Here I want to design cards for three candidates I've proposed for Evergreen UB keywords by talking about cards I would design if I was on the 2019 core set design team and got the go ahead for each. (Note that these keywords are not 1:1 substitutable with each other; each would require substantive changes to the other included cards.)
Note: These are mechanics all discussed in the epic UB evergreen Keyword Thread, found here: here
Candidates, in order of my preference:
Color Keyword Name Reminder Text BUBlackmail(Whenever this creature deals damage to an opponent, that player reveals that many cards from his or her hand and you choose one of them. That player discards that card.) UBcuriosity(Whenever this creature deals damage to an opponent, you may draw a card. UB Looter (Whenever this creature deals damage to an opponent, you may draw that many cards. If you do, discard that many cards.)
Note:
Formerly named the uninspired "Research," I figured I'd go on the nose.
I believe a core set (and, really, any set using a keyword) should run at least 5 cards with the keyword, with 8-10 being more ideal. Flying is probably the biggest exception to this, as it is the "go to" evasion keyword. Thus, here I will be talking about five cards I think would be solid inclusions for a core set that represents the keyword and plays differently.
Top pick: Blackmail. Representative Cards:
1. Blackmailing Giant3B
Creature - Giant Rogue (C) Blackmail(Whenever this creature deals damage to an opponent, that player reveals that many cards from his or her hand and you choose one of them. That player discards that card.)
3/3
A Hill Giant with bite, by the time you get this online, though, it's highly likely your opponent will have a 4 toughness blocker (If black gets Dune Beetle, I don't see why U and G at the least don't get X/4s for 1C. Add a Steel Wall variant at common and you're fine.
You'll also note I don't like to overcost reminder at common or uncommon; with pacifism and murder being fair game.
2. Blackmailing ThugB
Creature - Human Rogue (U) Blackmail(Whenever this creature deals damage to an opponent, that player reveals that many cards from his or her hand and you choose one of them. That player discards that card.)
1/1
3. Blackmailing Specter1BB (Hypnotic Specter homage; keep in mind how little play this saw when last reprinted when evaluating these cards in constructed.)
Creature - Specter Rogue (R) Blackmail(Whenever this creature deals damage to an opponent, that player reveals that many cards from his or her hand and you choose one of them. That player discards that card.)
Flying
2/2
4. Some Legendary Rogue Necromancer2BB
Legendary Creature - Human Rogue Wizard (M) Blackmail(Whenever this creature deals damage to an opponent, that player reveals that many cards from his or her hand and you choose one of them. That player discards that card.)
Whenever an opponent discards a creature card, create a 2/2 black zombie creature token.
2/3
As a legend, this has the most wiggle room.
Note 1: This also serves as a "discard lord" of sorts, fun design space.
Note 2: 1 of multiple cards that can create a zombie token; zombie infestation is a favorite for the set, but I also need a variant of the C, exile a card from a graveyard, create [token] card in either W or B, so there's a 50% chance that'll be another inclusion to use that token.
5. Shrewd Informant2U
Creature - Human Wizard (U)
Flash Blackmail(Whenever this creature deals damage to an opponent, that player reveals that many cards from his or her hand and you choose one of them. That player discards that card.)
2/2
Flash plays nicely with Blackmail, as it might give you a chance to attack in with a creature your opponent is not expecting.
A note on set design: Obstinate Baloth is a must for a set with this mechanic, as it plays well (and poorly) with Blackmail (depending on how much damage gets through). I'd also be interested in a streamlined, colorless dodecapod variant (maybe not a creature, mind you), and maybe even reprinting Guerrilla Tactics or a variant. Having a 5 color rare cycle of cards that have effects when your opponent causes you to discard them would also be quite interesting.
2nd Pick: Curiosity. Representative Cards:
1.Curious Merfolk1U
Creature - Merfolk Wizard (C) curiosity(Whenever this creature deals damage to an opponent, you may draw a card.
1/1
Notes: I could see this french vanilla being costed at U at a higher rarity, but this has a few things going for it - its creature types. Given those alone, this might see some constructed play in Merfolk and/or wizard decks, and in limited it's a prime target for auras and spells that give evasion.
I could see making this a 1/2... but I like it at 1/1. The more fragile this is, the better for limited and more of a challenge it is for constructed.
2. Aven Researcher2UU
Creature - Bird Wizard (U)
Curiosity (Whenever this creature deals damage to an opponent, you may draw a card.
Flying
1/3
Notes: Thieving Magpie homage. Given that the Magpie saw some constructed play once, I feel okay with this being at uncommon here. It's probably not tier 1 in today's standard, but the homage coupled with it's history of play lets it get in. (Similar cards that "get in" for the same history-reasons: Giant Spider (great french vanilla that saw some tier 1 constructed play in that 1st magic tournament), Mogg Fanatic (w/o damage on the stack, this is a lot worse. But let's not pretend that it's not even worth considering for a standard goblin deck insofar as it can take out some nasty X/1s at instant speed like a moggy seal of fire.)
3. Generic Giant Reanimation Demon Target6BB
Creature - Demon (R)
Flying
Lifelink
Curiosity (Whenever this creature deals damage to an opponent, you may draw a card.
5/5
Notes:
1. I don't know how much clearer I can be here. He's an interesting reanimation target, you'll probably have a 4 mana zombify variant at uncommon to reanimate him, and have noose constrictor/wild mongrel, peace of mind, and zombie infestation at uncommon and Aquamoeba at common to discard him with. Toss in a few overcosted green fatties at uncommon to help the deck come together, and we've got a limited archetype.
2. Does this have to have curiosity? No. But I don't see this as too egregious.
4. Teasing Sphinx 4UU
Creature - Elemental (R)
Flying
Curiosity (Whenever this creature deals damage to an opponent, you may draw a card.
Whenever you would draw a card, instead look at the top two cards of your library and put one face up and one face down. Your opponent chooses one of the cards. Put that card into your hand and the other into your graveyard.
4/4
Alternative:
Knowledge Elemental 3UU
Creature - Elemental (R)
Flying
Curiosity (Whenever this creature deals damage to an opponent, you may draw a card.
4/4
Notes:
1. Not Air Elemental.
2. Yes, this could probably still cost 1 more, and maybe have Flash if it does.
5. Academy of Curiosity2UU
Enchantment (R)
Creatures you control have curiosity. (Whenever a creature you control deals damage to an opponent, you may draw a card.
1. Given Bident of Thassa and Coastal Piracy, this is fair. I know it's better than Coastal Piracy, but not by too much.
2. I could see Wizards pushing this to 1UU, or tacking on some 2nd ability, but I think the simplicity of this speaks for itself.
I think it's highly unlikely impossible that anything but black would get Blackmail. And if a discard mechanic were to become evergreen, it wouldn't do what Blackmail is doing. It's WAY too powerful. If anything, it would most likely just make the player discard a card. If Blackmail were to be used as is, it would/should allow the opponent to then draw a card.
Same goes for Looter (and Curiosity). You'd just loot one card. There's no way they'd do "loot equal to the amount of damage". That's bonkers. And and even then, it's more likely to impulse 1 (superior to scry ) rather than loot because opening up the graveyard to an evergreen mechanic would surely prove to be a can of worms.
Ancestral Downfall (Common) B
Instant
Target player discards three cards at random.
or
Target player reveals his or her hand. You choose three cards from it. That player discards those cards.
1. I'm okay with U getting discard. Some people aren't; I'm not going to convince you otherwise here. I'd want blue to get discard secondary or tertiary - something it gets a few cards of every once in a while.
2. Just to be clear Blackmail involves your opponent revealing N cards, and discarding 1. It's card advantage, but not obscenely so.
3. Blackmail on a 1/X is just "discard a card", blackmail 2+/X is akin to blackmail. If you've got a 7/7 blackmail, you get to coercion if unblocked. Yeah!
4. Re: Looter, and blackmail: I like the interplay this has with giant growth.
4a. Remember - to get anything out of these, you have to hit your opponent. If your opponent blocks, this probably won't happen. As I mentioned above, we're getting lots of solid 2 drops in the set I'm talking about. Not necessary "standard playable" today, but certainly "standard playable" at a time.
I haven't parsed out Looter's french vanillas yet, but let's suppose it gets a 2/3 for 2U with Looter. I don't think that "better than scry 2" if it hits is a problem. It's still no merfolk Looter, a card always on the fringe of constructed play.
Blackmail: Being able to choose from revealed options makes this better than the ability of cards like Headhunter. Whatever stats-to-cost ratio is correct here will look different than that of existing cards with similar abilities, especially since the value of each additional power on a Blackmail creature increases in value exponentially. For this reason, I think the giant should cost 2BB or even 4B (or have some minor drawback). The thug seems dangerous at uncommon if things go well, but almost as bad as any vanilla 1/1 in most cases. I'd almost suggest giving him skulk, but that might be overdoing it. Maybe he could be a 2/1 for 1B or UB? The specter, while very strong, is probably OK at rare. Hypnotic Specter is a good comparison. Unfortunately, the only monoblue creature to ever get this effect (that I can find) is Riptide Pilferer, the color-shifted version of Headhunter. Wizards clearly doesn't want blue being the best card-draw color AND a viable discard color.
Curiosity: This effect hasn't ever been printed on a black creature, not counting This island-lover and John Finkel for obvious reasons. A couple of auras and equipments grant it in UB, but it's primarily a blue and/or green effect, with Izzet getting it once on a wacky legend. I'm not opposed to it becoming an evergreen ability, but only if it's primary in Blue/Green, and tertiary in black (but only on Dimir or Sultai cards, and only very rarely printed on creatures). All of this rambling is to say that this just isn't a UB ability. But Aside from your demon, I actually quite like your other examples, and I also like the idea of a core set making card-draw easily accessible and straightforward.
Looter: This is another effect that black has basically never gotten on its own. It's always the blue ability of a black card, or an ability of a multicolor card. In fact, those are the only examples of each I could find. It's actually more red than black. So, similar to above, I like it OK as an evergreen ability, but only on blue creatures. Sometimes on UR creatures, and rarely on UB creatures.
Of these, my favorite is curiosity, but I don't see any of these as primarily UB abilities at all.
Re: Cost - Much like Double-Strike scales with power, so too does Blackmail (and Looter). It'll cost between Abyssal Specter discard and hypnotic specter discard in most cases, but Blackmail for 1 is more or less functionally identical to abyss, while blackmail 3 or more is probably better than hypnotic. Mind you, Hypnotic Specter is famous as a turn 1 play off of dark ritual, and saw no serious play after the ritual was retired. (Maybe it saw a LITTLE play with Chrome Mox/etc, but I don't recall it...).
Now, I'm going to say that the Giant's Blackmail (for 3) is comparable to hypnotic specter's random discard for 2. The former lacks evasion; the latter has it, and I think that is what matters here. So I'd be okay with it costing 2BB, but I think it could cost 3B and not see play at all.
As for the 1/1 for B; he's a headhunter w/o morph. So we have 2 questions: (1) Is Headhunter constructed playable, and (2) How much does morph cost. Given Headhunter saw no serious play, morphed or not, I'm going to go with him being overcosted by about a half mana at 2. And I'm going to say morph costs 2. So (by the "onslaught-era-standard" of creatures, a 1/1 blackmail for B is fine. I'll remind you that black didn't see 2/2s for 1B or 2/1s for B at the time. Now they're everywhere. For better or worse; I think Wizards thinks this is underpowered. Me? I think it's the top that it can be.
Now, a 1/1 for 1B with Blackmail and Skulk would be hilarious (Since I'm proposing Blackmail replace skulk).
I'd be okay with 2/1 Blackmail for 1B at common or uncommon as well. The 2nd power really matters here, but - again - it's easy enough to kill. If Wizards wasn't absolutely sure about the 1 drop during playtesting; subbing it out for the 2 drop would be perfectly fine.
Re: Curiosity - As is, it's a UG keyword. I'd be okay with it being UGB or just making it UB to fit the "color pair keyword" aspect of it. However, I think it's silly of us to look at black and say it doesn't draw you cards. Yeah, yeah "anything for a cost"... unless that anything so much as thinks about touching enchantments or artifacts. I thought about tossing "whenever you draw a card, lose 1 life" on a one of these guys, but I knew that'd just be self-defeating. My supposition here is that curiosity can fill the UB evergreen void.
(Ahem... honestly? I'd rather go with Blackmail, and have UGB curiosity; I should mock up a few green cards. (UG gets hexproof; UGW gets flash).
Re: Bleed: You're right - like most evergreen keywords, they start off in 1 color and bleed. Reach moved to GWR; Lifelink seriously moved to WB after keywording (and don't you dare talk about my 1/1 lifelink for 1BB being precedent!), flash moved to UWG after being primarily UW, so forth and so on.
So, I flat out agree - All 3 of these would be color bleed. Whether acceptable or not depends on the following:
1. How much do we want an evergreen UB keyword (this will help fill out cycles and add variety to design)?
2. Do we want a mono-color evergreen keyword?
3. Is there enough design space around curiosity, looter, and/or Blackmail to explore?
To answer these, I say:
1. YES! Fill out the CD evergreen keyword color cycle, and gradually fill in the CDE evergreen keyword color cycle, and then - gasp - make simple, interesting, flavorful french vanillas that each play differently.
2. MAYBE?! I think we have to face facts that some evergreen keywords begin mono-colored and branch out, and many block keywords can be mono-colored. But in terms of evergreen keywords, I don't know if I feel comfortable with any color getting a unique keyword. Fear didn't cut it.
3. hhmmm...
a. UG keep popping out curiosity-variant creatures, and they're fun, useful, practical, and interesting. They encourage attacking, make playing spells to augment them more appealing, and are often fringe constructed playable to moderately successful. By wording it as is, it opens the door for (gold) pingers, and assorted combos. By putting the ability on more commons and uncommons, it would give rise to more dynamic limited games.
b. Blackmail and Looter both play interestingly with creature pump, and both do things you want to do. They encourage attacking. Looter is probably the cleanest and clearest at what it does; but Blackmail is a minigame keyword (well... if your guy is 2 or below your maximum handzie), and that's just awesome.
Good points. Sometimes I forget that not all design decisions from WotC have been "correct".
1. Yes, definitely.
2. Probably not. Like you say, any monocolored keyword will eventually bleed into other colors. Limiting an ability to two colors is about the limit of restrictiveness the game can support, I think. (Why are we talking about monocolored keywords though?)
3. Yes, generally speaking. But I still think they step too far out of the current color pie to be viable for immediate "evergreening."
I'd like to propose a change to Blackmail, since I think that's the closest one to fitting its intended colors. The change would also improve the flavor considerably. We'll use your thug as a carrier.
[b]Blackmailing Thug[/b] B
Creature - Human Rogue (U)
Blackmail (Whenever this creature deals damage to an opponent, that player discards a card unless he or she pays 2.)
1/1[/b]
The tax could even be included in the keyword, such as with Scry. In the case of the above thug, it would be "Blackmail 2".
Re: "correctness" - Worries about relativism aside, I think we can all agree we want a healthy game. Given the variety of formats available (Commander has really helped to expand this), I there is a lot of room to design "mediocre" cards that are good. But during my latest absence from the game Wizards has made a troubling shift of pushing power to the higher rarities, while leaving commons and uncommons nearly unplayable. When I look at the Odyssey->Lorwyn commons and uncommons (and before, sure), there was a lot of power. And limited was strong (and varied).
Re: Single-color keywords: I actually would be fine with these occasionally; think of these as guild/shard mechanics in a mono-color format, for example. I'd be happy with black getting exclusive access to a graveyard-related keyword for a few sets. But evergreen does feel splashy.
Re: Change to Blackmail - I think at this point we have to give up on calling it "blackmail" with your change. Might I suggest the following instead:
Bad Trade (Whenever this creature deals damage to an opponent, that player reveals his or her hand. Choose a card. That player discards that card, then draws a card.)
Bad Trade V2 (Whenever this creature deals damage to an opponent, choose a card in that player's graveyard. If you did, that player reveals his or her hand. Exile a card from that player's hand, then return the chosen card to that player's hand.)
Bad Trade hits for card quality, not quantity like Blackmail. "Tax" keywords are quite annoying, all else being equal - either you have the mana or you don't. If you don't, it's just Abyss(al specter's ability). Which is printable, and not very good. If you DO have the mana, you pay. You feel cheated. Your opponent feels cheated. In other words, tax effects like this feel bad for both players.
In contrast, due to the unique nature of blackmail discard, I contend that it feels like a mini-game every time (you do more than 1). When I hit you for 3, I get to Blackmail you. Yeah! You get to choose the cards you'll reveal. I get to choose one of them. Did I choose the right card? Did you bluff me?
I actually think Blackmail w/ a base power of 2 works the best; as there should be a fair chance in constructed (or even limited) that you'll have two obstinate baloth-style cards. If I ask you to reveal 2, and you have 2 obstinate baloth... that is a memorable turn.
Honestly? The reason I love Blackmail so much just is because it opens the game up to those kind of memorable turns. "I let his 1/1 blackmail through, planning to discard my obstinate baloth... but he giant growthed it and got my Nissa Revane!" or "He swung with his 3/3 blackmailer. I had four cards in hand - griselbrand, island, swamp, zombify. Guess which three I showed him?"
Now if I could only find a way to keyword other mini-games, like liar's pendulum - a fun little card advantage engine that encourages you to practice the art of bluffing. Clash was a fine keyword action and all - exciting, but doesn't take as much skill.
Bad Trade is one of those ideas that works fine as a block mechanic, but it's just way too complex for evergreen status. It has the skill requirements of Vendilion Clique, except with the annoying addition of being mandatory. At least if Clique reveals a hand full of garbage, I can let my opponent keep all of it. Bad trade comes with a real risk of swapping a useless card or a land for something more useful. Can you imagine using the V2 version against an opponent who runs Tasigur, the Golden Fang and Gurmag Angler? Your bad trade cards might as well have defender.
The types of "mini-game" mechanics are fun for experienced players, but they don't even belong in the same neighborhood as evergreen status.
Ah, but Blackmail (the card and the mechanic) isn't all that skill intensive in many situations. What's got me smitten with it is that while it can be skill intensive, really it's an opportunity for success on both sides. The blackmailer will usually feel good (unless they get triple dodecapoded), and the blackmailie has multiple chances for success: (1) Kill the thing. Fail? Go to (2) block the thing (likely killing it). Fail, or opt not to, go to (3) Reveal such and such cards from your hand. Did you benefit from your discard? Did you trick your opponent? Did you just lose something worthless anyway?
I mean, listen - I'm sure there'd be constructed games where a turn 1 blackmail drop runs roughshod over you because your opponent kills all potential blockers, 1:1ing with removal while X:1ing with their blackmailer. Those games probably aren't going to be fun. But I tell you one thing - They'll be quick. And they're easy to avoid; have a way of killing/blocking a 1 drop. Done and done.
As for Bad Trade, it's certainly an odd mechanic. Card quality advantage is tough, and choosing the right cards is tough. I personally love gifts ungiven and fact or fiction - they're two cards that make me have to pay attention, and require skill. And I suppose inexperienced players might often make the wrong choices. But if you're going to play in a format with gits ungiven, you need to be prepared for it.
In comparison, being prepared for Blackmail is far less... worrisome. Choosing which 3 cards to reveal is mostly a matter of choosing which three cards are your worst cards in hand. That's simple. In cases where you only have [that number], it's actually no choice at all. Yeah, yeah, we can easily imagine a situation where you have 4 cards, your opponent opponent forces you to reveal two, and you reveal a mediocre card and a GOOD CARD (say because the GOOD CARD is a duplicate, or the mediocre card is actually situationally better given the other 2 cards in hand, etc.), and your opponent has to choose whether to go with the obvious target or not. But these are few and far between, and the blackmailer doesn't actually lose anything by making the wrong choice here.
Menace and First Strike are keywords that make blocking far comaprable to the discard choices we're talking about here, and that's w/o even worrying about instant combat tricks. You attack with your 2/2 first strike. Your opponent blocks with a 3/1 and a 2/2. Which do you kill? This is one of the central mechanics of the game and, in many respects, it's the same choice that Blackmail offers you - your opponent revealed 2+ cards; choose 1 of them. You're going to get 1 of them. But will you get the right one?
My change to Blackmail makes it less like the CARD, Blackmail, but much more like the CONCEPT of blackmail. But I take your point. How about...
"Blackmail (or whatever name): Whenever this creature deals damage to a player, you may draw a card unless that player discards a card at random."
This sort of combines Blackmail and Curiosity into a fun, interesting, color-appropriate keyword that runs minimal risk of inadvertently helping your opponent(s). Just another idea. I'm an idea dude.
My change to Blackmail makes it less like the CARD, Blackmail, but much more like the CONCEPT of blackmail. But I take your point. How about...
"Blackmail (or whatever name): Whenever this creature deals damage to a player, you may draw a card unless that player discards a card at random."
This sort of combines Blackmail and Curiosity into a fun, interesting, color-appropriate keyword that runs minimal risk of inadvertently helping your opponent(s). Just another idea. I'm an idea dude.
Oh... Not Blackmail is quite interesting. I think the "random discard" bit is a bit too much though. Suppose your opponent decides to risk discarding a card, and then get the 1 card out of 7 they need. That feels BAD. Indeed, it feels WORSE than straight up hypnotic specter, since it's their choice to take the risk, and the risk failed.
(also opponent, to avoid self-damaging for card draw...)
Proposition(Whenever this creature deals damage to an opponent, you may draw a card unless that player discards a card.)
It's got quite an endearing tension behind it. It's "never what you want", but it's always +1 card advantage. I almost think this is a double-edged sword, as new players will be slower on the uptake here than with other keywords, given the delayed feedback in many cases.
Costing it: Given that curiosity clocks in at about 1 colored mana, as with abyss(al specter's ability), I think this would have to cost less than 1 colored mana. Which is probably slighty above where you want it to be (with double strike being the most expensive evergreen keyword to add, followed by flying?, and trample being the cheapest - free for big green creatures - and vigilance being the next cheapest).
One of the advantages of Blackmail is that it encourages players in limited to keep more lands in their hands late game. I could see the same being said for this. But with Blackmail, you had the chance of getting something from amidst the chaff; here you never do. You never get something your opponent wants to hold onto. Thus it feels really bad as a discard keyword.
Nail in the coffin: If this isn't a discard keyword, what is it? The answer has to be a draw keyword. But curiosity on it's own is something that deserves to be keyworded, if not UB than certainly UG. Almost every block has one creature with this effect (at uncommon or rare), and they only rarely see constructed play (suggesting the powerlevel isn't too difficult to balance... or bury).
Darn it - I was so interested in this I gave it a good name and everything!
You're right in that nerfing my NotBlackmail makes it pretty useless. In fact, that's why I decided on the "at random" clause in the first place. The more I think about it, the more I like it, honestly. You could easily side it out against graveyard strategies, and if discard was a major part of your gameplan, it was a pretty terrible matchup in the first place.
So I guess the question is this: Is Ransom a better evergreen candidate than:
Abyss(Whenever this creature deals damage to an opponent, that player discards a card.)
Abyss is hits only opponents (No discard for you!), but can hit w/ non-combat damage (IE, pingers). It's simple, flavorful, more or less done on dozens of cards, and is a straight mirror for curiosity. Is this a fine B keyword? I guess... but it's not very interesting! Blackmail was my attempt to spice this up!
[Attribute] ---------------- Ransom vs Abyss vs Blackmail
1. Simple ---------------- 2 ---- ---- 1 ---- ---- 3
2. Minigame -------------- Y ---- ---- N ---- ---- Y
3. Randomness ------------ Y(sometimes) ---- N ---- ---- N
4. Players can make mistakes? -- Y(& bad luck) - N ---- Y
5. Bluffing -------------- Y(kinda?) - N ---- ---- Y (well, if blackmailed for less than total hand...)
6. Triggers Dodeapod - @ Random - ---- Always - ---- Sometimes (Mostly on Blackmail 1)
7. Card Advantage ------- Y ---- ---- Y ---- ---- Y
8. Color ---- ---- ---- ---- B?&U? ---- ---- B ---- ---- B
So, Ransom final thought:
If Wizards says "We're not evergreen keywording curiosity, then I think you've won the UB evergreen keyword challenge. Ransom is NOT card draw and NOT discard; it's card draw or discard your opponent can foil by paying a cost (discarding or letting you draw). One half of the choice is U, the other half B, and thus: BAM! The Keyword has bothUB components, and the off-color aspect can be chalked up to "your opponent paying the random" - IE, your opponent paying a cost. It's a variant on the rhystic study mechanic, using cards (draw/discard) instead of mana, and it's pretty darned good at that.
That said, if you Wizards would be interested in keywording curiosity (as I think they should), then it's a no-go, as it's still a "bad curiosity" and I don't like two evergreen "draw a card" mechanics. Note: I don't see anyone else champion curiosity, so there's that. Maybe we should brainstorm some plant Ransom cards...
"Ransom" certainly wouldn't be able to share evergreen status with curiosity, but it's not strictly worse. If anything, it's a better blackmail. It can be viewed as primarily a random discard, except in cases where the opponent can't afford to lose a specific card. Then, it could even sometimes be a BETTER curiosity, as you get both a card and meta information about your opponent's hand. It rewards intelligent play, and yet the face value is still perfectly high.
Curiosity would make a better keyword ability, so it would just depend on what the priority is: Adding another evergreen keyword ability, period — or adding a UB ability, specifically.
"Core Set Plant" was the term used for cards like naturalize, printed in expansions with the goal of printing it in the (at that point) all reprint core sets.
Rocco... it can't be a better Curiosity or Abyss, as you don't have control over what it does.
Re: Priorities - I think anything that can be benefited from being evergreen, it should be as soon as you have enough cards within a block to justify it. It's possible Wizards (and/or good designers) believe curiosity should not be used several times within a set because it would be problematic for some reason; if so Ransom's "modes" characterize it as U or B with a "drawback" of the other color's advantage.
Drawing a card and forcing random discard are both universally "good" effects. The situations where one or the other wouldn't be desireable are far fewer than with, say, Tribute cards>. So the opponent getting the choice isn't nearly as much of a drawback with Ransom, and it even provides a bit of information to the savvy player about what the opponent might be holding.
We're just arguing about a small difference along the same continuum, though. If I were on the design team, I'd suggest releasing it as a block mechanic, like prowess, and seeing how it's received.
Either way, it's +1 card advantage. It's good (perhaps "too good" for people that oppose either discard or draw evergreens), but what I mean by "functionally worse" is that in any situation where you want curiosity, Ransom can fail where curiosity does not. The same is true for Hynotic (Specter's ability). The "up side" as it were is that in some situations where you want a discard, your opponent will choose to discard, and in some situations where you want the draw, your opponent will choose to draw. This is NOT a flexible keyword for you, it's flexible for your opponent. That's what makes it interesting in many ways, and one of the best things about it. But let's be clear - it's not a dimir cutpurse keyword ability.
What I'm trying to say is this:
1. You run a deck that focuses on discard. Megrimm/Waste Not. You have to choose between hynotic Specter and 1BB Flying Random 2/2. You always pick the Hypnotic specter.
2. You run a deck that relies upon card draw. You have to choose between Coastal Piracy and "Ransom Demand" 2UU Enchantment "Each creature you control has Ransom"; you always pick Coastal Piracy.
But yes; we're just quibbling here. Block to test, then the following year's core set if it works out.
Sample cards: Ransom Fishy1U
Creature - Merfolk Rogue (C)
Ransom (Whenever this creature deals damage to an opponent, you may draw a card unless that player discards a card at random.)
2/1
Ransom Giant3B
Creature - Giant Mercenary (C)
Ransom (Whenever this creature deals damage to an opponent, you may draw a card unless that player discards a card at random.)
3/3
Ransom KidB
Creature - Human Mercenary (U)
Ransom (Whenever this creature deals damage to an opponent, you may draw a card unless that player discards a card at random.)
1/1
(While my Blackmail 1/1 was a bit weak outside of pump spells, discardwise, this guy's random discard can be thwarted by letting you draw a card. I wonder if this is stronger... but I'm still going to say a well designed set can pop him at uncommon w/o hassle)
Ransom Pirate2U
Creature - Human Pirate (U)
Flash
Ransom (Whenever this creature deals damage to an opponent, you may draw a card unless that player discards a card at random.)
2/2
Ransom Necromancer1BB
Creature - Human Wizard (R)
Menace
Ransom (Whenever this creature deals damage to an opponent, you may draw a card unless that player discards a card at random.)
Whenever an opponent discards a card, create a 2/2 black zombie creature token.
2/2
Ransom Researcher1UU
Creature - Human Wizard (R)
Ransom (Whenever this creature deals damage to an opponent, you may draw a card unless that player discards a card at random.)
Whenever you draw a card, if it was the second card you drew this turn, you may return an artifact card with a converted mana cost of 2 or less from your graveyard to the battlefield tapped.
1/3
Botet, the Ransomer3BU
Legendary Creature - Vampire Wizard (M)
Flying, Ransom (Whenever this creature deals damage to an opponent, you may draw a card unless that player discards a card at random.)
Whenever an opponent discards a card, that player loses 2 life and you gain 2 life.
Whenever you draw a card, if it was the second card you draw this turn, you may create a 2/2 blue drake creature token with flying.
4/4
One of the things I think we have to keep in mind here is that Ransom shares an important feature with Fabricate - IE, there are two modes. Designers seriously missed the ball with Fabricate, as it's rarely, if ever, used for both; it's only ever used for tokens in constructed, and there sparsely. But if they printed some astral slide/drake haven variant with two different abilities that triggered off of "creating a 1/1 token" or "putting a +1/+1 counter", then you'd have an additional reason to run fabricaters over things that just did one or the other.
With ransom, I think good design dictates that the rares and above care about one (or both) sides of the mechanic. Ransom Necromancer gives you an additional bonus if they choose to discard a card... which usually means he's a 2/2 menace curiosity. But secretly he's a discard lord that gives your thoughtseize "Create a 2/2 black zombie creature token". Ransom Researcher looks to be a bad hypnotic specter except for the fact that there are many, many ways to draw a 2nd card a turn. Botet, the Ransomer, however, is the king of this kind of thing, as he exacerbates the "pick your poison" aspect of Ransom while playing the part of a lord for both strategies. Plus, he'd surely be a fun commander.
I like all of these. Getting kinda excited for Ransom
Here are some ideas for support cards to be included in whatever block Ransom is introduced with. It's tricky to come up with designs that could be OK on their own, or even in different stretegies.
Cruel Administration4UB
Enchantment(U)
As ~ enters the battlefield, choose Bribe or Blackmail.
Bribe — Whenever an opponent discards a card for the first time each turn, you may draw a card
Blackmail — If a spell or ability would cause you to draw a card for the first time each turn, instead, draw a card and target opponent discards a card.
(If a relevant activated ability could be fit in the text box, this could easily be rare)
Graft Scavenger2B
Creature — Goblin Rogue (C)
When ~ enters the battlefield, put a number of +1/+1 counters on it equal to the number of cards target opponent has discarded this turn.
1/1
Hold for RansomUB
Enchantment (R)
When Hold for Ransom enters the battlefield, exile target creature you don't control until Hold for Ransom leaves the battlefield. At the beginning of its controller's upkeep, that player may discard two cards. When he or she does, sacrifice Hold for Ransom, then draw two cards.
(This was actually a DCC design of mine last month)
Ransoming Pinger2UU
Creature — Human Wizard (C)
Ransom (Whenever this creature deals damage to an opponent, you may draw a card unless that player discards a card at random.) U, t, Exert ~: ~ deals 1 damage to target creature or player.
1/2
Dungeon Guard2BB
Creature — Human Assassin Soldier(C)
Defender, ransom (Whenever this creature deals damage to an opponent, you may draw a card unless that player discards a card at random.)
Whenever ~ deals combat damage to a creature it deals 1 damage to that creature's controller.
1/4
Culture of Corruption3UB
Sorcery (R)
Creature you control gain Ransom until end of turn. (Whenever they deal damage to an opponent, you may draw a card unless that player discards a card at random.)
Blue and Black creatures you control gain menace until end of turn.
The problem with Curiosity-style effects is that they're very winmore. If you're already hitting the opponent, you should be in position to win the game. What the UB evergreen keyword needs to do is give the creature some kind of edge in combat. It needs to do something during combat, not at the end of it.
If the UB evergreen must have to do with card draw, why not have it happen during combat? Maybe "Whenever this creature becomes blocked, you may draw a card unless defending player discards a card." And even that feels more UB than (U/B).
Another option could be some kind of Cremate-style effect that hits graveyards. "Whenever this creature attacks, you may exile target card from defending player's graveyard. If you do, you may draw a card." Now that would be a way to make mill matter without being the sole focus of a UB deck. When you think about it, UB is good at putting stuff into graveyards, between mill, counter, discard, and even looting and wheel effects. Why not derive further benefit by using your opponent's graveyard as a resource?
Plunder (Whenever this creature attacks, you may exile target card from defending player's graveyard. If you do, you may draw a card.)
MTGS Wikia Article about "New World Order"
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
PSA to everyone who keeps forgetting about the Reserved List:
You're on a website dedicated to talking about MtG. You're only a few keystrokes away from finding out what cards are on the Reserved List. You're also only a few keystrokes away from finding out why some cards on the Reserved List got foil printings in FtV, as Judge promos, or whatnot, as well as why that won't happen again. Stop doing this.
Cruel Administration - Why not let it do both? Doing both is actually only a little more costly than "Choose 1", all else being equal. Think about it in creature synergy terms:
Guy Lord1GG
Creature - Treefolk (R)
When this enters the battlefield, choose elves or treefolk.
The creatures of the chosen type you control gets +1/+1.
2/4
VS:
Guy Lord1GG
Creature - Treefolk (R)
Elves and Treefolk you control gets +1/+1.
2/4
The second has far less text, and you'd be happy to run him in an elfless deck. But it allows you to throw in more elves.
Graft Scavenger - Can this be a 2/2 for 2B(even if moved to uncommon?) Even getting one counter makes him feel fair (but not tier 1 standard playable), but it does get the mind racing.
Hold for Ransom - (1) You don't get two extra cards. That's obscene. But I like the O-Ring unless your opponent discards (something). Nice design space to explore. One worry: With non-Ransom discard like this, it feels like you're trying to make it hard for them to keep a full hand.
Ransoming Pinger - (1) Exert can hang out with Bands with Others for all I care. What you want is this: Name1UR
Creature - Human Wizard
Random T: This deals 1 damage to target creature or player.
1/1
And I like him... for a 2nd set w/ Ransom.
Dungeon Guard - Interesting design.
Culture of Corruption 3BU
Sorcery (U)
Creatures you control gain ransom and and menace until end of turn.
Plunder (Whenever this creature attacks, you may exile target card from defending player's graveyard. If you do, you may draw a card.)
Question: Why doesn't this just read:
Plunder (When this creature attacks, draw a card.)?
If the answer is "That's too weak, I also wanted selective graveyard hate," you can see that this is too busy of a keyword. Ransom SEEMS busy; but it's a mini-game. Your opponent chooses what happens. That's a unique and interesting design space.
You say that such mechanics are win-more. Like Trample (You're already winning combat), Lifelink (Oh, I get MORE life to help me win?), and Double Strike (Oh, I get MORE damage).
What a UB keyword needs to do is do something unique and interesting, and something UB. Me? I want curiosity and blackmail and where I to get my way, Ransom would probably be retired. Until then, then, it seems like the best candidate if only because it's worded in such a way that it's a UB mechanic that affects the game. If you're okay with B mill, then mill is the only mechanic UB really share... apart from card draw (... but with a price! 1 life, it's totally different! blah blah). And although there have been some interesting mill options, let's face facts - Wizards doesn't want to (and can't be trusted to) make each format one where evergreen milling mechanic 276c works. So they won't/shouldn't keyword it.
But discard/draw is always relevant. And the "mini-game" nature of it - what will your opponent choose - what will you get or your opponent lose? - is interesting and relevant to the game.
I agree on all counts, except on Ransoming Pinger. I actually like Exert pretty well, but it's not evergreen (yet), so yeah. It can go. However, Ransoming Pinger doesn't need to be red to ping, and your version definitely can't be a common. Even [bc]Progigal Sorcerer[/c] is an uncommon now.
Re: Hold for Ransom... I guess 1 card drawn is enough. It would still need to require 2 cards to be discarded, though. The idea would be that if you can get your opponent in topdeck mode (or even scared of ending up there), all of your Ransom effects become straight Curiosity effects.
Yeah, Ransom does feel a bit winmore, but I don't see why an evergreen static ability NEEDS to have a clear combat effect. Exiling cards from graveyards doesn't seem very blue to me, but plunder is a great UB-themed ability word. Worth noodling over.
I can't take blue getting pingers outside of nostalgia, and we're moving forward, not back.
I'm okay with pingers at uncommon, but I think vulshok sorcerer is the ideal core set inclusion - a pinger that saw a little competitive play (in a format with lots of 1/1s) - but one that won't warp any formats. It's good at showing what red does in a very clean way, and plays really well in the mirror.
I like that we worded Ransom to work with pingers, but I don't think it should be on a mono-blue creature.
Hold for Ransom - If they discard two, that's good enough. UB for 2 cards is a good deal.
Wow, I've been around longer than I thought. Apparently there hasn't been a monoblue pinger in over a decade :| Geez, I'm old.
A pinger with ransom is better than one with haste, I'd say. I think a common would at least have to either cost 4, or have a mana cost attached to the activated ability. You could raise its toughness a bit to compensate. So one of these two:
Ransoming Pinger2UR
Creature - Human Wizard (C)
Ransom (Whenever this creature deals damage to an opponent, you may draw a card unless that player discards a card at random.) T: This deals 1 damage to target creature or player.
1/2
Ransoming Pinger2U
Creature - Human Wizard (C)
Ransom (Whenever this creature deals damage to an opponent, you may draw a card unless that player discards a card at random.) R, T: This deals 1 damage to target creature or player.
1/2
Well... aside from Masters products, I think Timespiral had the last copy. I think the "tap to mana drain" blue wizard is the obvious replacement, but Wizards hasn't made any serious effort to make that competitive/balanced.
As for a UR pinger with ransom; I think you could get away with it for 3 mana, as long as it's a 1/1. But yeah, probably uncommon.
However, I think a pinger with haste is better design; as it's one of the few abilities that you'd love to use the turn it comes into play. Tim VS Tim matches used to be "who played it first", but haste pingers that can snipe the competition buck that trend. The person that plays it 2nd gets the long-term advantage; and that's more interactive and more interesting for the game. vulshok sorcerer is a great haste card, and a great "answer" in many ways that it's good for standard to have access to. Is it better than a ransoming pinger? It surely gets more card advantage... if it survives. But vulshok sorcerer - I think - is the better card design. If nothing else, Ransom really nudges you to attack players, taking away the feeling of freedom of choice. The right answer is usually to hit the opponent. With vulshok sorcerer, it's situational. (IE, you're playing the game; not on autopilot).
Quite frankly, I fear Wizards would make a ransom pinger that only pings opponents. This is just pretty annoying and bad card design. On that 1/1 for R? Sure. On pretty much anything else? It's sloppy.
Mind you, if we're doing another return to ravnica, and Ransom's been on the books for a few expansions; we have to do a ransom pinger. The only question is whether it's a 1/1, or a masticore variant (IE, fat, but can optionally ping). I'd probably try to fit both in, with the 1/1 for 3 at uncommon and the 3/3? for 4? flyer with a paid activation at rare.
You mean Mawcor? The problem I'd have with that is I don't like the idea of non-humanoid races getting ransom. Same thing for other keywords with decidedly intelligent flavor, like prowess and extort. I could see this working:
Flying Ransompinger3UU
Creature — Sphinx (R)
Flying, ransom (Whenever ~ deals damage to an opponent, you may draw a card unless that player discards a card at random.) R, t: ~ deals 1 damage to target creature or player.
3/3
Note: These are mechanics all discussed in the epic UB evergreen Keyword Thread, found here: here
Candidates, in order of my preference:
Color Keyword Name Reminder Text
BU Blackmail (Whenever this creature deals damage to an opponent, that player reveals that many cards from his or her hand and you choose one of them. That player discards that card.)
UB curiosity (Whenever this creature deals damage to an opponent, you may draw a card.
UB Looter (Whenever this creature deals damage to an opponent, you may draw that many cards. If you do, discard that many cards.)
Note:
I believe a core set (and, really, any set using a keyword) should run at least 5 cards with the keyword, with 8-10 being more ideal. Flying is probably the biggest exception to this, as it is the "go to" evasion keyword. Thus, here I will be talking about five cards I think would be solid inclusions for a core set that represents the keyword and plays differently.
Top pick: Blackmail. Representative Cards:
1. Blackmailing Giant 3B
Creature - Giant Rogue (C)
Blackmail (Whenever this creature deals damage to an opponent, that player reveals that many cards from his or her hand and you choose one of them. That player discards that card.)
3/3
A Hill Giant with bite, by the time you get this online, though, it's highly likely your opponent will have a 4 toughness blocker (If black gets Dune Beetle, I don't see why U and G at the least don't get X/4s for 1C. Add a Steel Wall variant at common and you're fine.
You'll also note I don't like to overcost reminder at common or uncommon; with pacifism and murder being fair game.
2. Blackmailing Thug B
Creature - Human Rogue (U)
Blackmail (Whenever this creature deals damage to an opponent, that player reveals that many cards from his or her hand and you choose one of them. That player discards that card.)
1/1
Note that the core set will be designed with a number of classic and iconic 2 drops (@ C and U) that can - among other things - block this thing on turn 2. Noose Constrictor/Wild Mongrel, Ajani's Pridemate, Aquamoeba, Ashcoat Bear, Atog, Thornweald Archer, and the like.
3. Blackmailing Specter 1BB (Hypnotic Specter homage; keep in mind how little play this saw when last reprinted when evaluating these cards in constructed.)
Creature - Specter Rogue (R)
Blackmail (Whenever this creature deals damage to an opponent, that player reveals that many cards from his or her hand and you choose one of them. That player discards that card.)
Flying
2/2
4. Some Legendary Rogue Necromancer 2BB
Legendary Creature - Human Rogue Wizard (M)
Blackmail (Whenever this creature deals damage to an opponent, that player reveals that many cards from his or her hand and you choose one of them. That player discards that card.)
Whenever an opponent discards a creature card, create a 2/2 black zombie creature token.
2/3
As a legend, this has the most wiggle room.
Note 1: This also serves as a "discard lord" of sorts, fun design space.
Note 2: 1 of multiple cards that can create a zombie token; zombie infestation is a favorite for the set, but I also need a variant of the C, exile a card from a graveyard, create [token] card in either
W or B, so there's a 50% chance that'll be another inclusion to use that token.
5. Shrewd Informant 2U
Creature - Human Wizard (U)
Flash
Blackmail (Whenever this creature deals damage to an opponent, that player reveals that many cards from his or her hand and you choose one of them. That player discards that card.)
2/2
Flash plays nicely with Blackmail, as it might give you a chance to attack in with a creature your opponent is not expecting.
A note on set design: Obstinate Baloth is a must for a set with this mechanic, as it plays well (and poorly) with Blackmail (depending on how much damage gets through). I'd also be interested in a streamlined, colorless dodecapod variant (maybe not a creature, mind you), and maybe even reprinting Guerrilla Tactics or a variant. Having a 5 color rare cycle of cards that have effects when your opponent causes you to discard them would also be quite interesting.
2nd Pick: Curiosity. Representative Cards:
1.Curious Merfolk 1U
Creature - Merfolk Wizard (C)
curiosity (Whenever this creature deals damage to an opponent, you may draw a card.
1/1
Notes: I could see this french vanilla being costed at U at a higher rarity, but this has a few things going for it - its creature types. Given those alone, this might see some constructed play in Merfolk and/or wizard decks, and in limited it's a prime target for auras and spells that give evasion.
I could see making this a 1/2... but I like it at 1/1. The more fragile this is, the better for limited and more of a challenge it is for constructed.
2. Aven Researcher 2UU
Creature - Bird Wizard (U)
Curiosity (Whenever this creature deals damage to an opponent, you may draw a card.
Flying
1/3
Notes: Thieving Magpie homage. Given that the Magpie saw some constructed play once, I feel okay with this being at uncommon here. It's probably not tier 1 in today's standard, but the homage coupled with it's history of play lets it get in. (Similar cards that "get in" for the same history-reasons: Giant Spider (great french vanilla that saw some tier 1 constructed play in that 1st magic tournament), Mogg Fanatic (w/o damage on the stack, this is a lot worse. But let's not pretend that it's not even worth considering for a standard goblin deck insofar as it can take out some nasty X/1s at instant speed like a moggy seal of fire.)
3. Generic Giant Reanimation Demon Target 6BB
Creature - Demon (R)
Flying
Lifelink
Curiosity (Whenever this creature deals damage to an opponent, you may draw a card.
5/5
Notes:
1. I don't know how much clearer I can be here. He's an interesting reanimation target, you'll probably have a 4 mana zombify variant at uncommon to reanimate him, and have noose constrictor/wild mongrel, peace of mind, and zombie infestation at uncommon and Aquamoeba at common to discard him with. Toss in a few overcosted green fatties at uncommon to help the deck come together, and we've got a limited archetype.
2. Does this have to have curiosity? No. But I don't see this as too egregious.
4. Teasing Sphinx 4UU
Creature - Elemental (R)
Flying
Curiosity (Whenever this creature deals damage to an opponent, you may draw a card.
Whenever you would draw a card, instead look at the top two cards of your library and put one face up and one face down. Your opponent chooses one of the cards. Put that card into your hand and the other into your graveyard.
4/4
Alternative:
Knowledge Elemental 3UU
Creature - Elemental (R)
Flying
Curiosity (Whenever this creature deals damage to an opponent, you may draw a card.
4/4
Notes:
1. Not Air Elemental.
2. Yes, this could probably still cost 1 more, and maybe have Flash if it does.
5. Academy of Curiosity 2UU
Enchantment (R)
Creatures you control have curiosity. (Whenever a creature you control deals damage to an opponent, you may draw a card.
1. Given Bident of Thassa and Coastal Piracy, this is fair. I know it's better than Coastal Piracy, but not by too much.
2. I could see Wizards pushing this to 1UU, or tacking on some 2nd ability, but I think the simplicity of this speaks for itself.
(to be continued)
highly unlikelyimpossible that anything but black would get Blackmail. And if a discard mechanic were to become evergreen, it wouldn't do what Blackmail is doing. It's WAY too powerful. If anything, it would most likely just make the player discard a card. If Blackmail were to be used as is, it would/should allow the opponent to then draw a card.Same goes for Looter (and Curiosity). You'd just loot one card. There's no way they'd do "loot equal to the amount of damage". That's bonkers. And and even then, it's more likely to impulse 1 (superior to scry ) rather than loot because opening up the graveyard to an evergreen mechanic would surely prove to be a can of worms.
Which is more powerful - Ancestral Recall or
Ancestral Downfall (Common)
B
Instant
Target player discards three cards at random.
or
Target player reveals his or her hand. You choose three cards from it. That player discards those cards.
1. I'm okay with U getting discard. Some people aren't; I'm not going to convince you otherwise here. I'd want blue to get discard secondary or tertiary - something it gets a few cards of every once in a while.
2. Just to be clear Blackmail involves your opponent revealing N cards, and discarding 1. It's card advantage, but not obscenely so.
3. Blackmail on a 1/X is just "discard a card", blackmail 2+/X is akin to blackmail. If you've got a 7/7 blackmail, you get to coercion if unblocked. Yeah!
4. Re: Looter, and blackmail: I like the interplay this has with giant growth.
4a. Remember - to get anything out of these, you have to hit your opponent. If your opponent blocks, this probably won't happen. As I mentioned above, we're getting lots of solid 2 drops in the set I'm talking about. Not necessary "standard playable" today, but certainly "standard playable" at a time.
I haven't parsed out Looter's french vanillas yet, but let's suppose it gets a 2/3 for 2U with Looter. I don't think that "better than scry 2" if it hits is a problem. It's still no merfolk Looter, a card always on the fringe of constructed play.
Curiosity: This effect hasn't ever been printed on a black creature, not counting This island-lover and John Finkel for obvious reasons. A couple of auras and equipments grant it in UB, but it's primarily a blue and/or green effect, with Izzet getting it once on a wacky legend. I'm not opposed to it becoming an evergreen ability, but only if it's primary in Blue/Green, and tertiary in black (but only on Dimir or Sultai cards, and only very rarely printed on creatures). All of this rambling is to say that this just isn't a UB ability. But Aside from your demon, I actually quite like your other examples, and I also like the idea of a core set making card-draw easily accessible and straightforward.
Looter: This is another effect that black has basically never gotten on its own. It's always the blue ability of a black card, or an ability of a multicolor card. In fact, those are the only examples of each I could find. It's actually more red than black. So, similar to above, I like it OK as an evergreen ability, but only on blue creatures. Sometimes on UR creatures, and rarely on UB creatures.
Of these, my favorite is curiosity, but I don't see any of these as primarily UB abilities at all.
Re: Cost - Much like Double-Strike scales with power, so too does Blackmail (and Looter). It'll cost between Abyssal Specter discard and hypnotic specter discard in most cases, but Blackmail for 1 is more or less functionally identical to abyss, while blackmail 3 or more is probably better than hypnotic. Mind you, Hypnotic Specter is famous as a turn 1 play off of dark ritual, and saw no serious play after the ritual was retired. (Maybe it saw a LITTLE play with Chrome Mox/etc, but I don't recall it...).
Now, I'm going to say that the Giant's Blackmail (for 3) is comparable to hypnotic specter's random discard for 2. The former lacks evasion; the latter has it, and I think that is what matters here. So I'd be okay with it costing 2BB, but I think it could cost 3B and not see play at all.
As for the 1/1 for B; he's a headhunter w/o morph. So we have 2 questions: (1) Is Headhunter constructed playable, and (2) How much does morph cost. Given Headhunter saw no serious play, morphed or not, I'm going to go with him being overcosted by about a half mana at 2. And I'm going to say morph costs 2. So (by the "onslaught-era-standard" of creatures, a 1/1 blackmail for B is fine. I'll remind you that black didn't see 2/2s for 1B or 2/1s for B at the time. Now they're everywhere. For better or worse; I think Wizards thinks this is underpowered. Me? I think it's the top that it can be.
Now, a 1/1 for 1B with Blackmail and Skulk would be hilarious (Since I'm proposing Blackmail replace skulk).
I'd be okay with 2/1 Blackmail for 1B at common or uncommon as well. The 2nd power really matters here, but - again - it's easy enough to kill. If Wizards wasn't absolutely sure about the 1 drop during playtesting; subbing it out for the 2 drop would be perfectly fine.
Re: Curiosity - As is, it's a UG keyword. I'd be okay with it being UGB or just making it UB to fit the "color pair keyword" aspect of it. However, I think it's silly of us to look at black and say it doesn't draw you cards. Yeah, yeah "anything for a cost"... unless that anything so much as thinks about touching enchantments or artifacts. I thought about tossing "whenever you draw a card, lose 1 life" on a one of these guys, but I knew that'd just be self-defeating. My supposition here is that curiosity can fill the UB evergreen void.
(Ahem... honestly? I'd rather go with Blackmail, and have UGB curiosity; I should mock up a few green cards. (UG gets hexproof; UGW gets flash).
Re: Bleed: You're right - like most evergreen keywords, they start off in 1 color and bleed. Reach moved to GWR; Lifelink seriously moved to WB after keywording (and don't you dare talk about my 1/1 lifelink for 1BB being precedent!), flash moved to UWG after being primarily UW, so forth and so on.
So, I flat out agree - All 3 of these would be color bleed. Whether acceptable or not depends on the following:
1. How much do we want an evergreen UB keyword (this will help fill out cycles and add variety to design)?
2. Do we want a mono-color evergreen keyword?
3. Is there enough design space around curiosity, looter, and/or Blackmail to explore?
To answer these, I say:
1. YES! Fill out the CD evergreen keyword color cycle, and gradually fill in the CDE evergreen keyword color cycle, and then - gasp - make simple, interesting, flavorful french vanillas that each play differently.
2. MAYBE?! I think we have to face facts that some evergreen keywords begin mono-colored and branch out, and many block keywords can be mono-colored. But in terms of evergreen keywords, I don't know if I feel comfortable with any color getting a unique keyword. Fear didn't cut it.
3. hhmmm...
a. UG keep popping out curiosity-variant creatures, and they're fun, useful, practical, and interesting. They encourage attacking, make playing spells to augment them more appealing, and are often fringe constructed playable to moderately successful. By wording it as is, it opens the door for (gold) pingers, and assorted combos. By putting the ability on more commons and uncommons, it would give rise to more dynamic limited games.
b. Blackmail and Looter both play interestingly with creature pump, and both do things you want to do. They encourage attacking. Looter is probably the cleanest and clearest at what it does; but Blackmail is a minigame keyword (well... if your guy is 2 or below your maximum handzie), and that's just awesome.
1. Yes, definitely.
2. Probably not. Like you say, any monocolored keyword will eventually bleed into other colors. Limiting an ability to two colors is about the limit of restrictiveness the game can support, I think. (Why are we talking about monocolored keywords though?)
3. Yes, generally speaking. But I still think they step too far out of the current color pie to be viable for immediate "evergreening."
I'd like to propose a change to Blackmail, since I think that's the closest one to fitting its intended colors. The change would also improve the flavor considerably. We'll use your thug as a carrier.
Creature - Human Rogue (U)
Blackmail (Whenever this creature deals damage to an opponent, that player discards a card unless he or she pays 2.)
1/1[/b]
The tax could even be included in the keyword, such as with Scry. In the case of the above thug, it would be "Blackmail 2".
Re: Single-color keywords: I actually would be fine with these occasionally; think of these as guild/shard mechanics in a mono-color format, for example. I'd be happy with black getting exclusive access to a graveyard-related keyword for a few sets. But evergreen does feel splashy.
Re: Change to Blackmail - I think at this point we have to give up on calling it "blackmail" with your change. Might I suggest the following instead:
Bad Trade (Whenever this creature deals damage to an opponent, that player reveals his or her hand. Choose a card. That player discards that card, then draws a card.)
Bad Trade V2 (Whenever this creature deals damage to an opponent, choose a card in that player's graveyard. If you did, that player reveals his or her hand. Exile a card from that player's hand, then return the chosen card to that player's hand.)
Bad Trade hits for card quality, not quantity like Blackmail. "Tax" keywords are quite annoying, all else being equal - either you have the mana or you don't. If you don't, it's just Abyss(al specter's ability). Which is printable, and not very good. If you DO have the mana, you pay. You feel cheated. Your opponent feels cheated. In other words, tax effects like this feel bad for both players.
In contrast, due to the unique nature of blackmail discard, I contend that it feels like a mini-game every time (you do more than 1). When I hit you for 3, I get to Blackmail you. Yeah! You get to choose the cards you'll reveal. I get to choose one of them. Did I choose the right card? Did you bluff me?
I actually think Blackmail w/ a base power of 2 works the best; as there should be a fair chance in constructed (or even limited) that you'll have two obstinate baloth-style cards. If I ask you to reveal 2, and you have 2 obstinate baloth... that is a memorable turn.
Honestly? The reason I love Blackmail so much just is because it opens the game up to those kind of memorable turns. "I let his 1/1 blackmail through, planning to discard my obstinate baloth... but he giant growthed it and got my Nissa Revane!" or "He swung with his 3/3 blackmailer. I had four cards in hand - griselbrand, island, swamp, zombify. Guess which three I showed him?"
Now if I could only find a way to keyword other mini-games, like liar's pendulum - a fun little card advantage engine that encourages you to practice the art of bluffing. Clash was a fine keyword action and all - exciting, but doesn't take as much skill.
The types of "mini-game" mechanics are fun for experienced players, but they don't even belong in the same neighborhood as evergreen status.
I mean, listen - I'm sure there'd be constructed games where a turn 1 blackmail drop runs roughshod over you because your opponent kills all potential blockers, 1:1ing with removal while X:1ing with their blackmailer. Those games probably aren't going to be fun. But I tell you one thing - They'll be quick. And they're easy to avoid; have a way of killing/blocking a 1 drop. Done and done.
As for Bad Trade, it's certainly an odd mechanic. Card quality advantage is tough, and choosing the right cards is tough. I personally love gifts ungiven and fact or fiction - they're two cards that make me have to pay attention, and require skill. And I suppose inexperienced players might often make the wrong choices. But if you're going to play in a format with gits ungiven, you need to be prepared for it.
In comparison, being prepared for Blackmail is far less... worrisome. Choosing which 3 cards to reveal is mostly a matter of choosing which three cards are your worst cards in hand. That's simple. In cases where you only have [that number], it's actually no choice at all. Yeah, yeah, we can easily imagine a situation where you have 4 cards, your opponent opponent forces you to reveal two, and you reveal a mediocre card and a GOOD CARD (say because the GOOD CARD is a duplicate, or the mediocre card is actually situationally better given the other 2 cards in hand, etc.), and your opponent has to choose whether to go with the obvious target or not. But these are few and far between, and the blackmailer doesn't actually lose anything by making the wrong choice here.
Menace and First Strike are keywords that make blocking far comaprable to the discard choices we're talking about here, and that's w/o even worrying about instant combat tricks. You attack with your 2/2 first strike. Your opponent blocks with a 3/1 and a 2/2. Which do you kill? This is one of the central mechanics of the game and, in many respects, it's the same choice that Blackmail offers you - your opponent revealed 2+ cards; choose 1 of them. You're going to get 1 of them. But will you get the right one?
This sort of combines Blackmail and Curiosity into a fun, interesting, color-appropriate keyword that runs minimal risk of inadvertently helping your opponent(s). Just another idea. I'm an idea dude.
Oh... Not Blackmail is quite interesting. I think the "random discard" bit is a bit too much though. Suppose your opponent decides to risk discarding a card, and then get the 1 card out of 7 they need. That feels BAD. Indeed, it feels WORSE than straight up hypnotic specter, since it's their choice to take the risk, and the risk failed.
(also opponent, to avoid self-damaging for card draw...)
It's got quite an endearing tension behind it. It's "never what you want", but it's always +1 card advantage. I almost think this is a double-edged sword, as new players will be slower on the uptake here than with other keywords, given the delayed feedback in many cases.
Costing it: Given that curiosity clocks in at about 1 colored mana, as with abyss(al specter's ability), I think this would have to cost less than 1 colored mana. Which is probably slighty above where you want it to be (with double strike being the most expensive evergreen keyword to add, followed by flying?, and trample being the cheapest - free for big green creatures - and vigilance being the next cheapest).
One of the advantages of Blackmail is that it encourages players in limited to keep more lands in their hands late game. I could see the same being said for this. But with Blackmail, you had the chance of getting something from amidst the chaff; here you never do. You never get something your opponent wants to hold onto. Thus it feels really bad as a discard keyword.
Nail in the coffin: If this isn't a discard keyword, what is it? The answer has to be a draw keyword. But curiosity on it's own is something that deserves to be keyworded, if not UB than certainly UG. Almost every block has one creature with this effect (at uncommon or rare), and they only rarely see constructed play (suggesting the powerlevel isn't too difficult to balance... or bury).
Darn it - I was so interested in this I gave it a good name and everything!
So, for reference, this is the one we're considering:
(See, 'cause "Ransom" and "Random" sound a little alike)
The good:
* Hypnotic Specter's ability is swingy and too good to be printed on lots of cards.
The bad:
* It's still a bad curiosity
So I guess the question is this: Is Ransom a better evergreen candidate than:
Abyss is hits only opponents (No discard for you!), but can hit w/ non-combat damage (IE, pingers). It's simple, flavorful, more or less done on dozens of cards, and is a straight mirror for curiosity. Is this a fine B keyword? I guess... but it's not very interesting! Blackmail was my attempt to spice this up!
[Attribute] ---------------- Ransom vs Abyss vs Blackmail
1. Simple ---------------- 2 ---- ---- 1 ---- ---- 3
2. Minigame -------------- Y ---- ---- N ---- ---- Y
3. Randomness ------------ Y(sometimes) ---- N ---- ---- N
4. Players can make mistakes? -- Y(& bad luck) - N ---- Y
5. Bluffing -------------- Y(kinda?) - N ---- ---- Y (well, if blackmailed for less than total hand...)
6. Triggers Dodeapod - @ Random - ---- Always - ---- Sometimes (Mostly on Blackmail 1)
7. Card Advantage ------- Y ---- ---- Y ---- ---- Y
8. Color ---- ---- ---- ---- B?&U? ---- ---- B ---- ---- B
So, Ransom final thought:
If Wizards says "We're not evergreen keywording curiosity, then I think you've won the UB evergreen keyword challenge. Ransom is NOT card draw and NOT discard; it's card draw or discard your opponent can foil by paying a cost (discarding or letting you draw). One half of the choice is U, the other half B, and thus: BAM! The Keyword has both UB components, and the off-color aspect can be chalked up to "your opponent paying the random" - IE, your opponent paying a cost. It's a variant on the rhystic study mechanic, using cards (draw/discard) instead of mana, and it's pretty darned good at that.
That said, if you Wizards would be interested in keywording curiosity (as I think they should), then it's a no-go, as it's still a "bad curiosity" and I don't like two evergreen "draw a card" mechanics. Note: I don't see anyone else champion curiosity, so there's that. Maybe we should brainstorm some plant Ransom cards...
Curiosity would make a better keyword ability, so it would just depend on what the priority is: Adding another evergreen keyword ability, period — or adding a UB ability, specifically.
EDIT: Also, what does "plant" mean, anyway?
Rocco... it can't be a better Curiosity or Abyss, as you don't have control over what it does.
Re: Priorities - I think anything that can be benefited from being evergreen, it should be as soon as you have enough cards within a block to justify it. It's possible Wizards (and/or good designers) believe curiosity should not be used several times within a set because it would be problematic for some reason; if so Ransom's "modes" characterize it as U or B with a "drawback" of the other color's advantage.
We're just arguing about a small difference along the same continuum, though. If I were on the design team, I'd suggest releasing it as a block mechanic, like prowess, and seeing how it's received.
What I'm trying to say is this:
1. You run a deck that focuses on discard. Megrimm/Waste Not. You have to choose between hynotic Specter and 1BB Flying Random 2/2. You always pick the Hypnotic specter.
2. You run a deck that relies upon card draw. You have to choose between Coastal Piracy and "Ransom Demand" 2UU Enchantment "Each creature you control has Ransom"; you always pick Coastal Piracy.
But yes; we're just quibbling here. Block to test, then the following year's core set if it works out.
Sample cards:
Ransom Fishy1U
Creature - Merfolk Rogue (C)
Ransom (Whenever this creature deals damage to an opponent, you may draw a card unless that player discards a card at random.)
2/1
Ransom Giant3B
Creature - Giant Mercenary (C)
Ransom (Whenever this creature deals damage to an opponent, you may draw a card unless that player discards a card at random.)
3/3
Ransom KidB
Creature - Human Mercenary (U)
Ransom (Whenever this creature deals damage to an opponent, you may draw a card unless that player discards a card at random.)
1/1
(While my Blackmail 1/1 was a bit weak outside of pump spells, discardwise, this guy's random discard can be thwarted by letting you draw a card. I wonder if this is stronger... but I'm still going to say a well designed set can pop him at uncommon w/o hassle)
Ransom Pirate2U
Creature - Human Pirate (U)
Flash
Ransom (Whenever this creature deals damage to an opponent, you may draw a card unless that player discards a card at random.)
2/2
Ransom Necromancer 1BB
Creature - Human Wizard (R)
Menace
Ransom (Whenever this creature deals damage to an opponent, you may draw a card unless that player discards a card at random.)
Whenever an opponent discards a card, create a 2/2 black zombie creature token.
2/2
Ransom Researcher 1UU
Creature - Human Wizard (R)
Ransom (Whenever this creature deals damage to an opponent, you may draw a card unless that player discards a card at random.)
Whenever you draw a card, if it was the second card you drew this turn, you may return an artifact card with a converted mana cost of 2 or less from your graveyard to the battlefield tapped.
1/3
Botet, the Ransomer 3BU
Legendary Creature - Vampire Wizard (M)
Flying, Ransom (Whenever this creature deals damage to an opponent, you may draw a card unless that player discards a card at random.)
Whenever an opponent discards a card, that player loses 2 life and you gain 2 life.
Whenever you draw a card, if it was the second card you draw this turn, you may create a 2/2 blue drake creature token with flying.
4/4
One of the things I think we have to keep in mind here is that Ransom shares an important feature with Fabricate - IE, there are two modes. Designers seriously missed the ball with Fabricate, as it's rarely, if ever, used for both; it's only ever used for tokens in constructed, and there sparsely. But if they printed some astral slide/drake haven variant with two different abilities that triggered off of "creating a 1/1 token" or "putting a +1/+1 counter", then you'd have an additional reason to run fabricaters over things that just did one or the other.
With ransom, I think good design dictates that the rares and above care about one (or both) sides of the mechanic. Ransom Necromancer gives you an additional bonus if they choose to discard a card... which usually means he's a 2/2 menace curiosity. But secretly he's a discard lord that gives your thoughtseize "Create a 2/2 black zombie creature token". Ransom Researcher looks to be a bad hypnotic specter except for the fact that there are many, many ways to draw a 2nd card a turn. Botet, the Ransomer, however, is the king of this kind of thing, as he exacerbates the "pick your poison" aspect of Ransom while playing the part of a lord for both strategies. Plus, he'd surely be a fun commander.
Here are some ideas for support cards to be included in whatever block Ransom is introduced with. It's tricky to come up with designs that could be OK on their own, or even in different stretegies.
Enchantment(U)
As ~ enters the battlefield, choose Bribe or Blackmail.
Creature — Goblin Rogue (C)
When ~ enters the battlefield, put a number of +1/+1 counters on it equal to the number of cards target opponent has discarded this turn.
1/1
Enchantment (R)
When Hold for Ransom enters the battlefield, exile target creature you don't control until Hold for Ransom leaves the battlefield. At the beginning of its controller's upkeep, that player may discard two cards. When he or she does, sacrifice Hold for Ransom, then draw two cards.
(This was actually a DCC design of mine last month)
Creature — Human Wizard (C)
Ransom (Whenever this creature deals damage to an opponent, you may draw a card unless that player discards a card at random.)
U, t, Exert ~: ~ deals 1 damage to target creature or player.
1/2
Creature — Human Assassin Soldier(C)
Defender, ransom (Whenever this creature deals damage to an opponent, you may draw a card unless that player discards a card at random.)
Whenever ~ deals combat damage to a creature it deals 1 damage to that creature's controller.
1/4
Sorcery (R)
Creature you control gain Ransom until end of turn. (Whenever they deal damage to an opponent, you may draw a card unless that player discards a card at random.)
Blue and Black creatures you control gain menace until end of turn.
Flying - Evasion
Menace - Evasion
Haste - Tempo
Trample - Penetration
Reach - Defense against Flying
Fight - Creature removal
Vigilance - Offense and defense
Indestructible - Creature survival
Lifelink - Player survival
Prowess - Creature pump
Deathtouch - Creature removal
First strike - Damage priority
Double strike - Damage priority + extra damage
Flash - Surprise blocking
Hexproof - Creature survival
If the UB evergreen must have to do with card draw, why not have it happen during combat? Maybe "Whenever this creature becomes blocked, you may draw a card unless defending player discards a card." And even that feels more UB than (U/B).
Another option could be some kind of Cremate-style effect that hits graveyards. "Whenever this creature attacks, you may exile target card from defending player's graveyard. If you do, you may draw a card." Now that would be a way to make mill matter without being the sole focus of a UB deck. When you think about it, UB is good at putting stuff into graveyards, between mill, counter, discard, and even looting and wheel effects. Why not derive further benefit by using your opponent's graveyard as a resource?
Plunder (Whenever this creature attacks, you may exile target card from defending player's graveyard. If you do, you may draw a card.)
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
Guy Lord 1GG
Creature - Treefolk (R)
When this enters the battlefield, choose elves or treefolk.
The creatures of the chosen type you control gets +1/+1.
2/4
VS:
Guy Lord 1GG
Creature - Treefolk (R)
Elves and Treefolk you control gets +1/+1.
2/4
The second has far less text, and you'd be happy to run him in an elfless deck. But it allows you to throw in more elves.
Graft Scavenger - Can this be a 2/2 for 2B(even if moved to uncommon?) Even getting one counter makes him feel fair (but not tier 1 standard playable), but it does get the mind racing.
Hold for Ransom - (1) You don't get two extra cards. That's obscene. But I like the O-Ring unless your opponent discards (something). Nice design space to explore. One worry: With non-Ransom discard like this, it feels like you're trying to make it hard for them to keep a full hand.
Ransoming Pinger - (1) Exert can hang out with Bands with Others for all I care. What you want is this:
Name 1UR
Creature - Human Wizard
Random
T: This deals 1 damage to target creature or player.
1/1
And I like him... for a 2nd set w/ Ransom.
Dungeon Guard - Interesting design.
Culture of Corruption 3BU
Sorcery (U)
Creatures you control gain ransom and and menace until end of turn.
This seems fair enough. No need to be colorist.
Question: Why doesn't this just read:
Plunder (When this creature attacks, draw a card.)?
If the answer is "That's too weak, I also wanted selective graveyard hate," you can see that this is too busy of a keyword. Ransom SEEMS busy; but it's a mini-game. Your opponent chooses what happens. That's a unique and interesting design space.
You say that such mechanics are win-more. Like Trample (You're already winning combat), Lifelink (Oh, I get MORE life to help me win?), and Double Strike (Oh, I get MORE damage).
What a UB keyword needs to do is do something unique and interesting, and something UB. Me? I want curiosity and blackmail and where I to get my way, Ransom would probably be retired. Until then, then, it seems like the best candidate if only because it's worded in such a way that it's a UB mechanic that affects the game. If you're okay with B mill, then mill is the only mechanic UB really share... apart from card draw (... but with a price! 1 life, it's totally different! blah blah). And although there have been some interesting mill options, let's face facts - Wizards doesn't want to (and can't be trusted to) make each format one where evergreen milling mechanic 276c works. So they won't/shouldn't keyword it.
But discard/draw is always relevant. And the "mini-game" nature of it - what will your opponent choose - what will you get or your opponent lose? - is interesting and relevant to the game.
Re: Hold for Ransom... I guess 1 card drawn is enough. It would still need to require 2 cards to be discarded, though. The idea would be that if you can get your opponent in topdeck mode (or even scared of ending up there), all of your Ransom effects become straight Curiosity effects.
Yeah, Ransom does feel a bit winmore, but I don't see why an evergreen static ability NEEDS to have a clear combat effect. Exiling cards from graveyards doesn't seem very blue to me, but plunder is a great UB-themed ability word. Worth noodling over.
I'm okay with pingers at uncommon, but I think vulshok sorcerer is the ideal core set inclusion - a pinger that saw a little competitive play (in a format with lots of 1/1s) - but one that won't warp any formats. It's good at showing what red does in a very clean way, and plays really well in the mirror.
I like that we worded Ransom to work with pingers, but I don't think it should be on a mono-blue creature.
Hold for Ransom - If they discard two, that's good enough. UB for 2 cards is a good deal.
A pinger with ransom is better than one with haste, I'd say. I think a common would at least have to either cost 4, or have a mana cost attached to the activated ability. You could raise its toughness a bit to compensate. So one of these two:
Ransoming Pinger 2UR
Creature - Human Wizard (C)
Ransom (Whenever this creature deals damage to an opponent, you may draw a card unless that player discards a card at random.)
T: This deals 1 damage to target creature or player.
1/2
Ransoming Pinger 2U
Creature - Human Wizard (C)
Ransom (Whenever this creature deals damage to an opponent, you may draw a card unless that player discards a card at random.)
R, T: This deals 1 damage to target creature or player.
1/2
As for a UR pinger with ransom; I think you could get away with it for 3 mana, as long as it's a 1/1. But yeah, probably uncommon.
However, I think a pinger with haste is better design; as it's one of the few abilities that you'd love to use the turn it comes into play. Tim VS Tim matches used to be "who played it first", but haste pingers that can snipe the competition buck that trend. The person that plays it 2nd gets the long-term advantage; and that's more interactive and more interesting for the game. vulshok sorcerer is a great haste card, and a great "answer" in many ways that it's good for standard to have access to. Is it better than a ransoming pinger? It surely gets more card advantage... if it survives. But vulshok sorcerer - I think - is the better card design. If nothing else, Ransom really nudges you to attack players, taking away the feeling of freedom of choice. The right answer is usually to hit the opponent. With vulshok sorcerer, it's situational. (IE, you're playing the game; not on autopilot).
Quite frankly, I fear Wizards would make a ransom pinger that only pings opponents. This is just pretty annoying and bad card design. On that 1/1 for R? Sure. On pretty much anything else? It's sloppy.
Mind you, if we're doing another return to ravnica, and Ransom's been on the books for a few expansions; we have to do a ransom pinger. The only question is whether it's a 1/1, or a masticore variant (IE, fat, but can optionally ping). I'd probably try to fit both in, with the 1/1 for 3 at uncommon and the 3/3? for 4? flyer with a paid activation at rare.
Flying Ransompinger 3UU
Creature — Sphinx (R)
Flying, ransom (Whenever ~ deals damage to an opponent, you may draw a card unless that player discards a card at random.)
R, t: ~ deals 1 damage to target creature or player.
3/3