Demonic Tutor

Magic: the Gathering in the UK

So, as you probably know, Maro said when discussing Faithless Looting that if they printed it again now they would make the wording "slightly different".

There's a *lot* of discussion about what he meant here with the most common opinons being that he meant:

    1. Discard two cards then draw that many cards.

    2. Discard two cards then draw two cards.

There are also people that think the discard should be random (terrible) or that it should be a straight colorshift of blue looting, that it should trigger differently (when ~ attacks you may ... instead of on tap) or that it should be draw X cards, discard X cards at end of turn.

I really can't work out if (2) is broken or not on (say) a guy that taps to red-loot a single card.  It's the same as "Hellbent - T: Draw a card" which doesn't seem wildly extreme but does seem strong.

I also can't work out if reversing these makes looting bad, or too much of a thinker/unfun.  Looting in the U version is basically always a good idea whereas in a reversed version it can be fairly bad.

Some discussions:

http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/28912047/Red_Looting

http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=392682

http://mtgcolorpie.com/2011/06/07/design-class-the-future-of-red-lo...

For ymtd5 I'd like to pair whatever red looting we like best with Madness and effects like Niv-Mizzet's ping upon draw (also ping upon discard?) on creatures or enchantments.

I also like combining it with N damage, an X damage spell, a creature's ETB ability (as a one off), when ~ attacks trigger and a hasty guy who taps to red-loot.

What do you think?

Views: 284

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I don't think that (2) is really broken at all, certainly not at a single discard then draw. Being Hellbent in any game is normally a pretty bad thing as you have no hidden information, your opponent, in theory, can play perfectly, knowing you can't change the state of the game. I think I would be happy to print the following:

 

Red Looter - 1R

Creature - 1/1

T: Discard a card, then draw a card

 

Once you start getting up to multiple draws off this reversed looting it starts getting into a little more dangerous territory, I think "Discard 2 then Draw 2" is probably fine, you have to do a little work to make it a "R - Draw 2 cards" effect. It makes for a great topdeck in the late game, and allows for some great gameplay moments where it looks like you are dead and buried, you draw two cards and get right back in the game.

 

At higher numbers (3 and above) I think you have to cost it very carefully to not end up with a cheap Concentrate. If you really wanted you could always get around this by breaking them up into separate discard and draw actions. Makes for ugly templating:

 

Not a Red Ancestral - R

Sorcery

Discard a card, then draw a card.

Discard a card, then draw a card.

Discard a card, then draw a card.

 

This card is probably terrible, unless there are effects that trigger of the draw/discard, then it is pretty cool.

 

I think the benefit of us making our set/cards is that we can try Red looting however we like, and if it turns out not to be good/fun, then just try it a different way.

 

Right, I'll now go and read the articles.

 

everything Simon says, except that you can do the random discard first, this ENCOURAGES being hellbent (very red, and doesn't work well in control)

 

1R: discard 2 cards at random, draw 2 cards would be balanced, because by the time it started acting as a divination, the cost would be less important. 2R wouldn't even be good imho... maybe at instant speed to make up for it?

 

it makes for an interesting thought exercise though... how do you balance a draw 3 red card when the discard is random... discard your hand? discard 3 at random first. how much does it cost? I would be ok with a card like this for balance: 2RR: discard 3 cards at random, draw 3 cards. If you choose what you discard, the card HAS to cost more though... maybe 3RR? What do you guys think?

 

on balance: the red looter would be absolutely obnoxious in limited. I happily played the 3U enchantment that had, hellbent [2] draw a card in shadowmoor block in aggressive decks, and this is just better in so many ways. as a repeatable effect its problematic... maybe make it cost 1R to use...

e.g. 1R 1/1

1U OR 1R, tap: discard a card draw a card

I think

2RR

Discard your hand: Draw 3 Cards

Would see play easily at sorcery or instant so a reversed looting version would need to cost more. 

I agree the looter would be nuts in limted. Maybe

1R

Creature

T Discard a card: Draw a card.

2/1



Peter Dun said:

everything Simon says, except that you can do the random discard first, this ENCOURAGES being hellbent (very red, and doesn't work well in control)

 

1R: discard 2 cards at random, draw 2 cards would be balanced, because by the time it started acting as a divination, the cost would be less important. 2R wouldn't even be good imho... maybe at instant speed to make up for it?

 

it makes for an interesting thought exercise though... how do you balance a draw 3 red card when the discard is random... discard your hand? discard 3 at random first. how much does it cost? I would be ok with a card like this for balance: 2RR: discard 3 cards at random, draw 3 cards. If you choose what you discard, the card HAS to cost more though... maybe 3RR? What do you guys think?

 

on balance: the red looter would be absolutely obnoxious in limited. I happily played the 3U enchantment that had, hellbent [2] draw a card in shadowmoor block in aggressive decks, and this is just better in so many ways. as a repeatable effect its problematic... maybe make it cost 1R to use...

e.g. 1R 1/1

1U OR 1R, tap: discard a card draw a card

I always think red looting should be combined with aggressive creatures. Something like:

1R - Creature

Whenever <this> becomes tapped, discard a card then draw a card.

2/1

The easiest way to get the card draw is to attack with it, but it also works if you can find some way to tap your own men. Plus it's a terrible target for an opposing tapper!

A more extreme version might be something like this:

R - Creature

<This> must attack each turn if able

Whenever <this> becomes tapped, discard two cards then draw a card

2/2

So now you have a really aggro 2/2 for 1, but it costs you a card every time it attacks - until you get Hellbent at which point it draws a card every time it attacks! This may well be too good, though...

Those are pretty cool Kieran.

Tim Willoughby had an interesting card in YmtD3:

Red Looter Man - 2R

Creature 2/2

Whenever ~ deals combat damage to a player, each player discards a card then draws a card.

It might have been U style looting, but the tension of not blocking it so you can loot balanced against also letting its controller loot is interesting.

I think the discard 3 at random / discard your hand, draw 3 is okay at 2RR Sorcery. Certainly strong and strictly better than Concentrate or Harmonize, barring any abuse of the actual discard. Would have to be a rare though I think considering it is Red. 3RR at common/uncommon. On second thoughts I'm not sure, did anyone ever play Drastic Revelation? I'm aware it is triple colour, but has way more upside then our proposed version.

Drastic Revelation was terrible.  Also the reason R's forays into looting have always been terrible in the past is because the discard is random.  I really think we have to avoid discard at random to make this stuff fun (obviously you can make it playable by undercosting it but that's different to fun).  My dream here is to make R better/more fun to play, not keep it as annoyingly one-dimensional as it has always been.  For the same reason I'm not really interested in a version that leaves you with less cards than you started with or helps your opponent.

That said, I guess the best thing to do is to make a few cards that work each way and play with them to see what we think.  I like Kieran's "become tapped" idea - now I want to put it on a pinger :)

Not necessarily on the random = bad/no fun - I LOVE casting Desperate Ravings, for instance.

Revelation was terrible IMO because it was a Sorcery. Spending an entire turn to restock late game in that block was just asking for trouble.

Ravings nets you cards, though, which is more than halfway to draw from looting.  I can't think of a 1R 1/1 that draws and then discards at random that isn't terrible (if he doesn't net cards) or broken (if he does).  Perhaps he nets cards and has an activation cost as Pete says.  Still seems obnoxiously good for our Innistrad-draft power level set?

I still don't think that the 1/1 for 1R with T: discard then draw is that broken at all.

Certainly it is good, but only when you are hellbent, so for much of the game it will be worse than a Merfolk Looter. As we are trying to make Red as colour more interesting and fun colour. Having a card that rewards you for recklessly playing out all your cards seems really thematic for Red. Also as a 1/1 creature, it is not that difficult to answer.

If the ability to use it anytime is the problem then how about making it a static trigger:

Red Bob - 1R

Creature - 2/1

At the beginning of your upkeep, discard a card, then draw a card.

You have to wait a little more to get your payoff here, but does give you a man who can attack. Do people think this guy is broken? Certainly seems worse than Dark Confidant most of the time.

Also I agree with Tom, we should just make some. It is far easier to work out how good a card is by playing it rather than theorising about it.

I don't think Red Bob is broken in the context of Legacy but in the context of our set he might be :)

(I was talking about a looter with  "T, Discard a card at random: Draw two cards" being broken in the context of our set in reference to Desperate Ravings.)

Oh I see, misread that :-)

Given the posts so far I think we should just go ahead and design Red Looting as discard then draw, and play around with the variations.

I quite like your Desperate Ravings looter guy. As a 4 mana creature he would be the twin to Blue's Archivist, worse a lot of the time, but way better some of the time, which sounds great for the chaotic nature of Red.

Thomas David Baker said:

I don't think Red Bob is broken in the context of Legacy but in the context of our set he might be :)

(I was talking about a looter with  "T, Discard a card at random: Draw two cards" being broken in the context of our set in reference to Desperate Ravings.)

How do you feel about a red looter than you can discard a card to untap? Powerful, even though you lose cards to do so, but it feels quite on theme. Desperate Researcher?

Reply to Discussion

RSS

© 2020   Created by Thomas David Baker.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service