It feels awful when you don't cast the card because you've just paid something for nothing.
It feels awful when you do cast the card because you had no control over what card popped up.
It removes decision making and increases the randomness in the game.
It's a bad mechanic that should be abandoned.
I do think that it is a gimmick ability, but for none of the reasons you mentioned. In fact, those cards are some of the better cards with such ability. The problem is when you get things like act on impulse, commune with lava and even abbot of keral keep. These cards require you to have boat loads of mana to properly take advantage of their effect, and competitive red decks DO NOT generate boat loads of mana, so it is very weird to have that as a signature ability of the color.
However, when you have outpost siege or chandra, you presumably will be able to cast the cards since your lands will be untapped. That is why they are the better option, but of course, you still have no selection. However, that *should* be irrelevant to red decks. And since these cards represent advantage over time you're not 'paying something for nothing'. Regarding the mechanic being abandoned or not, it is my personal opinion that it should be modified. Maybe if you add a clause such as 'until end of turn your lands gain sac: add RR' you would have something more akin to red's craziness, but that could certainly lead to broken card designs.
What you need to ask yourself is: should blue be the only color that generates actual card advantage? I think that is nuts, and that is why blue is usually considered one of the best if not the best color of the game. More recently green and black have been also fighting for this spot, green with its spells that fetch lands or creatures, or that allow to play lands from the top, while black does what blue does but at the cost of life. I think that is fine, but what about white and red? Red gets loot effects which are not advantage and cards such as magmatic insight, which is also not advantage. White, as far as I know, gets nothing. I don't know, it feels a bit... unfair. The issue with red is that, due to the philosophy of fire, it is a particularly dangerous color to give access to tons of card advantage, since it can immediately use this advantage to kill the opponent incredibly fast. I wouldn't know what the solution would be. I don't think exiling the top card is the sort of advantage that red needs, because it doesn't fit the color capabilities, but I also wouldn't know what to replace it with or if it should be replaced at all.
Would you like to read Commander stories? Check my latest stories, coming from Lorwyn and Innistrad: Ghoulcaller Gisa and Doran, The Siege Tower! If you like my writing, ask me to write something for your commander as well!
It feels awful when you don't cast the card because you've just paid something for nothing.
It feels awful when you do cast the card because you had no control over what card popped up.
It removes decision making and increases the randomness in the game.
That's how red works though. It's all about recklessness/speed/emotion where you tear through without consequences.
Like TBuzzsaw said, Red is reckless, it's all about taking a Gamble and seeing what happens. Red is not about planning or being methodical. If you want to have control over your card draw you need to be playing Blue.
If you're feeling bad about the way Red plays try out different colors maybe.
It feels awful when you don't cast the card because you've just paid something for nothing.
It feels awful when you do cast the card because you had no control over what card popped up.
It removes decision making and increases the randomness in the game.
That's how red works though. It's all about recklessness/speed/emotion where you tear through without consequences.
But you aren't tearing through. The spell still costs full mana, you aren't getting any real speed increases.
but of course, you still have no selection. However, that *should* be irrelevant to red decks.
I disagree, this locks red into extremely redundant linear strategies where every card is trying to do the same thing. That's pretty boring deck design. Red should certainly be more than just burn and agressive creatures for example.
It is tearing through the deck. It's not about drawing cards, it's more about getting through your deck. If you can use those cards you're ripping through, great, if not it doesn't matter to red.
What do you propose then if you think this is wrong?
First point: it's about digging through your deck, the most cards you get, the more you play. It's card advantage, and that wins games.
Second point: red is a linear color by design, but it's a very proactive color. Every card should be getting you closer to victory. That's sgain, what red does. The card draw/exile and effects of red are designed with that in mind.
I like the design of "Impulse" drawing. Flavorwise it fits Red to a tee and divergent mechanics help make colors and decks feel different from one another. Part of what makes Magic so special is that different colors play the game in their own ways, making for the variety that keeps gameplay fresh and compelling. All in all, the design is a great way to introduce card advantage into Red without blending the mechanical identities of the colors together too much.
What I don't like is how gunshy development has been with the effect. Impulse drawing is, outside of fringe circumstances, far worse than traditional card draw. And yet, spells that feature this mechanic are generally over-costed relative to regular card draw. Compare Outpost Siege or Chandra, Pyromaster to Phyrexian Arena or any number of Blue draw engines. Or look at Act on Impulse compared to any number of Blue/Black 3CMC spells that straight up draw three (or more) cards, with some minor downside. Red's card advantage engines are much worse, but often cost the same or more as other color's tools.
It's a lot like discard-then-draw effects. Traditional looting is far superior, in most instances (real Magic scenarios, not whatever weird game Dredge is a part of), bur look at how overcosted something like Rummaging Goblin is compared to Merfolk Looter or even Deal Broker. WotC designs these effects and then neuters them in development. Kinda sad.
Not a single one of the cards you mention is actually over costed when compared to an actual modern(I don't mean the format, it contains some old badly developed cards) day similar card.
I disagree, this locks red into extremely redundant linear strategies where every card is trying to do the same thing. That's pretty boring deck design. Red should certainly be more than just burn and agressive creatures for example.
it used to have solid land destruction, but that has fallen to the wayside.
I like these forms of draw, if only to differentiate between colors. While I cannot speak for standard, I can attest to Neheb, the Eternal generating tons of mana in EDH, which makes these cards a consideration.
Cheers!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If in the area, check out Gamers N Geeks and Mini War Games in Mobile, Alabama and Underhill's Games in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio.
Like TBuzzsaw said, Red is reckless, it's all about taking a Gamble and seeing what happens. Red is not about planning or being methodical. If you want to have control over your card draw you need to be playing Blue.
If you're feeling bad about the way Red plays try out different colors maybe.
Gamble is a good example of how red can be reckless. You get the effect undercosted but it's risky.
This mechanic is actually all about planning, you have to methodically plan out your turn based on the possible outcomes of your temporary card advantage so it isn't wasted. It has nothing to do with being reckless, because the effect isn't free or undercosted, you often pay a huge premium for it.
It is tearing through the deck. It's not about drawing cards, it's more about getting through your deck. If you can use those cards you're ripping through, great, if not it doesn't matter to red.
What do you propose then if you think this is wrong?
But it does matter to red, because you paid for it. If you didn't cast your card off of outpost siege, your 4 mana enchantment has had no effect on the game. Of course red cares when that happens.
Reckless stuff would be like burning your own face or creatures you control, discarding cards at random, having bad effects down the road
Examples:
Exile 3 cards face down. You may cast these cards while they are in exile. While these cards remain in exile, they deal 1 damage to you at the beginning of each upkeep.
Draw 3 cards, put a 5/5 dragon into play under an opponent's control
Draw 3 cards, X deals damage to you and creatures you control equal to their combined converted mana cost.
I really like this ability. That is all really, I don't think red should all be about speed and burn. Like the obligatory bad 7 line red mythic, it is part of the characteristics of Red.
"No control over what pops up" is a de facto definition of Standard, and modern magic in general. Every spell off the top is uncontrolled in modern Mtg.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
People with belligerent signatures are trying to compensate for something....
Not a single one of the cards you mention is actually over costed when compared to an actual modern(I don't mean the format, it contains some old badly developed cards) day similar card.
Act on Impulse compared to Divination. Three cards vs two, not quite as strong as the Siege comparison but its still fairly costed.
A best comparison is between act on impulse and painful truths, also consider that with act on impulsion you are "drawing" cards only if you have a ton of mana (at least 6 mana, 5 if one of those is a land card) compare it with a straight draw 3 card and it's a really big difference. Wizard should cost this effects way more aggresively or make them instants.
Comparing Act on Impulse to Painful Truths is a terrible comparison. One is essentially a three color card while the other is mono color, would you compare Fiery Justice and Boulderfall and say that Boulderfall is overcosted? If you want to compare cards you have to actually consider what and how the card does what it does. Act simply hits the top three, just like Divination hits the top two, while cards like Truths 'can' hit the top three but needs three colors of mana, so if actually comparing them it only hits the top card. If you want an actual comparison in black use Painful Lesson, both cost 3 and neither have extra limiters. So you can see that as I said, its hardly overcosted, it looks at 1 more card and doesn't cost you life.
It feels awful when you don't cast the card because you've just paid something for nothing.
You need to get out of this mindset. When you resolve the ETB trigger on Abbot of Keral Keep, the odds of the card you want being exiled are identical to the odds of the card you want now being on top of your deck (when it would be second from the top without the Abbot), which are identical odds to the card being on the bottom of your deck.
Instead of "damn, I wish I hadn't exiled that, that card would be useful and I can't afford it right now", think about how exiling it is almost exactly equivalent to the card being on the bottom of your library, equally out of reach.
It feels awful when you don't cast the card because you've just paid something for nothing.
It feels awful when you do cast the card because you had no control over what card popped up.
It removes decision making and increases the randomness in the game.
All those are only somewhat viable complains when you are playing the cards yourself. If your opponent plays them, none of this affects you. So just don't play such cards if you don't want this kind of effect. No one forces you to use them. Wizards makes a large variety of cards for a large variety of players. If you don't like this kind of card, then they are simply not made for you. Why should Wizards abandon the idea just because a part of their player base doesn't like it? Other players do. The game is what you make of it by building your decks. Wizards just provides an evergrowing toolbox for that.
It feels awful when you don't cast the card because you've just paid something for nothing.
You paid for the chance to get something to play, and you got that chance.
It feels awful when you do cast the card because you had no control over what card popped up.
That is true for all card drawing effects if the library is randomized. But all colors have access to library manipulation. Some more than others, but all can have some measure of control over the top card of their library.
It removes decision making and increases the randomness in the game.
How is getting more options removing decision making? More options means more decisions to be made, since you only have limited resources to spend on those options. And randomness is part of red's slice of the color pie.
It's a bad mechanic that should be abandoned.
You are entitled to your opinion. But why do all people around the globe have to abide by it? If you don't want it, don't play it. But if others want to play it, let them have that option. That's what Wizards offers their players after all, options. And probably more than 90% of those options don't see much play overall.
I agree that it is one of the most feel-bad mechanics when it fails, as the card is gone forever. Its a mechanic that you really need to consider how you play your deck; a deck running a bunch of fatties and dragons in it can't use it in the early game because it might hurt them. A deck that runs a lot of cheaper spells can make great use of it. There is a lot to think about when you play a spell with this red exile draw stuff; how much mana you have open,deck composition, as well as topdeck manipulation, making it more complicated than a normal draw spell.
Yeah, I have to disagree (respectfully) as well. Chandra, Torch of Defiance is an incredible card that moves through you through your deck turning dead draws into valuable damage. The previous post nailed it. It's all about deck composition. I'd like to add that you can't look at it as "card draw", because it isn't card draw. I'd argue that it's closer to a scry effect.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
No one spoke. There was no need. The threat of the Eldrazi presented a simple choice: lay down your arms and die for nothing, or hold them fast and die for something.
Theres no way around it, act on impulse actually is a terrible card, no matter what.
Thats the reason they dont print many of these, because they are that terrible.
However, on a permanent it works quite well.
On reasonable cheap beat-sticks it works, as you throw it in constructed decks that are packed with cheap spells.
Thats all fine.
Reds primary form of card draw in the last bunch of sets still is "discard, then draw" and it works pretty good at that.
Not a single one of the cards you mention is actually over costed when compared to an actual modern(I don't mean the format, it contains some old badly developed cards) day similar card.
I'd contest that notion; these cards are still overcosted when compared to anything but bottom-barrel draft chaff and bad rares.
Comparing Act on Impulse to Divination does no favors for the Red card; the latter is fit only for Limited and extremely casual play. While, oddly enough, there aren't many good 3CMC Blue draw spells lately, Black has had some strong ones like Read the Bones or Abzan Charm, both of which were in Standard not too long ago. Red "draw" on that power level would be interesting.
And being on par with Midnight Oil is no tall order. The card is terrible, and was widely panned by set reviewers on release, so Outpost Siege being on par with it is more of a backhanded compliment than anything else.
Mechanics need to be playable in order to be liked, and having a decent power level is a huge part of that. Merely being on par with whatever trash Wizards prints to fill out sets isn't enough. That's why I was comparing the "Impulse Draw" cards to decent staples like Phyrexian Arena, Merfolk Looter, and Compulsive Research not Necro or Ancestral. These aren't broken cards by any stretch of the imagination, but produce a stronger effect than their Red counterparts, often at a mana discount. No wonder why a portion of the playerbase dislikes this mechanic.
Not a single one of the cards you mention is actually over costed when compared to an actual modern(I don't mean the format, it contains some old badly developed cards) day similar card.
I'd contest that notion; these cards are still overcosted when compared to anything but bottom-barrel draft chaff and bad rares.
Your complaint is that bottom-barrel draft chaff (Act on Impulse) is only good when compared to other bottom-barrel draft chaff? Not every card is meant to be constructed playable, so comparing a random unplayable card with format defining cards is rather unfair. Act is bad because it's meant to be bad, Outpost Siege is good because it's meant to be good, this has nothing to do with the effect printed on them but rather the role development planned for the card. If your actual complaint is that they aren't printing enough good ones, then that is a more reasonable complait, but is rather off topic. If your complaint is that they aren't format warping then that's foolish, format warping/defining cards are almost always mistakes. They will make a mistake eventually, but being mad they haven't made one yet is ridiculous.
If your actual complaint is that they aren't printing enough good ones, then that is a more reasonable complait, but is rather off topic.
That's what I was trying to get at in my first post. The mechanic is solid, just represented mostly by bad cards, which leads players (like myself) to take a dim view towards it. This is, unfortunately, a repeat occurrence with new mechanics intended to bring depth to Red besides aggro/burn. Increasing the proportion of good cards that feature the mechanic versus chaff (pretty much Chandra, Torch of Defiance versus everything else ever printed with this ability) would do much to improve the standing of the mechanic and make the game more interesting.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
outpost siege
prophetic flamespeaker
chandra, pyromaster
etc
It feels awful when you don't cast the card because you've just paid something for nothing.
It feels awful when you do cast the card because you had no control over what card popped up.
It removes decision making and increases the randomness in the game.
It's a bad mechanic that should be abandoned.
I do think that it is a gimmick ability, but for none of the reasons you mentioned. In fact, those cards are some of the better cards with such ability. The problem is when you get things like act on impulse, commune with lava and even abbot of keral keep. These cards require you to have boat loads of mana to properly take advantage of their effect, and competitive red decks DO NOT generate boat loads of mana, so it is very weird to have that as a signature ability of the color.
However, when you have outpost siege or chandra, you presumably will be able to cast the cards since your lands will be untapped. That is why they are the better option, but of course, you still have no selection. However, that *should* be irrelevant to red decks. And since these cards represent advantage over time you're not 'paying something for nothing'. Regarding the mechanic being abandoned or not, it is my personal opinion that it should be modified. Maybe if you add a clause such as 'until end of turn your lands gain sac: add RR' you would have something more akin to red's craziness, but that could certainly lead to broken card designs.
What you need to ask yourself is: should blue be the only color that generates actual card advantage? I think that is nuts, and that is why blue is usually considered one of the best if not the best color of the game. More recently green and black have been also fighting for this spot, green with its spells that fetch lands or creatures, or that allow to play lands from the top, while black does what blue does but at the cost of life. I think that is fine, but what about white and red? Red gets loot effects which are not advantage and cards such as magmatic insight, which is also not advantage. White, as far as I know, gets nothing. I don't know, it feels a bit... unfair. The issue with red is that, due to the philosophy of fire, it is a particularly dangerous color to give access to tons of card advantage, since it can immediately use this advantage to kill the opponent incredibly fast. I wouldn't know what the solution would be. I don't think exiling the top card is the sort of advantage that red needs, because it doesn't fit the color capabilities, but I also wouldn't know what to replace it with or if it should be replaced at all.
Read my other stories as well (some ongoing):
Reaper King (a horror story), Kaalia of the Vast (an origin story), Sequels for Innistrad (Alternative sequels for Inn), Grey Areas (Odric's fanfic), Royal Succession (goblins),The Tracker's Message (eldrazi on Innistrad) and Ugin and his Eye (the end of OGW).
That's how red works though. It's all about recklessness/speed/emotion where you tear through without consequences.
Standard: BG Golgari Midrange
Modern: U Merfolk GWUBR 5 Color Humans UBW Esper Gifts GW Bogles
If you're feeling bad about the way Red plays try out different colors maybe.
But you aren't tearing through. The spell still costs full mana, you aren't getting any real speed increases.
I disagree, this locks red into extremely redundant linear strategies where every card is trying to do the same thing. That's pretty boring deck design. Red should certainly be more than just burn and agressive creatures for example.
What do you propose then if you think this is wrong?
Standard: BG Golgari Midrange
Modern: U Merfolk GWUBR 5 Color Humans UBW Esper Gifts GW Bogles
First point: it's about digging through your deck, the most cards you get, the more you play. It's card advantage, and that wins games.
Second point: red is a linear color by design, but it's a very proactive color. Every card should be getting you closer to victory. That's sgain, what red does. The card draw/exile and effects of red are designed with that in mind.
What I don't like is how gunshy development has been with the effect. Impulse drawing is, outside of fringe circumstances, far worse than traditional card draw. And yet, spells that feature this mechanic are generally over-costed relative to regular card draw. Compare Outpost Siege or Chandra, Pyromaster to Phyrexian Arena or any number of Blue draw engines. Or look at Act on Impulse compared to any number of Blue/Black 3CMC spells that straight up draw three (or more) cards, with some minor downside. Red's card advantage engines are much worse, but often cost the same or more as other color's tools.
It's a lot like discard-then-draw effects. Traditional looting is far superior, in most instances (real Magic scenarios, not whatever weird game Dredge is a part of), bur look at how overcosted something like Rummaging Goblin is compared to Merfolk Looter or even Deal Broker. WotC designs these effects and then neuters them in development. Kinda sad.
The closest comparison to Outpost Siege is Midnight Oil. The Siege is rather aggressively costed.
Act on Impulse compared to Divination. Three cards vs two, not quite as strong as the Siege comparison but its still fairly costed.
Rummaging Goblin vs Zephyr Scribe, or Seeker of Insight. Another hard comparison but I wouldn't say that the Goblin is overcosted, maybe underpowered but not overcosted.
I like these forms of draw, if only to differentiate between colors. While I cannot speak for standard, I can attest to Neheb, the Eternal generating tons of mana in EDH, which makes these cards a consideration.
Cheers!
Krichaiushii on PucaTrade.
Gamble is a good example of how red can be reckless. You get the effect undercosted but it's risky.
This mechanic is actually all about planning, you have to methodically plan out your turn based on the possible outcomes of your temporary card advantage so it isn't wasted. It has nothing to do with being reckless, because the effect isn't free or undercosted, you often pay a huge premium for it.
But it does matter to red, because you paid for it. If you didn't cast your card off of outpost siege, your 4 mana enchantment has had no effect on the game. Of course red cares when that happens.
Reckless stuff would be like burning your own face or creatures you control, discarding cards at random, having bad effects down the road
Examples:
Exile 3 cards face down. You may cast these cards while they are in exile. While these cards remain in exile, they deal 1 damage to you at the beginning of each upkeep.
Draw 3 cards, put a 5/5 dragon into play under an opponent's control
Draw 3 cards, X deals damage to you and creatures you control equal to their combined converted mana cost.
"No control over what pops up" is a de facto definition of Standard, and modern magic in general. Every spell off the top is uncontrolled in modern Mtg.
White lacks actual card draw, right now it kinda cheats with the cluestones or it might tutor some small creatures up, but thats quite an exception.
If they get card draw it has to be somewhat terrible, but if a deck can work with it, they might totally do so.
Especially on planeswalkers the red card draw works totally well, as you have plenty of mana to cast whatever it is, should never be an issue.
The red looting mechanics are overall strong enough and fuel mechanics like madness etc.
----
The real deal of card draw is in blue and thats good.
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
Instead of "damn, I wish I hadn't exiled that, that card would be useful and I can't afford it right now", think about how exiling it is almost exactly equivalent to the card being on the bottom of your library, equally out of reach.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
All those are only somewhat viable complains when you are playing the cards yourself. If your opponent plays them, none of this affects you. So just don't play such cards if you don't want this kind of effect. No one forces you to use them. Wizards makes a large variety of cards for a large variety of players. If you don't like this kind of card, then they are simply not made for you. Why should Wizards abandon the idea just because a part of their player base doesn't like it? Other players do. The game is what you make of it by building your decks. Wizards just provides an evergrowing toolbox for that.
You paid for the chance to get something to play, and you got that chance.
That is true for all card drawing effects if the library is randomized. But all colors have access to library manipulation. Some more than others, but all can have some measure of control over the top card of their library.
How is getting more options removing decision making? More options means more decisions to be made, since you only have limited resources to spend on those options. And randomness is part of red's slice of the color pie.
You are entitled to your opinion. But why do all people around the globe have to abide by it? If you don't want it, don't play it. But if others want to play it, let them have that option. That's what Wizards offers their players after all, options. And probably more than 90% of those options don't see much play overall.
Former Rules Advisor
"Everything's better with pirates." - Lodge
(The Gamers: Dorkness Rising)
"Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science."
(Girl Genius - Fairy Tale Theater Break - Cinderella, end of volume 8)
Fantastic card in the dragon stompy deck.
White's card draw (which is limited) is based on doing White things, like playing auras, equipment, or small creatures.
Thats the reason they dont print many of these, because they are that terrible.
However, on a permanent it works quite well.
On reasonable cheap beat-sticks it works, as you throw it in constructed decks that are packed with cheap spells.
Thats all fine.
Reds primary form of card draw in the last bunch of sets still is "discard, then draw" and it works pretty good at that.
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
I'd contest that notion; these cards are still overcosted when compared to anything but bottom-barrel draft chaff and bad rares.
Rummaging Goblin looks okay next to awful looters like Zephyr Scribe, but rather terrible compared to Reckless Scholar. That's to say nothing of looters developed for Constructed like Smuggler's Copter or Jace, Vryn's Prodigy.
Comparing Act on Impulse to Divination does no favors for the Red card; the latter is fit only for Limited and extremely casual play. While, oddly enough, there aren't many good 3CMC Blue draw spells lately, Black has had some strong ones like Read the Bones or Abzan Charm, both of which were in Standard not too long ago. Red "draw" on that power level would be interesting.
And being on par with Midnight Oil is no tall order. The card is terrible, and was widely panned by set reviewers on release, so Outpost Siege being on par with it is more of a backhanded compliment than anything else.
Mechanics need to be playable in order to be liked, and having a decent power level is a huge part of that. Merely being on par with whatever trash Wizards prints to fill out sets isn't enough. That's why I was comparing the "Impulse Draw" cards to decent staples like Phyrexian Arena, Merfolk Looter, and Compulsive Research not Necro or Ancestral. These aren't broken cards by any stretch of the imagination, but produce a stronger effect than their Red counterparts, often at a mana discount. No wonder why a portion of the playerbase dislikes this mechanic.
That's what I was trying to get at in my first post. The mechanic is solid, just represented mostly by bad cards, which leads players (like myself) to take a dim view towards it. This is, unfortunately, a repeat occurrence with new mechanics intended to bring depth to Red besides aggro/burn. Increasing the proportion of good cards that feature the mechanic versus chaff (pretty much Chandra, Torch of Defiance versus everything else ever printed with this ability) would do much to improve the standing of the mechanic and make the game more interesting.