Goblin Brainfuggler

[AmbivalentDuck]

What if it's just:

Goblin Brainfuggler 
Creature -- Goblin Wizard/Shaman
Whenever Goblin Brainfuggler or another goblin enters the battlefield under your control, gain control of target goblin.  Untap it and it gains haste until end of turn.
2/1

Yes, this breaks Kiki-Jiki in half since it reduces to a two-card combo.  As worded, it gives all gobs haste which may not be appropriate.

[Cyberpunker]

@jro and ambivalentduck

I kind of envisioned this card as closer to Vexing Shusher rather than Sower of Temptation. What do you guys think?

[Delha]

Also, temporary control changing effects are usually Red.

Ray of Command

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.

Is Overtaker recent enough for you?
Chamber of Manipulation?
I just chose the iconic one, since the other two are likely patterned after the first.

[AmbivalentDuck]

@jro and ambivalentduck

I kind of envisioned this card as closer to Vexing Shusher rather than Sower of Temptation. What do you guys think?

Goblin Brainfuggler 
Creature -- Goblin Wizard/Shaman
Goblin Brainfuggler cannot change controllers.  If a Goblin you control would change controllers, instead untap it and it gains haste until end of turn.
{U/R}: Gain control of target Goblin until end of turn.
2/1

???

[Cyberpunker]

Okay, but isn't that basically the current version except you can do it unlimited times per turn?

[jro]

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?

Also, temporary control changing effects are usually Red.

Ray of Command

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.

Is Overtaker recent enough for you?
Chamber of Manipulation?
I just chose the iconic one, since the other two are likely patterned after the first.

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?

[AmbivalentDuck]

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?

Why not?  It effectively gives your goblins protection from Sower and blue enchantments and that's obvious to anyone reading it.  Funny thing, it doesn't actually work the way I designed it, though.

Maybe

Goblin Braintetherer 
Creature -- Goblin Wizard/Shaman
Goblin Brainfuggler cannot change controllers.  If a Goblin you control would change controllers, instead untap it and it gains haste until end of turn.
{U/R}: Target opponent gains control of target creature. (This effect does not end at end of turn)
2/1

Now it's a coolish goblin lord that also opens up a lot of "donatey" goodness and adds a twist to multiplayer.

[Delha]

Goblin Braintetherer   
Creature -- Goblin Wizard/Shaman
Goblin Brainfuggler cannot change controllers.  If a Goblin you control would change controllers, instead untap it and it gains haste until end of turn.
{U/R}: Target opponent gains control of target creature. (This effect does not end at end of turn)
2/1

Weren't you the one saying the Sharpshooter interaction once per turn was too good? This is even better. That said, I really like the interaction with Gauntlets of Chaos type effects. I just wish it were more elegant. Actually, you can probably cut the first line, since it ends up being included in the second line anyway.

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?

Slave of Bolas is about a year old. Dominus of Fealty from your own link is another example of a spell that can be cast without paying red, and causes temporary control changes. Both red and blue have had and still have access to temporary control effects. This is not a handoff. It's just been played up in red, much like Disenchant effects are now more often green than white. That doesn't make Kor Sanctifiers a violation of the color pie. "Less often" doesn't mean "never".

[jro]

Slave of Bolas is about a year old. Dominus of Fealty from your own link is another example of a spell that can be cast without paying red, and causes temporary control changes. Both red and blue have had and still have access to temporary control effects. This is not a handoff. It's just been played up in red, much like Disenchant effects are now more often green than white. That doesn't make Kor Sanctifiers a violation of the color pie. "Less often" doesn't mean "never".

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:

Another card that (on the surface of it anyway) throws away card advantage for an immediate gain is Ray of Command. Since blue was the color of stealing stuff and since blue is also the color of trickiness, I can certainly understand why Ray of Command was originally a blue card. However, there’s way too much stuff that can be labeled “tricky” for us to put it all into blue. If you steal something permanently then fine, that’s blue. But to steal something temporarily, use it right now, and then give it back... that actually sounds very red. Well, it does if you buy into the whole argument about red being passionate and living in the heat of the moment (which I do).

And here's Mark Rosewater writing about it in 2004:

Finally, red has a mischievous side. While all the other colors tend to be very serious in achieving their goal, red understands the value of having fun. And it enjoys chaos. So red likes to use its magic to mess up other mages' magic. It likes to make spells not do what they're supposed to. This was the area embraced by R&D when we redistributed the color wheel. Anything that temporarily messed things up was moved into red. Long-term manipulation was kept in blue. Deflection became Shunt; Ray of Command became Threaten; etc., etc.

[Delha]

...I find that claim so outrageous that I think you must not be arguing in good faith.

Reread this thread. You've been consistently making statements, at which point I point out counterexamples, then you move the goalposts, I make new counterexamples, and so on. I let it go until now, but claiming that I'm the one not arguing in good faith is too much.

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.

If you can play a non-red deck and successfully generate an effect, then that effect is clearly not exclusive. There have been burn spells that use both red and white for a while now. We've never seen Shock for R/W, presumably because printing that spell is the same as creating a Shock that costs W. Spells with hybrid costs need to justify each potential cost against the color pie, and Dominus apparently did so.

Look at Balefire Liege. The meticulous crafting is apparent: While the creature is playable in a monowhite deck, said deck cannot trigger the burn component. It is playable in monored, but then cannot trigger the lifegain component. In contrast, you can play a monoblue deck and run Dominus to full effect. That means that R&D felt that a creature costing UUUUU and temporarily stealing creatures was not in violation of the color pie.

And as if this was not evidence enough to show that these effects have been moved to Red...

Buehler's quote is a bad example, because while he says temp control feels red to him, that isn't to say it is non-blue. Also... "I will acknowledge that 2002 is more recent than 2001, although you might notice that 2002 was eight years ago." Does that sound at all familiar?
MaRo's quote is much more explicit, and honestly, had you presented that initially, I'd have probably accepted it and moved on. I'd honestly forgotten about Dominus of Fealty and Slave of Bolas, until you made me start digging around to find more recent effects.

Finally, to get this back on track: We're talking about a creature that costs red AND blue. That means that even we accept temp control changes as exclusively red, this spell still fits the color pie because it still requires red mana to cast.

[jro]

...I find that claim so outrageous that I think you must not be arguing in good faith.

Reread this thread. You've been consistently making statements, at which point I point out counterexamples, then you move the goalposts, I make new counterexamples, and so on. I let it go until now, but claiming that I'm the one not arguing in good faith is too much.

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:

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.

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.)

If you can play a non-red deck and successfully generate an effect, then that effect is clearly not exclusive. There have been burn spells that use both red and white for a while now. We've never seen Shock for R/W, presumably because printing that spell is the same as creating a Shock that costs W. Spells with hybrid costs need to justify each potential cost against the color pie, and Dominus apparently did so.

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.

Buehler's quote is a bad example, because while he says temp control feels red to him, that isn't to say it is non-blue. Also... "I will acknowledge that 2002 is more recent than 2001, although you might notice that 2002 was eight years ago." Does that sound at all familiar?
MaRo's quote is much more explicit, and honestly, had you presented that initially, I'd have probably accepted it and moved on. I'd honestly forgotten about Dominus of Fealty and Slave of Bolas, until you made me start digging around to find more recent effects.

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.

Finally, to get this back on track: We're talking about a creature that costs red AND blue. That means that even we accept temp control changes as exclusively red, this spell still fits the color pie because it still requires red mana to cast.

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.

[Delha]

I never established any "goalposts".

Then maybe that was the problem. If you want something specific, then ask for it.

My issue here was that every time I gave you an answer, you voiced a new, previously unstated criteria. In retrospect, the No True Scotsman fallacy is probably a more fitting description than Moving the Goalposts.

I have no color-pie related objections to the current version

Then I'm willing to drop the rest of this debate. I had a lot written up, but at the end of the day, the creator has already made changes that satisfy both parties.

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.

Agreed.

[jro]

I never established any "goalposts".

Then maybe that was the problem. If you want something specific, then ask for it.

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.

My issue here was that every time I gave you an answer, you voiced a new, previously unstated criteria. In retrospect, the No True Scotsman fallacy is probably a more fitting description than Moving the Goalposts.

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.

[Delha]

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.

As per my last post: I had a lot written, then deleted it in the interest of not belaboring a point that was no longer relevant to the card being created.

Part of the deleted text was a direct response to this claim. I will answer it now, since you seem quite fixated on getting an answer. Quite simply, you have overlooked what is right in front of you. Despite having referenced my comparison to Disenchant effects repeated, you seem to each time overlooked what came immediately before it in the same sentence. Here's the quote again (emphasis in bold):

Both red and blue have had and still have access to temporary control effects. This is not a handoff. It's just been played up in red, much like Disenchant effects are now more often green than white. That doesn't make Kor Sanctifiers a violation of the color pie. "Less often" doesn't mean "never".

For the record, this was written in response to your first request that I acknowledge red as being the primary source of temporary control effects. Additionally, I have never disputed that red has the lion's share of this effect today. I have simply stated (repeatedly) that it does not have exclusive access.

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.

Thanks for this. I will say I appreciate the fact that you've remained civil through the back and forth.

That said, I'm done with this argument. I'm perfectly happy to debate something so long as I feel there is some sort of productive end goal. Haggling over whether or not an old version of a hypothetical card was acceptable or not strikes me as a moot. I'd call this a nitpick on which I've already spent more time than was likely warranted.

From here out, I intend to limit my posting in this thread to things directly relevant to the card. We've both agreed that is a valid color scheme. That's good enough for me.

[jro]

Additionally, I have never disputed that red has the lion's share of this effect today. I have simply stated (repeatedly) that it does not have exclusive access.

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.

[AmbivalentDuck]

As remarkably civil as your debate is, it has no place here and I strongly suggest moving it to PM or IM.  We're explicitly tasked with the creation of a goblin, so the differences between blue and red change of control effects are moot.  Even if we decided on a hybrid cost, see Lorwyn block for evidence that abilities are allowed to bleed across hybrid-costed cards.  In particular, shroud on Giant Solifuge.

The requirements seem to be:
1) mana cost
2) Worth playing
3) Printable power level
4) Goblin creature type
5) Goblin flavor

Goblin Braintetherer  
Creature -- Goblin Wizard/Shaman
Goblin Brainfuggler cannot change controllers.  If a Goblin you control would change controllers, instead untap it and it gains haste until end of turn.
{U/R}: Target opponent gains control of target creature you control. (This effect does not end at end of turn)
2/1

That's my earlier suggestion and I think it's perfectly printable.  Untapping for U has been printed; haste for R has been printed.  If there's any objection, it's to the cost of the activated ability which could be moved up to {U/R} {U/R} or .

[Philatio]

The sole problem I see is that it has the same problem as Sliver Overlord; you can threaten it, Ray of Command it, Your Will is not your own (scheme) it, Act of Treason it, Bringer of the Red Dawn it, Disharnony it, Mark of Mutiny it, or use overtaker on it, Sarkhan Vol it (2nd ability), Spinal Embrace, Temporary Insanity, Traitorous Instinct, Unwilling Recruit, or any blue control magic effect on it; then use its ability targeting itself, and you get to keep control of it.  Then proceed to take one goblin after another from you.  So "Goblin Brainfuggler cannot change controllers." is an essential clause not to be removed under any circumstances.  So he sits in play,  allowing you to momentarily send a goblin over to someone else until his triggered ability kicks in and gives it right back to you with haste?  Why not just have it give a goblin haste?  The replacement effect  isn't really needed at all, though I guess it keeps someone from sacrificing the goblin you give them.

In a nushell, I don't know what this is trying to do - there's too much that has to be put on it just to protect it from itself.  Is there a way to template it with less rules text and gives an obvious sense of what it's supposed to do?  Right now, it just looks like it hastes your own goblins or gives your non-goblins away  Is it supposed to be donate-with-legs?  So you play Illusions of grandeur and say, "here ya go".  There are few cases I can think of where you want to give something away for free.

[AmbivalentDuck]

then use its ability targeting itself, and you get to keep control of it.  Then proceed to take one goblin after another from you. 

Except that it reads "target opponent." 

Is there a way to template it with less rules text and gives an obvious sense of what it's supposed to do?

It does it exactly what it needs to: grant haste and prevent change of control effects.

[Delha]

Goblin Brainfuggler   
Creature--Goblin Wizard

 : Gain control of target goblin creature you do not control. That creature becomes untapped and has haste. Play this ability only once each turn and only during your turn.

2/2

I still favor this version.

[Cyberpunker]

Goblin Brainfuggler   
Creature--Goblin Wizard

 : Gain control of target goblin creature you do not control. That creature becomes untapped and has haste. Play this ability only once each turn and only during your turn.

2/2

I still favor this version.

Me too

[AmbivalentDuck]

The sad thing is that it can't take Piledrivers in the legacy goblins mirror and therefore probably wouldn't get played