Reeducate

[Ephraim]

Reeducate
{W}
Instant

Target opponent discards his or her hand, then draws that many cards.

***

I kind of built this card around the name, which is definitely white in flavour. The effect is arguably blue or black, but I don't really think it belongs in either colour. It isn't drawing cards for its controller, so it doesn't feel blue, and it isn't resuling in a net loss of cards for the opponent, so it doesn't feel black. The effect was modeled after Tolarian Winds, except instead of trading in your own hand, you're making an opponent do it. It seems, at first, like a powerful ability, but unless you know your opponent is holding something good (and it's possible that you'd know that), this really isn't going to do a whole lot of anything. Another possibility I had considered was making this a bit more complicated and interesting (and maybe higher costing) -- Look at target opponent's hand. Choose any number of cards from it. That player discards those cards, then draws that many cards. It is strictly better than the proposed idea because it can do everything the proposed card can do, but can also leave dead cards where they are, or just maintain some knowledge of the opponent's hand.

[Ephraim]

Current Wording:

Reeducate
{2}{W}
Sorcery

Discard any number of cards, then draw that many cards. Look at target opponent's hand and choose that many cards from it. That player discards those cards then draws that many cards.

[TheWellknownBrownie]

Education is still covered in Blue, even though the term reeducation feels somewhat fascist and White in flavor. I would go with Blue still based on cards like Wheel and Deal.

[Marco]

I'd say it's a one-shot version of a red creature ability: Robber Fly, Shocker.

[Matt]

It's arguable that the mechanic can have more than one explanation - you might be trading your cards in because you're being dizzied by the shocker, but you could still validly claim that you're trading your cards in because you're forced to by your opponent's reeducation camp. For that matter, there's the card Forget.

I like this card.

[Ephraim]

Having had Shocker and Robber Fly pointed out, I would not object to changing the focus of this card somewhat. I agree with Matt that I could leave it as-is and still be sufficiently on flavour, but I want to point out the other possibility I suggested -- a card that lets you look at your opponent's hand and choose which cards that player discards, then having them redraw. It's strictly better than this version, so I'd probably cost it at {W} or {W}{W}.

[TheWellknownBrownie]

I'm still not seeing the argument for White.

[Ephraim]

The argument for white is that although this uses terminology associated with blue and black (draw cards, discard cards, etc.) it doesn't actually change the status quo, like a blue or a black spell would. It executes its action with balance. You discard so many cards then you draw that many cards. Not just from a flavour stand point, but from a mechanical standpoint, this is mass discard/mass draw done white's way of doing things.

[JuJu]

This is actually really really strong. I'm surprised people are letting this through as an instant. It's particularly crippling to people who abuse bargain and necro. If this is too strong versus combo, make it a sorcery?

[Ephraim]

In addition to more flavour-based objections (in the IRC channel), it has been pointed out to me that this is really sick and wrong when imprinted on Isochron Scepter. I am going to change this to the more potent, control-oriented version of this card. I've also had arguments that it still doesn't feel white, "because white is about fair play." I said it to those objectors and I'm also going to say it here. White is not just about fair play. White is also severely fascist. White will punish you for deviant ideas. As with the previous card, this is neither black nor blue, since no real card (dis)advantage is occuring. Nor is this version red, since it is not the same sort of effect as Winds of Change.

Reeducate
{W}
Sorcery

Look at target opponent's hand. Choose any number of cards from it. That player discards those cards, then draws that many cards.

[Mindstab_Thrull]

As one of the objectors from the IRC channel to the route this card takes, I'll put it this way: While white has some single-shot effects, a huge portion of its arsenal is devoted to making sure that everyone is affected 'equally', such as Wrath of God, Armageddon, and (now) Tempest of Light. It was suggested that Ephraim's card bore a resemblance to Balance, and that there is no card advantage in it (ie, the player stays with the same number of cards). I still don't believe it feels in White's flavour, but brining up Balance gave me an idea. So, hoping this apple doesn't fall too far from Ephraim's tree, I'm pondering this:

Mindstab_Thrull's Reductating
WW
Instant
Except for the player that has the fewest cards in hand, all players discard until they have the same number of cards in hand as that player. Each player then draws cards equal to the greatest amount a player discarded this way.

Both are strong cards, but I feel this is more a white card and Ephraim's version (the Instant one) feels more blue/black/red (somewhere in there). His newer one almost begs to be Black IMO, viz. Mind Warp. Giving it a low fixed cost would allow a 'compensation' of redrawing. But that's my Cdn$0.02 worth.

[Ephraim]

That's a pretty different card than this. Also, it was mentioned previously that it's pretty easy for white to turn that into Windfall, plain and simple. I don't mind the card idea, but it ought to have its own thread.

[Mindstab_Thrull]

Well, making good card draw and keeping it White, as you and I have discussed, is not the simplest of tasks. With the wonderful glorious way White has of getting out the starting gate, dropping your hand probably won't occur until, I would suggest, around turn 4 (barring something exceptional mana in your hand), by which time everyone else can have dropped theirs. So giving White a Windfall isn't going to change the world quickly. If there's one thing I tend to find about White (besides what was already discussed), is that it is in for the long game, not the short one, unlike for example Red and Black (they like the game over quick). White doesn't have good quick spells anymore (Swords is long gone, and Disenchant is now Green), it has to wait until it gets at least three, if not four mana before it can gain any semblance of control.
So, either way, I don't see it being that much of an issue; the only issue being making it 'feel' White. And that's my only issue with Reeducate as it stands, either version. Any other colour except Green, I could see somehow; MAYBE White + another colour. But that's as 'White' as I could see it go.

[Jacob Orlove]

You could always force the caster to discard a card for each forced discard, then have both players redraw.

[Ephraim]

That has some logistical problems, J||<3. They aren't insurmountable, but they'd need to be discussed. I do like that direction for this card. It keeps the controlling aspect of the card intact, while dabbling in the equal treatment aspect of white that everybody thinks is important. The problem I see is this: What if I pick three cards from my opponent's hand and I'm only holding two cards? I end up discarding two, but drawing three. Clearly this problem becomes more pronounced the fewer cards I'm holding and the more my opponent has. I not only get to make him lose his best stuff, but I get to refill my hand in the process. I can think of a couple wordings that eliminate this problem, but I suppose the simplest one would be...

Look at target opponent's hand. Choose any number of cards from it up to the number of cards in your hand. That player discards those cards and you discard that many cards. Then each player draws that many cards.

I guess that kind of feels like Flux, the way that Mindstab Thrull's idea felt like Windfall, but this idea at least retains you looking at your opponent's hand and choosing what he discards. I know that wasn't originally part of this card idea, but if I can't go with the simplest (probably not-white) idea, I definitely prefer to keep that aspect of this card around. I don't like that this card becomes incredibly weak if you're running low on cards, though. It already yields card disadvantage and now it stands to hurt your own card quality along with that of your opponent. As it was, it traded card advantage for the possibility of knocking your opponent's quality down a little bit. Now it isn't even doing that, since it's going to hurt your quality just as much. Or should I just leave off the clause(s) that prevent you from gaining cards from this, when your opponent has many more cards in hand than you do?

[Jacob Orlove]

Just make the discards for you part of the cost (you'd have to choose how many of their cards to hit before seeing their hand). It's risky, but high reward. Remember, you're trading your worst cards for average cards, and forcing them to trade their best cards for average ones. That's winning twice in the name of "fairness".

[Nibble]

What if I pick three cards from my opponent's hand and I'm only holding two cards?

Instead of 'draw this many cards,' word it more like 'each player draws cards equal to the number they discarded.'

Also, I think Jacob's idea is pretty neat, and it would be very easy to word if you made it an X spell (which I think could actually be a pretty good cost for the effect):

{W}
As an additional cost to play ~this~, discard X cards.
Look at target opponent's hand and choose up to X cards from it. That player discards those cards, then draws that many cards.
Draw X cards.


The problems I see here are twofold: first, flavorwise, we've been looking to make it symmetrical for White's sake, and while this technically is symmetrical, it isn't as terribly obvious as White usually is. However, making the card perfectly symmetrical (opponent gets to look at your hand and choose) would make for a pretty unplayable card, so I don't mind as much.

The other problem is, power-wise, with the discard as an additional cost, the best situation you want to use this in - vs. control, holding a hand of good stuff - is the one that'll probably end up the worst, as you get your spell countered for massive card disadvantage. Making the discard part of the effect rather than cost fixes this, but you end up with a much worse wording.

[Mindstab_Thrull]

I'm starting to like this version now, where both players discard cards, then draw that many. Sure, you say which cards from BOTH players get ditched, but now it's feeling more White. This isn't to say I didn't like the idea before; just that the colour for it felt wrong. Now it seems better. If you're concerned about having less cards than the opponent, you might want to keep in mind two things: Land Tax, and the fact that (as I said previously) most white decks can't drop their hand quickly. Making it splashable, however, makes it more likely to see play in other colours, where the hand CAN be ditched quickly, so if you made it eg WW for mana cost, that would make it less likely to occur. As for Nibble's suggestion, it can be an X spell (of sorts) without having X in the mana cost; simply have X be the number of cards you discard.

WW
As an additional cost to play ~, discard X cards.
Look at target opponent's hand, and choose X cards from it. He or she discards those cards, then you and that player both draw X cards.

.. or something like that. Although the more I think about it, the more it feels like it should be a Sorcery instead of an Instant. It's one of those 'intuitive' things, like what colour the card should be. I guess that's partly because of cards like Mind Twist, Balance, and most cards that have (or can have) a BIG effect tend to be Sorceries.

[Ephraim]

I don't like making it an additional cost, but having you discard first works as part of the effect, too. That way, you have the risk of choosing a number first, but you aren't risking the spell getting countered. Nibble, I would also prefer not to have be part of the mana cost, since this is still only somewhat better than Flux.

Discard any number of cards. Look at target opponent's hand and choose that many cards from it. That player discards those cards. Then you and that player each draw that many cards.

I'm going to cost this at 2W and have it be a sorcery. That makes it comparable to Flux, except instead of drawing an extra card (Flux replaces itself), you get to make the discard decisions for your opponent. I guess you also have to trade in the same number of cards, which is a small penalty.

[Nibble]

What happens when you discard more cards than your opponent has in hand?
Say you have 5 cards in hand, and your opponent has 3.

Discard any number of cards.
Okay, I'll discard 5.

Look at target opponent's hand and choose that mant cards from it.
I do as much as possible, which is choosing all 3.

That player discards those cards.
Okay.

Then you and that player each draw that many cards.
'That many'? What does this refer to? Is it 3 or 5?

[LordHomerCat]

I had the same thought as Nibble.  How about:

Discard X cards. Look at target opponent's hand and choose X cards in it. That player discards those cards. Then you and that player each draw X cards.

[Ephraim]

LordHomerCat, I don't think that wording works either, because X has to be specifically defined to be a usable placeholder variable. If I change the order of the effects a little bit, I may arrive at something suitably simple, but with the same effect.

Discard any number of cards then draw that many cards. Look at target opponent's hand and choose that many cards from it. That player discards those cards then draws that many cards.

This wording is slightly better, since you get to see your new hand before looking at your opponent's hand and making any decisions regarding it. It isn't a huge advantage and I don't think that the majority of players are going to care about that subtle change.

[Ephraim]

24 Hour Clock

[Nibble]

I'd like to see a comma before 'then' in the first sentence, because I think it makes it flow better - mostly, not having two full actions without any punctuation between them. The number of 'that many's is a bit high, but it's probably fine.

[Ephraim]

Oh, you're right. I thought I was just mimicking WotC's style, but they put the comma there on similar cards. I was aware of the high incedence of "that many," but it's a tough card to template. I don't see an easy way around it without some clunky wording defining X.

[Superman]

This would pwn with underworld dreams.

[Matt]

Closed and added.[/color]