419.6a -
[/FONT][FONT=Verdana]A replacement effect doesn't invoke itself repeatedly and gets only one opportunity for each event.[/FONT][FONT=Verdana]The important part is in bold. Replacement effects only get applied once per event. No matter what, Unearth only gets applied once.
That being said, Void Maw still won't help. If you apply Unearth first, it is no longer going to the graveyard, so Void Maw won't apply. If you apply Void Maw first, it is still leaving play, and since Unearth doesn't care where it is leaving play to, it will still overwrite the event removing it from play, and since the reason it was removed from play in the end was the Unearth trigger, Void Maw's linked abilities don't see it as having been removed from the game by Void Maw.[/font]
. . . that's what I said. Explain precisely what part of my post deviated from this.
By the way, Myznomer, you may note his rules citation conveniently answers your question.
Anyway, nosajtpno, your answer exposes something interesting. The current presumption is that Unearth will say this:
Unearth is a keyword that represents an activated ability. It applies while the card it is on is in a graveyard. Unearth [COST] means "[COST]: Return this card from your graveyard to play. If it would leave play, remove it from the game instead. At end of turn, remove it from the game. Play this ability only any time you could play a sorcery."
That means that Unearth will replace itself vacuously; the effect of the delayed triggered ability saying "remove from game" is replaced by the replacement effect portion, to "remove from game."
. . . unless Unearth is like flashback, for which the possibility has just become more likely, in my eyes.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Epic banner by Erasmus of æтђєг.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
Three colors will not be hard in the new set. You have the comes into play tap 3 land.
Turn 1, play that, turn two play your carins cycle land, or reflecting pool. Then play any land turn 3 and you got it.
easy since u run 4 reflecting pool, 4 comes into play tapped lands, and 4 to 8 of your dual carin lands
This is a great turn three card, better then hippy.
This is definitely in the right colors... come on.
Blue - Flying
Red - Higher P than T, haste w/ unearth.
Black - Discard, graveyard recursion
Seeing how Grixis is the Black shard and R/U are the support colors, this makes perfect sense. Sure it may not be as obviously strong like Thoctar, but seriously, this guy is card advantage and a decent body on a flyer.
Yes, he could be mono black in any other set.
But this is Alara, Shards factions will dictate the color schemes. This is pretty simple.
But this is Alara, Shards factions will dictate the color schemes. This is pretty simple.
And yet you're satisfied with someone telling you now have to jump through hoops, for no actual gain, because of flavor? Flavor should enhance cards, it should be a part of their design, it should not be an afterthought, tacked on to fill a slot in a set.
And yet your satisfied with someone telling you now have to jump through hoops, for no actual gain, because of flavor? Flavor should enhance cards, it should be a part of their design, it should not be an afterthought, tacked on to fill a slot in a set.
I think tacking on a red ability like haste just to make it painfully obvious to everyome where the red comes from is more unoriginal design.
i would rather have the flavour be more obvious, instead of simply taking the easy way out, by making a creature, and giving it ability A, B, and C for each colour.
I think tacking on a red ability like haste just to make it painfully obvious to everyome where the red comes from is more unoriginal design.
i would rather have the flavour be more obvious, instead of simply taking the easy way out, by making a creature, and giving it ability A, B, and C for each colour.
The red could've been subtly inserted as randomization of the discard.
And really, isn't unoriginal design better than no design hiding behind the excuse of flavor?
Ok, the basic hypnotic Specter is 1BB. Great, this is the foundation for Hippies. If you start adding colors to this formula, you get things like Blizard Specter Which adds a theiving magpie ability, sort of a marriage of the two abilites, and an extra toughness at uncommon. At rare, you get Doomsday Specter, which adds a chosen discard and an extra thoughness. And gating. If you add red to the spectre, you get Blazing Specter, which has haste and opponent chosen discard.
Now, all specters have flying and random discard at damage at basis. Blue has added a toughness and draw at damage. Red has added haste.
Blizzard Specter doesn't add an Ophidian ability, it adds bounce. Furthermore, I could list a ton of specters without random discard at hit, besides the two you mentioned.
I think there's a subtle misunderstanding of color pie theory that leads people to ask questions like "why is this card UBR?"
Color affiliation in Magic is never an exact science, where you look at exactly what a card can do and then work out an exact set of colors needed to "earn" those abilities. Rather, it's a fluid, holistic process. Each color has a certain level of competency at each mechanic in the game, from "can't do this at all ever" through "questionable bleed" and "once in a while/when overcosted" through to the core abilities of the color. When you build a card, you have a lot of options: you can make it gold using all the colors that have those mechanics as core, you can make it mono with a little bit of bleeding, or mono but overpriced and therefore "fair," or maybe even justify it as a hybrid in a totally different set of colors. Sometimes there are mechanics that a color can do on its own, but which are very much in flavor for its allies (or enemies) as well, so you need to decide which color(s) are being used...
A card like this isn't gold because it has to be gold; it's gold because it can be. The Specter concept is black for flavor reasons -- normally black doesn't get super-efficient flying beaters with card advantage attached -- so spreading it out to the neighboring colors that are philosophically related makes sense.
Another, shorter way to think about this: a card doesn't always have to have the least specific casting cost it can. Double Strike is a red and a white ability, so you can print a hybrid spell that grants it -- but you can also print one that's just white, or just red. This card is similar -- you can print a 3/2 (red), flying (blue) discarder (black) in mono-black, but you don't have to.
If you want to pick on one of the ABC creatures, I'd pick on the Rhox Warmage -- I honestly don't see why white couldn't get a 3/4 lifelink for 1WW, so to me that card needed a little extra "oomph" to sell the goldness.
The way I see it, this card could have easily been monoblack. However, If this was monoblack it would've had to cost at least 2BB (at the least). The two extra colors are really just included in the mana cost in order to make it a little more aggresively costed.
All the attributes of this card have been seen on numerous black cards in the past, but some of these traits are also shared with blue or black. For instance, flying is common in black, but by saying that the flying on this specter comes from the blue, Wizards can slightly lower the cost. Similarly, Black often gets creatures with higher power than toughness and/or haste, but if these abilities are said to be due to the red of the specter, then the cost can be lowered.
Now I realize that this may sound like a cheap cop-out by wizards, and I somewhat agree. However, I like the card enough that I'm not gonna complain too much. I also realize that what I said could likely fit better into a hybrid B/R and U/B card, but I also believe that pretty much anything done as hybrid could also be done as multicolor without really violating the color pie.
By the way, I'm new to the forums and don't really know about auto-carding and such. So if anyone could help me out or point me to a place where I could learn some of this stuff I would really appreciate it. Hope I didn't piss off anyone too bad with my first post.
sure it can be mono black, but it would cost at least 5cc for it.
mechanically it shows that wotc is willing to expand on what makes something gold. especially in this shards realm, gold is more than slapping two colors together, like they have done in the past. it is almost like colors almost don't matter, only theme does. IOW this is not your granddaddy's gold block.
sure it can be mono black, but it would cost at least 5cc for it.
mechanically it shows that wotc is willing to expand on what makes something gold. especially in this shards realm, gold is more than slapping two colors together, like they have done in the past. it is almost like colors almost don't matter, only theme does. IOW this is not your granddaddy's gold block.
I concede that your point has merit. However, why such an abrupt change by making a set that mostly goes against previous conventions* of gold. Sure, some people may get it, but not everyone who does is going to have someone like Charlequin to explain it to them. And even then, they may not be happy with it.
*and not in a revolutionary "this is awesome" way. In a disappointing way.
mechanically it shows that wotc is willing to expand on what makes something gold. especially in this shards realm, gold is more than slapping two colors together, like they have done in the past. it is almost like colors almost don't matter, only theme does. IOW this is not your granddaddy's gold block.
This is good yet also bad.
Yes, if we look to charlequin's post for a good explanation, we see that "gold is being evolved here" is the right way to look at this scenario. All else being equal, who wouldn't want gold to evolve? And how can you fit Sedraxis Spectre into the Chinese menu model of gold sets of old?
The answers are no one and no way.
But you, Lord of Atlantis, are too quick! We can't just say gold is being evolved and use that to brush aside everyone who doesn't like it. The statement that gold is evolving does not have the statement that this new use of gold is good! It cannot be used to fortify an argument that the change is good, only as a first defense against statements that poo-poo these previews with "these cards are not gold, KTHXBAI."
charlequin has said (in a way that I envy) precisely what I think is going on here (and in fact has always been a tool in Wizards' back pocket in terms of design).
Spectres are something Red is something like, in that this crazy world of Grixis has weird **** that happens sometimes for no reason than to spread the psychologically devastating chaos that keeps the power-mad death mages on top. Blue is something close to a spectre inasmuch as the Blue discard experiment in Time Spiral went well, and that we also can see a Blue component sometimes behind the will of mages who use these spectres on Grixis. Each of Red and Blue are somewhat interested in making a creature that does spectre things. And surely, if any mechanic had an identity to which more than one color was partial, the multiple subscription of those colors to the cost has reduced it.
It's the fact that a Blue-Black-Red guy would certainly have no problem grabbing a spectre if it's what the cool people not-dead guys are doing on Grixis. It's that if anything were Grixis in one horrified point of the finger, it's a Sedraxis Spectre. It's that if you want to master the insanity of this place, (or harness the most stoic of Bant, or use the wildest of Naya), you can show all your colors for it, and you must show all your colors for it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Epic banner by Erasmus of æтђєг.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
Guys, don't you get it? This card isn't UBR, it's Grixis.
The Unearth part isn't the red part, it's the Grixis part.
The specter part isn't the black part, it's the Grixis part.
The flying part isn't the blue part, it's the Grixis part.
The same justification for hybrid triggers works here. Yeah, in a mono blue deck, you can have Gravegill Duo trigger Dire Undercurrents, but you're paying the 'additional cost' of only being able to use the limited pool of U/B hybrid cards, unless you actually splash black. You guys are correct, this card doesn't have abilities that would justify UBR necessarily, but it has the arbitrary cost of 'the three colors of mana that fit into Grixis' for the ability of 'doing something very Grixis'. As long as the three specific colors of mana for the particular shard are different than the colors for the other shard, then there's still this cost identity that allows the card to work this way.
Guys, don't you get it? This card isn't UBR, it's Grixis.
This would oh so true, if every single card from Grixis was rBu. But as some cards aren't, this argument is kinda like window pane 5 seconds after meeting a moving brick. Grixis has things that are only black, or only blue, or only red. Grixis isn't a mana cost. Its the name of a place.
This would oh so true, if every single card from Grixis was rBu. But as some cards aren't, this argument is kinda like window pane 5 seconds after meeting a moving brick. Grixis has things that are only black, or only blue, or only red. Grixis isn't a mana cost. Its the name of a place.
Yes, a place defined by the fact that it's not green or white.
The multicolored cards don't have to pick up pieces from every color, they just have to do things that are very Grixis, and the mono colored cards have to do things within their own colors that are Grixis.
Wizards has decided that this card does something especially Grixis, so it has a very deep cost at UBR. It's just like when Cryptic Command does something very blue, it has a triple blue cost.
This idea is at least defensible and justifiable, so I see no reason for wizards to not toy with the shard thing for a block. They might as well try a few weird gimmicks so the game doesn't become incredibly stale when tribal block 9.0 rolls around right next to graveyard block 5.0.
Yes, a place defined by the fact that it's not green or white.
The multicolored cards don't have to pick up pieces from every color, they just have to do things that are very Grixis, and the mono colored cards have to do things within their own colors that are Grixis.
Wizards has decided that this card does something especially Grixis, so it has a very deep cost at UBR. It's just like when Cryptic Command does something very blue, it has a triple blue cost.
This idea is at least defensible and justifiable, so I see no reason for wizards to not toy with the shard thing for a block. They might as well try a few weird gimmicks so the game doesn't become incredibly stale when tribal block 9.0 rolls around right next to graveyard block 5.0.
Ehh, I'm more of the opinion that the three colored cards should be proportionately like five colored cards on regular planes. According to your argument, they're actually closer to mono-colored, I just don't think that's a very good idea. I'd allow maybe an exception or two, but if a sizable portion of the block turns out this way, I'd be disappointed.
The card should just have haste. Then it would be good and fit the cost.
It might have had haste in development (hence the red) and it was removed later. Also, Red is the closest color to fit in this creature besides the others because of the unearth ability. They obviously wanted it to cost three colors and Green/White don't fit the card at all.
I concede that your point has merit. However, why such an abrupt change by making a set that mostly goes against previous conventions* of gold.
Because they went back to the gold well too early and they need to pad the set out.
Right now there are only about 10 cards in each of the three shard combinations, and many of them are things like old Legends legends where the effects have no relation to the color pie. Alara block is probably going to more than double that number, so not all of those three-color cards are going to be full, 100% justified executions of cards that draw upon all three of their colors.
I don't really think it's a huge problem though. For the most part, looking at a card like the Specter and saying "hey why is this gold" requires a player who can look at the set analytically -- who's read enough design columns or spent enough time on the Rumor Mill to see something funny going on there. Most people will just look at the card and say "neat."
For all this colour contention, howabout we say this:
This spectre is from Grixis, and suits the flavour as an essentially (Grixic? Grixian? Grixese?) card.
And Grixis is UBR
So spectre = Grixis = UBR
i understand no one will accept this, but i felt like saying it. the ability of people to choose their opinions makes life far more interesting. though really, i dont understand why anyone would complain about a card. if you really really dont like it, quit magic for a few months.
there is a point in making this creature UBR for a "Grixis-theme". if you consider this tournament thing, where people can only play cards of the coulors of one shard, it makes some sense. if the card would simply be UB or BB or BR it would fit into more shard-specific decks (Esper, Jund and Grixis). this way it only fits into Grixis decks.
i'm not saying this is very cool or clever, but it is a reason for designing a card this way.
For all this colour contention, howabout we say this:
This spectre is from Grixis, and suits the flavour as an essentially (Grixic? Grixian? Grixese?) card.
And Grixis is UBR
So spectre = Grixis = UBR
i understand no one will accept this, but i felt like saying it. the ability of people to choose their opinions makes life far more interesting. though really, i dont understand why anyone would complain about a card. if you really really dont like it, quit magic for a few months.
Mana costs are not like gang colors. Your homie Spectre isn't going to have your back if the crips start frontin.
Mana costs are what you need to magically summon this creature from its native plane.
They are representative of the abilities or affects of the creature or spell you summon, so you can see where the general confusion lies.
Mana costs are not like gang colors. Your homie Spectre isn't going to have your back if the crips start frontin.
Except that they are; we're just coming out of a block where hybrid acts very specifically as gang colors! The part of Sedraxis Spectre that is R is that it's a red creature and other cards care about it as it is one. (and that red is a third color of mana so it will reduce the cost)
Do people complain that Hill Giant isn't 'red enough' to justify not being colorless? No, because that's not always how it works.
Right now there are only about 10 cards in each of the three shard combinations, and many of them are things like old Legends legends where the effects have no relation to the color pie. Alara block is probably going to more than double that number, so not all of those three-color cards are going to be full, 100% justified executions of cards that draw upon all three of their colors.
Well I checked out some of these modern 3-color gold cards and I conclude that it is a different beast than 2-color gold. Look at the Invasion Dragons. What does Crosis have to do with blue or red? Mishra could probably be mono-blue. Destructive Flow could easily be mono-red. Where's the green in Sek'Kuar, Deathkeeper?
So yeah 3-color cards in Shards is mostly about flavor and fitting the themes. This is what encouraged the shard vs shard tournaments. So yes in a sense, they are like gang colors. Sedraxis specter, wooly thoctar, and sprouting thrinax are never fighting next to each other. In this new sharded format, they will always fight against each other. Well it's more like team colors. If one team is blue-white and another is red-white, it doesn't mean a player has any ties with white; a player has ties with his team, whether it's blue-white or red-white. Only in the case of the shards, we deal with 3-color teams.
Do people complain that Hill Giant isn't 'red enough' to justify not being colorless? No, because that's not always how it works.
Right. This was my basic point: a card doesn't have to be as far down the hierarchy of specific costs (gold -> mono -> hybrid -> colorless) as it can possibly go; it can also be printed anywhere further up, as long as it's somewhat justifiable there.
This guy is an aggressive, high-damaging flying card advantage beater -- this is unquestionably a uBr flavor when taken as a whole even though similar cards have been printed as mono-black. I think it's reasonable.
Again, I'd direct attention to the Rhox Warmage, who really doesn't have any blue or green qualities at all, rather than the Specter who does have red and blue qualities, just ones that black can often have as well.
Well I checked out some of these modern 3-color gold cards and I conclude that it is a different beast than 2-color gold. Look at the Invasion Dragons. What does Crosis have to do with blue or red? Mishra could probably be mono-blue. Destructive Flow could easily be mono-red. Where's the green in Sek'Kuar, Deathkeeper?
Right. I think a lot of these cards work as gold cards -- Destructive Flow, I think, benefits from drawing on all three land-destruction colors -- but very few of them need to be gold. In fact, outside of very specific "Chinese menu" combinations, there are very few cards that need to be gold -- almost any singular effect is in-color somewhere, so it's just a matter of working out what combination "feels good" for it.
(That said, I think Sek'kuar's role as a token generator makes his green more sensible than, say, Mishra, who really could be mono-blue if it weren't for his storyline background.)
. . . that's what I said. Explain precisely what part of my post deviated from this.
By the way, Myznomer, you may note his rules citation conveniently answers your question.
Anyway, nosajtpno, your answer exposes something interesting. The current presumption is that Unearth will say this:
That means that Unearth will replace itself vacuously; the effect of the delayed triggered ability saying "remove from game" is replaced by the replacement effect portion, to "remove from game."
. . . unless Unearth is like flashback, for which the possibility has just become more likely, in my eyes.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
Turn 1, play that, turn two play your carins cycle land, or reflecting pool. Then play any land turn 3 and you got it.
easy since u run 4 reflecting pool, 4 comes into play tapped lands, and 4 to 8 of your dual carin lands
This is a great turn three card, better then hippy.
Blue - Flying
Red - Higher P than T, haste w/ unearth.
Black - Discard, graveyard recursion
Seeing how Grixis is the Black shard and R/U are the support colors, this makes perfect sense. Sure it may not be as obviously strong like Thoctar, but seriously, this guy is card advantage and a decent body on a flyer.
Yes, he could be mono black in any other set.
But this is Alara, Shards factions will dictate the color schemes. This is pretty simple.
By your own admission, he would be black.
And yet you're satisfied with someone telling you now have to jump through hoops, for no actual gain, because of flavor? Flavor should enhance cards, it should be a part of their design, it should not be an afterthought, tacked on to fill a slot in a set.
I have come to spread the gospel of Cockatrice, the best free source for online play.
------------
In Phyrexia, Black will do anything to be broken in Vintage.
I think tacking on a red ability like haste just to make it painfully obvious to everyome where the red comes from is more unoriginal design.
i would rather have the flavour be more obvious, instead of simply taking the easy way out, by making a creature, and giving it ability A, B, and C for each colour.
Banner by Alex.
MEGAMATT
The red could've been subtly inserted as randomization of the discard.
And really, isn't unoriginal design better than no design hiding behind the excuse of flavor?
I have come to spread the gospel of Cockatrice, the best free source for online play.
------------
In Phyrexia, Black will do anything to be broken in Vintage.
Blizzard Specter doesn't add an Ophidian ability, it adds bounce. Furthermore, I could list a ton of specters without random discard at hit, besides the two you mentioned.
Color affiliation in Magic is never an exact science, where you look at exactly what a card can do and then work out an exact set of colors needed to "earn" those abilities. Rather, it's a fluid, holistic process. Each color has a certain level of competency at each mechanic in the game, from "can't do this at all ever" through "questionable bleed" and "once in a while/when overcosted" through to the core abilities of the color. When you build a card, you have a lot of options: you can make it gold using all the colors that have those mechanics as core, you can make it mono with a little bit of bleeding, or mono but overpriced and therefore "fair," or maybe even justify it as a hybrid in a totally different set of colors. Sometimes there are mechanics that a color can do on its own, but which are very much in flavor for its allies (or enemies) as well, so you need to decide which color(s) are being used...
A card like this isn't gold because it has to be gold; it's gold because it can be. The Specter concept is black for flavor reasons -- normally black doesn't get super-efficient flying beaters with card advantage attached -- so spreading it out to the neighboring colors that are philosophically related makes sense.
Another, shorter way to think about this: a card doesn't always have to have the least specific casting cost it can. Double Strike is a red and a white ability, so you can print a hybrid spell that grants it -- but you can also print one that's just white, or just red. This card is similar -- you can print a 3/2 (red), flying (blue) discarder (black) in mono-black, but you don't have to.
If you want to pick on one of the ABC creatures, I'd pick on the Rhox Warmage -- I honestly don't see why white couldn't get a 3/4 lifelink for 1WW, so to me that card needed a little extra "oomph" to sell the goldness.
All the attributes of this card have been seen on numerous black cards in the past, but some of these traits are also shared with blue or black. For instance, flying is common in black, but by saying that the flying on this specter comes from the blue, Wizards can slightly lower the cost. Similarly, Black often gets creatures with higher power than toughness and/or haste, but if these abilities are said to be due to the red of the specter, then the cost can be lowered.
Now I realize that this may sound like a cheap cop-out by wizards, and I somewhat agree. However, I like the card enough that I'm not gonna complain too much. I also realize that what I said could likely fit better into a hybrid B/R and U/B card, but I also believe that pretty much anything done as hybrid could also be done as multicolor without really violating the color pie.
By the way, I'm new to the forums and don't really know about auto-carding and such. So if anyone could help me out or point me to a place where I could learn some of this stuff I would really appreciate it. Hope I didn't piss off anyone too bad with my first post.
mechanically it shows that wotc is willing to expand on what makes something gold. especially in this shards realm, gold is more than slapping two colors together, like they have done in the past. it is almost like colors almost don't matter, only theme does. IOW this is not your granddaddy's gold block.
........................
norbert88
Official EDH Forums
Member of Team Revolution
Jinxed Idols Podcast
Follow Me on Twitter!
I concede that your point has merit. However, why such an abrupt change by making a set that mostly goes against previous conventions* of gold. Sure, some people may get it, but not everyone who does is going to have someone like Charlequin to explain it to them. And even then, they may not be happy with it.
*and not in a revolutionary "this is awesome" way. In a disappointing way.
I have come to spread the gospel of Cockatrice, the best free source for online play.
------------
In Phyrexia, Black will do anything to be broken in Vintage.
This is good yet also bad.
Yes, if we look to charlequin's post for a good explanation, we see that "gold is being evolved here" is the right way to look at this scenario. All else being equal, who wouldn't want gold to evolve? And how can you fit Sedraxis Spectre into the Chinese menu model of gold sets of old?
The answers are no one and no way.
But you, Lord of Atlantis, are too quick! We can't just say gold is being evolved and use that to brush aside everyone who doesn't like it. The statement that gold is evolving does not have the statement that this new use of gold is good! It cannot be used to fortify an argument that the change is good, only as a first defense against statements that poo-poo these previews with "these cards are not gold, KTHXBAI."
charlequin has said (in a way that I envy) precisely what I think is going on here (and in fact has always been a tool in Wizards' back pocket in terms of design).
Spectres are something Red is something like, in that this crazy world of Grixis has weird **** that happens sometimes for no reason than to spread the psychologically devastating chaos that keeps the power-mad death mages on top. Blue is something close to a spectre inasmuch as the Blue discard experiment in Time Spiral went well, and that we also can see a Blue component sometimes behind the will of mages who use these spectres on Grixis. Each of Red and Blue are somewhat interested in making a creature that does spectre things. And surely, if any mechanic had an identity to which more than one color was partial, the multiple subscription of those colors to the cost has reduced it.
It's the fact that a Blue-Black-Red guy would certainly have no problem grabbing a spectre if it's what the
cool peoplenot-dead guys are doing on Grixis. It's that if anything were Grixis in one horrified point of the finger, it's a Sedraxis Spectre. It's that if you want to master the insanity of this place, (or harness the most stoic of Bant, or use the wildest of Naya), you can show all your colors for it, and you must show all your colors for it.Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
The Unearth part isn't the red part, it's the Grixis part.
The specter part isn't the black part, it's the Grixis part.
The flying part isn't the blue part, it's the Grixis part.
The same justification for hybrid triggers works here. Yeah, in a mono blue deck, you can have Gravegill Duo trigger Dire Undercurrents, but you're paying the 'additional cost' of only being able to use the limited pool of U/B hybrid cards, unless you actually splash black. You guys are correct, this card doesn't have abilities that would justify UBR necessarily, but it has the arbitrary cost of 'the three colors of mana that fit into Grixis' for the ability of 'doing something very Grixis'. As long as the three specific colors of mana for the particular shard are different than the colors for the other shard, then there's still this cost identity that allows the card to work this way.
This would oh so true, if every single card from Grixis was rBu. But as some cards aren't, this argument is kinda like window pane 5 seconds after meeting a moving brick. Grixis has things that are only black, or only blue, or only red. Grixis isn't a mana cost. Its the name of a place.
Control is the ultimate expression of power.
Yes, a place defined by the fact that it's not green or white.
The multicolored cards don't have to pick up pieces from every color, they just have to do things that are very Grixis, and the mono colored cards have to do things within their own colors that are Grixis.
Wizards has decided that this card does something especially Grixis, so it has a very deep cost at UBR. It's just like when Cryptic Command does something very blue, it has a triple blue cost.
This idea is at least defensible and justifiable, so I see no reason for wizards to not toy with the shard thing for a block. They might as well try a few weird gimmicks so the game doesn't become incredibly stale when tribal block 9.0 rolls around right next to graveyard block 5.0.
Ehh, I'm more of the opinion that the three colored cards should be proportionately like five colored cards on regular planes. According to your argument, they're actually closer to mono-colored, I just don't think that's a very good idea. I'd allow maybe an exception or two, but if a sizable portion of the block turns out this way, I'd be disappointed.
I have come to spread the gospel of Cockatrice, the best free source for online play.
------------
In Phyrexia, Black will do anything to be broken in Vintage.
It might have had haste in development (hence the red) and it was removed later. Also, Red is the closest color to fit in this creature besides the others because of the unearth ability. They obviously wanted it to cost three colors and Green/White don't fit the card at all.
Because they went back to the gold well too early and they need to pad the set out.
Right now there are only about 10 cards in each of the three shard combinations, and many of them are things like old Legends legends where the effects have no relation to the color pie. Alara block is probably going to more than double that number, so not all of those three-color cards are going to be full, 100% justified executions of cards that draw upon all three of their colors.
I don't really think it's a huge problem though. For the most part, looking at a card like the Specter and saying "hey why is this gold" requires a player who can look at the set analytically -- who's read enough design columns or spent enough time on the Rumor Mill to see something funny going on there. Most people will just look at the card and say "neat."
This spectre is from Grixis, and suits the flavour as an essentially (Grixic? Grixian? Grixese?) card.
And Grixis is UBR
So spectre = Grixis = UBR
i understand no one will accept this, but i felt like saying it. the ability of people to choose their opinions makes life far more interesting. though really, i dont understand why anyone would complain about a card. if you really really dont like it, quit magic for a few months.
i'm not saying this is very cool or clever, but it is a reason for designing a card this way.
Mana costs are not like gang colors. Your homie Spectre isn't going to have your back if the crips start frontin.
Mana costs are what you need to magically summon this creature from its native plane.
They are representative of the abilities or affects of the creature or spell you summon, so you can see where the general confusion lies.
Except that they are; we're just coming out of a block where hybrid acts very specifically as gang colors! The part of Sedraxis Spectre that is R is that it's a red creature and other cards care about it as it is one. (and that red is a third color of mana so it will reduce the cost)
Do people complain that Hill Giant isn't 'red enough' to justify not being colorless? No, because that's not always how it works.
Well I checked out some of these modern 3-color gold cards and I conclude that it is a different beast than 2-color gold. Look at the Invasion Dragons. What does Crosis have to do with blue or red? Mishra could probably be mono-blue. Destructive Flow could easily be mono-red. Where's the green in Sek'Kuar, Deathkeeper?
So yeah 3-color cards in Shards is mostly about flavor and fitting the themes. This is what encouraged the shard vs shard tournaments. So yes in a sense, they are like gang colors. Sedraxis specter, wooly thoctar, and sprouting thrinax are never fighting next to each other. In this new sharded format, they will always fight against each other. Well it's more like team colors. If one team is blue-white and another is red-white, it doesn't mean a player has any ties with white; a player has ties with his team, whether it's blue-white or red-white. Only in the case of the shards, we deal with 3-color teams.
........................
Right. This was my basic point: a card doesn't have to be as far down the hierarchy of specific costs (gold -> mono -> hybrid -> colorless) as it can possibly go; it can also be printed anywhere further up, as long as it's somewhat justifiable there.
This guy is an aggressive, high-damaging flying card advantage beater -- this is unquestionably a uBr flavor when taken as a whole even though similar cards have been printed as mono-black. I think it's reasonable.
Again, I'd direct attention to the Rhox Warmage, who really doesn't have any blue or green qualities at all, rather than the Specter who does have red and blue qualities, just ones that black can often have as well.
Right. I think a lot of these cards work as gold cards -- Destructive Flow, I think, benefits from drawing on all three land-destruction colors -- but very few of them need to be gold. In fact, outside of very specific "Chinese menu" combinations, there are very few cards that need to be gold -- almost any singular effect is in-color somewhere, so it's just a matter of working out what combination "feels good" for it.
(That said, I think Sek'kuar's role as a token generator makes his green more sensible than, say, Mishra, who really could be mono-blue if it weren't for his storyline background.)