Was Ashiok considered at all for this set/block? Seems like they would fit the theme of this world quite well.
Also, not to detract from your design vision, but it seems like making all the planeswalkers have a static or triggered ability and three +/- abilities is eating up a lot of design space. I like one or two of them having that design, but it doesn't seem necessary for all of them. Planeswalkers tend to be foreign to the world anyway, so they don't have to follow the same design scheme as the others, right?
So, here's a submission just so I'm not spending the whole post complaining (not trying to, though, just wanted to offer some thoughts; I love the podcast and your insights):
+1: You may tap or untap target permanent, then you may tap or untap another target permanent.
A Twiddle effect feels more blue than white, but I think it fits fine. It seems like this sort of effect could do some interesting work in this set.
IF you're looking for a wording to make this work in the rules (and I say if because you may not need one), then I would consider wording it like this:
Strength of the Wilds2G
Sorcery (C?)
Put two +1/+1 counters on target creature.
Embody 2GG (2GG: Exile this card from your hand and put a 2/2 colorless Elemental creature token onto the battlefield. Then, you may cast this card from exile without paying its mana cost targetting that creature.)
If I understand the rules regarding this card correctly (and someone please correct me if I'm wrong), this should solve the issue wof what happens regarding shroud and preventing creatures from entering the battlefield, i.e. the card stays in exile. You could add "Embody only as a sorcery" to the reminder text if you want to avoid instant-speed shenanigans.
All that said, I really like this mechanic for Temur. It seems fun to play. I've been searching for a similar mechanic and this gets my gears turning.
But this implies that R&D is always right and that their interpretation of the color pie, mechanical needs for each color, and the color-to-mechanic ties are the end-all-be-all of custom card design. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, since Wizards can always justify whatever changes they make with a reason.
Personally, I think it implies that Wizards are more likely to be right than custom card designers like us. I mean, they have ~20 years of practice AND data backing them up. That doesn't mean they're ALWAYS right, but I do think it means they've got a leg up on someone like me.
But if power is increased just a little bit ("T: Add G or W" without other strings attached, and with no basic land types), what's wrong with that?
It's a slippery slope. The more of these that get justified and created, the less useful basic lands become. You could run such a land in a monowhite deck and have no problems. If you just happened to need green mana (you wanted to gain more life off of Dawnglow Infusion, or you wanted to flashback Ray of Revelation, for example) you no longer need those pesky Forests cluttering your manabase. Now, imagine if you could pack a deck full of lands like that. There would literally be no reason to run Plains.
Because for a VERY long time, creatures sucked compared to spells. Creatures aren't so much subjected to power creep as they are to rebalancing. Creatures to day are much more on-par with spells. And this is important because a lot of players LOVE creatures. Even when they were bad compared to spells, lots of players played creatures and creature-based decks because they were fun. The game is now rewarding players for doing what they find fun by making those strategies actually good.
How does this completely obsolete basic lands? You're still going to run basic lands given basic land-only search effects. Yeah, you'd probably run this in conjunction, but that doesn't always mean that players wouldn't run basic Islands anymore.
Not necessarily. If I'm playing a three-color deck with 24 lands, I'll run 4x of each of your earlier proposed "Alpha duals but without the land types" and 4x each of Doombringer's "gain a life" lands and my deck will be inherently better than someone running 8x of each basic, even if the rest of the decks are identical. Maybe I'm assuming too much when I think that your dual land ideas are the only ones of the sort that would be printed, but it sets a bad precedent.
...I think we have the bias of being exposed to cards so much that our line of "what's acceptable for a typical Wizards set at common" and "what's acceptable for us to understand at common" is slightly blurred and therefore shifted more toward the latter.
I don't think this is a good excuse. How does Wizards not have this same problem? Most (if not all) of Magic R&D have been playing the game for years, too. Some of them even played on the Pro Tour.
Like has been mentioned already, I think these "design rules" are rules for a reason, and that reason isn't "because Wizards said so." I believe the reason is "Wizards said so because they've been doing this for a very long time and have lots of data and evidence to support their decisions." I'm all for exploring and questioning their decisions, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
IMO, the formula should be: A static ability that synergizes with the gods + a flavorful active ability. If you look at all the real weapons, their active abilities are based on flavor more so than synergy. (Spear smites, whip pulls things from the yard, hammer forges creatures, etc.)
I like this reasoning, but the hammer also plays really nicely with Purphoros.
I like Jimmy's tweaked card, but I have to agree with Zoomba that the Heroic ability should just add counters. Let the second ability determine what the bonuses are. That reads cleaner and gives the card less fiddly bits to remember. If we're going with three keywords (which I think is a good number), then we ought to decide on what abilities best capture a Perseus-type character. It looks like we're getting deathtouch from the Gorgon's head, flying from the Pegasus or the winged sandals, but I'm not sure about first strike. It does play well with deathtouch. Personally, I'd prefer to see hexproof over first strike, as that will help protect our legend and reflects both the mirrored shield and the helm of invisibility Perseus obtains.
Also, let's not forget the proper Heroic wording: "Heroic — Whenever you cast a spell that targets ..."
New Card Submissions
Heroic Bear1G
Creature- Bear Warrior (C) Heroic — Whenever you cast a spell that targets Heroic Bear, put a +1/+1 counter on Heroic Bear.
2/2 "I know this concept is silly, but the mechanics are probably useful, so just bear with me. Ha! Get it? "Bear" with me?"
—Bucky, flavor text writer
Net Champion2W
Creature- Human Soldier (C) Heroic — Whenever you cast a spell that targets Net Champion, put a +1/+1 counter on Net Champion, then tap target creature.
1/1
Triumphant Strike1W
Instant (C)
Target creature gains first strike until end of turn. Put a +1/+1 counter on it.
Victor's Insight2G
Sorcery (U)
Put a +1/+1 counter on target creature. Until end of turn, that creature gains ""Whenever this creature deals combat damage to a player, draw a card."
Reprint Suggestions
Mutant's Prey or Hunt the Weak- It fits a +1/+1 counter theme and the heroic theme, which I think is a good direction for us. Test of Faith- See above. Wild Defiance- I know we only get a few rares, but this sort of makes all your creatures heroes. We don't have to worry as much about it saving them from removal vs. the other deck, either, since they're removal will mostly be bounce and straight-up destruction. Livewire Lash- See above. I'm not suggesting we include both, but either could be interesting.
Given what others have suggested, I really like Thrive. It's kind of perfect. GM's recommendation of Travel Preparations is also very good. Obviously a few of the +1/+1 counter heroes would be ideal. For a midrange-type deck, Favored Hoplite might not be as needed. I second the inclusion of Wingsteed Rider, Staunch-Hearted Warrior, and possibly Centaur Battlemaster. Phalanx Leader would also be useful, since it works like Thrive and boosts the whole team.
General Comments
I agree with many others on this being a heroic midrange-style deck. I'd like to move away from an Aura subtheme, as the Heroes vs. Monsters deck had a bit of that (Freewind Equenaut, Sun Titan, Etc.). Instead, I think a lot of our designs are pushing us towards a +1/+1 counter subtheme. Perhaps we could have some cards that care about the counters, or move counters around, or Corpsejack Menace-type shenanigans. Heck, maybe even proliferate?
Regarding number of non-evergreen keywords, it looks like the Monsters deck had four: Bloodthrist, Cycling, Echo, and Proliferate. It relied heavily on Bloodthirst and Echo/Proliferate were each just one-ofs, though. I'm not sure if that helps us or not, but it might be good to know our wiggle room. Personally, I like heroic and buyback/rebound here. A one-of flashback or something shouldn't give us too much trouble.
If you target Parsenus with Seeds of Strength three times, it will trigger his Heroic ability three times.
Actually, it'll just trigger heroic once per creature. You can trigger up to three heroes at once, though, which is pretty cool. I'm not sure about the power level, though.
Emmara, Selesnya's Serenade1GW
Legendary Creature- Elf Shaman (M)
Convoke (Each creature you tap while casting this spell pays for 1 or one mana of that creature's color.)
When Emmara, Selesnya’s Serenade enters the battlefield, populate. (Put a token onto the battlefield that’s a copy of a creature token you control.)
2/2
To provide input on your question, though, 2R for a 3/2 first striker (and nothing else) would probably be ok at higher rarities, so as not to be overpowered in Limited, as others have pointed out. I think the existence of Mindsparker illustrates that it could exist. Honestly, though, I prefer it at 1RR so that it won't be super splashable. And, as Mindsparker shows, that cost can even give you a bonus.
You seem interested in pushing such a card for Constructed formats, and I honestly don't think that making it uncommon or giving it a less R-intensive cost will do that. If Mindsparker isn't seeing play, then either the format isn't right for it, or it would need a lower cost to be attention-worthy. However, given that Mono-Blue Devotion just won a Pro Tour and showed up three times in the Top 8 (not to mention that Esper was in the Top 8, too), I think Mindsparker has a chance to make an appearance, at least in sideboards.
This is an interesting idea. I've tackled something similar in the past (as I'm sure many custom card creators have). My major issues so far are:
Some effects are so intrinsic to a card game that every color should have access to them. Is card drawing a "library" mechanic, or a "hand" mechanic? Would that exclude some colors from having access to it? What about tutoring? Don't forget that land fetch is tutoring. There are other mechanics, but my point is a concern over divvying up the color pie using a zone emphasis if it will ignore things that all colors need to have.
This is more an issue of presentation, but I personally can't stand it when someone tells me that they're going to tell me something. If you're finally at a place where you can discuss this project publicly, can we please get more info instead of just the promise of info?
Why is he not R? Because he doesn't really embody any of R's qualities! He's not reckless, impulsive or chaotic, and he certainly doesn't give a damn about anyone's freedom.
This is one of the best arguments against a red Vader I've seen. I tried to argue something similar earlier.
But Xyx, you say, the code of the Sith is clearly R! Certainly, but just as Anakin Skywalker sucked at being a Jedi knight, Darth Vader sucks at being a Sith lord.
This. So much this. He really doesn't fit either group that well, does he?
While I disagree with your premise that Vader is U, I appreciate how you arrived at the conclusion and argued your point. I know you don't actually subscribe to that belief, but you do a decent job of making your point.
In the Vader guise he has huge amounts of W in him.
Hell, his rule seems loosely based on Adolf Hitler, the prime example (from RL) of a WB villain with more W than B in them. Exterminating an entire planet because it is the heart of a rebellion is pretty clearly an analogy for targetting all Jews after the 1918 revolution.
But Vader didn't do that; like Izuki points out, Grand Moff Tarkin blew up Alderaan. Just because the empire's motivation is to stamp out the rebellion doesn't necessarily mean that Vader himself would be bound by the same goals. The Empire as an organization can certainly be labeled as WB, but not every member has to share that alignment. Vader is part of the system, sure, but he is also using it for the power it provides him. Making use of a system for his one's own benefit is very, very black.
I agree with you (and many in this thread) that the Sith as a whole (as evidenced by the code) are BR. It emphasizes passion and freedom, but also strength and gaining power. I don't agree that Vader is red, though. He doesn't care about freedom or passion or doing whatever his heart desires. He cares about power.
Before I get started, please be aware I'm focusing on Darth Vader, not Anakin Skywalker. So, the original trilogy is where I'm drawing this explanation from. "What color is Anakin?" is a fine question with lots of points to discuss, but the question here is "What color is Vader?"
Darth Vader is decidedly black. I'm seeing a ton of stretching for justification in other colors in this thread, or perhaps just misunderstanding of the color pie, but the core of the character is black. Just look at the other colors and their motivations:
W- White cares about others. It values the community, and uses law, order, and structure to protect the community and maintain peace. Vader may be part of a governing system, but at no point does he EVER seem to care about the welfare of others. White is more than just rules and government. Those are just tools for white. While Vader may be willing to use white's tools, he doesn't share the core values.
U- Blue cares about information. It sees in the world the opportunity to become whatever it wants, and seeks knowledge as the ultimate means of achieving that goal. Vader doesn't seek knowledge; he doesn't seek to improve himself (he has robotic parts, sure, but that wasn't really his doing). Vader's plans never involve research, or learning about the enemy, or gaining a better understanding of...anything, really. Like white, he just doesn't share in blue's values or its goals.
B- I'll save this for last, actually.
R- Red cares about following its heart. It seeks freedom to live and feel how it wants. Everyone seems to be defining red by emotion, but every color has emotion. Yes, even blue. The difference is that red allows itself to be guided by its emotions. While Vader is certainly willing to buck established order and protocols, he doesn't do so to follow his heart. Red cares about the freedom of others; Vader does not. Red can't control its emotions; emotions control red. Vader displays many times that he his in control of himself.
G- Green cares about nature. It thinks things are the way they are meant to be. Green believes everything will work out fine if we just let nature run its course. It is only drawn to action to defend the natural order. Vader does not just sit around and accept things the way they are. Vader acts, and he acts of according to his own agenda. Green accepts its fate, whatever that may be; Vader does not.
So, what makes Vader black? Black cares about itself. It has ambition, and seeks power so that it can do what it wants. This is similar to red, but has subtle differences. Black wants power so that no one can tell it what to do. Black wants to be in control. Red would be happy to be left alone to its own devices; black wants the world (or, in Vader's case, the galaxy) to bend to its will. Black gets what it wants through any means necessary, and so does Darth Vader. Red would never be the Emperor's lap dog, but black would, because that is a path to power. Black serves to advance itself, but will turn on the master given the opportunity. Does Vader ask Luke to join him so that they can rule with the Emperor, or serve the Emperor? No. He clearly has schemes to rule the Empire himself.
The big strike against Vader as monoblack is the scene where he saves Luke. Personally, I think this is done because it makes a good story, and Star Wars is ultimately a fantasy story. The bad guy being redeemed at the end fits the fantasy genre's "good vs. evil" theme, with the personification of evil (the Emperor) being destroyed. I don't think it is representative of Vader's character otherwise. Though, one could also argue that he saved Luke not because it was the right thing to do, but because Luke was HIS son and the Emperor was messing with something that belonged to Vader. That's tough argument, though.
TL;DR version- Vader doesn't care about others; not white. He doesn't value knowledge or learning; not blue. He doesn't seek freedom and can control his emotions; not red. He doesn't care about destiny or letting things run their own course; not green. He is driven by power and will chop off his own kid's hand to get it. Black fits.
Philosophically, I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from. From a pure flavorful standpoint, there is little reason for green to be against fliers. In fact, much of green's anti-flying effects should flavorfully belong to blue. Blue is the master of air, unless it takes the form of a Hurricane or tornado?
Green's hatred of fliers stems from a mechanical need, yes, but I actually like the flavor of tornadoes and hurricanes in green. Blue may represent the elements of air, but those always struck me as destructive forces of nature. Blue is many things, but "destructive" isn't one of them. I think there's enough room for green to carve out some wind magic.
As to the question at hand, I agree somewhat that red makes sense as the "Destroy target creature without flying" color, but I hate that it blurs the (already blurry) line between black and red. I don't know how I feel about red destroying creatures outside of direct damage at all, really.
This card may be all well and good for your set, but it would do things to the entire game that may not be ok. Just something to consider.
If something can be exploited, someone will exploit it.
Almost any "disadvantage" can be made into an advantage. Cards like Squadron Hawk and Cephalid Illusionist weren't very good until they were bonkers.
The proposed lands basically hit every point on that list while fueling a variety of decks and deck archetypes. Not to mention they also fix your mana by providing two colors. Probably not worth the risk, I'd think.
Also, not to detract from your design vision, but it seems like making all the planeswalkers have a static or triggered ability and three +/- abilities is eating up a lot of design space. I like one or two of them having that design, but it doesn't seem necessary for all of them. Planeswalkers tend to be foreign to the world anyway, so they don't have to follow the same design scheme as the others, right?
So, here's a submission just so I'm not spending the whole post complaining (not trying to, though, just wanted to offer some thoughts; I love the podcast and your insights):
+1: You may tap or untap target permanent, then you may tap or untap another target permanent.
A Twiddle effect feels more blue than white, but I think it fits fine. It seems like this sort of effect could do some interesting work in this set.
Strength of the Wilds 2G
Sorcery (C?)
Put two +1/+1 counters on target creature.
Embody 2GG (2GG: Exile this card from your hand and put a 2/2 colorless Elemental creature token onto the battlefield. Then, you may cast this card from exile without paying its mana cost targetting that creature.)
If I understand the rules regarding this card correctly (and someone please correct me if I'm wrong), this should solve the issue wof what happens regarding shroud and preventing creatures from entering the battlefield, i.e. the card stays in exile. You could add "Embody only as a sorcery" to the reminder text if you want to avoid instant-speed shenanigans.
All that said, I really like this mechanic for Temur. It seems fun to play. I've been searching for a similar mechanic and this gets my gears turning.
It's a slippery slope. The more of these that get justified and created, the less useful basic lands become. You could run such a land in a monowhite deck and have no problems. If you just happened to need green mana (you wanted to gain more life off of Dawnglow Infusion, or you wanted to flashback Ray of Revelation, for example) you no longer need those pesky Forests cluttering your manabase. Now, imagine if you could pack a deck full of lands like that. There would literally be no reason to run Plains.
Because for a VERY long time, creatures sucked compared to spells. Creatures aren't so much subjected to power creep as they are to rebalancing. Creatures to day are much more on-par with spells. And this is important because a lot of players LOVE creatures. Even when they were bad compared to spells, lots of players played creatures and creature-based decks because they were fun. The game is now rewarding players for doing what they find fun by making those strategies actually good.
Not necessarily. If I'm playing a three-color deck with 24 lands, I'll run 4x of each of your earlier proposed "Alpha duals but without the land types" and 4x each of Doombringer's "gain a life" lands and my deck will be inherently better than someone running 8x of each basic, even if the rest of the decks are identical. Maybe I'm assuming too much when I think that your dual land ideas are the only ones of the sort that would be printed, but it sets a bad precedent.
I don't think this is a good excuse. How does Wizards not have this same problem? Most (if not all) of Magic R&D have been playing the game for years, too. Some of them even played on the Pro Tour.
Like has been mentioned already, I think these "design rules" are rules for a reason, and that reason isn't "because Wizards said so." I believe the reason is "Wizards said so because they've been doing this for a very long time and have lots of data and evidence to support their decisions." I'm all for exploring and questioning their decisions, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I like Jimmy's tweaked card, but I have to agree with Zoomba that the Heroic ability should just add counters. Let the second ability determine what the bonuses are. That reads cleaner and gives the card less fiddly bits to remember. If we're going with three keywords (which I think is a good number), then we ought to decide on what abilities best capture a Perseus-type character. It looks like we're getting deathtouch from the Gorgon's head, flying from the Pegasus or the winged sandals, but I'm not sure about first strike. It does play well with deathtouch. Personally, I'd prefer to see hexproof over first strike, as that will help protect our legend and reflects both the mirrored shield and the helm of invisibility Perseus obtains.
Also, let's not forget the proper Heroic wording: "Heroic — Whenever you cast a spell that targets ..."
New Card Submissions
Heroic Bear 1G
Creature- Bear Warrior (C)
Heroic — Whenever you cast a spell that targets Heroic Bear, put a +1/+1 counter on Heroic Bear.
2/2
"I know this concept is silly, but the mechanics are probably useful, so just bear with me. Ha! Get it? "Bear" with me?"
—Bucky, flavor text writer
Net Champion 2W
Creature- Human Soldier (C)
Heroic — Whenever you cast a spell that targets Net Champion, put a +1/+1 counter on Net Champion, then tap target creature.
1/1
Triumphant Strike 1W
Instant (C)
Target creature gains first strike until end of turn. Put a +1/+1 counter on it.
Victor's Insight 2G
Sorcery (U)
Put a +1/+1 counter on target creature. Until end of turn, that creature gains ""Whenever this creature deals combat damage to a player, draw a card."
Reprint Suggestions
Mutant's Prey or Hunt the Weak- It fits a +1/+1 counter theme and the heroic theme, which I think is a good direction for us.
Test of Faith- See above.
Wild Defiance- I know we only get a few rares, but this sort of makes all your creatures heroes. We don't have to worry as much about it saving them from removal vs. the other deck, either, since they're removal will mostly be bounce and straight-up destruction.
Livewire Lash- See above. I'm not suggesting we include both, but either could be interesting.
Given what others have suggested, I really like Thrive. It's kind of perfect. GM's recommendation of Travel Preparations is also very good. Obviously a few of the +1/+1 counter heroes would be ideal. For a midrange-type deck, Favored Hoplite might not be as needed. I second the inclusion of Wingsteed Rider, Staunch-Hearted Warrior, and possibly Centaur Battlemaster. Phalanx Leader would also be useful, since it works like Thrive and boosts the whole team.
General Comments
I agree with many others on this being a heroic midrange-style deck. I'd like to move away from an Aura subtheme, as the Heroes vs. Monsters deck had a bit of that (Freewind Equenaut, Sun Titan, Etc.). Instead, I think a lot of our designs are pushing us towards a +1/+1 counter subtheme. Perhaps we could have some cards that care about the counters, or move counters around, or Corpsejack Menace-type shenanigans. Heck, maybe even proliferate?
Regarding number of non-evergreen keywords, it looks like the Monsters deck had four: Bloodthrist, Cycling, Echo, and Proliferate. It relied heavily on Bloodthirst and Echo/Proliferate were each just one-ofs, though. I'm not sure if that helps us or not, but it might be good to know our wiggle room. Personally, I like heroic and buyback/rebound here. A one-of flashback or something shouldn't give us too much trouble.
Actually, it'll just trigger heroic once per creature. You can trigger up to three heroes at once, though, which is pretty cool. I'm not sure about the power level, though.
This could be a cool reprint, also.
Legendary Creature- Elf Shaman (M)
Convoke (Each creature you tap while casting this spell pays for 1 or one mana of that creature's color.)
When Emmara, Selesnya’s Serenade enters the battlefield, populate. (Put a token onto the battlefield that’s a copy of a creature token you control.)
2/2
Ummm...about that.
To provide input on your question, though, 2R for a 3/2 first striker (and nothing else) would probably be ok at higher rarities, so as not to be overpowered in Limited, as others have pointed out. I think the existence of Mindsparker illustrates that it could exist. Honestly, though, I prefer it at 1RR so that it won't be super splashable. And, as Mindsparker shows, that cost can even give you a bonus.
You seem interested in pushing such a card for Constructed formats, and I honestly don't think that making it uncommon or giving it a less R-intensive cost will do that. If Mindsparker isn't seeing play, then either the format isn't right for it, or it would need a lower cost to be attention-worthy. However, given that Mono-Blue Devotion just won a Pro Tour and showed up three times in the Top 8 (not to mention that Esper was in the Top 8, too), I think Mindsparker has a chance to make an appearance, at least in sideboards.
This is one of the best arguments against a red Vader I've seen. I tried to argue something similar earlier.
This. So much this. He really doesn't fit either group that well, does he?
While I disagree with your premise that Vader is U, I appreciate how you arrived at the conclusion and argued your point. I know you don't actually subscribe to that belief, but you do a decent job of making your point.
But Vader didn't do that; like Izuki points out, Grand Moff Tarkin blew up Alderaan. Just because the empire's motivation is to stamp out the rebellion doesn't necessarily mean that Vader himself would be bound by the same goals. The Empire as an organization can certainly be labeled as WB, but not every member has to share that alignment. Vader is part of the system, sure, but he is also using it for the power it provides him. Making use of a system for his one's own benefit is very, very black.
I agree with you (and many in this thread) that the Sith as a whole (as evidenced by the code) are BR. It emphasizes passion and freedom, but also strength and gaining power. I don't agree that Vader is red, though. He doesn't care about freedom or passion or doing whatever his heart desires. He cares about power.
Darth Vader is decidedly black. I'm seeing a ton of stretching for justification in other colors in this thread, or perhaps just misunderstanding of the color pie, but the core of the character is black. Just look at the other colors and their motivations:
W- White cares about others. It values the community, and uses law, order, and structure to protect the community and maintain peace. Vader may be part of a governing system, but at no point does he EVER seem to care about the welfare of others. White is more than just rules and government. Those are just tools for white. While Vader may be willing to use white's tools, he doesn't share the core values.
U- Blue cares about information. It sees in the world the opportunity to become whatever it wants, and seeks knowledge as the ultimate means of achieving that goal. Vader doesn't seek knowledge; he doesn't seek to improve himself (he has robotic parts, sure, but that wasn't really his doing). Vader's plans never involve research, or learning about the enemy, or gaining a better understanding of...anything, really. Like white, he just doesn't share in blue's values or its goals.
B- I'll save this for last, actually.
R- Red cares about following its heart. It seeks freedom to live and feel how it wants. Everyone seems to be defining red by emotion, but every color has emotion. Yes, even blue. The difference is that red allows itself to be guided by its emotions. While Vader is certainly willing to buck established order and protocols, he doesn't do so to follow his heart. Red cares about the freedom of others; Vader does not. Red can't control its emotions; emotions control red. Vader displays many times that he his in control of himself.
G- Green cares about nature. It thinks things are the way they are meant to be. Green believes everything will work out fine if we just let nature run its course. It is only drawn to action to defend the natural order. Vader does not just sit around and accept things the way they are. Vader acts, and he acts of according to his own agenda. Green accepts its fate, whatever that may be; Vader does not.
So, what makes Vader black? Black cares about itself. It has ambition, and seeks power so that it can do what it wants. This is similar to red, but has subtle differences. Black wants power so that no one can tell it what to do. Black wants to be in control. Red would be happy to be left alone to its own devices; black wants the world (or, in Vader's case, the galaxy) to bend to its will. Black gets what it wants through any means necessary, and so does Darth Vader. Red would never be the Emperor's lap dog, but black would, because that is a path to power. Black serves to advance itself, but will turn on the master given the opportunity. Does Vader ask Luke to join him so that they can rule with the Emperor, or serve the Emperor? No. He clearly has schemes to rule the Empire himself.
The big strike against Vader as monoblack is the scene where he saves Luke. Personally, I think this is done because it makes a good story, and Star Wars is ultimately a fantasy story. The bad guy being redeemed at the end fits the fantasy genre's "good vs. evil" theme, with the personification of evil (the Emperor) being destroyed. I don't think it is representative of Vader's character otherwise. Though, one could also argue that he saved Luke not because it was the right thing to do, but because Luke was HIS son and the Emperor was messing with something that belonged to Vader. That's tough argument, though.
TL;DR version- Vader doesn't care about others; not white. He doesn't value knowledge or learning; not blue. He doesn't seek freedom and can control his emotions; not red. He doesn't care about destiny or letting things run their own course; not green. He is driven by power and will chop off his own kid's hand to get it. Black fits.
Green's hatred of fliers stems from a mechanical need, yes, but I actually like the flavor of tornadoes and hurricanes in green. Blue may represent the elements of air, but those always struck me as destructive forces of nature. Blue is many things, but "destructive" isn't one of them. I think there's enough room for green to carve out some wind magic.
As to the question at hand, I agree somewhat that red makes sense as the "Destroy target creature without flying" color, but I hate that it blurs the (already blurry) line between black and red. I don't know how I feel about red destroying creatures outside of direct damage at all, really.
This card may be all well and good for your set, but it would do things to the entire game that may not be ok. Just something to consider.
Almost any "disadvantage" can be made into an advantage. Cards like Squadron Hawk and Cephalid Illusionist weren't very good until they were bonkers.
The proposed lands basically hit every point on that list while fueling a variety of decks and deck archetypes. Not to mention they also fix your mana by providing two colors. Probably not worth the risk, I'd think.