I'm going to ignore the "GLJ's an idiot" comments because they seem to all miss the principle that I talk about (and badly). So, instead, here's an explanation on my comment
Red 'filtering' has to be tailored in such a way that it remains filtering and cannot be card draw. If the card can be card draw, even if it is filtering, then it is card draw. Card advantage is outside of red's color pie - card filtering is not. I have no problem with 'discard before the draw' as a functional part of red. Jimmy's Goblin Looter (the card I commented on) is not 'discard, then draw'.
Jimmy's Goblin Looter can easily be manipulated to read 'draw a card'. For the low, low price of 1R it gives decks like Sligh, Burn, and RDW (yes, they are all different) substantially more reach than I would be comfortable with - and I run Legacy Burn. If I had two cards each turn, because I'm going to dump my hand as fast as humanly possible to abuse it, then I'm probably going to win off it. That's not flavorful, that's broken.
It gives card advantage to aggro decks, and that's extremely dangerous.
":symtap:, Discard a card: Draw a Card" is a flavorful filtering. Discarding is mandatory to gain resources
":symtap:: Discard a card, then Draw a Card" is card advantage. Discarding is not mandatory under proper manipulation.
Even if the author is silenced, the performance is stopped, the story will not end.
Whether it's a comedy or a tragedy, if there is cheering, the story will continue on.
Just like the many lives.
For the us who are still in it and still in the journey, send warm blessings.
- We will continue to walk down this path until eternity.
G L J the point you seem to be missing is that this is that whats in red's color pie right now DOESN'T MATTER. It can be whatever WotC wants it to be. Red filtering right now is not what it's going to be so why bother telling people what it is. The things you're suggesting are widely considered to be too weak to be played.
Yes it can be dangerous, but that's why it has to be done carefully. However being done carefully doesn't mean it has to be useless. It doesn't need to be powerful, per se, but it should be useful at the least.
I swear I first read it as Wingbonger...something tells me that "As Long as Wingbonger is paired with another creature, both creatures have weed." wouldn't be as good. Seems solid for limited.
I'm going to ignore the "GLJ's an idiot" comments because they seem to all miss the principle that I talk about (and badly). So, instead, here's an explanation on my comment
Red 'filtering' has to be tailored in such a way that it remains filtering and cannot be card draw. If the card can be card draw, even if it is filtering, then it is card draw. Card advantage is outside of red's color pie - card filtering is not. I have no problem with 'discard before the draw' as a functional part of red. Jimmy's Goblin Looter (the card I commented on) is not 'discard, then draw'.
Jimmy's Goblin Looter can easily be manipulated to read 'draw a card'. For the low, low price of 1R it gives decks like Sligh, Burn, and RDW (yes, they are all different) substantially more reach than I would be comfortable with - and I run Legacy Burn. If I had two cards each turn, because I'm going to dump my hand as fast as humanly possible to abuse it, then I'm probably going to win off it. That's not flavorful, that's broken.
It gives card advantage to aggro decks, and that's extremely dangerous.
":symtap:, Discard a card: Draw a Card" is a flavorful filtering. Discarding is mandatory to gain resources
":symtap:: Discard a card, then Draw a Card" is card advantage. Discarding is not mandatory under proper manipulation.
Why should it have to be powerful?
Card advantage should be a thing in every color, considering it's the most powerful force in the game. Even if it's not drawing cards, 2+ for one is something every color's going to be needing in modern Magic and it's the thing that made blue head and shoulders over every other color for years on end. Free draw as long as you empty your hand is fine as long as it's not efficient to the extreme. Besides, a lot of aggro decks already have card advantage, nowdays.
Discard a card: Draw a card
Giveing red an ability that is strictly inferior to blue is such a slap in the face for red. I agree with UnderwaterGuy.. why shift it to red and make it unplayable it wont impact the game? Its like giving green Hornet Sting.
Discard a card, then draw a card
Remember that cards, not mechanics, are broken. If you design the red looter (2cc 1/1 with T: Discard a card, Draw a card) and you think its broken, you simply made a broken card. This can be balanced in some way by adding activation costs, etc.
Bottom line, in my oponion, giving red a chance to draw cards Hellbent is a truly good design space unexplored in Magic's almost 20 years. Don't you think its worth exploring?
(BTW I don't think the looter is broken... you net CA only after 2 activations with an empty hand? - if this was a Looter il Kor variant.. now THAT would be broken).
A red Looter il Kor with discard, then, draw would be just fine. I'd have to question if it's actually even standard playable. It would be a pretty good limited pick, though. Now, the 2 drop normal looter, I'm almost certain it's limited fodder. Sure, the draw a card if you have no hand thing is cool, but it would have to be pretty aggressively costed to actually see constructed play. Now, if the Looter il Kor had 2 power, haste, or you bumped it up to 2 and 2, it would have a good chance in constructed. It's been a long time since Ophidian was a blue darling and Magic has gotten much more aggressive since those days.
Bob the Gob -- 1R Creature - Goblin Rogue
At the beginning of your upkeep, discard a card, then draw a card.
2/1
The more I think about it the worse this guy is. First he normally isn't going to net you a card. In a seven turn game he may net you 2 or 3 (plus possibly cycling out a land if you topdeck two in a row). Bob will get you 5 at the cost of around seven life [these generalizations are taken from my experience cubing, I don't play vintage or legacy].
I think if you want to make it playable it has to be: Bob the Gob
1R
Whenever Bob the Gob deals combat damage discard a card then draw a card.
2/2
That makes it playable and gives you some sort of control with it though not enough control to take it out of red. If you think that is too strong make the discard at random, but if it is weaker than this I don't think it gets played and certainly isn't an iconic two-drop.
I swear I first read it as Wingbonger...something tells me that "As Long as Wingbonger is paired with another creature, both creatures have weed." wouldn't be as good. Seems solid for limited.
Well, I'm pretty sure "Discard 3 cards. Then, at the beginning of the next end step, draw 3 cards" is fine at RR. It could be pretty sweet in the slower burn decks of standard, but I don't think Legacy Burn or Goblins could use it with the breakneck speed they like and Dredge can't use it because it has to do a lot of its things at sorcery speed. Plus, if double blue for Counterspell is painful, how much does double red hurt its chances anywhere else?
Well, I'm pretty sure "Discard 3 cards. Then, at the beginning of the next end step, draw 3 cards" is fine at RR. It could be pretty sweet in the slower burn decks of standard, but I don't think Legacy Burn or Goblins could use it with the breakneck speed they like and Dredge can't use it because it has to do a lot of its things at sorcery speed. Plus, if double blue for Counterspell is painful, how much does double red hurt its chances anywhere else?
That doesn't fit red's flavor at all. The flavor of that, as i see it, is you make sacrifices in exchange for rewards later. Red doesn't like that. Red is impatient. Red whats it now. Delayed gratification is not exactly red's forté.
I swear I first read it as Wingbonger...something tells me that "As Long as Wingbonger is paired with another creature, both creatures have weed." wouldn't be as good. Seems solid for limited.
That doesn't fit red's flavor at all. The flavor of that, as i see it, is you make sacrifices in exchange for rewards later. Red doesn't like that. Red is impatient. Red whats it now. Delayed gratification is not exactly red's forté.
I kind of feel that same why. Its why I figured it would be a "I want it now!" type of effect.
Functionally speaking I could see it being reverse but in my opinion it would be so much worse and less in the flavor of red's damn the coniquenses. What's that red time walk for low mana? Its more akin to that.
Well, you could just save it for a set that needs it. Hellbent, madness, threshold, unearth, etc. could enjoy it quite a bit. They saved the blue one for the hand size set. I think red would go for rewards and then, more rewards later.
The more I think about it the worse this guy is. First he normally isn't going to net you a card. In a seven turn game he may net you 2 or 3 (plus possibly cycling out a land if you topdeck two in a row). Bob will get you 5 at the cost of around seven life [these generalizations are taken from my experience cubing, I don't play vintage or legacy].
I think if you want to make it playable it has to be: Bob the Gob
1R
Whenever Bob the Gob deals combat damage discard a card then draw a card.
2/2
That makes it playable and gives you some sort of control with it though not enough control to take it out of red. If you think that is too strong make the discard at random, but if it is weaker than this I don't think it gets played and certainly isn't an iconic two-drop.
I feel as if the first is stronger then the last. The upkeep bob allows you to guarantee value out of it every turn. It allows you to send the beaters in or burn to the face and keep your utility guy (ala bob) back to do his job and forces opponents to make choices. Do they kill the guy about to deal 3 to them or do they kill the guy filtering/drawing you cards? Being able to swing with him is great but forcing that swing to gain value greatly reduces his use. If I had a choice, I would list them in order from best to worse as;
1) At the beginning of your upkeep, discard a card, then draw a card.
2) :symtap:: Discard a card, Draw a Card
3) Whenever ~ deals combat damage discard a card then draw a card.
The first one gets the ability and can attack when it's clear or block when needed. No control, this will happen, if you have a land and a 4 drop in hand with 3 lands on the battlefield it makes it a hard decision on your upkeep but it's also in reds flavor because it's mandatory.
The second one gets the ability and can block when needed. You also get to time it to where you're not discarding anything valuable. It also only attacks early game or when the coast is clear. This may be too controlled to be in red but I also don't feel is as powerful as mandatory without requiring a tap.
The third one HAS to swing into it's certain death whenever your opponent has a blocker to gain any value. Sure, it's red, that's why red is unplayable. You could certainly put that ability on a biggin but a 2 power 2 drop?
If you want to tie it to damage try a Knollspine Dragon style clause.
I feel as if the first is stronger then the last. The upkeep bob allows you to guarantee value out of it every turn. It allows you to send the beaters in or burn to the face and keep your utility guy (ala bob) back to do his job and forces opponents to make choices. Do they kill the guy about to deal 3 to them or do they kill the guy filtering/drawing you cards? Being able to swing with him is great but forcing that swing to gain value greatly reduces his use. If I had a choice, I would list them in order from best to worse as;
1) At the beginning of your upkeep, discard a card, then draw a card.
2) :symtap:: Discard a card, Draw a Card
3) Whenever ~ deals combat damage discard a card then draw a card.
The first one gets the ability and can attack when it's clear or block when needed. No control, this will happen, if you have a land and a 4 drop in hand with 3 lands on the battlefield it makes it a hard decision on your upkeep but it's also in reds flavor because it's mandatory.
The second one gets the ability and can block when needed. You also get to time it to where you're not discarding anything valuable. It also only attacks early game or when the coast is clear. This may be too controlled to be in red but I also don't feel is as powerful as mandatory without requiring a tap.
The third one HAS to swing into it's certain death whenever your opponent has a blocker to gain any value. Sure, it's red, that's why red is unplayable. You could certainly put that ability on a biggin but a 2 power 2 drop?
If you want to tie it to damage try a Knollspine Dragon style clause.
I agree with this completely. In order for the damage dealing clause to be useful it would have to have some sort of evasion, which would both raise the cost and be hard to maneuver in R. It MIGHT be playable if it was changed to whenever it attacks, but still most likely is going to happen only once.
I swear I first read it as Wingbonger...something tells me that "As Long as Wingbonger is paired with another creature, both creatures have weed." wouldn't be as good. Seems solid for limited.
I personally think it's more flavorful for red to get draw then discard (rather than discard first). Think about it. It's like a caffeine drink. You drink it and have lots of energy and then you crash. Looting seems more red than blue in my humble opinion.
I'd rather see this
RRRRR
Sorcery
Draw five cards. At the beginning of the next end step, discard your hand.
than
RRRRR
Sorcery
Discard five cards, then draw five cards.
With the first card it's a mad dash to cast as many little burn spells are possible (using all your mana). With the second card you just draw five.
Combo-type ("short term") draw for red and looting fit, whereas Tidings or Divination does not. I think Faithless Looting feels red and see no reason for them to mess with that too much.
I personally think it's more flavorful for red to get draw then discard (rather than discard first). Think about it. It's like a caffeine drink. You drink it and have lots of energy and then you crash. Looting seems more red than blue in my humble opinion.
I'd rather see this
RRRRR
Sorcery
Draw five cards. At the beginning of the next end step, discard your hand.
than
RRRRR
Sorcery
Discard five cards, then draw five cards.
With the first card it's a mad dash to cast as many little burn spells are possible (using all your mana). With the second card you just draw five.
Combo-type ("short term") draw for red and looting fit, whereas Tidings or Divination does not. I think Faithless Looting feels red and see no reason for them to mess with that too much.
The First Card is unplayable, and the second is broken. If you want these to work you have to change the numbers on them, but either with the numbers right seems fine.
Just fixing the numbers: 2R
draw 3 cards, discard your hand at the beginning of the next end step. Would at least see play...at five for five no red deck is ever going to use it because if they get to 6 mana they probably are going to lose because the board has been stabilized.
2RR maybe even drop the cost to 1RR
Discard 3 cards, draw three cards. It is worse than concentrate and harmonize (probably even with the lower cost), but in red would be pretty good.
just straight up discard a card, then draw a card is horrible, a worse blue. maybe if you gave it a bonus for if you discarded a type of card, or some way of untapping it(whenever a spell/creature deals damage), it could be good. or maybe card advantage, draw two instead.
just straight up discard a card, then draw a card is horrible, a worse blue. maybe if you gave it a bonus for if you discarded a type of card, or some way of untapping it(whenever a spell/creature deals damage), it could be good. or maybe card advantage, draw two instead.
It's not worse when your hand size is small or empty.
It's not worse when your hand size is small or empty.
I would prefer discard draw... I have a deck R/g deck that badly needs card draw except I ramp hard I can play everything and I just dump my hand run out of gas then faithless looting is useless.
Tempered steel despite being white is an inherently red deck has similar problems those first 7 card determine if it wins the game.
The mechanics of red wants draw spells badly and not so important to choose the card. Most red decks have a lot of redundancy they just need to keep getting cards to be able to keep dealing damage.
I feel Red needs something like this in the next set.
Discard then draw makes it too powerfull for red, specially since Red is know for burning his hand really fast (no pun intended)
future Faithless lootings would probably read:
"Draw two cards, then discard two cards at random."
It fits better with the random, unpredictable nature of red AND it's in tune with most recent red draw spells.
The only possible way i could see discard-then-draw working for red would be something like:
"Discard your hand, then draw two cards"
That's the point of this thread: to slightly adjust red's drawing power in the color pie. They already have cards like that, Burning Inquiry, Goblin Lore, etc, and they were all pretty much unplayable. That's why if you switch the order of discard, draw, then these options become viable for red. Discarding, then drawing is actually not that powerful. If you are in a position where that become pure draw for you, then you're already in a bad position anyway.
Discarding, then drawing is actually not that powerful. If you are in a position where that become pure draw for you, then you're already in a bad position anyway.
This. Plus I doubt they would make any of these "red looter" spells/abilities draw you more than a few cards, so even if your hand is empty, you won't net more than a card or two.
EDIT - Although I could see them printing a new Wheel of Fortune-type card at mythic.
Wheel of (Costs a) Fortune, 2R Sorcery
Discard your hand. Draw seven cards.
T: Discard up to one card, then draw that many cards.
Putting discard as the cost both leads to blowouts and is more abusable as an 'uncounterable' discard mech. Discarding first plainly is just card advantage on an empty hand, too strong. But templated as I listed, it cannot be abused that way.
I think I put up an example of;
Goblin Librarian1R
Creature - Goblin (C) T: Discard up to two cards, then draw that many cards "Eat any good books lately, worf?"
1/1
The idea behind such a red looting effect is that it is inherently weaker than blue looting as a mechanic, thus to balance it you have to increase its numbers/buff it. So where blue might give you a single looted card, red could give you two. Or blue might cost 1U, red could even cost R.
The First Card is unplayable, and the second is broken. If you want these to work you have to change the numbers on them, but either with the numbers right seems fine.
Actually Both are busted. Do you really want to give a modern or legacy storm decks a way to refill their hand in a one sided manner on their combo turn. Decks like Goblin Charbelcher would run these cards in a heart beat. It cost the same amount of mana as memory jar but you get two less cards and your opponent gets none.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Current Legacy Decks
0USpiral Tide0U
UWU/W 'Miracle Top' Control UW
012 Post 0
Random Opponent: Playing against 12 Post Feels like trying to win in Yugioh with no super secret rares.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Red 'filtering' has to be tailored in such a way that it remains filtering and cannot be card draw. If the card can be card draw, even if it is filtering, then it is card draw. Card advantage is outside of red's color pie - card filtering is not. I have no problem with 'discard before the draw' as a functional part of red. Jimmy's Goblin Looter (the card I commented on) is not 'discard, then draw'.
Jimmy's Goblin Looter can easily be manipulated to read 'draw a card'. For the low, low price of 1R it gives decks like Sligh, Burn, and RDW (yes, they are all different) substantially more reach than I would be comfortable with - and I run Legacy Burn. If I had two cards each turn, because I'm going to dump my hand as fast as humanly possible to abuse it, then I'm probably going to win off it. That's not flavorful, that's broken.
It gives card advantage to aggro decks, and that's extremely dangerous.
":symtap:, Discard a card: Draw a Card" is a flavorful filtering. Discarding is mandatory to gain resources
":symtap:: Discard a card, then Draw a Card" is card advantage. Discarding is not mandatory under proper manipulation.
Why should it have to be powerful?
Whether it's a comedy or a tragedy, if there is cheering, the story will continue on.
Just like the many lives.
For the us who are still in it and still in the journey, send warm blessings.
- We will continue to walk down this path until eternity.
Yes it can be dangerous, but that's why it has to be done carefully. However being done carefully doesn't mean it has to be useless. It doesn't need to be powerful, per se, but it should be useful at the least.
RIP Mike McArtor. The Mothership won't be the same.
Legacy
GG Aggro Elves GG
I don't see the point of shifting the color pie abilities and making a big change only to print unplayable garbage exclusively.
Giveing red an ability that is strictly inferior to blue is such a slap in the face for red. I agree with UnderwaterGuy.. why shift it to red and make it unplayable it wont impact the game? Its like giving green Hornet Sting.
Discard a card, then draw a card
Remember that cards, not mechanics, are broken. If you design the red looter (2cc 1/1 with T: Discard a card, Draw a card) and you think its broken, you simply made a broken card. This can be balanced in some way by adding activation costs, etc.
Bottom line, in my oponion, giving red a chance to draw cards Hellbent is a truly good design space unexplored in Magic's almost 20 years. Don't you think its worth exploring?
(BTW I don't think the looter is broken... you net CA only after 2 activations with an empty hand? - if this was a Looter il Kor variant.. now THAT would be broken).
The more I think about it the worse this guy is. First he normally isn't going to net you a card. In a seven turn game he may net you 2 or 3 (plus possibly cycling out a land if you topdeck two in a row). Bob will get you 5 at the cost of around seven life [these generalizations are taken from my experience cubing, I don't play vintage or legacy].
I think if you want to make it playable it has to be:
Bob the Gob
1R
Whenever Bob the Gob deals combat damage discard a card then draw a card.
2/2
That makes it playable and gives you some sort of control with it though not enough control to take it out of red. If you think that is too strong make the discard at random, but if it is weaker than this I don't think it gets played and certainly isn't an iconic two-drop.
In reference to XXWB Mythic Sorcery - Return X creatures from among any graveyards in to play under your control.
Actually my first reaction is that I love it, but on second thought I'm not quite sure if it's appropriate for red. Its a fantastic idea though.
RIP Mike McArtor. The Mothership won't be the same.
Legacy
GG Aggro Elves GG
That doesn't fit red's flavor at all. The flavor of that, as i see it, is you make sacrifices in exchange for rewards later. Red doesn't like that. Red is impatient. Red whats it now. Delayed gratification is not exactly red's forté.
RIP Mike McArtor. The Mothership won't be the same.
Legacy
GG Aggro Elves GG
I kind of feel that same why. Its why I figured it would be a "I want it now!" type of effect.
Functionally speaking I could see it being reverse but in my opinion it would be so much worse and less in the flavor of red's damn the coniquenses. What's that red time walk for low mana? Its more akin to that.
In reference to XXWB Mythic Sorcery - Return X creatures from among any graveyards in to play under your control.
I feel as if the first is stronger then the last. The upkeep bob allows you to guarantee value out of it every turn. It allows you to send the beaters in or burn to the face and keep your utility guy (ala bob) back to do his job and forces opponents to make choices. Do they kill the guy about to deal 3 to them or do they kill the guy filtering/drawing you cards? Being able to swing with him is great but forcing that swing to gain value greatly reduces his use. If I had a choice, I would list them in order from best to worse as;
1) At the beginning of your upkeep, discard a card, then draw a card.
2) :symtap:: Discard a card, Draw a Card
3) Whenever ~ deals combat damage discard a card then draw a card.
The first one gets the ability and can attack when it's clear or block when needed. No control, this will happen, if you have a land and a 4 drop in hand with 3 lands on the battlefield it makes it a hard decision on your upkeep but it's also in reds flavor because it's mandatory.
The second one gets the ability and can block when needed. You also get to time it to where you're not discarding anything valuable. It also only attacks early game or when the coast is clear. This may be too controlled to be in red but I also don't feel is as powerful as mandatory without requiring a tap.
The third one HAS to swing into it's certain death whenever your opponent has a blocker to gain any value. Sure, it's red, that's why red is unplayable. You could certainly put that ability on a biggin but a 2 power 2 drop?
If you want to tie it to damage try a Knollspine Dragon style clause.
I agree with this completely. In order for the damage dealing clause to be useful it would have to have some sort of evasion, which would both raise the cost and be hard to maneuver in R. It MIGHT be playable if it was changed to whenever it attacks, but still most likely is going to happen only once.
RIP Mike McArtor. The Mothership won't be the same.
Legacy
GG Aggro Elves GG
I'd rather see this
RRRRR
Sorcery
Draw five cards. At the beginning of the next end step, discard your hand.
than
RRRRR
Sorcery
Discard five cards, then draw five cards.
With the first card it's a mad dash to cast as many little burn spells are possible (using all your mana). With the second card you just draw five.
Combo-type ("short term") draw for red and looting fit, whereas Tidings or Divination does not. I think Faithless Looting feels red and see no reason for them to mess with that too much.
The First Card is unplayable, and the second is broken. If you want these to work you have to change the numbers on them, but either with the numbers right seems fine.
Just fixing the numbers:
2R
draw 3 cards, discard your hand at the beginning of the next end step. Would at least see play...at five for five no red deck is ever going to use it because if they get to 6 mana they probably are going to lose because the board has been stabilized.
2RR maybe even drop the cost to 1RR
Discard 3 cards, draw three cards. It is worse than concentrate and harmonize (probably even with the lower cost), but in red would be pretty good.
It's not worse when your hand size is small or empty.
I would prefer discard draw... I have a deck R/g deck that badly needs card draw except I ramp hard I can play everything and I just dump my hand run out of gas then faithless looting is useless.
Tempered steel despite being white is an inherently red deck has similar problems those first 7 card determine if it wins the game.
The mechanics of red wants draw spells badly and not so important to choose the card. Most red decks have a lot of redundancy they just need to keep getting cards to be able to keep dealing damage.
I feel Red needs something like this in the next set.
Pioneer:UR Pheonix
Modern:U Mono U Tron
EDH
GB Glissa, the traitor: Army of Cans
UW Dragonlord Ojutai: Dragonlord NOjutai
UWGDerevi, Empyrial Tactician "you cannot fight the storm"
R Zirilan of the claw. The solution to every problem is dragons
UB Etrata, the Silencer Cloning assassination
Peasant cube: Cards I own
Discard then draw makes it too powerfull for red, specially since Red is know for burning his hand really fast (no pun intended)
future Faithless lootings would probably read:
"Draw two cards, then discard two cards at random."
It fits better with the random, unpredictable nature of red AND it's in tune with most recent red draw spells.
The only possible way i could see discard-then-draw working for red would be something like:
"Discard your hand, then draw two cards"
http://alteredartmagic.blogspot.com/search/label/Nicolarre
or in my Humble Alter Gallery at DeviantArt: http://nicolarre.deviantart.com/gallery/
That's the point of this thread: to slightly adjust red's drawing power in the color pie. They already have cards like that, Burning Inquiry, Goblin Lore, etc, and they were all pretty much unplayable. That's why if you switch the order of discard, draw, then these options become viable for red. Discarding, then drawing is actually not that powerful. If you are in a position where that become pure draw for you, then you're already in a bad position anyway.
RGodo, Bandit WarlordR
GSeton, Krosan ProtectorG
BGJarad, Golgari Lich LordGB
EDIT - Although I could see them printing a new Wheel of Fortune-type card at mythic.
Wheel of (Costs a) Fortune, 2R
Sorcery
Discard your hand. Draw seven cards.
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=386904
T: Discard up to one card, then draw that many cards.
Putting discard as the cost both leads to blowouts and is more abusable as an 'uncounterable' discard mech. Discarding first plainly is just card advantage on an empty hand, too strong. But templated as I listed, it cannot be abused that way.
I think I put up an example of;
The idea behind such a red looting effect is that it is inherently weaker than blue looting as a mechanic, thus to balance it you have to increase its numbers/buff it. So where blue might give you a single looted card, red could give you two. Or blue might cost 1U, red could even cost R.
Actually Both are busted. Do you really want to give a modern or legacy storm decks a way to refill their hand in a one sided manner on their combo turn. Decks like Goblin Charbelcher would run these cards in a heart beat. It cost the same amount of mana as memory jar but you get two less cards and your opponent gets none.