It's not like like the card reads 1R destroy target nonred creature. You act like it's the same thing. Anyway, others have pointed out precedents for this card already. But please, continue to assert your correctness.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My favorite flavor text: Time of Heroes
Feel free to tell me yours!
It's not really turning things into dragons either. From a flavor standpoint, the creatures you targeted have all been jumped and devoured by a force of dragons that will be taking their place. It should've been a red/black card really.
Honestly, the flavor of this card is a little weird. If you cast it on your own creatures, okay fine. I suppose the creatures could be seen as a tribute for the dragons and now they'll ally with you. But if you presumably summon the dragons to eat your opponent's creatures why does your opponent have control of them? If they'll turn on you after you sicked them on their next meal, why are they willing to be under the command of the player they were sicked upon? Strange. This is a Pongify/Beast Within type of effect but flavorwise it's obviously meant to be a horde of dragons swooping in and eating all the cows.
Of course, I don't think these types of effects are solely U either. Sure it's mechanically in that slice of the pie, but why is it? Just because? It would seem to make more sense as a shared mechanic, or even better as a sort of convergent mechanic, between U and G as a combination of U's "I know how to work the essence of magic so I can change 'x' thing." and G's "I know how creatures and nature function/Animal transformations are druidic.". You know, sort of that mad scientist vibe that the Simic gave off. I'm surprised they didn't have a few more of these types of abilities.
Christmas land but the "ideal" scenario, although I think a Red devotion token build would work better than splashing blue for Battlefield Thaumaturge.
You have Foundry Street Denizen,Goblin Rabblemaster,Purphoros, God of the Forge, and Outpost Siege; which all work well with lots of Goblin tokens entering and exiting the battlefield.
I see. When red gets a card outlandishly out of pie it is ok, but when blue gets an effect that has always been within color pie the forums implode.
Did someone seriously cite Cinder Cloud and Fissure as a precedent? This place makes no sense.
I think you bring up an interesting and valid point. I hadn't considered it. I'm glad it doesn't say sacrifice though because counterspells will make it useless. "Let me clear my field for you."
I see. When red gets a card outlandishly out of pie it is ok, but when blue gets an effect that has always been within color pie the forums implode.
Did someone seriously cite Cinder Cloud and Fissure as a precedent? This place makes no sense.
Yes. I did. As part of precedence. Not because we can refer to all of the old cards, but that it has been something that is in red's piece of the color pie but does not happen very often. And it has even happened frequently.
I don't believe this to be an offense of the color pie, this is simply a demonstration of a rare piece that red has access to. Polymorphing isn't strictly blue, red has and will continue to "transform" creatures in its' own right.
I know you are very protective of your color pie, but red has this and has had it. The only thing that would make anyone raise an eyebrow is if/that it can target opponents' creatures. But, even if it could, it still has happened and should continue to.
Red has the most limited piece of the color pie, it needs effects like this at higher rarities, otherwise, what card do you make? Another dragon?
1) It's not "my" color pie. It's the longterm consistency of the game.
2) The only offensive part of the card is the targeting opponents creatures (ok well, destroying your own is a little weird but that's definitely a flavor concession)
3) "Having the most limited slice of the pie" is not only untrue, it's not a valid reason.
4) When the majority of your examples come from sets where the color pie was non-existent maybe your examples are bad.
5) Doing it a few times does not a precedent set.
6) When something happens incredibly infrequently that makes it more unlikely that it is valid.
People should defend cards because they make sense, not because they want/like them. The game is healthier for it.
People should defend cards because they make sense, not because they want/like them. The game is healthier for it.
Thank goodness you aren't an actual designer for wizards. This statement is so egregiously wrong that it's actually helped me understand your state of mind and frame of reference so well.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My favorite flavor text: Time of Heroes
Feel free to tell me yours!
I see. When red gets a card outlandishly out of pie it is ok, but when blue gets an effect that has always been within color pie the forums implode.
Did someone seriously cite Cinder Cloud and Fissure as a precedent? This place makes no sense.
I've been favoring Blue for at least as long as you have.
I don't like it either, but it's super obvious to me they're trying to make Red into Blue 2.0.
They used to be two of the most disparate colors-
now they have more in common than U and B do
I predict right here and now we will see a Red counterspell in the next three years :headshake:
Momir Vig, Simic Visionary
Melek, Izzet Paragon
Oona, Queen of the Fae
Bruna, Light of Alabaster
Gisela, Blade of Goldnight
Rhys the Redeemed
Jarad, Golgari Lich Lord
Sen Triplets
The Mimeoplasm WUBRGSliver OverlordGRBUW WUBRGSliver Hivelord(Superfriends)GRBUW
1) It's not "my" color pie. It's the longterm consistency of the game.
2) The only offensive part of the card is the targeting opponents creatures (ok well, destroying your own is a little weird but that's definitely a flavor concession)
3) "Having the most limited slice of the pie" is not only untrue, it's not a valid reason.
4) When the majority of your examples come from sets where the color pie was non-existent maybe your examples are bad.
5) Doing it a few times does not a precedent set.
6) When something happens incredibly infrequently that makes it more unlikely that it is valid.
People should defend cards because they make sense, not because they want/like them. The game is healthier for it.
Red most definitely has the most limited slice of the pie. They pretty much said "you don't get to be aggressive blue anymore" and kicked it in the face.
People should defend cards because they make sense, not because they want/like them. The game is healthier for it.
Thank goodness you aren't an actual designer for wizards. This statement is so egregiously wrong that it's actually helped me understand your state of mind and frame of reference so well.
You do understand that I am in complete agreement with the head designer of magic. While I am not (and have no desire to be) a magic designer, I have philosophical legs to stand on regarding this topic. But feel free to ignore the context of what I said.
In addition, people say red has a limited slice of color pie because they don't understand/accept that burn is one of the most versatile mechanics in the game. It is much of reds "limited space" because it does so much. Red does do the least (something they have been fixing in the recent years) but it is not as if it is somehow suffering or even truly limited at all.
1) It's not "my" color pie. It's the longterm consistency of the game.
2) The only offensive part of the card is the targeting opponents creatures (ok well, destroying your own is a little weird but that's definitely a flavor concession)
3) "Having the most limited slice of the pie" is not only untrue, it's not a valid reason.
4) When the majority of your examples come from sets where the color pie was non-existent maybe your examples are bad.
5) Doing it a few times does not a precedent set.
6) When something happens incredibly infrequently that makes it more unlikely that it is valid.
People should defend cards because they make sense, not because they want/like them. The game is healthier for it.
1) Not being your color pie, MaRo will likely answer questions about this card and clearly has approved it for printing. Therefore, we have to assume this isn't an egregious offender.
2) Based on the past 5 years, would agree (Alara block as the last time we saw red destroy another creature). However, still recent enough history from my perspective.
3) I suppose I would need more history for this. Red's bag of tricks is pretty limited, albeit efficient, in comparison to the other colors. While it does have artifact hate, haste, trample, direct damage, firebreathing, prevent damage prevention, exile as draw and land destruction, most other colors have more versatile and better costed/more frequently used effects. I know you mostly play EDH, as do I, red certainly is weak there and I believe that is because of the lack of card advantage in the color pie and lack of meaningful interaction besides MLD and MAD. However, this is based purely on opinion, I suppose. For the validity of the reason, they are allowed to expand the color pie. Giving a color an effect that is not strictly another color's effect is appropriate. Take green and polymorphing via Whisperwood Elemental. Based on history, I believe this (Assault Force) fits in a nontraditional way.
4) There are some recent examples, but as I pointed out, this effect is NOT common in red, which is why this is mythic rare.
5) How does it not? IMO, polymorphing should have NEVER been part of blue, but they did it a couple times, found it fair enough and kept it there, especially recently. Historically it wasn't there besides Pongify and they just gave it to that piece. Still feels wrong to me, however, it is the direction they went. Same is true for this.
6) Agree to disagree on this, I suppose. MaRo has said numerous times that "this color can do these things at higher rarities" so that is where I feel that way. Doesn't have to be done every set or every year, but still is done.
I don't really give 2 craps about this card. I doubt I will ever play it besides as a gimicky deck on Cockatrice. However, to resist change is a fool's errand, especially in something as silly as this, which can be reasonably justified.
Again, I don't believe it fits the color pie perfectly, but I would be hard pressed to call it "breaking" of the color pie.
I have philosophical legs to stand on regarding this topic.
It's clear that you think you do. You might as well say "I'm sooooo right about THIS guys. Look at how right I am." Multiple people have already given numerous examples of how wrong you are at even the most basic level. I don't know who you're still trying to convince at this point...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My favorite flavor text: Time of Heroes
Feel free to tell me yours!
I have philosophical legs to stand on regarding this topic.
It's clear that you think you do. You might as well say "I'm sooooo right about THIS guys. Look at how right I am." Multiple people have already given numerous examples of how wrong you are at even the most basic level. I don't know who you're still trying to convince at this point...
I'm sure I'm wrong about Hornet Sting not being in Greens color pie too.
It would be nice if you did something similar to apocalypse and made an argument instead of being rude.
This isn't going to turn into the Reality Shift frenzy again, is it? The sum is more important than the parts. For something to fit mechanically into the color pie does not mean that each step in the card has to fit mechanically. Someone mentioned the 'green doomblade' example before (create a 1/1 deathtouch, then it fights target creature). Both halves are technically things green can do, but the sum is very much not, which is why they wouldn't print something like it. This is kind of the opposite of that, where straight destruction isn't something red can do, but it's not what matters because it's not the end result.
Please read the discussion above and in the following pages. You may find them informative.
I agree with the points Jivanmukta gave.
The most notorious offense is that this card lets you choose creatures very freely.
Red is supposed to be reckless, It would be ok if it was ALL creatures or something among those lines, and even then it's kind of an stretch.
I think it would be red if it sacrificed your creatures and replaced them with dragons.
I would think that red, color of chaos, would make every creature sac and then give everyone 4/4s cause that would be some crazy fun. But this card is more playable.
Apoc: I'll call your 1) into question. Just because a card is printed does not mean it was "ok'd". See: Hornet themed cards that are most definitely not mono-g.
As for 3) Red is (seen to be) weak in EDH, and nowhere else. It is not limited (see my previous post on the confusion).
For 5) You are entitled to not liking it. But it is in fact in color pie and designed as such by both design and development consistently and at all rarities in nearly all blocks/sets. I feel people need to concede the polymorph argument in regards to blue at this point. It's simply shutting your eyes and sticking fingers in ears at this point in magic.
For 6) I can possibly concede the 'mythic rarity' argument, however that is again NOT to be used as future precedent as by definition, it happens as a color pie break/bend for purely flavor reasons (see: Rescue from the underworld).
Not very often, but it does happen in higher rarities.
Examples: Aftershock, Cinder Cloud, Dark Temper (A stretch, I know), Diaochan, Artful Beauty, Fissure, Fleshpulper Giant, Goblin Grenadiers, and there are plenty more, not to mention Jokulhaups style effects.
A quick search on Gatherer can find you more.
Just because it doesn't happen often doesn't mean it should never happen.
MTGS egos at their finest.
Thoughts on proxies:
Fun to compare this card with Hour of Need.
(U/B)(U/B)(U/B) JUMP IN THE LINE, ROCK YOUR BODY IN TIME
(R/W)(R/W)(R/W) RISING FROM THE NEON GLOOM, SHINING LIKE A CRAZY MOON
(U/R)(R/G)(G/U) STEALIN' WHEN I SHOULD HAVE BEEN BUYIN'
It's not like like the card reads 1R destroy target nonred creature. You act like it's the same thing. Anyway, others have pointed out precedents for this card already. But please, continue to assert your correctness.
Feel free to tell me yours!
Did someone seriously cite Cinder Cloud and Fissure as a precedent? This place makes no sense.
Of course, I don't think these types of effects are solely U either. Sure it's mechanically in that slice of the pie, but why is it? Just because? It would seem to make more sense as a shared mechanic, or even better as a sort of convergent mechanic, between U and G as a combination of U's "I know how to work the essence of magic so I can change 'x' thing." and G's "I know how creatures and nature function/Animal transformations are druidic.". You know, sort of that mad scientist vibe that the Simic gave off. I'm surprised they didn't have a few more of these types of abilities.
-Chandra Nalaar
Christmas land but the "ideal" scenario, although I think a Red devotion token build would work better than splashing blue for Battlefield Thaumaturge.
You have Foundry Street Denizen,Goblin Rabblemaster,Purphoros, God of the Forge, and Outpost Siege; which all work well with lots of Goblin tokens entering and exiting the battlefield.
I Stream MTGO on Twitch: broodwarjc
I also post recordings of those streams on Youtube: broodwarjcavidgamer
Standard Deck:
BUPirates
Modern Deck:
B8-Rack
I think you bring up an interesting and valid point. I hadn't considered it. I'm glad it doesn't say sacrifice though because counterspells will make it useless. "Let me clear my field for you."
Yes. I did. As part of precedence. Not because we can refer to all of the old cards, but that it has been something that is in red's piece of the color pie but does not happen very often. And it has even happened frequently.
I don't believe this to be an offense of the color pie, this is simply a demonstration of a rare piece that red has access to. Polymorphing isn't strictly blue, red has and will continue to "transform" creatures in its' own right.
I know you are very protective of your color pie, but red has this and has had it. The only thing that would make anyone raise an eyebrow is if/that it can target opponents' creatures. But, even if it could, it still has happened and should continue to.
Red has the most limited piece of the color pie, it needs effects like this at higher rarities, otherwise, what card do you make? Another dragon?
MTGS egos at their finest.
Thoughts on proxies:
2) The only offensive part of the card is the targeting opponents creatures (ok well, destroying your own is a little weird but that's definitely a flavor concession)
3) "Having the most limited slice of the pie" is not only untrue, it's not a valid reason.
4) When the majority of your examples come from sets where the color pie was non-existent maybe your examples are bad.
5) Doing it a few times does not a precedent set.
6) When something happens incredibly infrequently that makes it more unlikely that it is valid.
People should defend cards because they make sense, not because they want/like them. The game is healthier for it.
Thank goodness you aren't an actual designer for wizards. This statement is so egregiously wrong that it's actually helped me understand your state of mind and frame of reference so well.
Feel free to tell me yours!
I've been favoring Blue for at least as long as you have.
I don't like it either, but it's super obvious to me they're trying to make Red into Blue 2.0.
They used to be two of the most disparate colors-
now they have more in common than U and B do
I predict right here and now we will see a Red counterspell in the next three years :headshake:
Reprint Stasis!
Control needs more love.
EDH:
Momir Vig, Simic Visionary
Melek, Izzet Paragon
Oona, Queen of the Fae
Bruna, Light of Alabaster
Gisela, Blade of Goldnight
Rhys the Redeemed
Jarad, Golgari Lich Lord
Sen Triplets
The Mimeoplasm
WUBRGSliver OverlordGRBUW
WUBRGSliver Hivelord(Superfriends)GRBUW
Many thanks to DNC at Heroes of the Plane Studios
You do understand that I am in complete agreement with the head designer of magic. While I am not (and have no desire to be) a magic designer, I have philosophical legs to stand on regarding this topic. But feel free to ignore the context of what I said.
In addition, people say red has a limited slice of color pie because they don't understand/accept that burn is one of the most versatile mechanics in the game. It is much of reds "limited space" because it does so much. Red does do the least (something they have been fixing in the recent years) but it is not as if it is somehow suffering or even truly limited at all.
1) Not being your color pie, MaRo will likely answer questions about this card and clearly has approved it for printing. Therefore, we have to assume this isn't an egregious offender.
2) Based on the past 5 years, would agree (Alara block as the last time we saw red destroy another creature). However, still recent enough history from my perspective.
3) I suppose I would need more history for this. Red's bag of tricks is pretty limited, albeit efficient, in comparison to the other colors. While it does have artifact hate, haste, trample, direct damage, firebreathing, prevent damage prevention, exile as draw and land destruction, most other colors have more versatile and better costed/more frequently used effects. I know you mostly play EDH, as do I, red certainly is weak there and I believe that is because of the lack of card advantage in the color pie and lack of meaningful interaction besides MLD and MAD. However, this is based purely on opinion, I suppose. For the validity of the reason, they are allowed to expand the color pie. Giving a color an effect that is not strictly another color's effect is appropriate. Take green and polymorphing via Whisperwood Elemental. Based on history, I believe this (Assault Force) fits in a nontraditional way.
4) There are some recent examples, but as I pointed out, this effect is NOT common in red, which is why this is mythic rare.
5) How does it not? IMO, polymorphing should have NEVER been part of blue, but they did it a couple times, found it fair enough and kept it there, especially recently. Historically it wasn't there besides Pongify and they just gave it to that piece. Still feels wrong to me, however, it is the direction they went. Same is true for this.
6) Agree to disagree on this, I suppose. MaRo has said numerous times that "this color can do these things at higher rarities" so that is where I feel that way. Doesn't have to be done every set or every year, but still is done.
I don't really give 2 craps about this card. I doubt I will ever play it besides as a gimicky deck on Cockatrice. However, to resist change is a fool's errand, especially in something as silly as this, which can be reasonably justified.
Again, I don't believe it fits the color pie perfectly, but I would be hard pressed to call it "breaking" of the color pie.
MTGS egos at their finest.
Thoughts on proxies:
It's clear that you think you do. You might as well say "I'm sooooo right about THIS guys. Look at how right I am." Multiple people have already given numerous examples of how wrong you are at even the most basic level. I don't know who you're still trying to convince at this point...
Feel free to tell me yours!
Yet another middle finger to the colour pie.
I guess wizards just doesn't care about it anymore.
I'm sure I'm wrong about Hornet Sting not being in Greens color pie too.
It would be nice if you did something similar to apocalypse and made an argument instead of being rude.
*Sigh*
Please read the discussion above and in the following pages. You may find them informative.
MTGS egos at their finest.
Thoughts on proxies:
I agree with the points Jivanmukta gave.
The most notorious offense is that this card lets you choose creatures very freely.
Red is supposed to be reckless, It would be ok if it was ALL creatures or something among those lines, and even then it's kind of an stretch.
I would think that red, color of chaos, would make every creature sac and then give everyone 4/4s cause that would be some crazy fun. But this card is more playable.
As for 3) Red is (seen to be) weak in EDH, and nowhere else. It is not limited (see my previous post on the confusion).
For 5) You are entitled to not liking it. But it is in fact in color pie and designed as such by both design and development consistently and at all rarities in nearly all blocks/sets. I feel people need to concede the polymorph argument in regards to blue at this point. It's simply shutting your eyes and sticking fingers in ears at this point in magic.
For 6) I can possibly concede the 'mythic rarity' argument, however that is again NOT to be used as future precedent as by definition, it happens as a color pie break/bend for purely flavor reasons (see: Rescue from the underworld).