can't be countered on Instants and Sorceries, with Green being primary in Can't be countered in Creatures. Here is a list of all cards that are Red that have "can't be countered" on them. One is a 
hybrid card, which means that it could be done in mono-red, and the other creatures are the aforementioned Akroma, Spellbreaker Behemoth, and Surrak Dragonclaw. The rest are the burn spells, which Red excels at or splash cards like Counterflux and Slaughter Games. Two of those cards are also Blue hate cards in Combust and Rending Volley. Now, should there be more "Can't be Countered" spells in Red? I'd be on board if they printed more, but hold your horses and actually listen to what people are telling you.
December 21, 2015 1:01 a.m.
- @StopShot - Blue seems to always get new cards like True-Name Nemesis, Snapcaster Mage, Dig Through Time, the fact red has to stick to out-dated cards with no change is entirely unfair and shows a tremendous power creep if you haven't noticed. It's really pitiful.
Just off the top of my head, red has also recently received several all-star staples seeing play in basically every format. Young Pyromancer, Monastery Swiftspear, and Eidolon of the Great Revel.
Putting that aside, from a judge's stand point "Ransack" wouldn't fly because it's too rife for causing rule violations, whether intentional or otherwise. A Faithless Looting is a single effect, you resolve the ability and move on. "Ransack" would have players drawing and exiling in sometimes complicated stacks far removed from when the original action took place. Players can barely keep from revealing extra cards to Courser of Kruphix, let alone remember if they drew or discarded involving a complex stack.
Ransack states that as an additional cost to cast the spell, you must draw a card, however when the spell resolves as an added on effect to the spell you must then exile a card from your hand.
This effect doesn't gain card advantage.
Except it's clearly card advantage if your opponent counters it. There are also corner cases where you'd be able to retain priority or respond to your opponents spells to gain card advantage when near empty handed.
I think the simpler more rules friendly version of what your purposing would simply something like - "If this spell was countered by a spell or ability you may discard a card then draw a card." Fewer corner cases, simple resolution, and gives the red player a little value if they end up trading cards with a Counterspell.
December 21, 2015 1:13 a.m.
PutridLeech - We'll see. People are allowed to have poor opinions, and even misguided ones.
December 21, 2015 1:24 a.m.
@Scouty, No, I wouldn't say red has no power against blue, I'm saying it's power against blue does not match like how other enemy pairings match with each other. Black and White have their ins-and-outs, and the same can be said for all the other enemy color pairings. Red though given some leverage by what is already stated above does not share as much use over blue as any other color would with its opposing side. If you look at how often red can win a tournament to how often blue can win, they're disproportional in blue's favor.
@DERPLINGSUPREME, Yes redirect spells work, but they don't see competitive play, or at least not to the extent that Red Elemental Blast and friends hold, which by themselves are extremely limited to only one color. If you must focus on countering counter spells you're better off using blue. Blue counter spells remove anything including opposing blue counter spells. Red counter spells only work for opposing blue counter spells which makes them marginally inferior. Shunt is better because its uses extend past that of counterspells, but its use seems to be better for non-blue spells like Swords to Plowshares and Abrupt Decay instead of Counterspell and Spell Pierce. Blue needs to be more of top focus in gaining the benefits, while still applying some use outside of it.
@bigguy99, Does it feel like a theme that feels balanced to you? Do you feel like it doesn't over-extend past what red should be capable of doing?
@PutridLeech, "Your Highness, StopShot"
Please, I don't want to be thought of highly nor do I want conflict. I don't want this to be personal, and I don't want to make this personal for others. I'm passionate for what I say, and you can disagree. I just feel shot down, because the focus of what I tried to present is under-minded by questionable statements I've made. Yes, it's right to correct me, but those statements aside my suggestion still stands as whether red should have an ability like this flavorfully. Statements about opposing blue I feel are justified because a color is supposed to hold gimmicks that combat their opposite colors, because they flavorfully stand for the opposite ideals of that color which is where I think red suffers in gameplay when matched to blue. I only threw in the single legacy and commander statement as part of bad judgment, because I brought in an argument unnecessary to this whole topic and its derailed this whole post over a technicality. I'll say it again, correct me if you must, but when the technicality is all that's getting discussed I get unhappy. Pardon my sass but can everyone please just stick to the intended subject? I know you mentioned it a bit but I just want to hear whether people like or don't like the idea of ransack and to tell me why. Debating legacy and commander is not what this forum section is for and its my fault starting it, but I don't want that to be the reason why this is a bad idea.
Also note, I'm feeling overwhelmed and condensing word walls is something I'm terrible with as evidence by my response, but appreciate your feedback and I'm sorry if I came across as a bit too harsh.
@Other people, I'll get to other people's responses. Sorry for the wait. I want to respond to everyone, because I appreciate responses more than no responses, and I want to make sure I can do the same for all of you. Thank you for the patience.
December 21, 2015 2 a.m.
@PutridLeech, Yes Pyretic Ritual would be terrible for having ransack. I was not thinking about storm during the making of my post and had I remembered I wouldn't have included it in my original post.
My intent was not on making storm more powerful nor do I want to introduce the ability to make only a specific deck type more powerful. That's why the design team at wizards consists of many people who spend more than just a few hours developing and testing ideas. My idea for the ritual was a suggestion for what I thought was an unplayable card that didn't have a niche in any particular deck type.
@JWiley129, Yes I read or will read everything put on this post. It would be wrong not to read other people's responses when they have taken the care to read mine.
Autumn's Veil, and Determined are both green non-creature spells that encourage uncounterable spells in green. Abrupt Decay is green, but not red. I also said red creatures can't be uncounterable unless they include green or as I stated before "part green". The inclusion of green is the only reason they would be uncounterable.
Yes, red instant and sorceries can be uncounterable, but limited. You already have to be playing blue to use Counterflux which defeats its inclusion in this topic. Rending Volley and Combust are also limited. Yes it his blue and even white, but you'd never use it against a jund deck, where the majority of blue's counterspells a.k.a. its removal does not discriminate by color which shows yet another inferiority red has over blue. My argument stands that red needs an effect that works well against blue, but isn't necessarily useless when facing other non-blue decks.
@Slycne, I'm not a judge and I'm not going to argue or doubt you on what you say about the ability complicating the stack. It wasn't my intention to create such a conundrum, but I am glad you have pointed that out for me.
Furthermore you are correct about Monastery Swiftspear and Eidolon of the Great Revel, but they only fit in one deck type being burn and any other red deck that isn't a burn variant is not likely to include them whereas the blue cards are mentioned are much more flexible from blue deck to blue deck, because of how much value they have to offer.
As for your suggestion on how the ability can be done differently, I've thought of it before but I don't feel like its an effect red needs. To put this into perspective from other colors flavor-wise white has first strike which is an ability made to take advantage of creatures with deathtouch, outside of deathtouch first strike still has a use in combat against non-deathtouch creatures. Same for other colors where they have an effect that's meant to combat their opposing color's specialty, but that effect is still useful generally amongst all colors.
While an effect like that could help in combating blue, it does not have any use against other nonblue colors and will leave red players questioning whether the addition of more mana to cast a spell with that ability is worth it against other decks when they can likely use the same spell for a cheaper CMC without the effect.
My idea for the ability, though flawed with what you have pointed out was meant to give an advantage against blue, but still have some use outside of nonblue decks similar to how first strike is still relevant outside of removing deathtouch creatures. If an ability is only useful against one color, but won't make a difference to other colors the card won't be used as conditionally as those that still make an impact in other colors even if they're not against the specified color they were meant for. This is a problem red has of being too restrictive where other colors are not.
December 21, 2015 3 a.m.
StopShot - I never said that Green can't get uncounterability on non-creature spells, just that it's the primary usage of that effect. That's why Abrupt Decay and Determined both have that clause.
And I find it funny that you use two Green multicolored cards to help your point and simultaneously discount the Red multicolored cards that help mine. Debate is a two-way street, and you're both helping and hurting your case there. Furthermore the effect you want to give Red only helps against Blue anyways, so their effectiveness against non-blue decks is limited. So trying to say "Well you wouldn't sideboard in Combust against a Jund deck" is true, but ultimately is irrelevant to the ability you want to give Red.
December 21, 2015 3:08 a.m.
@JWiley129, We've been hosting two different debates. One on whether red flavor-wise has "can't be countered" and now the usefulness of the proposed ability "ransack". ((Which has been discounted by Slycne who has explained the complexities that arise out of using it on the stack, so we're arguing over whether my intentions are justifiable.))
First off, yes the green spells are multicolor, but what is the color giving them, "can't be countered"? Take black from Abrupt Decay, black doesn't hold cards that are uncounterable so its implied green. Determined is more questionable because blue has some spells that are uncounterable, but the fact it has two effects and the "draw card" portion obviously screams blue it can only be implied the other part is green especially with the similarities it shares with Autumn's Veil.
As I've stated before I agree that red instant and sorceries are uncounterable, the mono-red creatures are not. Using my same reasoning before with the colors black and blue, red has been incapable of producing mono-red uncounterable creatures except the one I mentioned. Green has 13. Green even has Gaea's Herald a green effect on both your red multicolored creatures, which begs the question is it really the red providing those effects, or is it the green because my guess says the latter.
The reason I make a big deal out of this is, the effect is not red for creatures and Wizards isn't going to produce red uncounterable creatures in the future unless you're willing to splash green to get that effect, which seems kind of sad red would need to rely on another color to do what it needs to do. In a way it's like saying they finally gave white deathtouch with Mardu Hateblade when really you're better off dropping white for black with Typhoid Rats.
This brings me back to the other debate. Ransack provides a free cycle effect when cast where most spells don't. Yes you're not gaining card advantage when its not countered, but the effect helps you cycle away bad top decks for potentially better ones and gets you through more of your deck faster. If a spell by itself could help you increase the chances of you getting a better top deck while simultaneously activating its own effect that would be worth using. For example if we reprinted Lightning Strike with ransack it would become strictly better than Lightning Strike. It would still compete with Lightning Bolt, but if your opponent was running a long and grindy jund or abzan deck, being able to better effect how your topdecks turn out would mean a big difference in winning the game.
The point of the ability is its supposed to be a plus compared to just the vanilla version of the card its based off of. Like how Flying Men is better than a Fugitive Wizard even though their stats are the same. Flying Men is most favorable against a green deck without reach, but it doesn't mean you'd want to use the Fugitive Wizard against all other deck types. Ransack is meant to be really good against one specific color, but still better than its vanilla version against other colors as I just demonstrated. Combust won't ever give you that, because of its lack of flexibility which is what red needs. If ransack and flying are really good against a certain color, but generally alright against others then they'll see much more play than the same spells that don't have those effects.
December 21, 2015 5:14 a.m.
First off, the idea that a color is undercut because it cannot deal with blue counterspells specifically is false. This is just as true for red as it is for any other non-blue color.
Second, giving a card a free loot effect "draw, then discard/exile a card" that somehow triggers after the spell is on the stack is not thought-out at all. Card advantage comes in many forms and granting more virtual CA to red is a bad idea. Virtual CA in this case means that by looting away an unneeded land for anything else off the top of your deck, you get a chance at a better card for no loss. It makes identical cards that do not have this strictly worse than those with Ransack. Not to mention, drawing and then discarding in now only in blue's color pie. Red has it reversed ie Daretti, Scrap Savant. And how do you propose to tack this onto cards?
Third, why do blue counterspells always get the bad rep they do? White protection, green and black lifegain/drain are do just the same via different means.
Fourth, you are focusing on an entire section of the game that you think is unbalanced but is actually not. "I dislike counterspells", despite its popularity, is not something that is reasonable IMO.
I fail to grasp the reason for this or any reasonable way to implement it.
December 21, 2015 7:30 a.m. Edited.
mathimus55 says... #24
What the hell happened?!?
PutridLeech & JWiley129 I was thinking the same thing. Some narcisitic "my experiences outweigh yours!" User that doesn't fully understand the color wheel or game design dropping in just makes the site fun. Sure a few headaches are caused but it comes with the territory.
So, StopShot, you really come across as someone that wanted to build a mono red deck for any format(probably edh) and struggled with the fact that someone made a Talrand deck or you tried playing legacy and came across someone playing Force of Will. I'm probably wrong, but this is how you're presenting yourself.
I before you go too far down the rabbit hole with changing what certain colors do I would take a good long look at what the different colors do in the color pie. Listen to Mark Rosewater's podcast when he talks about what each color does and the mentality behind it. Red is all about the tangible and here and now, not the future and drawing cards like blue. In the same sense, red is good about destroying things once they get on the field, where blue has less ability to do so directly. Counter spells are what make blue balanced compared to other colors. Sure there are a few uncounterable spells in red or green but they're narrow in uses. It's ok that red has weaknesses just like every other color.
Finally, in response to the proposed mechanic: why not make the ETB ability of Abbot of Keral Keep ability where it exiles the top card instead of drawing the card. It would be hard to keep track of a card that is drawn into the hand and then keep track of it for when you have to exile it later, it could lead to some shenanigans with exiling the right card. Instead I would just put the abbot ability on the spells so you exile the top card and you can play it until EOT. That would make it much easier to keep track of and fits more in line with what red does when it comes to card advantage.
December 21, 2015 9:25 a.m.
lemmingllama says... #25
Sadly on mobile so I can't flesh out an argument. So instead i'll just leave Ricochet Trap as a competitively used Modern legal counterspell that also works when not against blue
December 21, 2015 9:52 a.m.
Gidgetimer says... #26
"If you look at how often red can win a tournament to how often blue can win, they're disproportional in blue's favor."
Since I'm unsure of if we are counting legacy now and don't much care for standard lets assess this statement against the last 3 major modern event top 8s. (I pulled these from mtgtop8 Some of their names for stuff are weird so I may put another name in parentheses)
SCG Invitational Las Vegas:
Affinity
Grixis Control
Jund
Twin Exarch
Gr Tron
Gr Tron
Infect
Podless Collected
5 decks containing red, 3 decks containing blue. If you disregard the ones that contain both 3 red decks, 1 blue.
GP Pittsburgh:
UWR Twin
Affinity
Affinity
Hatebear
Grixis Control
Twin Exarch
Twin Exarch
Valakut (Titanshift)
5 red containing decks, 4 blue containing decks. Disregarding the ones that contain both, 1 red deck, 0 blue.
GP Porto Alegre:
Zoo (Naya Zoo)
Naya Burn (Naya Zoo)
4/5c Good Stuff (Bant Zoo)
Naya Burn (Naya Zoo)
Aura Hexproof (Bogles, GW Hexproof)
Gr Tron
Living End
Twin Exarch
Now this one is a bit trickier to suss out. They have the Bant Zoo deck marked as 4c Good Stuff because it contains 4 Lightning Bolt, and Slippery Bogle technically is 
even though the deck runs 0 blue mana sources. So I am going to propose three different sets of numbers for the first analysis and the "disregarding decks containing both" will be based off of the last one.
Counting Bant Zoo as only Bant and GW Hexproof as only Selesnya there are 6 red decks and 2 blue decks. Counting any color in any portion of a mana cost there are 7 red decks and 3 blue decks. Counting only colors that appear both in a mana cost and in the mana base there are 7 red decks and 2 blue deck. Disregarding decks with both blue and red you have 5 red decks and 0 blue.
Now to the point of my long winded analysis, it may feel like blue has an edge because counterspells are annoying, but colors are usually pretty well balanced. I feel as if giving red constant virtual card advantage would be a mistake. Your argument is akin to saying that white needs a new mechanic to hose black because green has hexproof and white no longer has protection since they made it no longer evergreen as of M15. I disagree with your basic premise and so am not going to offer further analysis on the mechanic itself.
December 21, 2015 10:06 a.m.
Wow. Okay, here we go. First, It's astonishing how many personal attacks were made in this thread, ones that came from seemingly nowhere. TappedOut is a place to discuss Magic ideas, as well as make decks. By being uncivil with your responses you're not cultivating a very friendly atmosphere on this site.
Now, onto the contents of this thread. If I'm understanding StopShot correctly, and please correct me if I'm not, he's stating that red doesn't have a keyworded ability that counteracts aspects of blue, whereas every other color has keywords that counteract their respective enemy colors. He gave examples to this in white having First Strike to counteract black's Deathtouch, in green having Regenerate to counteract black's removal, etc. He also stated that he wants an effect that is strong against specifically the enemy color, but not useless against everything else. He gave examples to this as well. First Strike is strong against Deathtouch creatures, stopping the ability outright (given the right creature), but is also usable outside of countering Deathtouch, in general combat. Same with Regenerate, and every other keyword designed to help the color deal with an aspect of it's enemy (hexproof, lifelink, etc.). In respects to this second requirement, uncounterable cards fulfill the first requirement (beating an aspect of the enema color), but fail the second requirement (being useful against other colors).
So, OP suggested a mechanic that loots (kinda) when the spell resolves and is a straight up draw if the card is countered. This fulfills the requirement of being strong against an aspect of the enemy color, while also being strong against other colors too.
@StopShot, with the little summary finished, I can get on to my response :P. I believe you're looking at this the wrong way. I believe red does have a keyword that counteracts aspects of blue, that keyword being Haste. Haste, along with the general low mana cost of cards in red's arsenal, put a fast clock on blue that the color has no real way of stopping. In that sense, Haste counters blue's slow and methodical aspect. That's why you see red burn decks often beat blue control decks. First, the red cards come down before counter mana is up, second the counter spells cost 2 and up, while red has many cards that cost just 1. You can see how effective this is from a competitive standpoint in every format except EDH, and the reason it doesn't work in EDH is because of the lifetotal. If you want an example of another color that has a sort of roundabout counter to its enemy, take a look at white. White has lifelink to counteract red's fast nature by counteracting the damage it can deal.
Anyway, sorry for this wall of text.
December 21, 2015 10:35 a.m.
StopShot - I'm beginning to think you don't understand what the color pie is all about. The Color Pie is a balancing effect that lets some colors have access to some abilities and the other colors don't. While I appreciate you're trying to find an in-color way of dealing with Red's weakness, colors are allowed to have weaknesses. Furthermore, you saying that Green has 13 uncounterable creatures to Red's 1 is proof of Red being secondary in uncounterable creatures. If Green is primary in "can't be countered" on creatures, then it should have the most of those types of creatures. So currently all I'm seeing is the color pie acting as intended.
Also, your comment "The reason I make a big deal out of this is, the effect is not red for creatures and Wizards isn't going to produce red uncounterable creatures in the future unless you're willing to splash green to get that effect, which seems kind of sad red would need to rely on another color to do what it needs to do." is another proof of the color pie working as intended. You want to get some extra reach in your mono-Green aggro deck? You need to splash Red for the burn spells. You need some way to get rid of creatures in your mono-blue deck? You need to splash Black for some removal. That is how the color pie works. If you want an effect outside of your color, you need to put in another color that does what you need. And this is where I'd like to address your example. Mardu Hateblade is a White card, but it didn't give White deathtouch. It has an off-color activated ability giving it deathtouch, which is in-color for Black. Cards with off-color activated abilities aren't "proof" of Wizards giving them an out of color ability, but a way of putting in two-color cards without making them gold. Some other examples include: Agent of Horizons, Graverobber Spider, Crackling Triton, or Firehoof Cavalry. None of those cards give their color an out-of-color effect, because they require the correct mana to use that effect.
Now, as for your Ransack mechanic. It's waaaay too powerful. Cycle, the mechanic, is usually 
and you have to discard the card as a cost. Putting it for free on spells? Way too good, and makes Red way too consistent. Card advantage is supposed to be one of Red's weaknesses. Which is why Red doesn't get Merfolk Looter effects and instead gets Rummaging Goblin where you have to discard first. It's also why Red is getting more of the "Impulsive Draw" mechanic first seen on Chandra, Pyromaster and more recently on Abbot of Keral Keep. And as other users pointed out, the mechanic is very easy to abuse and makes some decks stronger by default.
Nemesis - I'd like you to point out where the ad-hominem attacks happened, because I reread the thread to make sure and I don't see any such attacks.
December 21, 2015 11:07 a.m.
"Some narcisitic "my experiences outweigh yours!" User that doesn't fully understand the color wheel or game design "
"A competent red pilot can easily deal with blue's shenanigans "
and though it isn't an attack per se, but the "your highness Stopshot" wasn't exactly civil.
and the "I hope you're ready for a beating" was hardly conducive to maintaining a relaxed atmosphere.
My point being, posts in this thread would come off quite a bit nicer if people were less... hostile.
December 21, 2015 11:32 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #30
Cut the petty personal jabs. I expect better from all of you. If you disagree, find a purely civil way to voice that, not a toxic one.
December 21, 2015 12:24 p.m.
@Boza, Thank you for your feedback, let me address the points you stated.
"First off, the idea that a color is undercut because it cannot deal with blue counterspells specifically is false. This is just as true for red as it is for any other non-blue color."
That is incorrect, red and green are at opposite ends of the color pie from blue therefore they should have mechanics that counteract each others' themes. Take green for example; Skylasher, Petrified Wood-Kin, Great Sable Stag. Green has effective answers for blue counterspells. Red does not host anything effective against blue removal. Yes, Red Elemental Blast does work, but is absolutely useless against other color decks while spells like Great Sable Stag still give you a 3/3 body. It's part of reds job to use effective spells that counteract blue and red the same way its green's job to counteract blue and black.
"Second, giving a card a free loot effect "draw, then discard/exile a card" that somehow triggers after the spell is on the stack is not thought-out at all. Card advantage comes in many forms and granting more virtual CA to red is a bad idea..."
Okay, first lets not misinterpret what I've stated. This loot effect is not "free". I'm not advocating we just stick it on spells like Lightning Bolt, or Goblin Guide, but spells that are already largely inferior to them like Lightning Strike or Goblin Chariot where the extra cost to play these spells with the same effect are given ransack as compensation and balance. Note also how wizards usually makes cards strictly better anyway when you compare Elite Vanguard to Soldier of the Pantheon. This upgrade doesn't break the format, because elite vanguard isn't ever played the same way Lightning Strike and Goblin Chariot don't see play. Giving them an effect doesn't break anything, because of how they cost high to their counterparts as it is. Lastly note how I reference Faithless Looting and Abbot of Keral Keep. If that's not enough also note Goblin Lore and Burning Inquiry. I even stated that the discarded card is exiled, which is an effect seen in red and not like the traditional blue looting as shown by cards like Ignorant Bliss and Act on Impulse. Lastly ransack would be printed on cards in much the same way as spells that have abilities that work on the stack much like split second and "can't be countered" effects on cards
"Third, why do blue counterspells always get the bad rep they do? White protection, green and black lifegain/drain are do just the same via different means."
That's because counterspells are left unchecked. Protection first is no longer evergreen and won't be found on new cards. Lifegain is stopped with "players can't gain life" effects or "if a player would gain life they lose that much life" effects. Flying is met with reach. Spot removal is met with regenerate. Deathtouch is met with first strike. Counter spells aren't met with anything. Why make counter spells the Marry Sue of effects in Magic?
"Fourth, you are focusing on an entire section of the game that you think is unbalanced but is actually not. "I dislike counterspells", despite its popularity, is not something that is reasonable IMO."
I never said I disliked counter spells. Removing counter spells in my opinion is wrong, because its an attribute of blue. I dislike the fact that they're unanswerable and left unchallenged, because that's where they're unbalanced. If only one color was allowed to have flying and the other colors weren't allowed to have reach that would be unfair. If only one color was allowed to have creature removal and the rest couldn't have regenerate or protection that wouldn't be fair. I don't think its fair that one color has a game-winning attribute that can't be interacted by other colors, so why should counter spell be an exception?
"I fail to grasp the reason for this or any reasonable way to implement it."
I hope this has helped you in understanding my points.
@Other people, I will be getting to all of you shortly. I appreciate your patience and I will read and respond to all messages posted here. Thank you.
December 21, 2015 2:53 p.m.
so what are you even arguing for? people's acknowledgment?
December 21, 2015 4:41 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #34
There's absolutely no requirement that cards be universally relevant or good. In fact, it's a fair and intelligent design principle that one of the ways (not the sole way, but one of the ways) to balance hoser effects is by making them less well rounded. Consider Flashfreeze, a cheap hard counter designed to hose red and green. It's wholly inapplicable to white and black for balance purposes.
Further, note that you're comparing three rare green creatures to one red common instant. And you then go on to compare Lightning Bolt and Lightning Strike+"ransack" to Elite Vanguard and Soldier of the Pantheon. Rarity, although not based entirely on comparative power, is something that you need to account for when you make design analogies. We could, by the same token, say that Coral Merfolk to Snapcaster Mage is a good basis for upgrading things. It's nonsensical.
It's also worth noting that ransack does generate advantage. Drawing a card as an additional cost is a poor design feature. You almost never gain advantage as a cost. And before you say the discard completely balances it, consider the nature of red. Red wins, in many cases, by playing instants. What happens if you draw a Lightning Bolt for free and then cast it? How is that a downside?
Just going to point out that the natural corollary of "players can't gain life" is "can't be countered (by spells or abilities)," which already exists and already has tremendous impact through some high-profile cards. Counterspells are very far from unchecked. And they're very far from being game-winning by definition.
You're making a lot of very exaggerated claims. Consider that blue has terrible creature economy compared to almost every other color, and that counterspells are one of the tools that it uses to counteract pressure from those colors that do have good creature economy and other means of generating pressure on the board. Counterspells are an answer to threats and a way to mitigate one of blue's weaknesses; making the argument that this balancing characteristic needs to be counteracted is, while not necessarily baseless or unacceptable, in need of extensive substantiation.
Now, I didn't read much from the other comments (not in depth, anyway), but I'd also like to point out in response to the penultimate paragraph of your thread-starting post that red aggro traditionally demolishes blue control. The only control decks that tend to fare well have traditionally been creature-oriented control decks like Fish, which can play blockers to mitigate some of the damage red is constantly vomiting.
Dylan says... #2
Dude Pyroblast???? I mean have u tried even looked it up??
also regarding the ransack ability I feel like it's pretty bad, especially because its only relevant against x decks
December 21, 2015 12:10 a.m. Edited.