I wish I could say where I heard it, who the parties to the conversation were, and exactly what the quote was, but it goes something like this: Evan Erwin asks Pat Chapin how much life loss would make Ancestral Recall an acceptable card to print.  Pat Chapin thinks for a minute, and then says "20 life, and it would still be a very good card in many formats."

(I'm gonna ask my friend Adam if he knows where that's from, cause I'm pretty sure he told me that story, although I'm not positive.)

Anyway, I think the key to making some kind of workable Contract like card is that the cost should be somehow outside the game, in the same way that ante is effectively outside the course of normal gameplay.

I've always wished Rainbow Vale was a good land, put giving your opponents free mana seems so bad.  I was thinking about that and somehow wound up with this card.  Note that it doesn't work with Oath of Druids.

Eldrazi Spawning Pool
Tribal Land -- Eldrazi
T: Add 1 to your mana pool.
T: Each player puts a 0/1 colorless Eldrazi Spawn creature token onto the battlefield. They have "Sacrifice this creature: Add 1 to your mana pool."

And yeah, I know Eye of Ugin and Eldrazi Temple aren't Tribal lands, but dammit, they should've been.

Current Wording:
Eldrazi Spawning Pool
Tribal Land -- Eldrazi
T: Add 1 to your mana pool.
T: Each player puts a 0/1 colorless Eldrazi Spawn creature token onto the battlefield. They have "Sacrifice this creature: Add 1 to your mana pool."

Seeing the thread discussing ways of making ante cards legal made me think of what possibilities there are for allowing an effect as absurdly powerful as Contract from Below in a non-ante Magic game.  It's hard to find some equivalent because ante is a cost that's so far outside of the game.  I'm not sure how this would work for other ante cards, but perhaps a Contract-like effect could be made like this:

Contract from Further Below
B
Sorcery
As an additional cost to cast Contract from Further Below, you get a game loss.  (This effect is immediate, and may result in a match loss.)
Discard your hand, then draw seven cards.

I would think this is at least printable in an un-set without significant changes.  I'm still not sure it's even close to balanced, or a desirable effect to have in tournament Magic, but it's at least functional under current tournament rules.

Perhaps another way to make this kind of effect work would be something like this:

Shadow Bargain
B
Sorcery
Exile your hand face down.  Do not return those cards to your deck at the end of the current game.  Return those cards to your hand at the beginning of the next game in this match.  (Cards set aside this way count towards the total number of cards in your deck, but may not be altered in any way between games.)

This sort of effect would effectively let you concede the current game for an advantage in the next game.

I'm not suggesting any particular card in this thread for now, but would like to hear others ideas about how to possibly allow dramatically undercosted effects like Contract from Below without the cost of anteing cards.

I ordered some cards from MTG Chicago a few months back.  Nothing fancy; basically just some common foils for my sweet Peasant EDH deck.  There were a few that were nice, though, like a foil artifact land or something, and a few Japanese foils.  My order was delayed for about 10 days for no apparent reason, with no contact from MTG Chicago.  When it finally arrived, none of the nicer cards came, and I was sent non-Japanese versions of the Japanese cards I had ordered.

I had actually contacted ggslive about what happened to me because MTG Chicago would advertise on their streams.  Since things didn't turn out all that horrible for me, I decided not to pursue it further.  But I would recommend that anyone who has a problem with them take it up with places that take their advertising.  It seems pretty clear to me that they're all a bunch of scumbags.

I had started thinking of lands that would have a recurring ability to sacrifice creatures as some kind of anti-Oath tech.  For instance, a playable variant of Diamond Valley or City of Shadows.  That just got me thinking about lands that sacrifice creatures, and I came up with this idea as the potential start of a cycle of "spell lands".  These would be like Smoldering Spires et al. from Zendikar block, but with an effect you only get if you pay some cost.  Here's the one that first came to mind:

Puddle of the Dead
Land
Puddle of the Dead enters the battlefield tapped.
When Puddle of the Dead enters the battlefield, you may sacrifice a creature.  If you do, add to your mana pool.
: Add to your mana pool.

I'd personally be in favor of making it a Swamp, but it seems that R&D doesn't like to do that, so I didn't.  Also, I know that black no longer gets fast mana effects, but I just liked the admittedly jokey flavor of Puddle of the Dead.

Current Wording:
Puddle of the Dead
Land
Puddle of the Dead enters the battlefield tapped.
When Puddle of the Dead enters the battlefield, you may sacrifice a creature.  If you do, add to your mana pool.
: Add to your mana pool.

Emblems have the unique function of solving a very particular kind of design problem.  The only current example serves as a reminder that an event has occurred that isn't attached to any permanent.  Moreover, the effect it creates fundamentally alters the nature of the game in a profound way.  Both the effects you suggest would be well at home as Enchantments, so I don't see why using Emblems for them is especially desirable.

Here's a bad example of something that might call for an Emblem, although even here I'm not sold on it:

Elemental of Paradise
2G
When Elemental of Paradise is put into a graveyard from play, you get an Emblem with "Lands you control have "Tap: Add one mana of any color to your mana pool.""
2/2

Is there some way to change the templating on this to make it not read like programming code?  The current version gets too unwieldy if you change it to be gender neutral, which is how modern templating is done.  Something like the current wording for Mana Vortex might work:

Ergosphere
1UB
Sorcery
When you cast Ergosphere, counter it unless an opponent reveals his or her hand and discards a card of your choice. (A player with no cards can't discard.)
Each player discards his or her hand and draws seven cards.

Also, I'm not sure the name for the region around the event horizon of a black hole is an appropriate name for a fantasy card game.  "Black Hole" wouldn't be a good name for a Magic card, right?

I'm pretty sure this copies itself with the current wording.  It also copies creature spells; I don't think that's supported by the rules. 

I'm having trouble imagining a scenario where this really does anything.  Like say I cast a draw spell, then you counter it, then I play this.  My draw spell gets copied, but so does your counter, so you just use the copy of your counter to counter my copy of the draw spell.  If I got to make and play all the copies (instead of the spell's controller), now THAT would be something.  I'd use the copy of your counter to stop the original counter, and double up on my draw spell.

The format is called 3 Card Blind (3CB).  While they're not currently playing it over at MTG Salvation, they do have a whole slew of similar formats currently being played.

My favorite weirdo variant remains Tortoise, in which you have a fixed 7 card hand with which you must kill your opponent as slowly as possible.

What does this actually do?  As best I can tell, it kinda gives all your spells split second.  Oh, and do abilities still resolve normally?

I think I wanna see this card get printed as is just so that someone plays it and then everyone stops playing Magic to sit around for hours arguing about what the hell it does.

WW, 2/1, First Strike, W:+1/+0 sounds reasonable to me from a balance / power perspective.  Couldn't this creature also be Red?  Maybe a pair of them in White and Red, just like the old pump knights?

Expanded Vista
Land
Reveal your hand: If your hand contains no land cards besides Expanded Vista, you may put Expanded Vista onto the battlefield.  Play this ability only if Expanding Vista is in your hand, and as a sorcery.
Tap: Add to your mana pool.

One of the big challenges in designing any kind of mana acceleration is that multiples can lead to degeneracy very quickly.  This card combats that in a number of ways.  For one, consistently activating the ability during an early turn of the game places constraints on deck design.  Second, a hand with multiples of this does not accelerate you any faster than a hand with just one of these.  Next, the cost of revealing your hand provides a strong disincentive to use this in combo decks that must fight counterspells, or even in control decks that rely on representing counterspells.  Fourth, I'd think that if you manage to use the acceleration ability, you're probably going to miss your next land drop, and that helps to limit how abusable this card is.  Finally, producing only colorless mana makes it harder to abuse the extra mana produced by the card.

Despite these limitations, the card isn't completely lacking in functionality in later stages of the game.  All in all, I think it manages to look exciting without actually being very good, which is a fine place for a card to be.

Suggestions on making the wording simpler without substantially altering the functionality would be greatly appreciated.


Current Wording:

Expanded Vista
Land
Reveal your hand: If your hand contains no land cards besides Expanding Vista, you may put Expanding Vista onto the battlefield.  Play this ability only if Expanding Vista is in your hand, and as a sorcery.
Tap: Add to your mana pool.

I still find that to be a gross mischaracterization.  It is exclusive in the sense that, since the policy change, no non-Red cards have it.  I guess you're using "exclusive" to mean that it's possible to not pay Red mana and play 2 out of the 20 cards made since then.  I guess we disagree on what kind of precedent that sets for non-Red cards having this kind of ability.

I think this argument was worthwhile because it explores the rationales behind card design, even though it has gotten away from discussing the current card.  Which, for what it's worth, is I think still too strong in its current version.

I did want something specific, and I did ask for it: your acknowledgment that temporary control changing effects belong to Red.  You've still failed to do that, instead choosing to "drop the rest of the debate".  Again, you've shirked away from acknowledging what is plain as day from evidence of both cards and statements from R&D.

That said, I don't think either of us was making a terribly dramatic claim here.  I was saying that the earlier version of the card is a better fit for Red, you implied that Blue does that kind of thing, too.  I countered that those effects don't belong to Blue in modern Magic design, and in particular is a bad solution to the design challenge of "Blue needs more Goblins."  You stated that Blue can have those effects "less often", but the only examples to be found are cards that are also Red, and have mechanics that aren't simple temporary control changing effects.  That makes for a pretty poor case that Blue has access to temporary control changing effects in any meaningful way.

I'll happily admit that R&D might yet print a card with Blue in its mana cost that contains the words "gain control" and "until end of turn".  But based on what we know about current color pie philosophy and the cards that have been printed lately, I would expect such a card to be 1) also Red 2) an atypical implementation of the effect.  While the original card was an atypical implementation of the effect, it wasn't Red-- a quality that seemed especially glaring given that it was supposed to be a Blue Goblin, and Goblins are usually Red.  A creature type that is usually Red with a mechanic that is usually Red did not strike me as a good candidate for the first mono-Blue Goblin.

Or how about neither?  Again, your consistent failure to make a credible case is not my fault.  That the only evidence available to support your case is weak evidence is not my fault.  That you bolster your argument with absurd comparisons to things like Disenchant effects is not my fault.  You seem a decent fellow, and a lot of your insights in various threads are spot-on, but I think this time you're pretty far off the mark.

I support these changes.  New version looks good to me.

I never established any "goalposts".  Don't blame me for your consistent failure to present a credible argument to counter my original claim.  What I originally said was:Nothing you have presented provides any evidence to the contrary, for the reasons I have stated throughout the thread and will restate here: Cards made prior to the color-pie realignment that took place eight years ago are not indicative of current Magic design, and there are no non-Red recent examples, even if two (out of the twenty made since Beuhler's article) are castable without Red mana.  I reiterate my earlier request that you acknowledge that temporary control changing effects belong to Red's chunk of the color pie.  (That doesn't mean they can never be any other color, it just means other colors have to work pretty hard to get them.)

Dominus of Fealty is acceptable to cast with only Blue mana because it is a repeatable temporary effect, which functions a lot like a permanent control changing effect.  Therefore, it might seem like this card as a repeatable temporary effect might be okay in mono-Blue.  However, Dominus of Fealty is not actually mono-Blue despite being castable with only Blue mana.  Furthermore, given that this is a Goblin and Goblins are usually Red, and temporary control-changing effects are almost exclusively Red, and the initial idea was to make a Blue Goblin, I stated "that this card could be color-shifted to red and be arguably a better color-pie fit mechanically and flavor-wise seems worrisome."  The existence of Dominus of Fealty and Slave of Bolas (which, despite being castable without Red mana, are still Red cards) does nothing to change that.

I went hunting for the MaRo quote initially and couldn't find it at first.  Regardless, Beuhler's article from eight years ago is applicable because it says (paraphrasing) "We used to put these in Blue, now we're going to put them in Red."  Citing a statement about a change in policy is completely different than citing an individual card.  Also, forgetting a card is perfectly acceptable, but you shouldn't have had to dig around: both those cards are in the results I posted, and they don't change the fact that no non-Red temporary control changing effects have been printed since 2001.  That is, all of them are castable with Red mana (you also need Black for Slave of Bolas, but that isn't especially relevant).  If this were printed as mono-Blue and a temporary effect, it would be the first time since 2001 that having Red mana wouldn't let you cast such an effect.

The issue was brought up when a mono-blue version had a temporary control changing effect.  I have no color-pie related objections to the current version (Red makes it a Goblin, Blue gives it the ability to steal things permanently), although the current wording (a permanent control changing effect, resulting in you stealing one Goblin per turn) is probably too strong.  The current version as a temporary effect would be acceptable in mono-Red, since Red is the near-exclusive home of temporary control changing effects in modern Magic, and Goblins are already Red.  The current version as a temporary effect is also fine in Blue-Red, since Red has Goblins and temporary control changing effects, Blue has permanent control changing effects (which are not unlike repeated temporary control changing effects, which is what this is), and having a CE-style cost allows the power level to be pushed a little more than a CC-style cost.

I remain unconvinced, however, that this is the best implementation of a Blue Goblin, which is what I saw as the impetus behind this design.  While I think some version of the current card under consideration would be acceptable, I think a better Blue Goblin would be something like:

Goblin Entrancer
UU
Creature -- Goblin Wizard
When Goblin Entrancer enters the battlefield, gain control of target Goblin creature for as long as Goblin Entrancer remains on the battlefield.
"Practice in a mirror or you'll never get it right!" -- Goblin Entrancer's Handbook
1/2

That card is clearly Blue mechanically, while still having the kooky flavor of a Goblin card.  Now the current mechanic is workable too, it's just not what I would think of when I think of a Blue Goblin.

Incidentally, I think this thread provides some good examples of why Forum Rules 2 and 3 are good policy.  Seeing where a card started and knowing the reasoning behind why that card should be made are pretty important to being able to provide useful criticism.

It is not at all like the treatment of Disenchant effects!  I find that claim so outrageous that I think you must not be arguing in good faith.  Sets have consistently had them in both White and Green since Naturalize was printed.  Kor Sanctifiers was in Zendikar.  The set before that to have an exclusively white Disenchant effect is the set immediately prior to that, Magic 2010 (Solemn Offering).  The set before that was a few sets prior (Dispeller's Capsule in Shards of Alara).  White has never not had Disenchant effects.

In stark contrast, Blue has not had temporary control changing effects at all from Odyssey until Eventide (a period of seven years!), and the only ones it has had since then are also Red cards!  Meanwhile, Red has gotten temporary control changing effects in every block since Onslaught in 2002.  Saying Blue "has access" to temporary control changing effects in modern Magic design is just plain wrong.

And as if this was not evidence enough to show that these effects have been moved to Red, here's Randy Beuhler writing about it in 2002:
And here's Mark Rosewater writing about it in 2004:

The current version of this card is Rip-Clan Crasher with two good abilities tacked on.  That's a little much.  I don't see why he should have Haste, so that's what I'd lose.  I'd think the R ability is better off as 2 damage since has has 2 power, plus the symmetry with stuff like Shock and Goblin Legionnaire doesn't hurt.  R for Shock and G for Naturalize seems reasonable, and would make this a solid playable, but I'd hardly call it unfair.  Which I guess is just a long-winded way of saying I think the original suggestion is the best version of this.

If I changed the costs on anything, it'd be on activating the abilities-- maybe 1C for them? Or just 1G for Naturalize?

Do you see this as part of a larger cycle, or was the Gruul name just cause it's RG?

Why is it okay to color shift Ivory Mask into an artifact?

I like the direction of the new cards for the most part.  Even something like the added cost to the unsummon effect on the Blue one makes them feel more "integrated".  The only one I have serious misgivings about is the Red one.  Killing your guys (red guys not generally being high toughness) and then following it up with giving your guys an attacking bonus--- but then killing them?  Or is it supposed to be a Wrath for your opponent's attackers (which it currently is)?

I assumed no such thing, but more importantly, you didn't address the larger point. The idea of using them on the same creature creates an anchor for the flavor of the card, as well as a reason for the two mechanics to be present on the same card.  Adjust the casting costs or abilities as necessary, but give the cards a reason to exist other than being a chimeric mishmash of on-color abilities.

And, for what it's worth (which is zilch since in fact neither you nor I are printing any cards anytime soon), you highly overestimate how good these cards would be.  By a lot.  Many of the best decks in extended win the freaking game on turn 3, not cast sorcery-speed, target-limited removal.

I think the current version (UR, 2/2, activated ability for 1) is acceptable.  I guess since it's a repeatable temporary effect, it's basically a permanent control changing effect, and that is the Blue aspect of it.

The version that says "If a Goblin you control would change controllers, instead untap it and it gains haste until end of turn." is way too confusing.  So someone casts Mind Control on my random Goblin and instead I untap it and it gains haste?  WTF?

I will acknowledge that 1999 and 2001 are more recent than 1997, although you might notice that 2001 was nine years ago.  So no, cards printed closer to the release date of Black Lotus than today are not recent enough to serve a useful comparison.  Now how about you acknowledge that temporary control changing effects have obviously been moved to Red's chunk of the color pie?

I know, and that sucks.  I would love to see the internal tension that's present in the original in some other design, but as is I can hardly imagine anyone ever choosing to put the original design in a deck.  Like how would a person feel when they open this card?  At least something actively bad like One With Nothing is totally clear about what it's meant to do.  What exactly is this meant to do in terms of advancing anyone's goal of winning a game?  Or even of just showing off some combo?

What about if the Witchdoctor got +1/+1 for each poison counter?  Or maybe if this was in a set where there were tons of abilities that used removing poison counters as a cost?

I like this new one.  All the templating about "once per turn during your turn" is kind of wordy.  What if it was a tap ability and he had haste himself?  Maybe lower his P/T along with it to balance out the reduced cost?

I like the green one, because the effects make sense to play after each other-- first I make some guys, then I pump them.  It gives the card a coherence that the other examples lack.  For instance, why is the Red one Lightning Bolt into Threaten?  Why not Threaten into Bolt, or Bolt into Panic Attack, or Panic Attack into Threaten, or Stone Rain into Bull Rush, or whatever?

For instance, the Black one could be Mind Rot into Zombify, or better, Ostracize into Zombify, or Doom Blade into Zombify.  The Blue one could be something like Boomerang into Essence Scatter.  Specifically:

Necromantic Hunt
1B
Sorcery
Destroy target non-black creature.
2B, Remove Necromantic Hunt from the game: Put target creature card from an opponent's graveyard onto the battlefield under your control.  Play this ability only if Necromantic Hunt is in your graveyard.

Emphatic Expulsion
1U
Instant
Return target creature to its owner's hand.
2U, Remove Emphatic Expulsion from the game: Counter target creature spell.  Play this ability only if Emphatic Expulsion is in your graveyard.

Looking at these another way, the black one is more or less a color shifted Mind Control, and the blue one is more or less a color shifted Weed Strangle / Brainspoil / Corpsehatch.

I would also make the Green one 2G for two instant speed squirrels and have the graveyard ability be 2G Symbiosis.  And since I'm most of the way there, I'd suggest 3R Panic Attack into 3RR Lava Axe for the Red one and some variant of Embolden into Warrior's Honor for the White one.

To emphasize the overall point I'm trying to make: good card design isn't just making a fairly costed effect that fits into the color pie.  Particularly if you're making a cycle, there should be a sense of purpose to it, an indicator that there's some larger design scheme at work, not just a hodgepodge of abilities.

Well sure, I get that, but why would I want a card to do that?  I don't want my card that I played 10 turns ago to kill itself and put me at 10 life.  It seems like most of the time this card would just play like a bad Nourish.  In an environment full of poison counters, this card would probably be more like Leeches than a way to not lose the game.  I think the original card (as an Enchantment) would be good as a weird Leeches variant for a poison set, but its functioning is so bizarre it would have to be a rare, and I don't know if it would do enough in such a set to justify being a rare.

I love the flavor of this and the concept seems like it could get interesting, but right now it kind of reminds me of like Fallen Empires design-- very flavorful, but the card doesn't do anything. 
If something like Ali from Cairo is part of your inspiration, maybe just make this an Ali from Cairo with an upkeep of Poison counters.

Ali from the Jungle
GW
Legendary Creature -- Human Shaman
At the beginning of your upkeep, you get a poison counter.
Damage that would reduce your life total to less than 1 reduces it to 1 instead.
2/1

It sucks when you cast this and then your opponent just attacks you and you die.

Does this have to use poison counters?  What if they were just charge (or whatever) counters?  That hardly seems unfair.  Was there some specific interaction you really liked that make poison counters a necessity?

Also, I think it might make sense to word this as a "may" ability, since it would allow you to fruitfully have two in play (if you should so desire).

I don't think it makes it bad so much as it just serves a different purpose.  The card you've made is a Rare that is destined for sideboards and formats like EDH where doubling up on a desirable non-basic is highly advantageous.  My card is a common that is playable in draft, and might find occasional niche uses in Block or Standard, if there was some block mechanic that could benefit from it.

Cards that last saw print in 1997 are not indicative of the current color pie, otherwise we'd all be citing Natural Selection and Sylvan Library as support for our sweet green colorshifted Brainstorms.

I think the current UR version is okay but I don't see why it couldn't just be RR in its current form.  If the idea is to make a Blue Goblin, I feel like it should do something clearly Blue.

I generally like this idea, but I see a few troubles.  1U for a 2/2 is certainly undercosted but that's not too hard to fix.  More of an issue is that this can target itself for hasty beats, which is a neat interaction, but doesn't match the flavor at all.  Also, temporary control changing effects are usually Red.  That this card could be color-shifted to red and be arguably a better color-pie fit mechanically and flavor-wise seems worrisome.

What about if this was a permanent control changing effect, like a Sower of Temptation just for Goblins?

To make this immune to forced sacrifice but not infinite fodder for sacrifice costs, it could adapt the wording from Tajuru Preserver:

Spells and abilities your opponents control can't cause you to sacrifice ~this~.