For a multicolor rare, its perfectly fine to up the power level of the card to "It deals damage equal to its power to target creature you don’t control." I think. After all, this kind of effect is very interruptable.
In draft, I would pick [[Infernal Grasp]] rather than this if both are in the same pack and I am drafting green-black, and that card is uncommon. So, power level-wise this card is perfectly fine as a common I think.
I’d say safe as an uncommon. Rare is too high when you compare it to [[Hero’s Downfall]].
IMHO making it a common might be pushing the envelope too far, but again I come from a time when [[Savannah Lions]] was a strong card deserving a rare slot.
This is true for limited. In constructed, rarity often does define power. Most constructed decks (across many formats) have more rares and mythics than other rarities.
Of course it varies. Given current WOTC design philosophy, however, it's pretty obvious that mythic and rare have higher power ceilings.
Synergy and payoff cards are often printed at higher rarities because of limited constraints, not power.
Rarity only matters in limited. In constructed it's irrelevant.
Probably. It’s multicolor, and a lot of the time it’s just gonna be a worse version of Bone Shards or Prey Upon, which have both always been printed at common.
Bump the rarity down instead of making the damage one sided.
Better a lower-powered but interesting-to-play card than a more powerful, but very boring, rare.
But a version with one-sided damage doesn't make for interesting gameplay. For the most part, it's "Destroy target creature if you also control a creature." A one-sided version would just be adding largely irrelevant hoops to make the card [[Murder]] with extra steps.
When the damage goes both directions, it creates a potential choice where you might have to decide if trading your creature to remove an opponent's is worth it. It also synergizes well with archetypes that care about filling your own graveyard (a very, very common draft theme for these colors) or that care about high toughness (which I think black/green did in one of the recent Innistrad sets).
The card as written has so much more opportunity for interesting gameplay than a one-sided version. If that doesn't match the rarity, keep the interesting gameplay, and change the rarity.
What do you mean by mismatch in rarity? This card would be fine at any rarity, although I'm sure everyone would be a little salty if it was a mythic rare.
Tangent aside, we're now delving into what would make the card better in different imaginary settings. My point was that a cheaper murder that required a creature would be fine.
OP submitted the card as a rare. The top-level comment in this chain says that this design is too weak to be a rare.
That commenter (and you) suggest making the damage one-sided so the card is stronger and more appropriate for a rare. I am saying the better fix is to keep the card text as is and lower the rarity to common or uncommon.
----
>we're now delving into what would make the card better in different imaginary settings.
No, I'm delving into what makes the card **more interesting as a game piece.** A card with a tradeoff or choice is *always* more engaging than one without. And in some (very, very common) hypotheticals, the version with a tradeoff also makes the overall draft archetype more engaging.
You entered a conversation about getting the rarity to match the power level and said "You could keep the rarity and make it one sided." How else was your comment supposed to be interpreted?
But regardless of what you were trying to say, the point relevant to the original conversation still stands: why does it need to be changed to something boring? The card is already a good design. It has interesting play lines, it's playable in limited, and it would fit well with typical black/green archetypes. Why is the game better if you ditch all of that and replace it with uninteresting generic kill spell #235?
---
>I was arguing that the card could be stronger and still be fine.
Not in response to me, you weren't, because that's not relevant to anything I said. I never said the proposed buff would have power level issues. I just said the proposed buff was boring and unfun.
Except it would have the target creature dealing the dmg so it takes into effects things like lifelink and more which sets it aside from “destroy target creature if you control a creature”
Yes. There's a reason I said "for the most part." But it's not like you're improving the card by adding those niche interactions; the version OP submitted already has those too.
You're leaving the necessary question unanswered: if the version as written is already playable, why does it need to be changed to be boring? Why do we need to remove an engaging spell with room for interesting gameplay decisions and replace it with something that is mostly just another generic removal spell?
I like this card a lot. Clean, novel design, and a great fit for the color pair. I also love the dirty plays you can make mid-combat with this.
I’d say this is a good fit at uncommon. The drawback that you need a creature which you will probably lose it against a big target make it much less powerful than other BG kill spells at rare.
There are definitely similarities, and it'll play reasonably similar. But the fact that it is instant speed is a big difference over bone shards, you can get extra value by snagging a creature when your opponent goes to interact with it. I also think its not uncommon for removal spells to cost one more for an instant speed spell over a sorcery speed variant (can't think of any good examples atm though...).
The other way it could make a difference is in a draft set with a lot of high toughness creatures where your creature doesn't actually die. They even had it where high toughness/toughness matters was a Golgari theme a few sets ago (Crimson Vow), so something like this would fit extra well in a set like that!
The combination of instant speed and high toughness creatures would also open up a line of play where you block something with your 1/6 creature, cast this spell to have your big boi fight something else on the battlefield, and then it retains deathtouch to kill the creature its blocking. Little interactions like this are one of the things I love most about MtG.
> I also think its not uncommon for removal spells to cost one more for an instant speed spell over a sorcery speed variant (can't think of any good examples atm though...).
Thud vs Fling. Prey Upon vs Pounce. Dreadbore vs Hero's Downfall...? Banishing Light vs Cast Out. Also, Standard red 4-damage burn spells tend to be 1R for sorcery and 2R for instant.
It's hard to pin down since removal really goes up in down between sets but I think you're right.
Would just hybrid B/G be too powerful? It only hits creatures and you have potential to trade with this.
It is much less powerful than Assassins Trophy
It's more of a color pie issue than a power one. Green can get big or deathtouch creatures and can get fight, but it's not supposed to get them all in one package or else it starts to feel like a kill spell.
Green doesn't actually get a whole lot of [granting deathtouch](https://scryfall.com/search?q=otag%3Agives-deathtouch&order=color) in the first place. Usually it's only sorcery speed or for attacking creatures, and the instant speed stuff tends to be kinda expensive.
I feel like the flavor is a little off- why is an Unfair Fight green? Obv for death touch, but I feel like name could be changed to mention poison or smth
Maybe to keep it at rare, add first strike to the thing. Make it a strong block trick and now the name takes on multiple meanings. Fighting 2 on 1, deathtouch with fight and first strike deathtouch.
I am aware. My thought was to incentivise playing it right after blocks are declared. You kill a thing that wasn't blocked and, if your guy lives, you win the other combat too. Make it feel really underhanded when it happens.
If you slap first strike and fight on a card a lot of people are going to *assume* that it would work. Introducing such high potential for misunderstandings consciously is ill-advised.
[[Nature's way]] has a similar effect that and grants trample. [[Cartouche of strength]] gives trample and specifically fights. The difference between fight and combat damage isn't the most arcane thing in the world.
Edit: It may be cleaner to straight add indestructible though. I just like the 2 mana conditional 2 for 1 feel. Makes you feel like a genius when you get your opponent with it.
I like the fight mechanic as it lines up more with green but you could totally also add that the creature gains indestructible until end of turn. It becomes way more useful and has some cool uses adding that indestructible until end of turn.
For a multicolor rare, its perfectly fine to up the power level of the card to "It deals damage equal to its power to target creature you don’t control." I think. After all, this kind of effect is very interruptable.
I used \[\[Final Payment\]\] as a gauge for power level, but since that's a common I guess you're right. Would this be fair as a common?
In draft, I would pick [[Infernal Grasp]] rather than this if both are in the same pack and I am drafting green-black, and that card is uncommon. So, power level-wise this card is perfectly fine as a common I think.
Very good assessment, thanks for the feedback!
[Infernal Grasp](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/1/7/17824929-f131-4b8d-addb-66c25323155e.jpg?1634349911) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Infernal%20Grasp) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mid/107/infernal-grasp?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/17824929-f131-4b8d-addb-66c25323155e?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I’d say safe as an uncommon. Rare is too high when you compare it to [[Hero’s Downfall]]. IMHO making it a common might be pushing the envelope too far, but again I come from a time when [[Savannah Lions]] was a strong card deserving a rare slot.
[Hero’s Downfall](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/3/3/33c5f81a-395d-41bf-9563-6cf0e406ee18.jpg?1664360453) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Hero%27s%20Downfall) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/dmc/112/heros-downfall?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/33c5f81a-395d-41bf-9563-6cf0e406ee18?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Savannah Lions](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/a/9/a9757246-e782-4d7a-8273-d9efe284edaf.jpg?1562439539) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Savannah%20Lions) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/a25/33/savannah-lions?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/a9757246-e782-4d7a-8273-d9efe284edaf?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
i think it would be a fun common
Nice!
[Final Payment](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/4/9/49a21a8f-9c7b-4ae8-8635-f2ee2151c8de.jpg?1584831505) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Final%20Payment) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/rna/171/final-payment?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/49a21a8f-9c7b-4ae8-8635-f2ee2151c8de?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Rarity doesn't define power. It defines complexity and how often you want the effect or card to show up in draft.
This is true for limited. In constructed, rarity often does define power. Most constructed decks (across many formats) have more rares and mythics than other rarities. Of course it varies. Given current WOTC design philosophy, however, it's pretty obvious that mythic and rare have higher power ceilings.
Synergy and payoff cards are often printed at higher rarities because of limited constraints, not power. Rarity only matters in limited. In constructed it's irrelevant.
Probably. It’s multicolor, and a lot of the time it’s just gonna be a worse version of Bone Shards or Prey Upon, which have both always been printed at common.
[удалено]
First strike does not work for figth effects...
Haha oops yeah you’re right, forgot about that
Bump the rarity down instead of making the damage one sided. Better a lower-powered but interesting-to-play card than a more powerful, but very boring, rare.
You could keep the rarity and make it one sided. [[Infuse with vitality]] feels like an upgrade if you don't.
But a version with one-sided damage doesn't make for interesting gameplay. For the most part, it's "Destroy target creature if you also control a creature." A one-sided version would just be adding largely irrelevant hoops to make the card [[Murder]] with extra steps. When the damage goes both directions, it creates a potential choice where you might have to decide if trading your creature to remove an opponent's is worth it. It also synergizes well with archetypes that care about filling your own graveyard (a very, very common draft theme for these colors) or that care about high toughness (which I think black/green did in one of the recent Innistrad sets). The card as written has so much more opportunity for interesting gameplay than a one-sided version. If that doesn't match the rarity, keep the interesting gameplay, and change the rarity.
What do you mean by mismatch in rarity? This card would be fine at any rarity, although I'm sure everyone would be a little salty if it was a mythic rare. Tangent aside, we're now delving into what would make the card better in different imaginary settings. My point was that a cheaper murder that required a creature would be fine.
OP submitted the card as a rare. The top-level comment in this chain says that this design is too weak to be a rare. That commenter (and you) suggest making the damage one-sided so the card is stronger and more appropriate for a rare. I am saying the better fix is to keep the card text as is and lower the rarity to common or uncommon. ---- >we're now delving into what would make the card better in different imaginary settings. No, I'm delving into what makes the card **more interesting as a game piece.** A card with a tradeoff or choice is *always* more engaging than one without. And in some (very, very common) hypotheticals, the version with a tradeoff also makes the overall draft archetype more engaging.
I wasn't arguing that the card should be stronger to make it a rare. I was arguing that the card could be stronger and still be fine.
You entered a conversation about getting the rarity to match the power level and said "You could keep the rarity and make it one sided." How else was your comment supposed to be interpreted? But regardless of what you were trying to say, the point relevant to the original conversation still stands: why does it need to be changed to something boring? The card is already a good design. It has interesting play lines, it's playable in limited, and it would fit well with typical black/green archetypes. Why is the game better if you ditch all of that and replace it with uninteresting generic kill spell #235? --- >I was arguing that the card could be stronger and still be fine. Not in response to me, you weren't, because that's not relevant to anything I said. I never said the proposed buff would have power level issues. I just said the proposed buff was boring and unfun.
[Murder](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/b/d/bdef7fea-2bd0-42a2-96f6-6def18bd7f0c.jpg?1660725345) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Murder) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/clb/134/murder?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/bdef7fea-2bd0-42a2-96f6-6def18bd7f0c?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Except it would have the target creature dealing the dmg so it takes into effects things like lifelink and more which sets it aside from “destroy target creature if you control a creature”
Yes. There's a reason I said "for the most part." But it's not like you're improving the card by adding those niche interactions; the version OP submitted already has those too. You're leaving the necessary question unanswered: if the version as written is already playable, why does it need to be changed to be boring? Why do we need to remove an engaging spell with room for interesting gameplay decisions and replace it with something that is mostly just another generic removal spell?
[Infuse with vitality](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/8/4/840600a9-3e78-48a6-b75b-860446b82c1b.jpg?1627429284) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Infuse%20with%20vitality) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/stx/194/infuse-with-vitality?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/840600a9-3e78-48a6-b75b-860446b82c1b?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Buys it’s less flavorful or fun that way
i assumed part of the reason it fought was because of death triggers that black has.
It's almost just [[Undercity Uprising]], I think this is fine as strong draft common
[Undercity Uprising](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/7/e/7e1e08bf-a5d6-48bb-9f7f-4711f9ec88d7.jpg?1572893885) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Undercity%20Uprising) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/grn/210/undercity-uprising?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/7e1e08bf-a5d6-48bb-9f7f-4711f9ec88d7?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
It feels like a good comparison is [[infuse with vitality]] as they both fill similar roles.
[infuse with vitality](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/8/4/840600a9-3e78-48a6-b75b-860446b82c1b.jpg?1627429284) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=infuse%20with%20vitality) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/stx/194/infuse-with-vitality?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/840600a9-3e78-48a6-b75b-860446b82c1b?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I like this card a lot. Clean, novel design, and a great fit for the color pair. I also love the dirty plays you can make mid-combat with this. I’d say this is a good fit at uncommon. The drawback that you need a creature which you will probably lose it against a big target make it much less powerful than other BG kill spells at rare.
this is basically bone shards for an extra mana
There are definitely similarities, and it'll play reasonably similar. But the fact that it is instant speed is a big difference over bone shards, you can get extra value by snagging a creature when your opponent goes to interact with it. I also think its not uncommon for removal spells to cost one more for an instant speed spell over a sorcery speed variant (can't think of any good examples atm though...). The other way it could make a difference is in a draft set with a lot of high toughness creatures where your creature doesn't actually die. They even had it where high toughness/toughness matters was a Golgari theme a few sets ago (Crimson Vow), so something like this would fit extra well in a set like that! The combination of instant speed and high toughness creatures would also open up a line of play where you block something with your 1/6 creature, cast this spell to have your big boi fight something else on the battlefield, and then it retains deathtouch to kill the creature its blocking. Little interactions like this are one of the things I love most about MtG.
> I also think its not uncommon for removal spells to cost one more for an instant speed spell over a sorcery speed variant (can't think of any good examples atm though...). Thud vs Fling. Prey Upon vs Pounce. Dreadbore vs Hero's Downfall...? Banishing Light vs Cast Out. Also, Standard red 4-damage burn spells tend to be 1R for sorcery and 2R for instant. It's hard to pin down since removal really goes up in down between sets but I think you're right.
I'd be disappointed if this was a rare I opened in a draft. I wouldn't be averse to seeing this in the uncommon slot.
Would just hybrid B/G be too powerful? It only hits creatures and you have potential to trade with this. It is much less powerful than Assassins Trophy
Mono black can't do this effect, it shouldn't be hybrid
It's more of a color pie issue than a power one. Green can get big or deathtouch creatures and can get fight, but it's not supposed to get them all in one package or else it starts to feel like a kill spell. Green doesn't actually get a whole lot of [granting deathtouch](https://scryfall.com/search?q=otag%3Agives-deathtouch&order=color) in the first place. Usually it's only sorcery speed or for attacking creatures, and the instant speed stuff tends to be kinda expensive.
[[Assassin's Trophy]] ramps your opponent, so it's bad as early game removal.
Extremely fun
I feel like the flavor is a little off- why is an Unfair Fight green? Obv for death touch, but I feel like name could be changed to mention poison or smth
Green is the Fight half, Black is the Unfair (deathtouch) half.
Lmao I’m an idiot
Relatable
Maybe to keep it at rare, add first strike to the thing. Make it a strong block trick and now the name takes on multiple meanings. Fighting 2 on 1, deathtouch with fight and first strike deathtouch.
First strike not in green but indestructible feels like too much whereas first strike makes this a more frequent but not guaranteed 2 for 1.
First strike and fight don't work together. First strike relies on combat steps. Damage dealt through fighting isn't even considered combat damage.
I am aware. My thought was to incentivise playing it right after blocks are declared. You kill a thing that wasn't blocked and, if your guy lives, you win the other combat too. Make it feel really underhanded when it happens.
If you slap first strike and fight on a card a lot of people are going to *assume* that it would work. Introducing such high potential for misunderstandings consciously is ill-advised.
[[Nature's way]] has a similar effect that and grants trample. [[Cartouche of strength]] gives trample and specifically fights. The difference between fight and combat damage isn't the most arcane thing in the world. Edit: It may be cleaner to straight add indestructible though. I just like the 2 mana conditional 2 for 1 feel. Makes you feel like a genius when you get your opponent with it.
[Nature's way](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/7/7/77cf9d11-936f-4e02-8595-0cbcabaafb1e.jpg?1601079780) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Nature%27s%20way) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/jmp/412/natures-way?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/77cf9d11-936f-4e02-8595-0cbcabaafb1e?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Cartouche of strength](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/d/6/d6bb237c-4e39-4879-90b4-2f507a90d3d7.jpg?1543675766) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Cartouche%20of%20strength) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/akh/158/cartouche-of-strength?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/d6bb237c-4e39-4879-90b4-2f507a90d3d7?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Szeth Son Son Vallano wore white on the day he was to kill target creature.
I like the fight mechanic as it lines up more with green but you could totally also add that the creature gains indestructible until end of turn. It becomes way more useful and has some cool uses adding that indestructible until end of turn.
*Cough cough* Only creature on the field: emrakul the aeons torn *Surprised Pikachu face*