Impostor Contract From Below

[andrewpate]

Impostor Contract From Below

Sorcery
Target opponent discards his or her hand and draws 7 cards.

Forged Signature

Sorcery
Target opponent discards his or her hand and draws 7 cards.

A buddy and I were discussing whether Impostor Professor Oak from the Pokemon TCG would be acceptable in Magic.  Is a reverse Contract okay?  Compare to Wheel and Deal, which costs for a cantrip (costing ) and hitting any number of players (adding at least ).  Should this be blue, or possibly red?  Or is it okay in black?  I would like it to be black for flavor reasons, but I think that blue or red would be somewhat more appropriate in terms of the color wheel.

[GrandpaBelcher]

I like it!  Very reject rare.  Something to build around.  BlackVise.dec, here I come!

[jro]

This is not actually what Impostor Professor Oak did.  IPO made them shuffle their hand into their library, not discard it.  (When Pokemon TCG first came out, I looked at the card list and built the IPO combo deck, not realizing until a few days later that IPO wasn't a discard effect.)

Is this supposed to have the flavor of being a contract or a deal?  Black cards that are flavored that way usually involve payments of life these days (replacing the ante that was part of Contract and Darkpact, for example).  Without that idea of a trade off, I don't see why this card should be black instead of blue, which has the mercantile theme and more draw effects.  Personally, I'd make it something like "Tutor for a card and reveal it.  An opponent chooses whether or not you get to keep it.  If you keep it, they can discard and draw seven."

As written, I think this might be fairly costed, but I really wonder what the point of it is.  Wheel and Deal already does this effect if Johnny wants to use it for something.  And this card also acts a little bit like Glimpse the Unthinkable #5-8, which is something to think about.  I guess it's conceivable that in the right environment the card could see play as a sideboard strategy (like One with Nothing did), but it's clearly not much of a Spike card.

[andrewpate]

Right, I know it's not exactly the same as Impostor Professor Oak.  I just thought that the reverse Contract was more interesting than that card's actual effect.

As for the card's power:  no, it's not a Spike card.  It's much more like One With Nothing.  I think that it might be good as a bad Glimpse the Unthinkable, but with its own problems, as well.  Also:  Wheel and Deal is very bad, and does not preclude a similar card from being made in my opinion.

[Anusien]

What if instead of making a reverse Contract, you made a reverse Diminishing Returns?

[Titanium Dragon]

What if instead of making a reverse Contract, you made a reverse Diminishing Returns?

While it would mill more (17), it'd probably be worse. One nice thing about the contract spell is that you could potentially cast it several times in a turn, thus "denying" them some of those 7 cards. Additionally, the imposter Contract from Below has the major advantage of turn 1, Imposter Contract, which gives your opponent no card advantage at all and has effectively milled them for 7. It furthermore has the advantage that you've effectively given them a new opening hand, whhich means they have a higher chance of being screwed - they could draw that hand of 6 lands plus a spell, or six spells and a land, and be screwed out of the game. On the downside, it also compensates for any mulligans they've taken.

Most likely, an impositer Diminishing Returns would cost 2UU or so; while it would mill a lot, by the time you have the mana to cast it, they're likely to gain +3 CA from it, and possibly even more. Maybe if it was cost at 2U it'd be moderately more playable, as it'd be likely to give less CA. Even so, you're probably not going to resolve it twice in a game.

One thing that could make such cards more interesting would be making them instants, which might (rarely) enable them to act as situational discard.

[OfficeShredder]

Personally, I'd make it something like "Tutor for a card and reveal it.  An opponent chooses whether or not you get to keep it.  If you keep it, they can discard and draw seven."

this essentially reads "Your opponent chooses - do nothing, or win the game"

[Darkenslight]

Add the 'You can't play this on your first two turns.'  Seriously.  This is a dangerous card.  +6 CA for one mana?  I'll happily play four in every format but Vintage.

[diopter]

Add the 'You can't play this on your first two turns.'  Seriously.  This is a dangerous card.  +6 CA for one mana?  I'll happily play four in every format but Vintage.

+6 CA? Only for your opponent.
It's a very interesting card. Like others have said, it can serve to make them take a forced mulligan while milling their library for 7 - but you know what, they still get seven cards! And that's the best this card can do, while the risk associated with it is very, very high. It's a bad rare, but not a useless one. In short, it's what One with Nothing should have been.

[asmoranomardicodais]

Has anyone read what Wheel and Deal does recently?

[The Atog Lord]

Yes. The original poster clearly did, which is why he mentioned it in the first post.

[asmoranomardicodais]

Yes. The original poster clearly did, which is why he mentioned it in the first post.

Ah, missed that. However, there's nothing about this card that's much more interesting than Wheel and Deal.

[andrewpate]

24H?

[Matt]

24H?

1. Not with that name, silly.
2. I would prefer this at 1B, if only because black seems to have more ways to abuse this effect than blue.

[andrewpate]

1.  Fair enough.  Anyone have a good suggestion?
2.  What do people think about this?  I like it at largely because it's an effect that gets much, much worse as the game progresses.  On turn 1, it basically tells them that they can't take a mulligan this game.  On turn 5, it's like a gimp Wheel of Fortune.  Do others feel that it's too ripe for abuse?  Following it up with a turn 2 Castigate is one of the strongest plays I can think of, and that doesn't really sound that abusive.

[Anusien]

seems fine for a reject rare to me.

[Matt]

I was thinking 1B because black already has cards like Megrim etc., so there is SOME combo potential here, all in one color. It's not like B or 1B is going to make or break this card's prospects for tournament play - this is obviously going to be casual-only, and there's no reason to risk juicing up casual decks until they're broken. The only thing worse than a broken deck is one that is usually awful, but is sometimes broken.

[Titanium Dragon]

I was thinking 1B because black already has cards like Megrim etc., so there is SOME combo potential here, all in one color. It's not like B or 1B is going to make or break this card's prospects for tournament play - this is obviously going to be casual-only, and there's no reason to risk juicing up casual decks until they're broken. The only thing worse than a broken deck is one that is usually awful, but is sometimes broken.

By the time you can use this with Megrim, it is already late enough in the game that your opponent will be getting the card advantage out of the card, and, given Megrim's cost, its hard for me to imagine it dealing more than 8-10 damage, and oftentimes it wouldn't do anything at all. Its not like Megrim is a good card, and it isn't like this is a strong card, and that you can rarely deal 8-10 damage while giving your opponent a full new hand is hardly tragic. Moreover this card is antisynergistic with other discard, because it undoes the hand emptying you've done -and- probably decreases the damage taken from Megrim, which makes it all the harder to fit into Megrim.dec.

[Matt]

It's nothing specifically dangerous I had in mind, and it certainly COULD be printed at . I guess I'm saying, it just seems a lot more risky to put it at one mana than two - it exponentially increases the likelihood that this will be another Donate. Maybe that's only going from 0.0001% to 0.001% but that's not something we can know.

[andrewpate]

Actually, one of the biggest problems I had when I built my casual Megrim deck years ago was that I would empty my opponent's hand and be unable to make him or her discard any more cards.  Each thing would just get drawn and played, and I'd have like 3 Megrims on the table and no way to do anything.  I don't think that this card will be playable, but I do think that it would be a solid inclusion in casual Megrim decks.  Those decks often run Dark Ritual, and how about turn 1 Ritual, Megrim, turn 2 this card, then Duress the new hand?  That's one way to potentially use this card, but I don't think that it is really abusive.

I'm fine leaving it at for now, but there's still the issue of a name.  Should we attempt to play off the idea of forcing the opponent into a contract of some kind, since black card draw almost always uses that flavor?

[The Atog Lord]

How about "Forged Signature" ?

[andrewpate]

Great idea.  I was trying to come up with something that didn't sound too technical or real-world ("Third Party Check," "Unconscionable Contract," etc.).  I think that really hits it.

Okay, now 24h clock.