Unwanted Spoils

[Shmn]

Unwanted Spoils
1U
Instant
If target spell or permanent would be put into a graveyard this turn, instead put it into target opponent's hand.
"I think you dropped something."

The idea of this card is to allow more diverse use for cards like Word Of Command and Mindslaver. Currently there are no cards (at least to my knowledge) that allow cards to be put into the hand of a player that does not own them. The card could also be used to avoid certain cards such as Academy Rector from reaching the graveyard or manipulate an opponent's hand size for one's own benefit (albeit rarely of much use).

Having only an opponent targettable prevents the card from being used as a simple buyback spell. Since there is no counter or cantrip effect, the manacost seems appropriate for it's relatively narrow use. I admit that this card's applications are rare, and as such another effect or a more allowing wording could be considered. What do you think?


Current version

Unwanted Gift
4UU
Instant
Target opponent gains control of target spell you control.
"I think you dropped something."

[zeus-online]

Wizards dont want people to hold other players cards in their hands...this is way too confusing.

There are several problems with it in general:
1) The opponent might forget to give you the card back. This has happened to me often with enchant creature cards in limited, this card would be even worse.
2) Your opponent may accidently damage your card, not necessarily on purpose.

Other then that i kinda like the card, but wizards would never print anything remotely like this.

/Zeus

[chrissss]

I agree with zeus. I like the idea, but I would refuse to give my opponent a card, especially in Vintage. Allready now I hate it when opponents use my creatures or something, I dont like it.

what about removing it from the game or something and putting it aside, instead of your hand?

[Shmn]

Fair enough.

what about removing it from the game or something and putting it aside, instead of your hand?

That is actually a good idea. How about something like this:

If target spell or permanent would be put into a graveyard this turn, instead remove it from the game. As long as it remains removed, target opponent may play it as though it were in his or her hand.

With this wording, however, it would not be possible to play the card with Word Of Command. It would still work for Mindslaver, though.

[Illissius]

If the goal is to have it work with Word of Command, I could see something like:

Search target opponent's library for a card. That player puts the card into his or her hand, then shuffles his or her library. At end of turn, the player reveals his or her hand and discards all cards with the same name as that card.

That way it's also a sort of conditional Cabal Therapy for sorceries, or a tapped out opponent.

[Shmn]

If the goal is to have it work with Word of Command, I could see something like:

Search target opponent's library for a card. That player puts the card into his or her hand, then shuffles his or her library. At end of turn, the player reveals his or her hand and discards all cards with the same name as that card.

That way it's also a sort of conditional Cabal Therapy for sorceries, or a tapped out opponent.

The goal is to give the opponent an unadvantageous card, which people rarely play, and force him or her to play it. Would it abide by the rules if I added this to the end of my suggested wording:

That card can be chosen as though it were in his or her hand.

[Illissius]

The goal is to give the opponent an unadvantageous card, which people rarely play, and force him or her to play it. Would it abide by the rules if I added this to the end of my suggested wording:

That card can be chosen as though it were in his or her hand.

It would work, I think, but it would be ugly.

Honestly, we're probably better off just slicing through this Gordian knot, rather than constructing a maze of kludges around it:

As an additional cost to play ~, remove a card in your hand from the game.
Target opponent must play the card if able. (That player must use mana in his or her mana pool and mana that can be drawn from lands to pay for it.)

Alternately:

Target opponent gains control of target spell you control.

In either case, I don't think it would be a good idea to cost these cheaply, because they can do some very nasty things. Phage and Final Fortune are only the first which come to mind.

[Shmn]

The goal is to give the opponent an unadvantageous card, which people rarely play, and force him or her to play it. Would it abide by the rules if I added this to the end of my suggested wording:

That card can be chosen as though it were in his or her hand.

It would work, I think, but it would be ugly.

Honestly, we're probably better off just slicing through this Gordian knot, rather than constructing a maze of kludges around it:

As an additional cost to play ~, remove a card in your hand from the game.
Target opponent must play the card if able. (That player must use mana in his or her mana pool and mana that can be drawn from lands to pay for it.)

Alternately:

Target opponent gains control of target spell you control.

In either case, I don't think it would be a good idea to cost these cheaply, because they can do some very nasty things. Phage and Final Fortune are only the first which come to mind.

I don't want Word Of Command built in, but your second suggestion sounds good. The name of the card would in that case be better as "Unwanted Gift" instead of spoils which was more suiting when the spell could target permanents. Obviously the mana cost needs to be revised aswell. I'm not sure if 3UU or 4UU is more reasonable, but I'll go with the latter for now. Possible brokenness for 5-6 mana requiring another card is not unthinkable, although another option would be to include a drawback allowing the casting cost to be decreased - for example making only say white and blue spells targettable while only costing 3-4 mana.

[Matt]

You know, this doesn't feel blue at all. This definitely fits in with red's "prankster" theme.

Goblin Buzzer Handshake

Instant
As an additional cost to play Goblin Buzzer Handshake, remove a card in your hand from the game.
Target player may play the removed card. The next time that player could play the removed card, if he or she doesn't, the removed card deals 6 damage to that player.

Note it can also be used on yourself if you just want to take 6 damage for some reason. They exist (King Darien for example)!

[zeus-online]

I like the new version ALOT, maybe cost it at 2UU or 3U instead?

This card would definetly get played in some wacko fun casual deck.

/Zeus

[Matt]

Blue is like the opposite of wacko fun. :<

[parallax]

I like the new version ALOT, maybe cost it at 2UU or 3U instead?

This card would definetly get played in some wacko fun casual deck.

/Zeus

Just like Donate, right?

I remember someone at Wizards saying that Donate was a mistake because it was only useful if it was doing something ridiculous (like giving your opponent an Illusions of Grandeur).

[Illissius]

I remember someone at Wizards saying that Donate was a mistake because it was only useful if it was doing something ridiculous (like giving your opponent an Illusions of Grandeur).

I remember that too (it was MaRo). Which is why I suggested it needs a higher mana cost. Five, maybe six.

[zeus-online]

That was why i didnt suggest a casting cost lower then four mana.

Oh, and i really do love blue both in casual magic and in competetive play.

Btw. The trix combo wasnt really what "broke" the combo....give me 4 mana vaults, 4 rituals, 4 necropotences, 4 demonic consultations and 4 vampiric tutor and i could make a broken deck in almost any enviroment.

/Zeus

[parallax]

It's not that Donate was a "broken" card. It's just that Donate was only played when it did something broken. Did anyone build casual decks based around Donate-ing cards? Maybe, but mostly Donate was only played when it would win the game. I don't see this card seeing play in any deck that's not trying to give either Phage the Untouchable or Final Fortune to their opponent.

MaRo's biggest complaint about Donate wasn't power-level, anyway. His problem was that with Donate around, R&D had to constantly keep vigilant about printing cards with drawbacks. They wouldn't be able to print some powerful cards with strong drawbacks for fear of them being Donate-ed.

Why make a card that will only see play with Final Fortune and would prevent people from making cards like Progenitor's Promise (http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=29177.0)?

Edit: Progenitor's Promise wouldn't actually break this, but it's easy to see something similar causing problems.

[Matt]

MaRo's biggest complaint about Donate wasn't power-level, anyway. His problem was that with Donate around, R&D had to constantly keep vigilant about printing cards with drawbacks. They wouldn't be able to print some powerful cards with strong drawbacks for fear of them being Donate-ed.

If you guys would pay attention to my suggestion, you'd notice that it suffers from no such drawback. >

[LordHomerCat]

That 3 mana red version seems like it could get played in the lesser formats as a mediocre Burn spell (very efficient on damage, but costs you an extra red card) against people who aren't playing your colors, since it requires them to pay the costs for it.  A possible fix is to let them play it for free, but then you have to make it for opponents only, which leaves the whole Donate thing, except its like a Punisher donate, IE terrible.  Giving them the choice to play it (albeit with a drawback if they don't) will lead to a Browbeat style card, where you never get what you want (if they have plenty of life and the card will make them lose, they won't play it, and if they dont have any life, you might as well just Bolt them instead).

[Matt]

Gving the opponent a way not to play the card is basically the only way to avoid this just being another Donate.

[Illissius]

It's not that Donate was a "broken" card. It's just that Donate was only played when it did something broken. Did anyone build casual decks based around Donate-ing cards? Maybe, but mostly Donate was only played when it would win the game. I don't see this card seeing play in any deck that's not trying to give either Phage the Untouchable or Final Fortune to their opponent.

MaRo's biggest complaint about Donate wasn't power-level, anyway. His problem was that with Donate around, R&D had to constantly keep vigilant about printing cards with drawbacks. They wouldn't be able to print some powerful cards with strong drawbacks for fear of them being Donate-ed.

Why make a card that will only see play with Final Fortune and would prevent people from making cards like Progenitor's Promise (http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=29177.0)?

Edit: Progenitor's Promise wouldn't actually break this, but it's easy to see something similar causing problems.

If it costs 6 mana, I have a hard time seeing how it could broken with any card, even one which said - You lose the game. And it still has fun applications in casual, like giving your opponent an Apocalypse, Overlaid Terrain, or whatever. (Which was the original intent of Donate as well - Lord of the Pit, Force of Nature, and such. Giving it a higher cost removes the possibility of tournament brokenness, while leaving the casual potential intact.)