Is Commander Ruining the Color Pie? | Commander Clash Podcast 87
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 มี.ค. 2023
- Is the color pie changing and if so, is Commander responsible for it? The crew discusses!
===
Follow us on your favorite podcast app!
▲ Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/4LviEgd...
▲ iTunes: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
▲ Google Podcasts: podcasts.google.com/?feed=aHR...
Buy our merch! Clear out Richard's garage! mtggoldfishmerch.com/
#MTG #magicthegathering #mtgcommander #edh - เกม
Tomer fighting from the editor room 😂
A better place for him to do it. Tomer has great points but doesn't express them as convincingly as Richard.
@@bennettwadekamper8238 yeah Richard can say "the sky is green" and argue it well enough to convince at least one person, Tomer could say "No it's blue, look outside" and sound so unconvincing everyone who wasn't convinced by Richard would switch sides.
Richard often has really bad arguments for really bad points but he just sounds convincing. Like when he was talking about how "bad" spot removal is because everyone else will have it, obviously countered with "well what if no one else plays spot removal and big threats destroy the game?" But instead everyone else tried to argue how good spot removal is, and lost not on principle but on convincingness.
@Bye but Richard is right about that. It's generally fine to run only a small number of spot removal spells. And if you know the players in your Pod well enough, you can play the players/table as easily as you play your deck.
To me Richard do have some solid point but when they go to disscue counter point to his argument, he often use slippery slope/"what about this" arguemnet to divert attention and just side step the problem. It's fine to bring in other example to give perspective but I find that a little annoying to not face the potential flaw in your argument. Just because something might be worse doesn't mean a bad thing isn't bad
@@chichoy5847 everybody in the podcast suffers from trying to use "what if"s and hypothetical scenarios to bolster their arguments or dispute each other. It's a really unconvincing way to argue and is almost never used in total good faith.
A huge part of Color Pie discussion in Commander that people miss out on is the Legacy Cardpool.
The larger the card pool, the further back you pull your perspective, the more blurry the Color Pie gets. Each color has evolved over time (which is mentioned) and will continue to.
Back then they didn't know what they were doing
@@williamdrum9899 do they now?
@@wesleywyndam-pryce5305 Only in terms of color pie
Fascinating hearing Crim actually defend green getting draw power while everyone else is against it. Feels like opposite day.
It was the very thing balancing green up to 3 years ago
I don't know how I feel about it. At least it's based on creatures. Seems like Khans of Tarkir block was when green started getting card draw. I always joked that there was nothing blue about Temur, but really there was - it was just that green's color pie started gaining card draw
@@iandegiovani4703I have zero idea what you are talking about. Tireless tracker, garruk, harmonize, regal force, glimpse, sylvan library, the enchantress duo and others were all from well past 3 years ago.
@@itsthekid9815 Planar Chaos and the first 3 years of mtg don't count
I think what's really being overlooked here is that the color pie was designed with 1v1 formats in mind. The color pie attempts to show the uniqueness of the colors by assigning strengths and weaknesses that are fair in a 1v1 format. Red not being able to remove a creature with 7+ toughness and Green/White not being able to draw cards are not reasonable weaknesses in Commander. What's difficult is trying to stay true to the ideals of the color pie while also supporting the colors in the context of Commander.
Overall I wouldn't say giving White card draw in Commander that "feels like it adheres to the color pie" is a bad thing because it's something White desperately needs to stay relevant. There's some extreme where this leniency breaks down, but I can't say it's categorically a bad thing.
Very true. Commander needs to play with both the OG colour pie and the Planar Chaos colour pie used in card design. White is awesome in limited/1v1 games and TERRIBLE in commander.
"I'm glad green got to draw cards" Crim said through gritted teeth.
See the card “lifeforce” then see the card “painters servant” you are welcome. Welcome to the legion of the enlightened. Green by nature breaks the card lifeforce into possibly the best counterspell ever. It all boils down to statistics that are way to complex to type out.
@@mtgtinfoilthaumaturge1102 same with deathgrip in black
@@Suavek69 in my opinion deathgrip use to be the best of the three because it would hit most enchantment removal with it’s activated ability. Nowadays there is a lot of permanent and enchantment removal in black so lifeforce pretty much protects itself similarly
Sadly I didn't get to see Tomer's comments because I listen to the podcast in background, but to me Crim is the mvp of this episode. I think it's the first time I agree on him on almost everything (I would be 100% fine with a a black demystify), and that quote shows how much he's committed :D
But the problem is it is so much easier to draw cards in green than like any other color in commander.
Gotta get in by saying that Blue exiling artifacts was made for sixty card formats, but since getting a token in exchange is such a negligible cost in commander they had to axe the plan entirely. Ethan Fleischer did a Blue Council of Colors interview with MaRo recently and was very clear about this.
Where do you find that interview
@@CommanderParatusMark Rosewater's 1,000+ episode podcast is called "Drive to Work".
Commander is such a broken format that people scrounge for limited chaff for their decks. Feed the Swarm, Rescuplt, and Ravenform are not good cards but Commander players don't play good cards so they need them.
@@MakeVarahHappen what do you mean ravenform is basically swords
@@An0xymoron127 I want to assume this is sarcasm, but if it's not: 3 mana swords is not swords.
I think we are seeing an evolution of the pie, from colors having a binary (things they can do and things they can’t do) to a three part pie where colors have their strengths, they have things they can do less efficiently, and things they still can’t do
Maro comes in with a steel chair to teach everyone the meaning of bend vs break
I would love for them to like, read his design articles if they're gonna dedicate an episode to it.
@@MakeVarahHappen Or, it's okay for users to have a different language to describe a product than its creators do.
Table and chairs match
@@meatrace they don't need to agree but they asked a lot of questions that have been answered elsewhere. Being informed doesn't hurt anything.
its a pointless semantics debate.
9:45 - It's the most played because a whopping THREE of the 5 colors struggle immensely with enchant removal. It's not a good card in any deck with white/green, but the other 3 colors are so desperate that a sorcery speed Mortify with downside starts looking more appealing. As for the "old artifact removal isn't played" argument, that's probably because the only that isn't straight-up unplayable is Gate to Phyrexia at $50 while only working well in sac decks.
I'm at least glad to see Haunting Wind from Antiquities picking up steam. It's global but still wonderful anti treasure/clue/etc tech.
i run Feed the Swarm in my Meren deck along with tare asunder because even being sorcery it is still aggressively/competitively costed at 2 and has more then one type to target, i run it over doom blade even tho it is also 2 mana but only targets creatures, non black aside, a multi player format favors flexibility a lot more then most give it credit for.
@@PiApproximate Yeah, that's why you run Assassin's Trophy and Beast Within. If you're looking for enchant removal in green that can potentially threaten creatures, there are better options.
And ofc you run it over Doomblade, doomblade is ass cheeks in commander. Might as well just run Snuff Out at that point, at least that's 0 mana.
@@baconsir1159 i run those too
@@PiApproximate Golgari Charm will also be better 90% of the time, and there are a million creatures that remove a creature/artifact/enchant on ETB you’d want for the reanimation synergy. Canoptek Tomb Sentinel for example. Feed the Swarm is almost certainly not the right choice in Golgari.
I'm really a fan of this 5 man podcast setting! Everyone added good points
I'm not
@@philipkelly7369 I'm ambivalent.
LOL at Tomer "writing over" the opinions of the others.
While I definitely enjoy Tomer being in the cast, him getting saucy while editing is certainly hilarious haha.
The thing I think saffron is missing that while weakness and strength should be empathized to colors; the fact of the matter is that the strengths and weaknesses of the colors are hardly equal and they were never actually balanced from the start of the games existence.
Green not having proper board wipes or counterspells is hardly on the same level as white being restricted from card draw for so long.
Probably would’ve been a good point to mention yeah. Each color’s weaknesses aren’t equal to other color’s weaknesses. And comparing yeah green not getting boardwipes isn’t comparable to white not having good card draw.
I’d still describe most of white’s new card draw as not good since it requires you to jump through a hoop or give cards to an opponent.
As someone who has recently dabbled in mono white commander, I'll say the card draw is pretty busted and I think they went a little overboard with it. I wish they found a more interesting way to give white card advantage, like they did with red by impulse draw instead of real draw.
Especially when it comes to a 4 player format which is slower
Even if green got nothing, it is inherently better in commander
Cough cough blue in 60 card
I don't agree with that example, but I do agree that fundamentally they were not properly balanced at the start:
Blue had exclusive access to the stack and could bounce any permanent. And then draw to do it more. Fundamentally blue had everything.
I mean look at standard. White has so much card draw in wedding announc and warden that it can play midrange gameplan all by itself. I'm 100% sure both of those cards were made with commander in mind.
White should draw from the bottom of the deck/search for land from the bottom of the deck instead of the top. Or even just creatures that can be morphed into basic plains.
@@kyleellis1825 why?
@@wesleywyndam-pryce5305 Becaause until recently, no one drew from the bottom and white needed card advantage.
Restrictions breed creativity - Mark Rosewater
why should I gave a shit what mark thinks? he's just some dude.
Maro has talked about how they COULD make the following: A Flash 3 mana Green creature with deathtouch that fights on ETB. But, they haven't yet. His reasoning was "That's just a Murder."
Uncle Istvan doesn't see Maro's point
Didn’t he use that specifically as an example of how things can technically be in the color pie but still go agains the spirit and thus should be avoided?
That's so much better than murder though. Creature shenanigans are much better than spells
They wouldn't make that card though. 3 mana, create a creature that also kills another creature, would be simply too efficient. Fight spells are in flavor for Green. Creating creatures is in flavor for Green. Even deathtouch is in flavor for Green. So for that card to exist it would simply have to be costed appropriately, at least 4 or 5 mana depending on the toughness of the creature, and even that would be less efficient than a simple Black kill spell.
I feel like artifacts was always the solution to this. Every color can use Karn Liberated to remove any permanent type if they really really wanted. But it is expensive. Artifacts should be an overcosted or worse version of effects that decks can use to shore up weaknesses. We don't need color pie breaks
You hear a lot of big talk on this channel, but I'd like to see the commander clash crew put their ideas to the test! So, I'm issuing this challenge: color pie week! Here are the rules:
1. Each person makes a mono-colored deck of a different color.
2. Each person has to make their deck while observing the color pie as strictly as possible! Green can ramp to the moon and play big creatures, but no boardwipes or creature removal, blue is the only color with access to any kind of card advantage, white is the only color with access to boardwipes, etc.
3. No using deck construction or colorless spells to get around color pie restrictions. For example, no using mana rocks to ramp in non-green decks, and no flickering cantrip creatures in white!
I don't think that you would even need to play a game with these rules to see that color pie shifts help the game feel more fun and balanced, and that these rules wouldn't make for a very fun playing or viewing experience, but the Commander Clash can always play a game with these rules and prove me wrong!
how about if you want to play within the rules of commander instead of forcing the ENTIRE game to warp itself to your restrictions you just PLAY SOMETHING OTHER THAN A MONO COLOR
@@philipkelly7369 exactly.
Kamigawa coming out right after Innestrad really was enough for Farewell to make everyone forget about Vanquish the Horde
What's wrong with vanquish the horde? Board clears are kinda White's thing
Almost spit out my coffee when I saw Tomer's editor POV comments; wish he was here for this one
They literly said that they were expanding the color pie, thanks tomer for adding it as text. Also in commander there are "old cards" that break the color pie that they are more common than other formats. I think there are more color pie breaks in modern than commander by modern I mean modern horizons XD
That doesn't make a ton of sense because all those modern horizons cards are in commander so they're also color pie breaks in commander
@@IzzetTempo I think he means proportionally
@@soleo2783 you rite you rite
Can we get a follow up 10 to 15 minute episode with Tomer joining in? Maybe make it a mini cast.
This!
I am feeling Tomer's agony in having to express all this stuff from the editor's room. Might be the most editor's notes we've seen thus far.
Also, I'm surprised the folks get so hung up on destroying permanent types, since that's honestly never felt like a particularly defining aspect of the colours to me. It's like agonizing over a technicality.
It was outlined as a core difference in the early days. Some of the instruction booklets even explicitly stated the ways different colours would get rid of an opponents creature. "Green will hit it with something bigger, white will make it unable to fight, blue will send it to the hand, red will damage it, and black will kill it outright."
So for older players, it's kind of always gonig to be a sticknig point.
Seth really needs to learn the difference between a "color pie break" and a "color pie change". It's not a break that black can destroy opponent's enchantments now!
It is tho
@@danieldelaney1377 wether or not it is remains up to the somewhat arbitrary decisions of the makers of the game.
For Phil: Ezuri’s predation is pretty good in my Naya beast deck, it focuses on ramping so getting to 8 is pretty easy and playing big creatures means that I’m really only worried about small creatures in go-wide strats which Ezuri’s predation is made for. Also, Ezuri’s predation is actually pretty great pseudo card-draw and can even be a finisher with enchantments like Garruk’s uprising and elemental bond for draw as well as warstorm surge and aether charge for damage
I actually think Crim's example of Overcharged Amalgem is a perfect card to showcase the Color Pie Working Great Strategically. Zombie decks are primarily Blue/Black (sometimes white now with amonkhet) and WoTC is aware of this. They put a card that can counter in blue's pie but knowing that it'll likely be in a deck with black as well, gives its ability functionality in a black flavorful way. Thus creating a way for zombies that wouldn't normally run counterspells (unless there was just a really good one to run) to run a counter spell
I think it's worth trying to figure out which of these color pie breaks are due to commander, because I don't think Feed the Swarm was created for commander.
I wish Tomer had been on this one too. As he pointed out on screen, Feed the Swarm isn’t a color pie break. They expanded the color pie to give enchantments a third color that can remove them (G,W,B) the way artifacts have three colors that hate them (G,W,R). It makes sense.
It was interesting to see Seth and Richard represent the boomer mentality toward the color pie and Crim and Phil represent the progressive young blood philosophy. It made for an interesting podcast. But Richard and Seth acting like the color pie doesn’t exist anymore so “why not add a sixth color, it can do everything too” is kinda ridiculous.
I mean, isn't expanding the color pie the same as breaking it in practical terms?
@@MTGGoldfish It represents a new standard. The old standard is gone, so I guess it's broken if you really want to be pedantic, but the current philosophy is reflected in the cards. The difference is with actual breaks, like Beast Withiin or Chaos Warp, where they don't fit in the new or old philosophy.
On top of these guys not knowing older cards that some of the bends/breaks are call backs to.
Richard not knowing that Decree is older than Damnation is a huge tell for example.
I play a ton of Black. Feed the Swarm does not make it into my decks. I'll play Ostone or Ndisk or Ugin before Feed the Swarm.
Blashpemous act is good. It is not a break. It is not as good as other sweepers. It just isn't. I'm not saying they were wrong...but to say it isn't Red AND say it's "effectively" destruction AND not being up the various Red sorceries that are even older like Obliterate, Apocolypse, or even newer like Worldfire totally undermines their credibility.
The issue is that players and WotC continue to downplay the narrative and flavor of Magic in order to digest it easily. Red deals damage...yes...but it's also supposed to be the spell casting color on a similar if not equal level to Blue. Big sorceries and tricky instants are part of Red's pie. Fork is the original copy/redirect.
Do I want every color able to do everything? No. But when we look at what the colors are supposed to represent it makes sense that if any color could do everything it should be Black....at a cost. Yet it still doesn't. For gameplay reasons.
The fact is the game has issues from the start, still has issues, will always have issues...but we should move towards better balance when possible and ideally closer to the narrative concept when possible.
And yeah, Beast within should at minimum should only be able to hit opponent's creatures, just like Feed the Swarm can't hit your own Enchantments. It probably shouldn't be able to hit creatures at all.
@@MTGGoldfish Maro, who essentially invented our modern conception of the color pie and is the chief person responsible for its maintenance at Wizards, gave an extremely logical reason as to why black should be third in removing enchantments, to better balance the game. They aren’t just doing it to sell packs of Zendikar Rising, (which I do think they HAVE done before with stuff like Jeweled Lotus and any number of other busted chase mythics). If ever there was a legitimate time or reason to evolve and expand the color pie, as was done with black wraths like you talked about or red impulse draw etc, this was it, imo.
Again it’s a very very boomer mentality to call any change in the existing color pie (or the color pie since X, Y, or Z time that you started playing since we’re all used to Beast Within and Chaos Warp) a color pie break. It’s a good and healthy thing for the designers to be able to fix flaws in logic (enchantments only having two hating colors while artifacts have three) or address concerns (white card draw, within reason) as they come up.
@Andy Spendlove They're not fixing flaws in logic. They're changing the logic so that the modern game doesn't reflect the Magic that existed for the first 20 years
I think we need a part 2 with Tomer.
In terms of color pie breaks, I like restrictions rather than requirements (I know the line is a bit fuzzy) so for example rather than a green counter spell that says "counter target spell that targets a creature you control" would be more palatable than "counter target spell if you control a creature with power 5 or greater". Pharika's libation feels like a more okay break than feed the swarm because it doesn't always hit what you want rather than hitting whatever with a requirement or downside.
You can also give people different ways of interacting on a specific axis. If you want all our most colors to have the ability to interact with spells before they resolve, then there are more creative ways to do that than to give them all counter spells. Black gets hand attack, white gets effects like meaning mage and Thalia that make it harder to cast them, white and green can both stop things that mess with your stuff, and red can change targets, copy a spell, or hurt you for casting them with eidolons and cemetery gatekeepers.
The next time you complain that not every color has counters, ask why no one complains that not every color has hand attack.
I will also add that the color pie can be bent a bit for the flavor of specific sets. White getting zombies on Ahmonkhet for example, or blasphemous act dealing 13 because it's Innistrad.
Blasphemous act is also only 1 mana in commander. In other formats it's often more expensive. If your opponent has 4 creatures and you have none, it's more expensive than wrath of God. Once they know you have it, it's easier to play around by not committing to the board. Given that star of extinction is 7 mana and so of you accepted it, if this is at 6, surely that's not a break.
Also I would like to speak out in defense of gate to phyrexia in commander. It's a two mana enchantment they can blow up an artifact every turn at the cost of just a single creature, which of course isn't that big of a cost. The reason it doesn't see much play is primarily because it is on the reserved list and is therefore $65.
Arcum Dagson and shape anew also deal with artifacts in blue in a similar way, though I guess Dagson is only artifact creatures.
Feed the swarm is not a break, but an intentional expansion of the color pie so that 3 colors can deal with enchantments effectively (just like 3 colors can deal with artifacts).
Apart from that I agree 100% with everything else you said.
Tomer's editing game on point. Wish he could have brought those into the actual discussion.
On Blasphemous Act, the crew is waaay too fixated on the scenario when it's 1 mana wrath. In my experience it's NOT always so efficient.
Agreed. Blasphemous Act isn't a one mana spell that kills everything every time so it's weird to judge that card instead of the one we actually have.
It's only a 1 mana wrath in commander
I think the best color pie breaks are the ones that you need to include in a mono-colored deck but can easily ignore on multi-colored...
and i think since we have a set for commander, these color pie breaks need to be only printed there so as it does not affect most of the 60-card formats...
Fully agree with this. I'm literally never playing feed the swarm in orzhov or golgari. Never. It's terrible as soon as you have those other options. That's what makes it fine imo, something like resculpt though? I'd play that over red artifact removal in an izzet deck, or at least alongside it, even though red is the artifact removal colour. Beast within goes in all 5 colour decks even though you have white and black, the "removal colours".
The best color pie break is a banned color pie break.
I think counter spells are considered within color pie for white but wizards are too squeamish to print them because how bad most people hate being counter spelled.
I agree but white shouldn't have hard counters. It should be a tax card, but after the fact.
Counterspells should only ever be blue, and tbh I think they all should come with "this spell costs an additional x to cast, where x is the mana value of the targeted spell". A series of 1 for 1s guarantee you win a 1v1 match eventually, if you're the one choosing which spells do and don't go through. To get a mana advantage from those 1 for 1s on top of that is just far too powerful.
imo, removal in every color should be distinct. Blue counters before it even hits the field. White exiles. Green fights. Red burns. Black destroys. We can extend this same principle to every type of card interaction.
Tempo plays, blue bounces, white protects, green pumps, red hastes, black regenerates.
Resource advantage, blue draws, white gains life, green ramps, red loots, black trades life for resources.
Not every color should do every thing. They all necessarily SHOULD have weaknesses. Red does not have a way to deal with enchantments, that's part of what makes red red. White is the only board wipe color, and that's a fundamental part of its identity.
The more things each color CANT do, the better and more balanced the game will be. Overlap can make sense, sure. But green should not do blue things better than blue. Red should not do green things better than green. So on and so forth. Divination is draw 2 for 2U. With this setup, ONLY blue should get that level of value with card draw.
These new battle spells should be countered by white since one of white's themes is peace which should prevent a battle
Black and white should both have counters. Black gets over cost/secondary cost ones, white gets specific ones like banishing as it is countered/tax effects on the counter.
@@dontmisunderstand6041 counter spells not being accessible to every color was the single biggest design mistake in all of magic the gathering history.
a core function of the game should not be color locked.
I always just thought that making colorless able to do anything at an increased cost was the normal, more reasonable option. Or the other route of making colourless cards that synergized easier with the colors. That was the original trade off.
The issue we had with that though is colorless solutions becoming a "Must have" staple, so...
Colorless should be THE way to get monocolor decks inefficient versions of effects their color can't get. But for some reason it's not. It's such an obvious solution that I don't get why they don't do that.
@@dontmisunderstand6041 i mean, I can sort of see that the only fear with that is that means green with its ramp can just do anything as well, so they sorta designed themselves into a bit of a corner.
@@alaricpaley6865 That's why you stick to the color pie. Green is only actually great because it breaks the color pie more than any other color. Ramp doesn't matter if it's still behind on mana because of how much more expensive the generic colorless answers are than the on-color effects.
I agree that a lot of the examples are from before commander was popular so it doesn't seem like commander is the main cause. Beast within sees almost no play in 60 card decks. So it was bad enough that it wasn't that big of a color break.
Tomer didn't fight hard enough, the Council of Colors and Maro are crying right now
I feel like it is incredibly flavorful for black to be breaking the color pie so long as there is a significant life / sacrifice cost. Their whole thing is more-or-less 'power at any cost'.
Feed the Swarm is by definition not a color break, since it's part of black's identity to remove enchantments now.
Wizards of the Coast has written more on the topic of game design for card games than anyone on the face of the planet. I'd love for you guys to read what they have to say if you're gonna dunk on them. I think a lot more of these cards makes sense when you take into account their process.
I think it's been accelerated by commander. Color pie breaking in general is as old as the game itself though.
Editor Tomer raging in silence behind that keyboard lol
That was a very colorful conversation. Do you know what else would be a colorful conversation? A charm/command/modal spell tier list.
I feel like this is a pretty fascinating topic to me. I think colorless spells that do everything inefficiently is the solution. I looked forever for enchantment removal in my mono black deck and other then feed the swarm my other solution was intro to annihilation. It’s five mana and sorcery speed but I’m happy I have at least have an option. I like having that restriction in deck building. I purposely only play three colors or less with most of my decks being at two and like only one or two at three. I enjoy trying to find interesting work arounds.
Personally I think colorless spells is a bad solution since it leads to more homogeneity in the format and less play diversity. In addition since green is so much better at ramping that other colours these cards are better in it that in other colours. It's a very hard problem to answer since every solution has its own risks
But colorless is not immune from the color pie logics: if we follow a strict logic, colorless should be able to do only things that would be allowed in any color, or do them very inefficiently (much more than a colored "break"). This is why they introduced colored artifacts btw, because keeping them colorless resulted in either a very limited design space, or big problems across the meta (see skullclamp).
I think the thing that breaks the colour pie isn't usually individual cards. It's a mixture of how splashable it is (its ubiquity) and its power relative to the home colour as Crim argues. For instance, blue is the counterspell colour because the pool of cards runs deep and decks running it are unlikely to play Tibalt's Trickery, Lapse of Certainty, or Imp's Mischief when even second tier blue counters outclass them. It's difficult to see these as breaking the colour pie as the effects are uncommon enough and don't match up to the home colour's options. Beast Within, on the other hand, is especially notable by any metric of colour pie break. It's literally the same in terms of power as Generous Gift, it's better than Chaos Warp in the majority of cases, and more versatile than the blue counterparts (Resculpt and Ravenform) and on top of versatility, it's faster than the black counterpart (Feed the Swarm). Green doesn't destroy creatures and yet Beast Within will appear in even 5 colour decks because its so splashable. In terms of breaking the colour pie it's tough to match up to it... unless you look at Smothering Tithe.
Ultimately, the colour pie isn't broken by cards that give colours token access to an effect unless that effect is so good it eclipse's the home colour's options. Not to say that those cards like red counterspells aren't breaks from the colour pie but they don't break it.
On another note. I am also not sure it's fair to lay the blame at commander's feet for colour breaks. Modern Horizons 1 & 2 are Modern sets. DRC and Murktide may be a better Delver and Goyf respectively but they were designed with Modern explicitly in mind. Maybe the reason Feed the Swarm seems particularly egregious is because of Black's access to tutors but really, one Feed the Swarm in 100 cards is not a fix for commander players. Yes it's infinitely better than no enchantment removal in the games you see it but of those 1 in 5 games (going on having drawn roughly 20 cards from the deck), it only matters more than any other creature removal if there actually is a problem enchantment at the same time as it is in your hand. So, I don't think these cards are designed for commander unless they are flooding the colour with breaks of the same kind. Token colour breaks suit a design for 60 card formats with 4 ofs far more than 100 card singleton. Designing for commander may be detrimental in other ways but I don't believe that colour pie breaks are one of those ways.
EDIT
I am realising this is a mostly critical comment and hope that it comes across as being invested in the game and loving the show and engaging with the opinions therein.
Crim made a lot of good points here.
If Iona is banned because it can shut a mono color deck out of the game then Feed the Swarm is a good thing because one enchantment could previously shut a mono black deck out of the game. Color pie breaks are good sometimes and especially when they're done not too often.
I think starting each podcast with a 'definitions/priorities' section would be helpful. Currently it's very easy for the conversation to wander or become circular as we don't even have an idea of what they think a positive or negative outcome looks like etc.
What is 'a red card' and what does that mean? Does it matter? Is that important to you? Why?
Sidenote: Do we care about holding them to their own standards? People fighting against Resculpt need to compare to Generous Gift. Is not hitting enchantments and +1/+1 SO MUCH more than Gift that it's unplayable?
That would require them not making baseless hot takes for once though lol, I love them but half the time it feels like this podcast is just rage bait because they talk out their ass so often.
cause its a casual conversation not a video essay
@@Lucarioguild7Ironically this is one of the few times Crim wasn't talking out of his ass. Every other episode is eye rolling stream of conscious comments like, "Green has the best counterspells" from a previous episode
If I can try to articulate what Crim and Seth might be trying to say, I think color pie breaks are ok when it comes to interacting with permanents. We have well-costed colorless land removal, colorless graveyard hate, and every color has some way to remove creatures. All colors should be able to remove artifacts and enchantments as well with varying degrees of difficulty and success. Changes to card draw are more or less a reaction to the damage already done with green getting the amount of card draw it already has. And when it comes to stack interactions, I like Tomer's input of Reprieve for White and Tibalt's Trickery (you shouldn't be able to target your own spell) for Red. Give Green a hard counterspell at mana value 4 that gifts your opponent mana/ramps them non-basics.
Personally, I feel all colors need some form of playable enchantment removal. Enchantments are certainly the strongest permanent type in my play group. Mass artifact removal is also tantamount to mass land destruction so Red and White feel hamstrung in what should be solidly in their wheelhouse, while the modal and targeted aspect of green artifact removal spells lets them feel unimpeded in spell selection and judicial casting. I also feel WotC shouldn't be printing cards catered to the Commander format outside of the Commander Legends sets, so I understand how difficult it can be to create a coherent argument about these topics.
A question I can't quickly resolve is, what should the difference be between colorless permanent removal and colored permanent removal? Downsides? Frequency of printing? Idk. I just disagree with Seth's 'we have remove target permanent at home' approach.
Efficiency is the answer. The question you can't resolve. Frequency of printing should NEVER be a solution to anything. A 5 cost colorless spell is easier to cast than a 3 cost multicolor spell, and easier than a 4 cost monocolor spell. You flat out need a +2 cost to not make the colorless spell an auto-include in any deck that doesn't naturally have that effect. I would argue it also should have another downside on top of that, otherwise they just take over the game.
All colors should be able to do basic things like: interact, draw cards, and ramp.
Each color can do things in a different way. The colors can feel different and do things better based on color and it still be a good game. Relying on printing artifacts to make ramp viable in nongreen decks pushes decks to be extremely samey, whereas of there was color based ramp that was balanced you could have 15ish staples for mana in commander decks and then you can use the rest of the slots to play cards you want to.
There's an issue that in 60-card and 40-card, drawing cards and ramp aren't actually basic. You do not need them to make a good deck. Thus, colors are good at different things.
But the problem is that these ramp and draw cards are being put into 60- and 40-card formats so that Commander gets them. It kinda sucks for those of us that actually like Commander as ONE way to play Magic instead of THE way to play Magic.
The colour pie should NOT impede mechanics, it should inform them and how they're achieved. All colours should have access to almost everything possible in the game (removal, ramp, card draw etc) but the flavour of how they do so ofc should be shaped around the themes of the colour.
Exactly. Color choice shouldn't block you out of access to resources. It's okay if certain colors are even better at certain things, like green should be the best ramp, and blue should have the best card draw, but you shouldn't be denied these things just because you choose to play white. WotC just needs to hide these things behind mechanics that generally apply to a certain color. For instance, sure white can have ramp, but maybe gate it to meeting a certain life gain threshold, or something similair.
@@bye1551 This is an argument to just get rid of colors entirely, tbh
@@Zomburai45 I don't think it is tbh. The core and strengths of strategies can still be colour dependent. Black having damnation doesn't negate the fact that farewell is the best board wipe. White having mana tithe doesn't negate the fact that force of negation is the best counterspell.
I mentioned in another comment that I think colour pie breaks are fine, and good even, as long as they're equivalent to, or worse than, the WORST option in the home colour of the mechanic. I'm fine with every colour getting a counter spell, as long as they're worse than the worst blue counterspell (that's still relatively playable)
If feed the swarm was in green or white it would never see play, it would be a bulk uncommon that exists for draft and nothing else, but it being in black makes it a needed interaction piece so the core strategy of mono black (graveyard stuff) can still function (through graveyard hate and such).
I really like the idea of restricting Black to only being able to destroy/remove/exile opponents enchantments.
I never realized the connection for Black wanting to remove their own enchantments. Full disclosure: I've splashed in a few White lands just for a Disenchant or two for so long in never had an issue with Disenchanting my own stuff. 🧐
I like the flavor of Black removing its own enchantments. Like a deal with the devil except you find a loophole in the contract
Colour-shifted Beast Withins:
Feed the Swarm 2.0: 2B [Instant] Target permanent's controller sacrifices it. You lose 5 life.
Blue actually already has many of these: Regress, Consign to Dream, Resounding Wave (removes any permanent via bounce rather than destroying - which is weaker but Blue also has much cheaper versions of the same effect)
actually, the more i think about it the more i like the idea of colorless being the "6th color" of magic. that way you can break the color pie with the tradeoff that the colorless spell is overcosted. that way, it rewards the player for choosing to specialize in a color, but still gives the player options outside that color's strengths.
This is kind of what artifacts were *supposed* to do.
PRO TIP: Theft effects are Blue-Removal. You're literally removing the threat from the enemy board, and youre also getting a card as well. And when the average cost is 5-6 mana, it's kinda nuts when you think about it: "remove" a high cost threat and "cast" your own copy of it for 1 card and 5-6 mana. #runmoretheft
My real problem is that more and more cards are staples for commander. Causing decks to look very similar. And also like need it or you won't compete. Just my feelings.
homogenous design. it's awful for a game long term.
Just a note about all the counter spells, every color has something and black is even life lose for counter spell. Withering Bloom.
Green has had a second pie hidden in the oven for a while now....
On the topic of Blasphemous Act and Star of Extinction, MaRo has said that the Act is a break and that even the star is a severe bend/ almost break that was allowed due to flavor.
I really cannot see the argument against them. There are two different issues here, one is the color pie and the other is the power level. A 1 mana deal 100 damage card would be ridiculously OP, but it would still feel 100% red. Would it feel more natural to see that effect on a black card? Or to have a white blasphemous act? I really don't think so.
@@LK90512 according to MaRo red is supposed tostruggle with large creatures, that's an inherent weakness. Blasphemous Act is at a rate where it basically just says "destroy all creatures" but it is flavored to be red by having the word "damage" on there. But dealing 13 damage to all creatures is basically identical to "destroy all creatures" and it's therefore out of the color pie. It's like the hypothetical blue card that they mentioned that bounces to library before milling 2 cards. All those are blue effects individually, but by combining them together in this way they've essentially created a black kill spell and therefore MaRo has explicitly said this kind of thing is a color pie break
@@GoDzJtFr Yeah I understood the arguments, but somehow I associate the color issue with the way a result is achieved, rather than the result itself. If there was really a card that puts a creature on top of a library and then mills it, I would think that the card is ridiculous and/or overpowered (depending on the cost), before I think it's a break.
I guess the difference is between "it does things that the color shouldn't do" (break, like lapse of certainty) vs "it does the thing the color is supposed to do, but too much" (overpowered, like unholy heat).
According to MaRo, Red is suppose to struggle at practically everything or at least that's what it feels like. Can't efficiently remove creatures, efficiently draw card,
Efficiently reanimate stuff, and etc etc etc. Red also isn't suppose to remove enchanments and tutor for stuff.
Plus, white replaced Red as one of the primary colors for artifacts. It's no wonder that Red has become the weakest color now.
@@jasonkorf7700 primary artifact color has always been blue.
I love that black can deal with enchantments. I think it's a design mistake for enchantments to randomly be the hardest permanent type to kill.
No, a enchantment is a curse. And a curse is something permanent or really hard to get rid off. Otherwise it's not really a curse
I think if they want to add pie breaks or bends to help out commander, print them in commander sets not in standard.
Also the solution for the blue mana 3 drop catchall is it's at sorcery speed.
What about a black counter spell that reads something along the lines of this:
“As an additional cost to cast this spell, sacrifice a creature. Counter target spell with converted mana cost X or less. X is equal to the power of the creature you sacrificed to cast this spell.”
In that scenario you’d only be able to counter big spells if you give up a big creature as well. Much less effective than a 2 mana counter anything and still somewhat flavorful for the black color pie. Just a thought 🤷🏽♂️
"Countering a big spell if you have a big creature" describes a green counterspell, not black.
@@MakeVarahHappen yup. should probably be pay X life or sacrifice X creatures and could call it soul negation or something
@@thatepicwizardguy Or you could just. Not.
Late as heck but this is an interesting idea playing into the sacrifice of black and its minor focus on big creatures.
Ezuris predation is somewhat hard to use as a wrath but has several interesting variables.
Wort and Adrix can doubble its potency (wort literally) and there are several static power boosts in green as well so when its a 7/x or something instead it becomes much better as a wrath. In addition you always keep the rest of your own board.
Green's counterspell could be 5 mana and you have to shuffle 3 of your lands back into the deck, actively countering their own ramp
I don't think that specific example would ever be playable, but it would be on flavor I think for Green to leverage it's lands in someway to counter spells, similar to how they can turn their lands into creatures.
The real issue is that the colors, in EDH, have almost always had answers in their reach. Colorless provides a LOT. My mono black deck ran ugin, karn, and ulamog x2. I could remove any type of permanent. Does white need draw? Add skullclamp and mindstone, among many other one sided draw artifacts. There was no real reason to blend the pie, other than "bc i want it."
The reason is that's how the format was for years and it just made some colors significantly worse than others, and since EDH is the primary format they have to actually factor in balancing the colors a bit more.
"because I want it" is also the reasoning behind the color pie existing
@@Lucarioguild7 if you're taking about balance in edh you need to sit in the corner and listen instead of participating in the discussion.
attempting to balance the format is a complete waste of time that goes against the core fun of the format.
@@wesleywyndam-pryce5305 I said balance the colors not the format as a whole there's no way right that ship lol
How could y'all forget Wild Magic surge?! The best all permanent removal in red since Chaos Warp! Sure they are guaranteed to get another enchantment if they have another in the deck, but if you target a really powerful oppressive one, it's probably worth it. Especially if the one they get off the top is a lot cheaper than what they spent on the one you removed
Alright, calling Damnation a 'break' is actually breaking my brain right now. Is the word bend going to be mentioned at all???
An increase in efficiency is not a break. Not by a long shot.
Something I wanted to add as I’m not sure if it was mentioned, but Emerald dragon from Baldurs Gate is a mono green stifle effect for 3 with a 4/4 flying trample body attached to it. It’s not terrible. Granted stifle isn’t the strongest interaction, but you can stop combos and some interaction is better than none.
Lapse of Certainty has synergy with best sword 😂
Phil, my dude, Phasing of Zhalfir!
How did they all miss that counterspells are literally in white's slice of the color pie? White is SECOND for counterspells (in the sense that counters aren't in any other color, even if it is technically tertiary for white), but Wizards doesn't print them because people don't like playing against counterspells."
My favorite "break" is definitely Dead / Gone, i love how it's arguably a Shock with a horrible creature bounce spell attached to it
I don't want four people having a discussion and the editor butting his head in every three minutes. If Tomer want's to be part of the discussion he can be there for it.
I'm perfectly ok with each color being able to do most things, just with stipulations. For example, Blue can draw cards with zero stipulation or downside, Green can draw cards equal to a creature's power. Black can kill creatures unconditionally, Green can kill creatures by making one of its own creatures fight.
I think it's pretty simple: If I have to play around an effect when facing a color, that effect better be in the color's central mass, if I'm using a color pie break to answer what my opponent is doing then it's good for the game.
1:34:59 I started playing during Fallen Empires, and the again during Tempest.
When Invasion block added the ability for green to destroy artifacts and enchantments, it felt off. A few years later, we got the first Mirroden block, and green was the color that hated artifacts, while all the other colors synergized with them. Now, I got where Wizards was coming from, and I like green's ability to remove artifacts and enchantments.
Another example: Over time, pinging moved from blue to red. In Planar Chaos, red got a "color-shifted" Tim. But red already had a couple of pingers by then, so that didn't feel bad.
My point is: the color pie has been shifting since the beginning of the game (in fact, the worst set for color pie "breaks" was probably Alpha lol). As long as Wizards doesn't shift things too quickly, and they have good justifications for the shifts, I'm cool with it.
I love that Phyrexia jersey Crimm has on
My favourite colour-pie break was last Friday at my lgs, when I was playing my mono green deck and I casted 4 mass draw spells, getting into the Beast Within to remove the final problematic creature on the board so I could win!
If White card draw is "too good now", why do players naturally avoid using them when given access to other color combinations outside of Boros? The problem with the current White card draw is that it's inflexible with build design (the deck must be playing auras or creating weenies to consistently perform these draws) and the alternatives often requires piggybacking/reacting rather than being active (when an opponent does this, then you may draw 1 card per turn). In Aura, Weenie/Token decks you have so many creatures that let you draw from playing your deck normally, however outside of these archetypes you're really limited. Additionally a huge amount of these White card draw is also still done with creatures (Welcoming Vampire, Archivist of Oghma, Loran of the Third Path, etc) which are the most frequently to removed permanent type; and some genuinely just do not fit in a deck's theme (not all Mono-White or Boros decks focus on making tokens creatures or weenies for card draw, so Welcoming Vampire or Tocasia's Welcome might not fit).
Therefore I think it's great to see more diverse options that focus on different permanent types and methods that do not require piggybacking as they allow for more obscure commanders and deck themes to focus on their gimmick. There is clearly more support for White card draw in the last year specifically, but the majority of available options are still inflexible to overall deck creativity as opposed to Blue/Black/Green where you can have flexible staples fit into in any theme (encouraging the rest of the deck not focusing on what allows card draw or ramp to be creative). White should obviously not be the best color at card draw (that's Blue's archetype), however as the game expands it needs some flexibility to keep itself from top-decking outside of Auras/weenies/low-CMC creatures. I personally believe Loran of the Third Path (which is still Hugs, but I like the politics) and Archivist of Oghma (still piggybacking, not very interesting or exciting) were the best two White card draw additions we have gotten in 2022 in terms of being usable in all themes where White is present. Cards like Wedding Ring and Smuggler's Share are neat, but are not considered staples for a reason.
To be clear, I'm not advocating for White to gain a staple down the line like Smothering Tithe but for card draw (aka White Rhystic Study), but the existing set of options other than Loran of the Third Path and Archivist of Oghma are not flexible enough to be staple in decks containing White. The only cards I see from White in every deck containing the color are Teferi's Protection and Boardwipe/Removal spells which is great for White's identity, but highlights how card draw is not "too good" in White. The dangerous line that should be avoided in what we see in Green with ramp; namely that if you aren't running the staple ramp spells (Cultivate, Rampant Growth, Three Visits, etc) in a deck with Green then you're intentionally powering-down your deck. This leads any deck with Green, regardless of theme, to always run these Green staples ramp spells from Mono-Green decks to 5-color decks, which does reduce the creativity aspect when Green is in your deck (5-10% of your deck should be the same specific Green ramp spells for every deck). Staples in each color are important but risk homogenizing decks outside of their commander's gimmick.
You can tell White lacks true value for card draw when you pair White in any combination with Blue/Black/Green and you likely wouldn't include the majority of White's card draw options (outside of Selesnya weenies). EX: Why use Archivist of Oghma or Smuggler's Share in Orzhov if you have Black Market Connections, Phyrexian Arena, Bolas Citadel, etc? Boros is the only combination the desperate enough to fully rely on White for card draw since Red is so poor at doing so itself outside of impulse draw and wheeling, which again isn't always going to be desirable for every Boros deck.
Thank you Richard! Green fighting spells off the stack! Lol
I think color pie breaks are good in the sense that there shouldn't be a situation in which one deck loses a game because it can't get around something because it's colors have no way of doing it. I had a dimir deck and I lost to an azarius deck all because I couldn't destroy one artifact. My entire deck was basically locked until I could get rid of one artifact and I didn't have any way in my deck to do it because at the time there was no way of getting rid of artifacts in blue or black. I had to rely on artifacts to remove artifacts which was way too costly and slow. I eventually dismantled the deck because it was such a bad experience and I had no effective solutions.😢
3-cmc answer to everything in Blue?
Wipe Away
I think the central issue is that some effects are just better than others. Drawing cards and ramping will always be stronger than dealing damage or removing problem permanents. Especially in a multiplayer format with 40 life. On the other hand, in commander all players need to be able to deal with every kind of possible threat. All decks use almost all permanent types and with four opponents you need multiple ways of dealing with each one. However, if you give each colour access to each effect you make them all the same and if you give green draw as well as ramp you just make one colour legit better.
Probably a bad take, but to me the only color pie break needed rn is better interaction for black. As far as i know the black way of dealing with non-creature spells was discard but cards like thoughtseize are bad at 4 player tables, maybe that would change if wotc printed discard spells that state "all opponents reveal their hands and you pick and discard one of those spells" instead of just targeting one opponent?
I dunno, in regards to everything else to me it always felt like every color already had a way of doing everything without compromising its identity within the color pie.
"These are all just worse beast within". True, but that doesn't justify further breaks imo. Just because there are worse culprits doesn't mean everything below is fair game. It's this train of thought that leads to worse power creep and breaks
Not sure if this gets addressed at some point, but to get it off my chest (and boost for the algorithm) here’s some definitions.
A color pie break is when a color is allowed to do something it can’t normally do that undermines its fundamental weaknesses.
A color pie bend is when a color is allowed to do something that it doesn’t normally do in a specific environment and doesn’t undermine that colors fundamental weaknesses (eg. Green Magecraft)
Colors can also just have things added to their color pie as Magic develops. Enchantment removal is black now to balance Enchantments and Artifacts by having 3/5 colors with answers to them each. Vigilance is blue now to give it more creature abilities and it could untap creatures anyways. Bounce counters are white now because tax and delay effects are in white and they want more stack interaction. White can have cantrip creature and draw cards as long as it’s tied to something white cares about (weenies, enchantments, lifegain) and generally restricted to one card a turn. Green can draw cards as long as it’s tied to something green can do (high power creatures, enchantments, etc.)
There is a point where this abilities could be added to the colors where it waters down the color pie and every thing is a color pie break, but I don’t think most of the changes that were called “breaks” are actually “breaks” and I think they’ve been a net positive in terms of balancing the game personally.
I agree with everything you said, except bouncing spells being on flavor for white.
There were several angles to make a white flavored stack interaction:
- a tax effect (like mana tithe, which does not feel like a break at all to me),
- a prison effect (like spell queller or ashiok's erasure)
- a "exile and can be cast for 2 more mana" effect (like elite spellbinder, soul partition)
And yet with Reprieve they designed the bluest card possible and just slapped a white mana on it. Quite annoying if you ask me.
Personally, I think colour pie breaks are fine as long as they're worse than the *worst option* of whatever the best colour at that effect has. So, for example, no counterspell outside of blue should be better than the worst blue counterspell, either in limitation of options and being super niche OR in cost.
I could get behind this, although the worst blue counter is probably pretty bad (I'd actually have to do some research to figure out what it was, lol).
Haha Tomer is sneak dissing in the editors notes
Can't believe Richard said they should add a 6th color. That's a real hot take lol
It's too late now. It would only work in limited because every other colour would have thousands of cards. They would basically need to go back and make cards for every old set, that are the new colour.
My favourite break is greater good. What's green about that card. Free sac outlet that allows you to discard and draw insane amount of card.
I've seen seasoned Magic players tell me not to play Lapse because it's so bad but they are either thinking of it in a CEDH setting or as a Blue Control deck would use counter spells. None of them realize it's there to stop that guy who is trying to stop you from popping off like Richard said, it's to protect your win con, not to control the whole game. I also think people play Teferi's Protection for the exact same reason where Lapse in some cases would be better. I also like Martyr's Cause for the same type of use case in creature/token decks.
black is actually supposed to be able to do everything except deal with artefacts. that's it's color identity it does what the other colors do at the cost of life (both your own life and the life of your creatures)
Also, as someone who owns 6 mono-black decks why would I care about having enchantment removal I'm already playing oblivion stone and Nev's disk to answer enchantments and artifacts in my black control decks.
also, black does have a counterspell it's 1B lose 3 life counter target creature spell. it's basically another doomblade but it prevents ETBs
also, y'all don't understand veil of summer it's factually a counterspell, it's used in legacy for exactly 3 things 1) countering thoughtsieze 2) countering Force of Will or Force of Negation 3) pushing a combo through. In no world is Veil used to protect against a combo.
I actually think a colorshifted Planar Cleansing would be very interesting. Farewell already is better then it so it's not like white is losing to black by doing this, and it would be a cool call back to wrath of god colorshifted into damnation because planar cleansing is the successor to Wrath of God
If black is supposed to deal with enchantments why couldn't it deal with enchantments until the last three-ish years?
@@MTGGoldfish perhaps I worded what I said poorly
The one thing I think black should never be able to do is target non-creature artifacts. Black is allowed to color break in every other sense because it is the Faustian color. Temporal Extortion, Yawgmoth's Will, Bolas' Citadel, Darkness, Bubbling Muck, Sinkhole etc. Black's entire history is one of breaking the color pie.
The only reason this specific break has shown up in the last three years is because they pushed commander, but I think it's excusable because I don't think it does the one thing black shouldn't be be able to do.
Green stack Interaction idea: (1)(G) creature 3/2 with (tap): [name] fights target creature an opponent controls. When [name] dies, counter target spell unless it’s controller pays (x) where (x) is the amount of excess damage [name] dealt this turn
Color pie bending and breaking is usually fine. However if it happens too much it'll get same-y.
Green having a good counter spell does nothing to affect the overwhelming number of shitty to great counters blue has, for example.
The main issue is that because they are designed for commander to be singular, unique and powerful they become staples instead of niche tech cards. At a critical mass, they'll be just like sol ring, arcane signet, etc
I think color pie breaks are fine as long as the flavor of the color is preserved. Fight as a mechanic feels very much green. It is removal -- but unlike black where I cast death magic or red where I channel the elements of fire and lightning -- green removal is me ordering my baloth to munch on your wizard.
Conclusion: green broke the core things decks need (good removal/interaction, ramp and draw). So now all colors need that to keep up.
I agree Phyrexian Tribute is too bad to play as black artifact removal, but it's not too expensive. Gate to Phyrexia though, I'd play it in a monoblack deck if it wasn't for the price. It's only two mana, repeatable artifact removal and you only sacrifice one creature.
What color would this card be?
{1 colored mana}
Sorcery
Target opponent reveals their hand, choose one:
- choose a non-land card, that player discards that card and draws a card.
- draw a card.
One thing about the color pie you guys might be missing is the geometry of the color pie in relation to the mechanics. In regards to white and black counter spells it makes sense as they treat next to blue in the color pie.
Seth defending every color pie break while crucifying the feed the swarm which isn't actually a color pie break
One thing that was frustrating was hearing examples of cards brought up as metrics for color pie breaks as if they represented a trend rather than being an exception. Murktide Regent is a color pie break, but it's also an *extremely* pushed card, so I don't think it's necessarily indicative of a greater trend in blue. Same with Richard saying that green could hypothetically get a GG counterspell because the best blue counterspell was the Force cycle - I don't think we should consider Force of Negation or Force of Will as the archetypical rate for a blue counterspell, but rather cards that are outliers. The typical blue blanket counter printed in sets is a Cancel with slight upside, so a green equivalent would need to be worse than that.
I think there should be color pie breaks in all the colors but they need to have down sidesides for doing so and I was thinking about it and I think I have a list of downsides for each color. White - opponents gain life equal to spell cost and be high spell cost to do so, Blue all opponents draw card or 2, Black you lose life equal to something, Red stone rain your own land or opponants deal damage to target on board and Green opponents search library for lands or can play additional lands. This would invert the core thing the color does and lets the other players get a core benefit from it and let the player go outside of the benefit.