Eliminator and I got to talking vanilla theory on AIM the other night and decided to come up with The Vanilla Compendium, which is a listing of all vanilla creatures (creatures that have no abilities, ignoring legends) that have been designed by Wizards. Vanilla design is important because it provides not only a baseline for other more complex card ideas, but allows a designer to design horizontally - within certain restrictions. After weeding out the ones that have clearly been obsoleted by another card, or that we feel aren't valid (too strong.. or more likely too weak), we'll identify the gaps and design cards to fill them.
Together, we came up with a number of 3cc and lower vanilla creatures in green and white. Note that we're avoiding possible vanilla designs with more than two coloured mana, since packing multiple coloured mana symbols on a card is normally a design tactic to "allow" a creature to have more abilities of those colours. For example, 3R makes a 3/3, 2RR makes a 3/3 with haste, and 1RRR makes a 3/3 with haste and something else. Also note that we're trying to design playable vanilla creatures - ones that you might consider playing in constructed - without obsoleting agreed-upon current designs or creating overpowered flavourless monstrosities.
We tried to come up with approximately two relevent designs per mana cost. Yes, more are probably possible, but the ones we've chosen are the most relevant in that slot.
Below the summary of mana costs and powers/toughnesses is an expansion into possible cards for each "gap" shown in bold. The name, rarity, and creature type hopefully provide a realistic yet flavourful and useful take on each.
Also note that we're trying to design playable vanilla creatures - ones that you might consider playing in constructed - without obsoleting agreed-upon current designs or creating overpowered flavourless monstrosities.
This may prove to be a problem - I don't see vanilla creatures as existing to be competitive. They're mostly there just to define the standard.
1/3 for W is plausible, but frightens me slightly. As does a 3/2 for WW - while it fits into White Weenie, it seems a bit opposite from what White does.
The 4/2 for 1GG might be a bit over the top though.
Clamoring Armodon(the 3/4 for 1GG) should be an uncommon since Trained Armodon's(and other 3/3's for 3) are the limit in terms of greens common strength at that cost, a cheap painless common 3/4 would hurt limited removal(particularily burn) too much.
Interesting. I'm a little worried about a 1/4 for 1G. I could see this for GG... but 1/4s are enough to survive most 2cc and below removal, and they are really strong in limited - with Horned Turtle and the likes often being high picks and reasons to go into blue in various core-set drafts. Green's 1/4 for 2G would have been playable in limited even without the kicker. Still, I suppose I could see a 1/4 for 1G at the rare level. At uncommon, however, it would be power creep and severely harm limited. (Note: 0/5s for 1G are even pretty good... defender drawback + saproling benifit and all).
While we're on the subject, GG could get a 3/1 easily.
2G should get a 1/5, while 1GG could conceivably get a 1/6... at uncommon.
1/3 for W, however, seems a mistake. White gets "better than 1/2" for W (as goes green - snow covered forestwalk) - but 1/3 is rather rediculous, blocking almost every one drop and 2 drop and surviving.
As for 1W, I think 2/3 is a bit strong. White is the "weenie" color - but 3s aren't weenies anymore, they're mid-ranged fat. Green's 2/3 for GG is weak midranged fat, which is what green is not apparently good at. White can't, and shouldn't, keep up to this... let alone surpass it IMO.
Thus, at WW, I don't think white should get 2/3s, let alone 3/2s. 1/5 could work, indeed 0/6 could work too.
2W for a 2/4 is a strong card - too strong, I'd argue. Sure, it's "white" because of it's large toughness, but in the past White's got 1/4s for 2W with vigilance - and those have been strong limited cards. White can't substitute +1/+0 for vigilance. White doesn't get 5/4 flyers for 3WW, and a 1/1 vigilance creature for W would be far, far weaker than Savana Lions. For 1WW, I could see a 2/4 easily. Now a 2/5 seems a bit too good imo...
Just something to keep in mind here: there's a difference between what a color could get for a certain cost based on what it already has, and what it should get. Keep in mind flavor and color pie.
For example,
Oakwood Dryad - 1G
Creature - Dryad (U)
1/4
I think this is justifiable purely in terms of cost versus stats. But green generally isn't about potent defense like this; that's more blue and white's territory. It's not a bad design, but a card like this might hurt green's identity in the long run (not trying to be melodramatic, it's just a possibility. An issue like this has more to do with what other cards are in the environment).
Another example,
Quote from raidendart »
While we're on the subject, :symg::symg: could get a 3/1 easily.
I agree, but should it? Green is more about accelerating into high-quality, mid-range fatties. The potent early creatures belong more to white (and to red and black, with drawbacks).
I'm not saying any individual card here is wrong or bad, I'm just offering another angle to keep in mind.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Golden Rule of forums: If you're going to be rude, be right. If you might be wrong, be polite.
This may prove to be a problem - I don't see vanilla creatures as existing to be competitive.
I do! Trained Armodon and Warthog have the same mana cost and power, but the Armodon gets 1 extra toughness by being "vanilla" (not having swampwalk). Which card is better? By your definition, the Warthog should be automatically more competitive (better) because it has something in the text box. I disagree.
After weeding out the ones that have clearly been obsoleted by another card..
Remember that Future Sight has brought us the new standard in vanilla 3/3s - a common centaur shown here. Trained Armodon doesn't appear on the list because Wizards deemed it too weak.
1/3 for W is plausible, but frightens me slightly. As does a 3/2 for WW - while it fits into White Weenie, it seems a bit opposite from what White does.
If a 1/2 with a useful ability for doesn't get played, 1/3 without any abilities for might have a chance. At uncommon, it's not going to screw up limited where 2/2s abound. There's nothing constructed playable about it, really. I don't see the source of you concern.
As for a 3/2 being overpowered - compare to Silver Knight. For being rare, it gets an extra power... but loses both abilities which made the card playable. Furthermore, "it's opposite from what white does"? Blade of the Sixth Pride is a 3/1 rebel for :symw:, at common. Surely being MORE white (mana cost of WW instead of 1W) earns a card more toughness? What would you have it increase - the power?
The 4/2 for 1GG might be a bit over the top though.
Oh.. hmmm. Okay. Any particular reason, though? We were modelling it after cards like Elvish Ranger and Branchsnap Lorian, which gains trample and morph (a very cheap morph cost, even) for the "cost" of one toughness - and isn't good enough to see constructed play. Anyhow, that's where we came up with it.
Clamoring Armodon(the 3/4 for 1GG) should be an uncommon since Trained Armodon's(and other 3/3's for 3) are the limit in terms of greens common strength at that cost, a cheap painless common 3/4 would hurt limited removal(particularily burn) too much.
That makes sense. 4 toughness for 3 mana might hurt limited in the common slot. I'll make it uncommon.
I'll have to comment on the other two replies later... I have to get some rest now.
While I am much more interested in the value of drawbacks on creatures, I recognize the importance of vanilla creatures. Savannah Lions being one of my all time favourite cards, I've a soft spot for vanilla creatures. I suppose I could consider having a mana cost at all a drawback.
While green and white have some nice combat capabilities, red and black usually have a cost tagged on, and they hate to pay for it in mana. So where do the vanilla creatures fit in those colors?
Blue is the color where anything vanilla is almost completely unusable except for a possible relevant creature type. Since blue creatures are almost exclusively ability based, having the baseline set can tell you how to appropriately cost your abilities.
I'm also curious as to how Rarity fits into the equasion. For example...
I strongly disagree. I define a drawback as being anything that can restrict how a card is played. Rarity restricts the number of cards you have the potential of getting in a limited environment as well as the availability of it in the secondary market. Rarity figures into how creatures are costed. You will not find a 2/1 for W at common without an additional drawback, for example "Play ~ only if you have played a noncreature spell this turn." You can find it at rare without any drawback.
You can even choose to view having a mana cost at all as having a drawback. The closest cards to having no drawback whatsoever are Urza's Bauble and Mishra's Bauble. The baubles get you a small ability at no mana cost and at almost no card cost. Black Lotus is also pretty close to having no drawback, except for the fact that it costs you a card.
Drawback is almost synonymous with cost. The difference is that drawback also includes at which time you can play it, restrictions a card imposes upon you, and the quantity of a card you can have in play or in your deck.
Here is a card with zero drawbacks...
Blank 0
[Typeless] (one in every pack)
At any time, you may remove this card from the game to replace it with another card.
And even that arguably still has drawbacks. It cannot win the game.
I don't mean to be rude, but you are incorrect. Some things in Magic simply aren't matters of opinion and this is one of them. Considering rarity a drawback that "buys" you extra power on a card is a very tricky but fundamental error in design. I encourage you to read MaRo's and Aaron Forsthye's words on the issue.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Golden Rule of forums: If you're going to be rude, be right. If you might be wrong, be polite.
3/4 for 1GG? Hrm. I know there's a 2/3 for GG but adding one colorless mana doesn't seem to warrant a 3/4 when you have Trained Armodons and the like running around. Are you basing this on things like Call of the Herd and the new vanilla 3/3 from Future sight changing the curve by saying 3/3 costs 2G now? If the change is permanent then sure, 3/4 for 1GG seems fine.
I wouldn't mind seeing a 5/2 for GGG 4/4 is usually 2GG but there's nothing that says you couldn't have a 4/4 for GGG right? Creature type would matter though. I often read that certain creature types cost more than others (namely dragon and seemingly beast, though I think a 4/4 for GGG would be okay as a beast.)
Edit: I see where you said "More than two mana symbols". Sorry bout that.
Is this going to be for every color or just the green and white since they have the most aggressive creatures without drawbacks?
Red and black often won't get a decent bear outside of a 2/1 for 2CC. And even then most of them have drawbacks. They do have their fair share of 2/xs for 1CC but most of them have "drawbacks"
Will you be considering multicolored creatures too? 4/4 for 2GW seems pretty standard with no other abilities and Watchwolf has a pretty good handle on the curve as a 3/3 for 2CC. (I think 2/3 for WW is okay and I know Elvish Warrior is a 2/3 for GG but you'd think that green would have the 3/2 for GG. For a color that's supposed to do creatures the best, Green loses a lot of the power slots to white.)
Also, if 3/3 is now 2G then conceivably the shift in power has left 1G open for a 2/3.
While I am much more interested in the value of drawbacks on creatures, I recognize the importance of vanilla creatures. Savannah Lions being one of my all time favourite cards, I've a soft spot for vanilla creatures. I suppose I could consider having a mana cost at all a drawback.
While green and white have some nice combat capabilities, red and black usually have a cost tagged on, and they hate to pay for it in mana. So where do the vanilla creatures fit in those colors?
Blue is the color where anything vanilla is almost completely unusable except for a possible relevant creature type. Since blue creatures are almost exclusively ability based, having the baseline set can tell you how to appropriately cost your abilities.
I'm also curious as to how Rarity fits into the equasion. For example...
A red bear without a drawback other than rarity. Could it be done? Should it be done?
-Pharmalade.
I think it's just a quality of red's slice of the pie that all of its efficient creatures have drawbacks. Even if the drawback doesn't hurt the effectiveness of the card much. (Who'd want to block with a Goblin Raider anyway?)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master." - Commissioner Pravin Lal, Datalinks
I like your quest R_E I've been thinking of figuring out all the acceptable p/t per mana cost.
Also along with ignoring legends, you would also have to assume that the creature type is insignificant.
for example 1R 2/2 goblin is much more powerful than a 1R 2/2 goat.
oh yeah and you can't design cards thinking that rarity is a significant drawback. Every once in a while you can push it a little more on a rare but if it's good egnough people will get 4 of them no matter the ratity.
Pharmalade: A 2/2 for 1R will never happen, much less at rare. Why would you want to piss off all three styles of players for putting such a crummy card at rare.
Oh.. hmmm. Okay. Any particular reason, though? We were modelling it after cards like Elvish Ranger and Branchsnap Lorian, which gains trample and morph (a very cheap morph cost, even) for the "cost" of one toughness - and isn't good enough to see constructed play. Anyhow, that's where we came up with it.
My comment wasn't a definite too strong, it just feels to me like its teetering right on the edge between good and too good.
Against a control deck a 2nd turn 4/1(thanks to a first turn accelerant) is a nuisance but it can be dealt with by any removal card including Piracy Charm, Funeral Charm, Darkblast, Orzhov Pontiff etc. a 4/2 however pushes it up one removal bracket making it just that extra bit worse for control decks to play against.
Pharmalade: A 2/2 for 1R will never happen, much less at rare. Why would you want to piss off all three styles of players for putting such a crummy card at rare.
*light applause* I would love everyone to heed what Eliminator is saying here; Vanilla cards should not or even should never be rare.
Quote from raidendart »
Still, I suppose I could see a 1/4 for :1mana::symg: at the rare level.
Could you imagine how pissed everyone would be if they opened up a 1/4 for 1G at rare? Timmy is pissed. Johnny is really pissed. Spike is really, really pissed. He just spent $4 so he could pull a 1/4. Yeah. A 1/4 is absolutely svg in Constructed, where blocking is a premier strategy.
Vanilla's should remain uncommon and common for the sake of simplicity. Of course Isamaru isn't exactly a vanilla because it's a legend.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Getting the last word does not mean that you win the argument.
Vanilla's should remain uncommon and common for the sake of simplicity. Of course Isamaru isn't exactly a vanilla because it's a legend.
I'd amend that to vanilla's not severely breaking the power cost ratio should be uncommon/common, I don't mind Savannah Lions and as you mentioned Isamaru, Hound of Konda being rare but in both cases their power is twice their converted mana cost, a 4/1(or 4/2) for 2 mana is something which might be worth being a rare.
I'm a little worried about a 1/4 for 1G. I suppose I could see a 1/4 for 1G at the rare level. At uncommon, however, it would be power creep and severely harm limited.
An uncommon can't harm limited unless it's severely broken. It just doesn't show up often enough. You could hope to get 1 in a draft if you're lucky and pick it over something useful like removal. I really think a 1/4 for 1G would be 4th or 5th pick in a decent pack. It would be no more "power creep" than Canopy Spider which is a mid pick common.
1/3 for W, however, seems a mistake. White gets "better than 1/2" for W (as does green - snow covered forestwalk) - but 1/3 is rather rediculous, blocking almost every one drop and 2 drop and surviving.
So? Wall of Hope does it even better, if you're going to say a 1 drop shouldn't be able to block 2 drops. Was/is Wall of Hope played? As for the 1/3 being too strong an attacker, doubtful. Very few constructed decks would run a 1/3, even if it can start attacking on turn 2. It's weaker than Suntail Hawk as an attacker in nearly every situation.
As for 1W, I think 2/3 is a bit strong. White is the "weenie" color - but 3s aren't weenies anymore, they're mid-ranged fat.
2/3s aren't mid ranged fat, sorry. What do you consider "weenies", if 2/3s aren't weenies? 0/1, 1/1, 1/2, 2/1, and 2/2 only? 2/3 is mid fat now? I don't think so. I'd say anything 3/3 or less is a weenie. And if you want to read the discussion where 2/3 for 1W was deemed appropriate, it's here. In essence, Honor Guard is to Volunteer Militia, as Kjeldoran Outrider is to... ?
2W for a 2/4 is a strong card - too strong, I'd argue. Sure, it's "white" because of it's large toughness, but in the past White's got 1/4s for 2W with vigilance - and those have been strong limited cards. White can't substitute +1/+0 for vigilance.
Wow, really? Mistral Charger vs Skyshroud Falcon... Savannah Lions vs Mystic Penitent... So there is some precedence that you can drop vigilance and add a power without affecting power level too much. That said, Standing Troops is common and not all that powerful. Remember, we're trying to make cards that might have some chance of seeing play in constructed. Stout Unicorn might have that chance.
Just something to keep in mind here: there's a difference between what a color could get for a certain cost based on what it already has, and what it should get. Keep in mind flavor and color pie.
For example,
Oakwood Dryad - 1G
Creature - Dryad (U)
1/4
I think this is justifiable purely in terms of cost versus stats. But green generally isn't about potent defense like this; that's more blue and white's territory.
You're right - green's weenies tend to have similar power and toughness. But it's got some 1/3s and some 4/1s. Also, you could argue that white's 2-drops should be 1/4s and so on - but Wizards just gave white a 3/1 2-drop. Clearly, if the defensive colour can get 3/1s (at common, no less!), then green's fine having 1/4s. Making it a dryad not only ensures it doesn't add to the power level (an elf might boost the potency), and also gives it some flavour. Dryads are the forest's protectors, after all.
While green and white have some nice combat capabilities, red and black usually have a cost tagged on, and they hate to pay for it in mana. So where do the vanilla creatures fit in those colors?
I think red and black weenies need to exist. I don't plan on elaborating TOO much on them, surely not as much as I'm doing for white and green. However, yes, there needs to be a baseline for those colours as well. Red gets vanilla creatures with similar power and toughness, and it gets creatures with higher power than toughness. Black favoures power more than toughness almost always, but typically has weak vanilla creatures because it tends to be ability based.
Blue is the color where anything vanilla is almost completely unusable except for a possible relevant creature type. Since blue creatures are almost exclusively ability based, having the baseline set can tell you how to appropriately cost your abilities.
Great point! When I do the blue vanillas, I'll concentrate on using creature types as an advantage.
A red bear without a drawback other than rarity. Could it be done? Should it be done?
Myself, I don't like it. I see what you're saying, about the Furrier and so forth. Basically, it's a 2/2 with no drawback for 1R. But it's not vanilla - it has a VERY small drawback on it. And it's not played. Also, goblin is obviously a great creature type. I've proposed a 2/2 for RR before, and it was a minotaur scout. It would be okay at uncommon (even considering Blood Knight).
I strongly disagree. I define a drawback as being anything that can restrict how a card is played. Rarity restricts the number of cards you have the potential of getting in a limited environment as well as the availability of it in the secondary market. Rarity figures into how creatures are costed. You will not find a 2/1 for W at common without an additional drawback, for example "Play ~ only if you have played a noncreature spell this turn." You can find it at rare without any drawback.
asdasdasd
I do see what you're getting at, yes. I don't know if I agree with the statement "rarity is a drawback", but yeah, Wizards definitely prints powerful cards that otherwise don't fit into the "has to be rare criteria*" in the rare slot. Savannah Lions is very simple, nonlegendary, isn't part of a rare cycle, and so on. But it's very powerful and needs to be rare, to sell packs, and to avoid limited players having 3 in play on turn two.
* Just for reference, here's MaRo's thoughts on why cards should be rares, from 2002:
Quote from MaRo »
They’re too complex to be common or uncommon
They have rules complications we don’t wish to put in common or uncommon
They’re too wordy and require microtext (a smaller font) which requires them to be rare
They’re big creatures or big spells that need to be rare to keep their specialness
They’re cool, unique creatures or spells that need to be rare to keep their specialness
They’re narrow cards created for constructed (and not limited)
They’re cards that prove disruptive to sealed or draft and are made rare to minimize their appearance in limited formats
They’re cards that could be uncommon or rare but there’s no room left in uncommon
They’re part of a rare cycle
We need to make the card rare to keep a balance of “good” cards throughout the three rarities
3/4 for 1GG? Hrm. I know there's a 2/3 for GG but adding one colorless mana doesn't seem to warrant a 3/4
Why not? If a 2/3 common elf costs GG, then a 3/4 uncommon elephant costs 1GG. In fact, since green is supposed to get better midranged creatures than its weenie creatures, it could possible even get a 3/4 uncommon ELF for 1GG. But I'm going to leave it at 3/4 because the armodon has more flavour. I don't like elves being big (3/4, etc) unless there's a reason for it.
..Future sight changing the curve by saying 3/3 costs 2G now? If the change is permanent then sure, 3/4 for 1GG seems fine.
Not sure what you mean? The change IS permanent. They've printed a 3/3 for 2G. It's available to every casual deck in existance, every legacy and extended deck, and to standard decks for at least the next year and a half. If you mean will it be in 10th or 11th, who knows. But I'm designing cards based on the fact that it is in print and has been deemed appropriate by R&D.
Is this going to be for every color or just the green and white since they have the most aggressive creatures without drawbacks?
Yup, but we're concentrating on white and green weenies for the time being because that's probably the biggest part of the vanilla spectrum. We'll get to other colours soon though!
I think 2/3 for WW is okay and I know Elvish Warrior is a 2/3 for GG but you'd think that green would have the 3/2 for GG. For a color that's supposed to do creatures the best, Green loses a lot of the power slots to white.
From what I've read in the last 2-3 years, R&D believes white to be better at the cheaper creatures (1 and 2 mana, and sometimes 3 mana) while green is better at the midrange and beefy creatures (4 mana and up). They've said that efficient creatures like Wild Mongrel were a mistake and would not be printed today. So if any colour is getting a 3/2 for two coloured mana, it's white.
No problem with the Wurm. We have an uncommon 6/6 Wurm at 2GGG in fact - called Spastic Wurm. 3BG also works, and could be common or uncommon depending on the environment you're designing for.
Regarding the Centaur, here's a card I designed about a year ago:
Karplusan Emberhound -
Creature - Hound (R)
4/4 While not particularly intelligent, common, or quick, the Emberhound is still the creature most feared by Karplusan woodcutters.
The consensus was that it is too powerful, even at rare.
As for your version, the name is fine, but a "warrior" shouldn't have a shaman creature type. Shamans are like wimpy unsophisticated voodoo guys. If he's a warrior, make him a Warrior!
Green may receive vanilla creatures with power and toughness equal to its converted mana cost, as long as there is exactly one green mana in the cost.
Examples: Grizzly Bears, Nessian Courser, Enormous Baloth
I dunno, that's a nice rule, but I'm not completely sold yet. 1, 2, and 3 have already been done. A 4/4 for might happen in uncommon. Silverback Ape is camping on the 5 slot already. 6 is probably fine, and could even probably be common. Like you said, we've got 7 already, and I'm sure nobody would care if there were 8/8s for out there - it's not like they'd be played.
So tired. I'll have to finish the other replies tomorrow!
I meant to make him a warrior but I was thinking of the inspiration of that card when assigning creature types. And don't you call Burning-Tree Shaman or Troll Ascetic wimpy!
- Forgive me if this has already been answered but, why is this discussion restricted to white and green vanillas only?
- Do the other colors suck too much at vanillas?
- Forgive me if this has already been answered but, why is this discussion restricted to white and green vanillas only?
- Do the other colors suck too much at vanillas?
That was answered a mere two posts ago:
Quote from r_e »
Yup, but we're concentrating on white and green weenies for the time being because that's probably the biggest part of the vanilla spectrum. We'll get to other colours soon though!
The designers of that card said they should have made him a Knight so he'd at least have a relevant creature type. I figure Zombie or Knight (or both) would be fine. The creature type Zombie Knight would push it though.
No problem with the Wurm. We have an uncommon 6/6 Wurm at 2GGG in fact - called Spastic Wurm. 3BG also works, and could be common or uncommon depending on the environment you're designing for.
Really? I figure a common wurm would be 5/5 for 3GB. Red has a 6/4 for 3RG and black has a 5/4 with an ability at 3GB. Is it the enemy colors that makes it easier for a 6/6 to exist at something other than rare? I know Monger has very good abilities but I don't think I could see a 6/6 Wurm at vanilla common.
I dunno, that's a nice rule, but I'm not completely sold yet. 1, 2, and 3 have already been done. A 4/4 for :3mana::symg: might happen in uncommon. Silverback Ape is camping on the 5 slot already. 6 is probably fine, and could even probably be common. Like you said, we've got 7 already, and I'm sure nobody would care if there were 8/8s for :7mana::symg: out there - it's not like they'd be played.
If you ask me 4/4 for 3G is fine. Kami of the Tended Garden was uncommon and had more advantages than disadvantages. Yes it had an on color upkeep cost but it also had Soulshift and it was a Spirit. Both things made it more expensive (In a block that was already overcosting a lot of its creatures even if there were some legendary exceptions.)
- Forgive me if this has already been answered but, why is this discussion restricted to white and green vanillas only?
- Do the other colors suck too much at vanillas?
It is easier for Green and White to have constructed playable vanilla creatures. Red and Black constructed playable creatures tend to be defined by their drawbacks, and Blue creatures are most often defined by their noncombat abilities.
Together, we came up with a number of 3cc and lower vanilla creatures in green and white. Note that we're avoiding possible vanilla designs with more than two coloured mana, since packing multiple coloured mana symbols on a card is normally a design tactic to "allow" a creature to have more abilities of those colours. For example, 3R makes a 3/3, 2RR makes a 3/3 with haste, and 1RRR makes a 3/3 with haste and something else. Also note that we're trying to design playable vanilla creatures - ones that you might consider playing in constructed - without obsoleting agreed-upon current designs or creating overpowered flavourless monstrosities.
We tried to come up with approximately two relevent designs per mana cost. Yes, more are probably possible, but the ones we've chosen are the most relevant in that slot.
Below the summary of mana costs and powers/toughnesses is an expansion into possible cards for each "gap" shown in bold. The name, rarity, and creature type hopefully provide a realistic yet flavourful and useful take on each.
G - 1/2
1G - 2/2, 1/4
GG - 2/3
2G - 4/1, 3/3
1GG - 3/4, 4/2
W - 2/1, 1/3
1W - 2/3, 3/1
WW - 3/2, 1/5
2W - 3/2, 2/4
1WW - 2/5
Oakwood Dryad - 1G
Creature - Dryad (U)
1/4
Clamoring Armodon - 1GG
Creature - Elephant (U)
3/4
Llanowar Patrol - 1GG
Creature - Elf Warrior (U)
4/2
Leonin Consort - W
Creature - Cat Soldier (U)
1/3
Shibari Master - 1W
Creature - Human (U)
"Along came a spider..."
2/3
Tundra Lions - WW
Creature - Cat (R)
3/2
Nulltower Guard - WW
Creature - Human Soldier (U)
1/5
Trokin Paladin - 2W
Creature - Human Knight (C)
It's unusual to see a Trokin Paladin ride into battle with less than two weapons drawn.
3/2
Stout Unicorn - 2W
Creature - Unicorn (U)
2/4
Taj-Nar Marshall - 1WW
Creature - Human Soldier (U)
2/5
Thanks for reading. We anticipate comments and suggestions. Thanks!
.
1GG gets 3/3. Trained Armadon. And that saw tournament play. 4/2 > 3/3, too.
1/3 for W is plausible, but frightens me slightly. As does a 3/2 for WW - while it fits into White Weenie, it seems a bit opposite from what White does.
The 4/2 for 1GG might be a bit over the top though.
Clamoring Armodon(the 3/4 for 1GG) should be an uncommon since Trained Armodon's(and other 3/3's for 3) are the limit in terms of greens common strength at that cost, a cheap painless common 3/4 would hurt limited removal(particularily burn) too much.
Machius proudly supports R_E's right to Rumour!
Interesting. I'm a little worried about a 1/4 for 1G. I could see this for GG... but 1/4s are enough to survive most 2cc and below removal, and they are really strong in limited - with Horned Turtle and the likes often being high picks and reasons to go into blue in various core-set drafts. Green's 1/4 for 2G would have been playable in limited even without the kicker. Still, I suppose I could see a 1/4 for 1G at the rare level. At uncommon, however, it would be power creep and severely harm limited. (Note: 0/5s for 1G are even pretty good... defender drawback + saproling benifit and all).
While we're on the subject, GG could get a 3/1 easily.
2G should get a 1/5, while 1GG could conceivably get a 1/6... at uncommon.
1/3 for W, however, seems a mistake. White gets "better than 1/2" for W (as goes green - snow covered forestwalk) - but 1/3 is rather rediculous, blocking almost every one drop and 2 drop and surviving.
As for 1W, I think 2/3 is a bit strong. White is the "weenie" color - but 3s aren't weenies anymore, they're mid-ranged fat. Green's 2/3 for GG is weak midranged fat, which is what green is not apparently good at. White can't, and shouldn't, keep up to this... let alone surpass it IMO.
Thus, at WW, I don't think white should get 2/3s, let alone 3/2s. 1/5 could work, indeed 0/6 could work too.
2W for a 2/4 is a strong card - too strong, I'd argue. Sure, it's "white" because of it's large toughness, but in the past White's got 1/4s for 2W with vigilance - and those have been strong limited cards. White can't substitute +1/+0 for vigilance. White doesn't get 5/4 flyers for 3WW, and a 1/1 vigilance creature for W would be far, far weaker than Savana Lions. For 1WW, I could see a 2/4 easily. Now a 2/5 seems a bit too good imo...
Keep up the good work though...
For example,
Oakwood Dryad - 1G
Creature - Dryad (U)
1/4
I think this is justifiable purely in terms of cost versus stats. But green generally isn't about potent defense like this; that's more blue and white's territory. It's not a bad design, but a card like this might hurt green's identity in the long run (not trying to be melodramatic, it's just a possibility. An issue like this has more to do with what other cards are in the environment).
Another example,
I agree, but should it? Green is more about accelerating into high-quality, mid-range fatties. The potent early creatures belong more to white (and to red and black, with drawbacks).
I'm not saying any individual card here is wrong or bad, I'm just offering another angle to keep in mind.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
I do! Trained Armodon and Warthog have the same mana cost and power, but the Armodon gets 1 extra toughness by being "vanilla" (not having swampwalk). Which card is better? By your definition, the Warthog should be automatically more competitive (better) because it has something in the text box. I disagree.
Remember what I said:
Remember that Future Sight has brought us the new standard in vanilla 3/3s - a common centaur shown here. Trained Armodon doesn't appear on the list because Wizards deemed it too weak.
If a 1/2 with a useful ability for doesn't get played, 1/3 without any abilities for might have a chance. At uncommon, it's not going to screw up limited where 2/2s abound. There's nothing constructed playable about it, really. I don't see the source of you concern.
As for a 3/2 being overpowered - compare to Silver Knight. For being rare, it gets an extra power... but loses both abilities which made the card playable. Furthermore, "it's opposite from what white does"? Blade of the Sixth Pride is a 3/1 rebel for :symw:, at common. Surely being MORE white (mana cost of WW instead of 1W) earns a card more toughness? What would you have it increase - the power?
Oh.. hmmm. Okay. Any particular reason, though? We were modelling it after cards like Elvish Ranger and Branchsnap Lorian, which gains trample and morph (a very cheap morph cost, even) for the "cost" of one toughness - and isn't good enough to see constructed play. Anyhow, that's where we came up with it.
That makes sense. 4 toughness for 3 mana might hurt limited in the common slot. I'll make it uncommon.
I'll have to comment on the other two replies later... I have to get some rest now.
.
While green and white have some nice combat capabilities, red and black usually have a cost tagged on, and they hate to pay for it in mana. So where do the vanilla creatures fit in those colors?
Blue is the color where anything vanilla is almost completely unusable except for a possible relevant creature type. Since blue creatures are almost exclusively ability based, having the baseline set can tell you how to appropriately cost your abilities.
I'm also curious as to how Rarity fits into the equasion. For example...
Smarmy Goblin 1R
Creature - Goblin Rogue (R)
A goblin with wits? I'd have to see it before I believe it.
2/2
A red bear without a drawback other than rarity. Could it be done? Should it be done?
-Pharmalade.
Banner by Topher!
Creature - Insect
5/1
Broken?
Rarity is not a drawback. No.
Maybe. Seeing as how Grizzly Bears is obsolete other colors potentially have access to a vanilla 2/2 of 2.
Probably not but you could get away with it if you had a good reason.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
I strongly disagree. I define a drawback as being anything that can restrict how a card is played. Rarity restricts the number of cards you have the potential of getting in a limited environment as well as the availability of it in the secondary market. Rarity figures into how creatures are costed. You will not find a 2/1 for W at common without an additional drawback, for example "Play ~ only if you have played a noncreature spell this turn." You can find it at rare without any drawback.
Drawback is almost synonymous with cost. The difference is that drawback also includes at which time you can play it, restrictions a card imposes upon you, and the quantity of a card you can have in play or in your deck.
Here is a card with zero drawbacks...
Blank 0
[Typeless] (one in every pack)
At any time, you may remove this card from the game to replace it with another card.
And even that arguably still has drawbacks. It cannot win the game.
-Pharmalade.
Banner by Topher!
I don't mean to be rude, but you are incorrect. Some things in Magic simply aren't matters of opinion and this is one of them. Considering rarity a drawback that "buys" you extra power on a card is a very tricky but fundamental error in design. I encourage you to read MaRo's and Aaron Forsthye's words on the issue.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
I wouldn't mind seeing a 5/2 for GGG 4/4 is usually 2GG but there's nothing that says you couldn't have a 4/4 for GGG right? Creature type would matter though. I often read that certain creature types cost more than others (namely dragon and seemingly beast, though I think a 4/4 for GGG would be okay as a beast.)
Edit: I see where you said "More than two mana symbols". Sorry bout that.
Is this going to be for every color or just the green and white since they have the most aggressive creatures without drawbacks?
Red and black often won't get a decent bear outside of a 2/1 for 2CC. And even then most of them have drawbacks. They do have their fair share of 2/xs for 1CC but most of them have "drawbacks"
Will you be considering multicolored creatures too? 4/4 for 2GW seems pretty standard with no other abilities and Watchwolf has a pretty good handle on the curve as a 3/3 for 2CC. (I think 2/3 for WW is okay and I know Elvish Warrior is a 2/3 for GG but you'd think that green would have the 3/2 for GG. For a color that's supposed to do creatures the best, Green loses a lot of the power slots to white.)
Also, if 3/3 is now 2G then conceivably the shift in power has left 1G open for a 2/3.
I think it's just a quality of red's slice of the pie that all of its efficient creatures have drawbacks. Even if the drawback doesn't hurt the effectiveness of the card much. (Who'd want to block with a Goblin Raider anyway?)
Also along with ignoring legends, you would also have to assume that the creature type is insignificant.
for example 1R 2/2 goblin is much more powerful than a 1R 2/2 goat.
oh yeah and you can't design cards thinking that rarity is a significant drawback. Every once in a while you can push it a little more on a rare but if it's good egnough people will get 4 of them no matter the ratity.
Everyone else: Nessian Courser is the benchmark for common green vanilla 3/3s, not the Trained Armodon. Didn't Gnarled Mass obsolete it anyway?
rancored_elf, here are multicolored vanilla creatures to add to the compendium.
Burning-Tree Warrior - :1mana::symr::symg:
Creature -- Centaur Shaman
4/4
Gigantic Rotwurm - :3mana::symb::symg:
Creature -- Wurm
6/6
Also, I submit a vanilla design law:
Green may receive vanilla creatures with power and toughness equal to its converted mana cost, as long as there is exactly one green mana in the cost.
Examples: Grizzly Bears, Nessian Courser, Enormous Baloth
My comment wasn't a definite too strong, it just feels to me like its teetering right on the edge between good and too good.
Against a control deck a 2nd turn 4/1(thanks to a first turn accelerant) is a nuisance but it can be dealt with by any removal card including Piracy Charm, Funeral Charm, Darkblast, Orzhov Pontiff etc. a 4/2 however pushes it up one removal bracket making it just that extra bit worse for control decks to play against.
Machius proudly supports R_E's right to Rumour!
*light applause* I would love everyone to heed what Eliminator is saying here; Vanilla cards should not or even should never be rare.
Could you imagine how pissed everyone would be if they opened up a 1/4 for 1G at rare? Timmy is pissed. Johnny is really pissed. Spike is really, really pissed. He just spent $4 so he could pull a 1/4. Yeah. A 1/4 is absolutely svg in Constructed, where blocking is a premier strategy.
Vanilla's should remain uncommon and common for the sake of simplicity. Of course Isamaru isn't exactly a vanilla because it's a legend.
I'd amend that to vanilla's not severely breaking the power cost ratio should be uncommon/common, I don't mind Savannah Lions and as you mentioned Isamaru, Hound of Konda being rare but in both cases their power is twice their converted mana cost, a 4/1(or 4/2) for 2 mana is something which might be worth being a rare.
Machius proudly supports R_E's right to Rumour!
An uncommon can't harm limited unless it's severely broken. It just doesn't show up often enough. You could hope to get 1 in a draft if you're lucky and pick it over something useful like removal. I really think a 1/4 for 1G would be 4th or 5th pick in a decent pack. It would be no more "power creep" than Canopy Spider which is a mid pick common.
So? Wall of Hope does it even better, if you're going to say a 1 drop shouldn't be able to block 2 drops. Was/is Wall of Hope played? As for the 1/3 being too strong an attacker, doubtful. Very few constructed decks would run a 1/3, even if it can start attacking on turn 2. It's weaker than Suntail Hawk as an attacker in nearly every situation.
2/3s aren't mid ranged fat, sorry. What do you consider "weenies", if 2/3s aren't weenies? 0/1, 1/1, 1/2, 2/1, and 2/2 only? 2/3 is mid fat now? I don't think so. I'd say anything 3/3 or less is a weenie. And if you want to read the discussion where 2/3 for 1W was deemed appropriate, it's here. In essence, Honor Guard is to Volunteer Militia, as Kjeldoran Outrider is to... ?
Wow, really? Mistral Charger vs Skyshroud Falcon... Savannah Lions vs Mystic Penitent... So there is some precedence that you can drop vigilance and add a power without affecting power level too much. That said, Standing Troops is common and not all that powerful. Remember, we're trying to make cards that might have some chance of seeing play in constructed. Stout Unicorn might have that chance.
You're right - green's weenies tend to have similar power and toughness. But it's got some 1/3s and some 4/1s. Also, you could argue that white's 2-drops should be 1/4s and so on - but Wizards just gave white a 3/1 2-drop. Clearly, if the defensive colour can get 3/1s (at common, no less!), then green's fine having 1/4s. Making it a dryad not only ensures it doesn't add to the power level (an elf might boost the potency), and also gives it some flavour. Dryads are the forest's protectors, after all.
I think red and black weenies need to exist. I don't plan on elaborating TOO much on them, surely not as much as I'm doing for white and green. However, yes, there needs to be a baseline for those colours as well. Red gets vanilla creatures with similar power and toughness, and it gets creatures with higher power than toughness. Black favoures power more than toughness almost always, but typically has weak vanilla creatures because it tends to be ability based.
Great point! When I do the blue vanillas, I'll concentrate on using creature types as an advantage.
Myself, I don't like it. I see what you're saying, about the Furrier and so forth. Basically, it's a 2/2 with no drawback for 1R. But it's not vanilla - it has a VERY small drawback on it. And it's not played. Also, goblin is obviously a great creature type. I've proposed a 2/2 for RR before, and it was a minotaur scout. It would be okay at uncommon (even considering Blood Knight).
No, that's fine. I've designed that card before, too. I also have a black version (ala Ogre Marauder etc):
Mawtooth - 1BB
Creature - Horror (U)
5/1
I do see what you're getting at, yes. I don't know if I agree with the statement "rarity is a drawback", but yeah, Wizards definitely prints powerful cards that otherwise don't fit into the "has to be rare criteria*" in the rare slot. Savannah Lions is very simple, nonlegendary, isn't part of a rare cycle, and so on. But it's very powerful and needs to be rare, to sell packs, and to avoid limited players having 3 in play on turn two.
* Just for reference, here's MaRo's thoughts on why cards should be rares, from 2002:
Why not? If a 2/3 common elf costs GG, then a 3/4 uncommon elephant costs 1GG. In fact, since green is supposed to get better midranged creatures than its weenie creatures, it could possible even get a 3/4 uncommon ELF for 1GG. But I'm going to leave it at 3/4 because the armodon has more flavour. I don't like elves being big (3/4, etc) unless there's a reason for it.
Not sure what you mean? The change IS permanent. They've printed a 3/3 for 2G. It's available to every casual deck in existance, every legacy and extended deck, and to standard decks for at least the next year and a half. If you mean will it be in 10th or 11th, who knows. But I'm designing cards based on the fact that it is in print and has been deemed appropriate by R&D.
Yup, but we're concentrating on white and green weenies for the time being because that's probably the biggest part of the vanilla spectrum. We'll get to other colours soon though!
Yup, just not in any hugely detailed way. I want to have a 2cc, 3cc, and 4cc vanilla for each colour combination. We'll get to that.
Good point. I can see us doing slightly better than Krovikan Scoundrel, though.
Krovikan Dead -
Creature - Zombie Cleric (C)
2/1
From what I've read in the last 2-3 years, R&D believes white to be better at the cheaper creatures (1 and 2 mana, and sometimes 3 mana) while green is better at the midrange and beefy creatures (4 mana and up). They've said that efficient creatures like Wild Mongrel were a mistake and would not be printed today. So if any colour is getting a 3/2 for two coloured mana, it's white.
No problem with the Wurm. We have an uncommon 6/6 Wurm at 2GGG in fact - called Spastic Wurm. 3BG also works, and could be common or uncommon depending on the environment you're designing for.
Regarding the Centaur, here's a card I designed about a year ago:
Karplusan Emberhound -
Creature - Hound (R)
4/4
While not particularly intelligent, common, or quick, the Emberhound is still the creature most feared by Karplusan woodcutters.
The discussion can be found here.
The consensus was that it is too powerful, even at rare.
As for your version, the name is fine, but a "warrior" shouldn't have a shaman creature type. Shamans are like wimpy unsophisticated voodoo guys. If he's a warrior, make him a Warrior!
I dunno, that's a nice rule, but I'm not completely sold yet. 1, 2, and 3 have already been done. A 4/4 for might happen in uncommon. Silverback Ape is camping on the 5 slot already. 6 is probably fine, and could even probably be common. Like you said, we've got 7 already, and I'm sure nobody would care if there were 8/8s for out there - it's not like they'd be played.
So tired. I'll have to finish the other replies tomorrow!
.
- Do the other colors suck too much at vanillas?
That was answered a mere two posts ago:
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
The designers of that card said they should have made him a Knight so he'd at least have a relevant creature type. I figure Zombie or Knight (or both) would be fine. The creature type Zombie Knight would push it though.
Really? I figure a common wurm would be 5/5 for 3GB. Red has a 6/4 for 3RG and black has a 5/4 with an ability at 3GB. Is it the enemy colors that makes it easier for a 6/6 to exist at something other than rare? I know Monger has very good abilities but I don't think I could see a 6/6 Wurm at vanilla common.
If you ask me 4/4 for 3G is fine. Kami of the Tended Garden was uncommon and had more advantages than disadvantages. Yes it had an on color upkeep cost but it also had Soulshift and it was a Spirit. Both things made it more expensive (In a block that was already overcosting a lot of its creatures even if there were some legendary exceptions.)
It is easier for Green and White to have constructed playable vanilla creatures. Red and Black constructed playable creatures tend to be defined by their drawbacks, and Blue creatures are most often defined by their noncombat abilities.
Conclave Phalanx GGWW
Creature - Dryad Warrior
4/6
Thundersun Berserker WRR
Creature - Human Berserker
5/2
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝