Mechanics, Flavor, and the color Red

[Machinus]

Before "modern" R&D, and even before "block" design, magic had a strong relationship with a color pie. Contemporary design theories classify the old color pie as either mechanically imbalanced or flavorfully contradictory, but it was a good enough idea to last quite a while as a standard reference for card design. The mechanics arguments are much stronger because they lead to game balance; flavor is a matter of 'interpretation' anyway, which is more difficult to systematize.

In this early time, it is my opinion that the definition of the colors was still being created and modified. I think this only stopped happening significantly after Destiny, when much more attention was paid to the standards and processes of R&D. Alpha presented an interpretation of the "color" of magic (not Magic), and there was a secondary period of development for some time after (about five years). Not until "modern" design (which began with Invasion and has since become quite precise) was there a basic redefinition of the colors; this coincided with Invasion and the multicolor block. (You'll notice that this skips the year of masques; I can't really decide if that block has much influence on the color pie at all; it doesn't have much on 1.x, 1.5, or 1.0). This started off mildly, but became very forceful with the creation of eighth edition.

In the past couple of years, R&D has taken drastic measures to redefine the color pie and redistribute abilities to different colors. The focus of this shift has been the historic overpowering of blue, generally from a flavor standpoint, and specifically from a power level one. But this isn't about blue.

I think there is a lot to be said about Red that has not been addressed. There are mechanics and flavors that were not designed or developed consistently with the color pie (modern or classic). Red still has a lot of definition to go.

A good way to understand the evolution of the understanding of the color pie over time is to look at cycles, or just really similar effects in moer than one color. These provide us with a comparison of both power level and of the distribution of abilities.

Everyone knows the alpha cycle is ridiculous, with healing salve for white and recall for blue. This cycle was never redone, (presumably) both because modern magic has changed so drastically from Alpha that it would be unrecognizable, but also because it actually took some time for magic to get to this point (recall was retired in 1994; bolt was retired in 1997; ritual did not leave magic until 2001).

There are other cards that don't make sense. In Mirage, a pseudocycle of four card-disadvantage tutors was printed, and red was left out. The reasoning for this was that red is a color of "chaos," and tutoring effects were out of flavor. I don't think that makes a lot of sense, but what's important is that neither did R&D. The next time they made a tutor cycle, they gave sorceries to red, and it got Burning Wish. In Saga, a pseudocycle of four colored-mana producing legendary lands was printed (red did not get one). I never read any reasoning about this, but it's clearly not in line with Red's modern identity as a fast-mana color.

Occurences like these represent a confusion and ambiguity possessed by red that has not yet been resolved by R&D. How should this issue handled in the CCF?

[Jacob Orlove]

In Saga, a pseudocycle of four colored-mana producing legendary lands was printed (red did not get one).

Technically, red got Shivan Gorge, which is mechanically unrelated (aside from being a legendary land), but shares the same theme of (location name) (place name) that we see in Tolarian Academy, Gaea's Cradle, and the others. Black was also pretty hosed by this cycle, though.

Don't forget that red was originally fire and earth to blue's air and water. Earth and Stone played a huge role in red's flavor, one that I think should be restored to the color.

[Machinus]

I know that Gorge is supposed to be part of that cycle, but the others all make more than one colored mana, whereas Gorge makes . It's not even close. Even Phyrexian Tower is a really neat card that has multiple uses.

Red was often defined in contrast to blue, but now that blue has been redefined, these boundaries no longer make any sense. Red needs new definitions of flavor and ability.

[Nazdakka]

In Saga, a pseudocycle of four colored-mana producing legendary lands was printed (red did not get one).

Technically, red got Shivan Gorge, which is mechanically unrelated (aside from being a legendary land), but shares the same theme of (location name) (place name) that we see in Tolarian Academy, Gaea's Cradle, and the others. Black was also pretty hosed by this cycle, though.

Don't forget that red was originally fire and earth to blue's air and water. Earth and Stone played a huge role in red's flavor, one that I think should be restored to the color.

But where do the flavours of Earth and Stone take you mechanically? Both are very defensive and static substances, they don't fit with Red's way of thinking. Red isn't a subtle colour, it likes blowing things up, not building things to last. Red's all about short-termism, but rocks are very lasting things. You can only go so far with throwing rocks at people.

[parallax]

Could we get some more examples (less than ten years old) of how red's definition is confused or ambiguous? The Mirage tutors and Saga lands were made before the modern color pie was invented. Obviously, if the Tutors were printed now, Mystical Tutor would fetch only instants, and Pragmatic Tutor (), would fetch sorceries. The red <-> sorceries link has been established. I think R&D's current philosophy on red is pretty well spelled out in Seeing Red.

Wiards prints red Earth and Stone flavored cards quite a lot. They just involve red throwing stones at people instead of building stone walls.

[Machinus]

Mark's article doesn't talk about mechanics at all, just flavor. It's the abilities that need definition, not the flavor.

[Matt]

But where do the flavours of Earth and Stone take you mechanically? Both are very defensive and static substances, they don't fit with Red's way of thinking. Red isn't a subtle colour, it likes blowing things up, not building things to last. Red's all about short-termism, but rocks are very lasting things. You can only go so far with throwing rocks at people.

Well, maybe red SHOULD be able and willing to build stuff. Wall of Stone was always very popular and fitting.

[parallax]

Wall of Stone

Creature -- Wall
0/8
Defender

Fixed.

[nineisnoone]

Occurences like these represent a confusion and ambiguity possessed by red that has not yet been resolved by R&D. How should this issue handled in the CCF?

I guess, I don't *really* see red as being filled with confusion and ambiguity. I think they are probably one of the more well-defined colors, and generally have been. I think they don't get fleshed out as much.

But anyways I always love color wheel discussions, so these are the mechanics that go with the colors

Green - Aggro-Tempo.
 - *(New mechanic) Forestcover - (If ~this~ has Forestcover, ~this~ cannot be the target of spells or abilities.  Whenever a permanent you control becomes the target of a spell or ability, ~this~ loses Forestcover and gains "whenever ~this~ becomes the target of a spell or ability sacrifice ~this~" for the turn.)  This is basically to help green weenie creatures early, making them untargettable until you are able to break their cover.  However, once cover has been blown, they are easy pickings. Text is a little funny, but that's what I came up with.
 - *Land Destruction - Should be taken from Red. Red can share it, but Green should be the best at it. I felt that this would give them a control type element to the color which it sorely lacks. It also fits thematically that (while Red may be more "destructive" generally, Green should be the best at controlling terrain).
 - Recursion
Red - Aggro-Combo.
 - Creatures with Haste
 - Burn - Probably the best type of removal (control) for Aggro decks since typically it won't be a dead draw if there aren't creatures around since it can hit the player.
 - Mini-Combos - for example, Storm and other cards like Coal Stoker or Seething Song
Black - Control-Combo.
 - *Edict-type board control - With White getting targeted removal, I'd like Black start moving more towards Edict style removal.  This would also get around (my suggested) resurgence of Protection and Forestcover mechanic. Targeting a player and forcing them to sacrifice their creature also has a nice corrupting flair to it that I think fits flavor-wise.
 - Discard - In my opinion, a really strong mechanic when it is in it's targeted form. With Black losing out to White on removal, I think this opens up room for stronger discard spells.
 - Comboy Graveyard cards
Blue - Control.
 - Bounce
 - Counters
 - Card Draw
White - Aggro-Control.
 - Creatures with Protection - Prots are annoying, good, and white probably will have the best (Red, Black, I think it would also make sense for them to have White)
 - *Targeted board control - I really think that White should become the creature removal color of choice. It needs solid board control elements for it to have staple control elements.
 - *Removed from game

The last point for each of the 3 colors is an "area" that can be their specialty. Green and Black both will capitalize on the graveyard, but Green will be more a persistent return to hand type interaction, whereas Black should get more combo type effects when they use the graveyard (like reanimation for example). Blue gets "card draw" which makes their area the deck, and Red gets mini-combos where their "area" becomes their hand/the stack. White has "removed from game," which they tend to do a lot of. Perhaps which a more focusing touch it can become an area they utilize.