Hacker News Reader

> Crucially, by design, no color is best

Except for blue of course.

It was definitely the case in the early days. It is evidenced by the "boons", cards that cost 1 and do 3 of one thing the color is supposed to do best.

The white one, Healing Salve, is very weak, it has later been replaced by a strictly better card.

The red (Lightning Bolt), green (Giant Growth) and black (Dark Ritual) are very solid cards and were seen in most decks of their respective colors in the early days of Magic, would be a bit too powerful today.

The blue one, Ancestral Recall, is part of the "power 9": the 9 most famous, overpowered and expensive Magic cards. It didn't make it past the ironically called "unlimited" edition.

https://mtg.gamepedia.com/Boon

> The red (Lightning Bolt), green (Giant Growth) and black (Dark Ritual) are very solid cards and were seen in most decks of their respective colors in the early days of Magic, would be a bit too powerful today.

I don't think those three are super comparable; Dark Ritual is much stronger than Lighting Bolt, which is much stronger than Giant Growth. Dark Ritual has purposely not been printed in a "standard legal" set since 1999; it's not legal in the Modern format (cards printed in standard sets since 2003), only in formats that allow cards from any time period. Lighting Bolt is legal in Modern, with its last standard printing being in 2010, although the head designer has indicated that they wouldn't print it in a standard set now. Giant Growth was printed in a standard legal set just last year, meaning it's still currently legal to play in the Standard format (roughly speaking, cards printed in standard sets in the past two calendar years).

Dark Ritual was banned for as long as I remember (I played extended during 2003-2006). It's pretty much the definition of an OP card: if you were to draw 2 copies and a strong creature it'd be almost imposible to lose that game.

Dark Ritual was OP because of the abundance of BBB or 2B threats that it could plomp on the table on turn 1, most famous of them being Necropotence, of course, followed closely by Phyrexian Negator or Bad moon and a swarm of black weenies and with honourable mentions to Stupor or Duress + Ravenous Rats (Stupor and Duress not being threats, but still it sucks to lose two cards on turn 1 before you can do anything about it).

It's interesting to note that when the ability to produce a lot of quick mana with a sorcery was shifted to Red, two of them (Seething Song and Rite of Flame) also got banned (in Modern).

yes, the ability is so strong that even significantly weaker variants got banned.

Interestingly even the third most powerful boon is powerful enough to be a multi-format all star.

The last two of course... are not.

Growth still gets printed pretty frequently. Pretty sure it's legal in standard right now.

But don't forget all of the other broken stuff blue had from the start: timewalk and timetwister, to name two.

We old people used to joke that the most powerful card printed of all item was "island".

I think it hasn't been playable outside of limited for a very long time though.

Ixalan standard had a powerful monoblue Tempo deck that used Curious Obsession and cheap scry cards to draw a ton while attacking with cheap fliers. I think it was tier 1 actually.

Interesting! I don't really follow standard much to be honest, I was aware of the curious obsession deck but I didn't know that it played giant growth.

Huh. No, sorry, that's a misunderstanding. The monoblue tempo deck didn't play giant growth. I thought you were talking about playing Islands :)

No blue also got the best cards afterwards. Jace the Mind Sculptor, True Name Nemesis, Delver of Secrets, Snapcaster Mage, Narset Parting Veil, Ponder, Urza, Oko, Uro, etc.

Blue's color identity is just 'being really good at Magic' it seems

Blue is the color of intellectualism and prioritizing logic. By its nature, blue is prone to being good at strategy. Magic is a strategy game, so it makes sense blue is inherently good at it.

And that's a bit tongue in cheek, but in all seriousness blue is the color of mind tricks and the hacker mentality, so it makes sense blue prefers manipulating game state in ways other colors just won't think of doing, and unfortunately the game's designers grossly underestimated just how powerful "manipulating game state" is.

No I mean blue also got the best aggressive creatures and planeswalkers and value creatures at aggressive rates. It has little to do with 'logic' they just plain gave blue a 3/2 flier for one mana.

Jace was banned for a long time for a good reason

Right now it's green closely followed by white. Though I've been too busy to play in the last two months and have so far totally missed Ikoria, it's clear to see that Jamie Wakefield's favourite colour of magic has finally become OP just by the June 1st banned and restricted list:

https://magic.wizards.com/en/game-info/gameplay/rules-and-fo...

Three of the six cards (still) banned in standard are Green and two of them (Oko and Once Upon a Time) are also banned in Modern.

Oh yes green (and GU) has seen a huge boost in the last year of so. It was probably an overcompensation for what was perceived to be the weakest color. I expect white to go through a similar overcorrection in the next year of so.

Blue is still the strongest color in Legacy and Vintage I think, even if the last few sets had a huge impact.

Also, Oko and Uro are also blue.

>> Also, Oko and Uro are also blue.

True, and as you say UG is a powerful combination, which is also kind of a new thing for me.

Those bans are a pain in the ass. They do it to hamstring the OP decks, which I understand and applaud, because nothing sucks more than having to play 4 copies of the same deck in one event. But then, because a bunch of us are using the same cards in our goofy rogue decks, these decks are also screwed and that ends up reducing diversity also. E.g. the ban of Fires of Invention has just screwed up my RW Giants deck. I mean, it's a Giants deck. About the only thing that made it viable at all was Fires.

If I play blue, no fun for you!

- Teferi

There's more to these colors than your short summary says. In particular it doesn't say what colors can't do.

White is really bad at destroying stuff directly unless it's artifacts or enchantments. It can destroy or tap lands, but typically ALL lands (2WW Armageddon). It's self-centered and when it affects enemies it's usually by placing rules, laws, constraints (Pacifism; cannot uptap; etc). Mass effects of various kinds are a common theme.

Blue doesn't deal with combat buffs. It would rather change the rules and make them irrelevant.

Black, I would say it's more about decay, death and atrophy than outright destruction. It's the worst anti-artifact, anti-enchantment color in the game and can affect them only indirectly. Black has very few buffs, it's a very negative color. Win at all costs!

Red can't affect enchantments. Like fire, it often burns (sacrifices) something to keep going. It can't last long.

Green is exceptionally bad at destruction and dealing damage. Its boons are often individual in contrast to white's, which is morel like a jungle than a society. Very early M:tg had cards like Stormseeker, they are notably absent in modern M:tg.

One of best ways to realize how much negative space there is in M:tg is to play Shandalar, the ancient RPG set in the world of Magic. You will see very many off-color cards.

> White is really bad at destroying stuff directly unless it's artifacts or enchantments. It can destroy or tap lands, but typically ALL lands (2WW Armageddon). It's self-centered and when it affects enemies it's usually by placing rules, laws, constraints (Pacifism; cannot uptap; etc). Mass effects of various kinds are a common theme.

White also has a thing for destroying creatures engaged in combat, which is both an extension of its rulesetting ("fighting is against the rules, and if you break the rules, you die") and its preference for pacifism (enforcing non-violence via harsh punishments). White is also the only color besides Blue that gets counterspells, typically with a taxing condition (e.g. "counter target spell unless its controller pays {2}"). White, like any responsible government, collects taxes after all.

> Green is exceptionally bad at destruction and dealing damage. Its boons are often individual in contrast to white's, which is morel like a jungle than a society. Very early M:tg had cards like Stormseeker, they are notably absent in modern M:tg.

And when Green does get to deal damage, it's through creatures. It gets straight-up buffs such as good ol' Giant Growth, plus effects where creatures get to deal damage to targets equal to their power (nicknamed "one-sided fight", after the "fight" keyword where two creatures damage each other equal to their power).

Fun fact, 'one sided fight' is often nicknamed/referred to as 'Bite' these days [1]

[1] https://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/185815973623/does-r-d-...

I like your point (and wish I had more than one upvote), but I want to recast it in terms of color theory. Specifically, let's look at each color in terms of not being able to do what its two opposite colors can do. And, of course, there are counterexample cards to all of this, but the general outlines are certainly real in the game design. I'll also mention the Ravnica guilds for each pair; each guild can be thought of as exploring the negative design space hollowed out by each color.

White is opposite red and black, giving it the gap of high-risk play. White cannot make opportunities, but must straightforwardly initiate combat and exploit superior layouts on the battlefield. Both red and black have many useful instant spells which give them options that white doesn't have. The Ravnica guild is Rakdos, which is oriented around riskily playing an entire hand quickly, and also around destroying everything except enchantments.

Blue is opposite green and red, and indeed blue is missing the useful buffs in green and (to a lesser extent) in red. Blue is also missing the overlap between green and red, which is direct destruction of lands and artifacts. Blue represents not just knowledge, but abandoning nature in favor of libraries and cities; green and red remind blue of the power of wild nature. The Ravnica guild is Gruul, which is oriented around putting +1/+1 buffs onto friendly creatures.

Black does have more of a win-at-all-costs feeling than other colors, sacrificing library, battlefield, hand, and even graveyard for victory. Opposite white and green, black lacks health buffs and turn-over-turn permanent growth, and isn't rewarded for having a healthy zoo. The white+green Ravnica guild, Selesnya, is oriented around giving discounts for new creatures by tapping existing creatures, and making copies of creatures.

Red is across from white and blue. Like you say, enchantments are a bit of a puzzle for red. White uses enchantments to defend and protect, while blue uses them to surprise and misdirect; red has no way to deal with or emulate this. The Ravnica guild is Azorius, oriented around spells which change their behavior depending on when and how they are played.

Finally, green is across from blue and black. Blue and black have in common a willingness to sacrifice capability and knowledge in exchange for power. Green is gradual and lacks ways to trade away the library or sacrifice creatures. And the final guild, Dimir, is oriented around sacrificing cards to search the library; later, it expanded to also include sacrificing (both!) libraries directly.

I'm honestly kind of amazed at how well-designed all of this is. I suppose that surviving the test of time does imply some sort of quality design, but this is remarkable.

> I'm honestly kind of amazed at how well-designed all of this is. I suppose that surviving the test of time does imply some sort of quality design, but this is remarkable.

I'm amazed more people don't copy the idea (rather than straight-up ripping off the colors). M:tg is so interesting because of how well-defined colors are. Because they're defined, colors truly have a personality, and - crucially - play different.

For a straight ripoff check Master of Magic too. Very cheap on GOG. It's a Civilization 1 clone with tech tree/progression replaced by spells! Complete with common/uncommon/rare/very rare tiers. The system is so inspired by Magic colors it hurts. But incidentally, it's brilliant! In normal Civ games, tech tree is super boring because of many filler steps and boring +1 bonuses. Even otherwise great Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri suffers from this. But because each step in discrete (each step is a spell!), you get something concrete each time you complete research. The game also has extensive city build-up and a combat system that inspired Heroes of Might and Magic serries. The game has many design and balance flaws, and without the unofficial Insecticide patch by kyrub (who deserves eternal praise) it's extremely buggy. But they did something very, very right as game developers keep trying to clone Master of Magic. The game doesn't care much for balance, but more for very flashy and ambitious ideas.

Another accidental bit of brilliance came from memory limitation. Computers at the time didn't have enough RAM to support large maps. So instead they made 2 planes connected by magical towers. Very heavily guarded. The other plane has unique minerals, 4 unique races, magic roads that are instant travel, very magic everything (2x magic node output too). In late game, hell often breaks loose when POWERFUL computer civilizations emerge. You can also try to break into it early and loot it, but it's very risky.

I'd put blue down to slightly more generic "manipulation and control". It's the primary place for counterspells and other ways to screw with the opponent.

Both you and the other reply are focused on blue. I wonder if HN has an affinity for thinking with blue?

Yes, you're all quite right. The word often associated with blue's style of play is "control", and in tabletop card games, control is about restricting what your opponent can do. Control often doesn't directly remove creatures from the battlefield (like red and black can do), or buff your creatures (like white and green), but instead directly removes your opponent's ability to introduce cards to play.

Counterspell is possibly the iconic blue technique. I found this article [0] a really interesting writeup of the mechanism design.

There is interestingly one other style closely associated with blue, called "bouncing". [1] While black tends to be able to permanently remove blockers, i.e. to the graveyard, blue's skill is in temporarily removing blockers back to the hand or library. In addition to being able to decisively change the course of a battle, bouncing can also provide control over several turns, because bounces prevent blue's opponents from being able to set up a proper offensive line, and force opponents to waste mana on fielding units that will be bounced. This latter requirement is analogous to how counterspell forces opponents to waste mana on casting spells that will be fizzled.

[0] https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/c...

[1] https://mtg.gamepedia.com/Bounce