Monday, December 5, 2011

M13 Designing Lair (3)

What I've found is that there are justifications for different choices in each category but they're all interdependent on one another. Today I'm going to try to list the different groups of choices so that we can examine the pros and cons of each group rather than the individual choices.

You may catch me using 'lair' interchangeably with 'bond.' If you don't know why, check out part two (which is a misnomer, it wasn't so much a continuation as a tangent). I haven't transitioned over fully because (a) I'd like more feedback, (b) replacing 'lair' with 'bond' will impact other things, like the set's name and (c) this conversation could affect that choice.

The Straight Plan is the current/default.
0
Flavor
1
Consistency
2
Types
3
Colors
4
Quantity
5
Abilities
anyat commoncreature onlyeven across all colors at common10 cmn
3-6 other
vigilance
flying
+2/+0
first strike
+1/+2
Because this is a fairly generic set-up, it can work with any flavor we settle on for bond. The abilities-per-land-type will be consistent among the commons of which there will be one complete CW cycle and another complete CCW cycle. We'll sprinkle in just a few really sweet uncommon and/or rare cards for filler. As for which abilities to use at common, I think if we have one P/T ability, we need 2, 3 or 5 of them for proper cycle, uh, -ness.

It make sense to put that second P/T ability in black, to mirror green's +1/+2, but not in blue for fairly obvious reasons. That also solves the deathtouch/intimidate/lifelink conundrum with black. Should the bonus be +2/+1 to perfectly mirror green's bonus, or should it be +2/+0 to better balance them? If it were white/black I'd go with the classic mirror that already has so much precedence thanks to Holy Strength and Unholy Strength. We could balance the cards the abilities go on rather than the abilities themselves. But since it's not, I'd like to steer clear of that precious duality more. I've also swapped lifelink in white for vigilance because it's a more evergreen ability, and feels less 'cheaty' on blue on green creatures.

This is not the only ability combination for this plan, in fact this plan can handle any good combination. This is also far from final. Another combination gives black lifelink and red +2/+0. Red and green are more into P/T boosts than red, philosophically, and since we're not going for the duality contrast it's okay to put them next to each other. The non-common cards would not be tied to this mold at all, although if they can build off of it, bonus points.

Next up is The Naya Plan. (Asymmetrical #1)
0
Flavor
1
Consistency
2
Types
3
Colors
4
Quantity
5
Abilities
lairunnecessarycreature onlyred, green and white only6 common
3-6 other
+1/+2, any
By putting lair in the Zoo colors, we're making a nod to Kird Ape's favorite deck and shifting out of the exact colors Bloodthirst got. We're also focusing on the most creature-iffic shard and that's why I lean toward 'lair' over 'bond' here. If we really want to make it insular, we would put plains lair and mountain lair on a green card each and forest lair on a red card and a white card, but I think that's too far and it's much more interesting (and opens up more archetypes) to add the white island lair and the red swamp lair cards to the mix. Forest lair is the only ability repeated at common. We probably keep Roaming Unicorn, Mastodon Calf, Saberclaw Cougar, Kird Ape, Bloodblind Cyclops and Crested Dodo. Maybe then we focus down on the core four cards at uncommon. Note that we do not get a Champion of Depravity in this set-up.

We now have to do something for blue and black that isn't lair but spreads the same allied colored pairs message. Activated costs is easily the best suggestion I've heard to do it. Assuming the set-up above, we'd have white:U, blue:W, blue:B, black:U, black:R and red:B at common and maybe just another blue:B and black:U at uncommon. If you want to brainstorm some of these, do so in the comments of Chah's very solid start here.

Next up is The Simic Plan. (Asymmetrical #2)
0
Flavor
1
Consistency
2
Types
3
Colors
4
Quantity
5
Abilities
bondunnecessarypermanentsgreen and blue only4 common
4-8 other
any
By putting lair in the Simic colors, we're giving it to the colors best equipped to enable it. Rampant Growth and Convincing Mirage help these colors to splash anything as needed so it could be a really fun archetype to snatch up all the good bond cards and fixing relatively late. We could open it up to all color combinations (adding a swamp bond and island bond to green as well as forest bond and mountain bond to blue) to really make these archetypes versatile/unique, but that muddies the message far too much and isn't what we want to communicate in a core set. That means we'll have two blue and two green lair cards at common (one swamp lair, one mountain lair and two plains lair among them) and maybe four more at uncommon and/or rare.

Right now, that would look like Sunbask Drake, Merfolk Deathbrokers, Roaming Unicorn and Saberclaw Cougar. It would also be entirely reasonable to add these cards' mirrors in Crested Dodo, Vapertrail Imp, Kird Ape and Mastodon Calf, perhaps in the uncommon slot*. This is also the scenario in which I'm most comfortable with the idea of bond aura cards since auras are one thing blue and green share in common more than anyone else.

Do we add colored activations to the other colors the same way we did for auras? The same rationale applies, so let's take a look. Note this is exclusive to * above. We would have white:G, white:U, black:U, black:R, red:B and red:G. Without even seeing concrete examples, this feels off to me. I don't know why. Maybe we can brainstorm some really solid ideas that'll make it work.

Next up is The Uncommon Plan.
0
Flavor
1
Consistency
2
Types
3
Colors
4
Quantity
5
Abilities
bondat uncommoncreatures
even across all colors at common & uncommon
(10 cmn)
10+ other
vigilance
flying
+2/+0
first strike
+1/+2
I'm not worried about lair at common for complexity's sake because I know first-hand how simply it plays. There is a legitimate concern around power level: Kird Ape hasn't been common since Revised and it's not hard to see why. I've been willing to push that for the same reason Wizards brought Lightning Bolt back for a while and also because creature power level has risen to the point where I'm not Kird Ape is that far above curve anymore. Another concern though, is weirdness: While this ability does a great job of demonstrating color alliances, it does it through a muted form of color bleed (at least with the current set of abilities). Green creatures don't get lifelink or first strike as part of their color pie. Green-white and green-red creatures do (respectively), and while that's what we're going for in spirit, it's not what's printed on the cards.

One way to solve these issues is to move the common cycle to uncommon. That will even allow us to push some of the tamer cards to be more excited. The cost of this move is that our theme is no longer at common. The good news is: this is a core set, so "it isn't our theme" doesn't follow 100% since we want the theme to be relatively muted. If we're not satisfied with that, we can hit the theme in a different way at common, as Trevor suggested. Once again, I'm talking about off-color activated abilities. If we introduce those in this scenario, it'll also be a pair of five-card cycles which means we'll have 10 of these commons plus 10 of the uncommon bond cards hitting the theme home. That's a lot, but the fact that they do it in such different ways mutes the overall effect.

Finally, I want to share The Mixed Plan.
0
Flavor
1
Consistency
2
Types
3
Colors
4
Quantity
5
Abilities
bondat common & uncommoncreaturesall colors, uneven by rarity(10 cmn)
(10 unc)
vigilance
flying
+2/+0
first strike
+1/+2
One last possibility combines some of the ideas from all of the above. Suppose we have a CW and CCW cycle of bond cards and a CW and CCW cycle of off-color activations, but we mix up the rarities. Here's one way to do it:
whiteblueblackredgreen
cmn: ability
forest bond
: ability
: ability
: ability
: ability
: ability
forest bond
plains bond
mtn bond
unc: ability
island bond
swamp bond
plains bond
island bond
mtn bond
: ability
swamp bond
:ability
:ability
We see the naya bias toward bond here, but it affects rarity rather than existence. There are only four common bond cards, but all cycles are complete at some level.

Those are all the major plan groups I can see. If I missed one, let me know. What I really want to know is, who hates what (and why) and who loves what (and why). See you in the comments section!

22 comments:

  1. As someone mentioned in the comments, the word Lair is used as a subtype on some lands. (Was this discussed before that?) I think we need to change the name regardless of the plan we use.

    About the Straight Plan:
    I think this is the way to go, since the benefit I see in Lair at this point is to provide flexible color choices during draft.

    About Naya:
    I really, really hate the Naya plan.

    If it was going to make colors play differently, there might be a reason to do it. But we are talking of giving other colors some other mechanic that preserves the same theme across colors. Then why are we skewing the mechanic in the first place?

    That alone feels wrong to me, but doing it for the sake of player associations with a type of deck is just terrible.

    "Let's call it one thing in these colors but call it another thing in these other colors. Because Lair=Kird Ape, Kird Ape=Zoo Deck, Zoo Deck=Naya."

    Mechanics give birth to decks, not the other way around. Mechanics don't need to be constrained to replicate just one particular deck in the past.

    Sorry if I misrepresented the rationale behind the skewing plan, but I don't get it and would like to know why.

    ReplyDelete
  2. About the Simic plan:
    If we were to do the Simic plan, I think we should do something similar to what Nich laid out - Each color pair still gets at least one Lair creature, but the base color for those Lair creatures are skewed in only a few colors.

    Green and Blue should definitely be the land manipulating colors, but I think it's better if the Lair colors don't exactly match up with the land manipulating colors. For example, let's say Lair was skewed towards Green and Black.

    B-Mountain
    B-Island
    G-Mountain
    G-Plains
    W-Island

    You could go for any pair of a Lair color and a land manipulation color. BG would be good because you get access to lots of Lair guys and lots of Green land fixing, but GU would also be good because you get more land fixing and the ability to splash many guys from any color. Other combinations like GWb, UBw or UBr etc. etc. might be viable depending on how the cards flow.

    I believe splitting the Lair colors and the enabler colors would enhance the feeling of building your own deck on the fly. It won't feel like "All right, I picked a Blue card. I guess I need to draft a Lair deck." It affects a larger portion of the set than just skewing all Lair related things towards Blue and Green, without forcing the theme on any color.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The Mixed Plan looks good.

    I'm not entirely sure about off-color activations in a core set. The effect it has on Limited strategy is almost the same as Lair. But visually, it looks so blatantly multicolor!

    The "skewing only rarity" idea is cool. But I'd also like just having a cycle of 5 common Lair creatures and 5 common off-color activation creatures.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I believe the main rationale for RGW was partly that it centers on green, the king of lands and creatures and that all three colors are known for cheap, quality creatures.

    I'm not sure I understand why you hate the Naya plan but are open to the Simic plan, Chah.

    Good call on the 5 lair and 5 off-color activations plan. That had occurred to me and I forgot it, but it's quite relevant.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I don't understand the rationale. There are many good non-aggro uses for Lair, like a 3U 2/3 that gains lifelink or deathtouch. Also, RGW can have cheap, quality creatures regardless of whether that creature has Lair or not.

    Green is good at land fixing, but there's no reason a UB deck can't have its Lair creature.

    About Simic vs Naya:
    The Simic plan can have a landfixing & Lair archetype. It brings out the hoop-jumping and reward aspect of Lair, which is almost invisible in a 2-color deck.

    If the whole environment was about that kind of hoop-jumping with mana, it would problematic for a core set. But I think it's fine for a few gimmick decks to do that while other normal decks enjoy their Vaportrail Imp and stuff normally, running only a 2-color + light splash deck.

    The version of the Simic plan I'm thinking about has no off-color-activated abilities. (Let's call it OCA for short.) This kind of archetype is only possible if the incentive cards to go multicolor (Lair, OCA, or both) are skewed towards a few colors. Otherwise, everyone would be doing it and it won't be an archetype.

    I proposed the Simic plan not because it's necessarily the best way, but rather as "if there is a reason to skew Lair in a few colors, this is the reason I can think of."

    The Naya Plan is not the same as Simic because it has multicolor elements in every color. In terms of deckbuilding influence, OCA and Lair are almost the same. Everyone will want mana fixing. There will be no land-fixing archetype except on rare occasions.

    The Naya Plan is actually very similar to the Straight Plan, except it tries to make a weird distinction between OCA and Lair even though these mechanics have the same influence on the game.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The mixed plan seems like the best of both worlds to me - diversity seems appropriate in a core set where you want to appeal to a wide range of players.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I'm for the straight plan - it allows us to control consistent elements, teaches allied colors in a passive but worthwhile way, and to me, still seems like it's just on the right side of the "is this multicolor" line. And on that point, I agree with Chah on the OCAs.

    Unlike bloodthirst/scry, I do think Bond is best in equal numbers across the colors at common. At uncommon, I think we should use it when flavorfully/thematically appropriate.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I've not been an active member of the development, but I've followed along the blog posts intermittently.

    FWIW my impression is that the mechanic isn't perfect for its proposed role in a core set, with minor but ongoing problems that no-one can find just the right name, and that it's not especially flavourful. But that it's good _enough_ to make an interesting set, assuming people don't want to scrap the whole thing and start over.

    However, the best thing about it seems to be where it started: that you can make commons which are fairly easy for newcomers to understand intuitively, but do something interesting that doesn't always appear in a core set. So, if I were voting, that's the aspect I would vote to keep!

    You obviously _can_ use the same mechanic on uncommons, rares, and mythics, and on auras, spells, etc. There should probably be at least some uncommon and maybe rare examples. I would suggest using the ability in flashier ways only if the set seems bland without it because the prevailing wisdom seems to be to find mechanics which are fun in their simplist possible form, and then extend them in a later set. I'm sure there can be flashy mythics with the mechanic, but I think they'll suffer from "why does this keyword have to be there"?

    Likewise, the question of what bonuses the mechanic gives at common is probably one that people who playtested know best, but my best guess is to keep the same bonus for each land at common, unless it doesn't seem interesting enough, and introduce a bit of variety at uncommon (unless you've not explored all the possibilities of the five 'default' bonuses, however they end up).

    As to the name, I think the examples from the comments in the previous post show it's better to carve out some specific subsection of design space for "getting thematically similar bonuses from basic lands" than to have an ability word that can cover any case of "get a static ability bonus when a BLAH card is in play". So I'd prefer names that support that.

    In that light, "lair" is a bit goofy, but I prefer it to generic terms like "bond". I agree "affinity" would have been a good choice.

    This is sort of intangible, but it also feels to me like "lair" carries less connotations than more generic terms like "bond" of implying some specific rules baggage. To me, "lair" suggests its just a name, but "bond" suggests you may have to know what "bond" means. Do you think that would apply to beginners, or is it just because I've got used to reading about lair?

    I can't think of any better choice, but here are a few concepts in case they give anyone else a better idea:

    Forest friend -- blah if forest
    Multimana -- blah if forest
    Splash of green -- blah if forest
    Forest link -- blah if forest
    Landlink -- blah if forest

    ReplyDelete
  9. @jack

    Your last point is very interesting, and I think I feel where you're coming from. Sadly, like "affinity", I think "link" is already too attributed due to Lifelink. It's possible, and something that we still can leave for much later, that it can be either "Swamp Bond - [stuff]" or "Swampbond - [stuff]". Right now, I think I'd be happy with either, and that Bond is a perfectly adequate standby.


    Is there an article anywhere that discusses the peculiarities surrounding -walk and -home mechanics?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Thanks, Jack. If it weren't for the pre-existence of Lair in Magic, I would continue with that name because it sounds pretty bad-ass. It's kind of not an option. Link is close to bond, but I agree it's associated (if only a bit) with lifelink already whereas bond is only associated with "mana bonds" which is exactly the flavor we're going for.


    I'm hoping for a bit more feedback before I make a final decision on which plan to move forward with. This is my tally of opinions so far:
    STRAIGHT: Chah++, Jay++, Pasteur++
    NAYA: Chah--
    SIMIC: Chah+
    UNCOMMON:
    MIXED: Jay+, Trevor++
    SPLIT:

    ReplyDelete
  11. The Naya Plan: I agree that I don’t like bond being skewed at common. And I don’t like it being skewed into red, green and white overall. Bond is not a Zoo ability. I think Jay is confusing the p/t bonuses of Loam Lion, Kird Ape and Wild Nacatl with the goals we’ve set for bond. And I also believe that EVERY color cares about creatures and lands.

    I rank this #5, below the Mixed Plan.

    The Mixed Plan: The thing I take away from this is that somehow Bond and off color activations have different values, so be skewing the Bond abilities at common, it’s supposed to mean something. But I don’t think it means anything at all. According to the Fifth Age of Design, mechanics are just tools. We are only supposed to be using Bond to help foster two color play. With that in mind, this plan should have the exact same affect that the Straight Plan would. I understand what Jay was trying to do, but it shouldn’t really matter.

    I rank this #4, below the Straight Plan

    The Straight Plan: If we go with the straight plan, I agree that a second p/t bonus would be beneficial. My most up-to-date preference is:
    Plains bond – First strike
    Island bond – Flying
    Swamp bond – Lifelink
    Mountain bond – +2/+0
    Forest bond – +1/+2

    Having the p/t bonuses next to each other makes for a fun RG build. We can design for RG mid-sized stompy specifically, similar to dinosaur deck in Scars draft.

    I rank this plan #3, below the Uncommon Plan.

    The Uncommon Plan: Our theme would still be at common, you mean our returning mechanic isn’t at common. Our theme is promoting two color play and there are common ways we can do that, including Off color activations, cards that reward you for casting non-this card’s color, or even reprinting Elvish Healer and cards like it. (I know damage prevention isn’t common anymore, but something like Elvish Healer is certainly possible at common.) I would be fine with this direction, but I do agree that Bond is simple enough that it could certainly be common.

    I rank this #2 below the opposite of the Simic Plan.

    The Simic Plan: Bond promotes ally color combos, so putting the fixing and the ability all in the same two colors is squandering one of Bond’s major benefits. This is one of the reasons I initially suggested Lair be in White, Black and Red (in my Lair without Rule 1 exercise). I understand that Bond won’t be the only way that each color pair realizes its two color needs, but it can be a small part of each of them.

    My #1 rank is the opposite of this plan, with 8 commons (CW cycle in all five colors, with WRB each getting an additional CCW card) and 4-8 others. I would prefer it if the 3 extra commons were not creatures. They could be spells or auras.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Just to clarify, the Naya Plan is not my plan. It appears I didn't understand the rationale for that choice of colors and communicated it poorly.

    For the plans that name specific colors, know that those are just the most suggested pairings and that other colors using the same plan are also an option. If we wanted the Naya Plan with Esper colors, for instance, same difference. It makes a big difference in execution/feel, but it's the same basic idea, as far as how we split/use bond.

    Nich, I'm really not seeing the connection between "The Fifth Age of Design" and using different mechanics for our theme. If mechanics are just tools, why wouldn't we use as many tools as needed for the job?

    STRAIGHT: Chah++, Jay++, Pasteur++
    NAYA: Chah--, Nich--, Jay-
    SIMIC: Chah+, Jay-
    UNCOMMON: Nich+
    MIXED: Jay+, Trevor++, Nich-
    SPLIT:
    ANTI-SIMIC: Nich++, Jay-

    ReplyDelete
  13. I also really don't think the mixed plan makes sense: Bond and off color activations (should we use them) have the exact same goal, so we should pick whichever is better and use that. Mixing them together will just leave us with a weaker message as new players might not see the connection and understand the allied color pairings.

    The uncommon plan has the same issues: if Bond isn't going to work at common, there's not much point in having it since its primary purpose is to guide new players, players who are bound to have a lot more commons than anything else.

    I'm also not a fan of the Naya or Simic (or anti-Simic) plans, as they aren't working towards our larger goal. If this was a mechanic in an expansion I'd want it to have a limited deck, but as it is I just want to show that allied colors and two colored decks work well, so I think an even distribution at common is important.

    I think our options then are the Straight plan, or an equivalent using off-color activations. As Chah has showcased pretty well, off-color activations do a better chance of conveying color mixing. I think this is because the mana symbols are much more evocative of elements than the names of basic lands. I'd be on-board with the straight plan, but I now think our best bet is to dump Bond for off color activations. They offer the same ability to play the card and later it 'turns on,' but in a more flavorful manner. That said, I think we want to closely match the common abilities to what the mana symbol depicts. For instance, I rather the common blue activation felt like water instead of ice.

    The biggest downside I see is losing out on a Kird Ape reprint (and a lot of previous work), but I think it'll work out better in the end.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I agree with pretty much everything Jules said.

    ReplyDelete
  15. There's a big difference between 10 commons with static abilities with threshold-1 and 10 commons with activated abilities (regardless of color). That's going to lead to a lot of on-board complexity.

    STRAIGHT: Chah++, Jay++, Pasteur++, Jules+, Havelock+
    STRAIGHT W/ OCAs: Jules++, Havelock++, Jay-
    NAYA: Chah--, Nich--, Jay-
    SIMIC: Chah+, Jay-
    UNCOMMON: Nich+
    MIXED: Jay+, Trevor++, Nich-
    SPLIT:
    ANTI-SIMIC: Nich++, Jay-

    ReplyDelete
  16. I'm glad lots of people are pitching in, I wonder what the other people think?

    I really wonder which is better, OCA or Bond, and whether it would be weird to do both.

    I agree that OCA is evocative and provides more varied abilities. But Bond might be easier on the new player in a core set.

    OCA might create too much on-board complexity, a kind of micromanagement of resources. It might be hard for a new player to figure out how to spend his/her turn.

    It might depend on the type of OCA cards we make. But 10 commons with on-board activated abilities is a lot.

    Bond on the other hand creates some complexity in figuring out what size/abilities everything has. But if it's as simple to keep track of as the Jay said it was in testing, then that's better than having complexity in piloting the deck.

    Another point to consider about OCA is, is OCA a "flashy" mechanic you'd want to use sparingly to conserve its specialness? I personally think it's not like Hybrid; it's a logical use of mana symbols that is fundamentally within the scope of the mana system.

    As for flavor, I think even if we go with Bond we can have slightly more evocative flavor than we have now. I'll try to upload to the shared folder in a moment.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I think we should playtest online more. We should be playing with these candidate routes. How about an online sealed using the MSE's sealed generator, trying out a OCA only set vs a Lair only set? (We only need to swap 10 commons)

    It might take time to set up, but we could keep on designing cool rares and stuff in the meantime.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Regarding OCA and board-complexity, some approximate conclusions can be drawn from M12's application of common creatures with activated abilities:

    Devouring Swarm (Repeatable, "free" of cost, impacts combat)
    Drifting Shade (Repeatable, cheap, impacts combat)
    Fiery Hellhound (Repeatable, cheap, impacts combat)

    Gideon's Lawkeeper (Once-per-turn, cheap, affects board)
    Goblin Fireslinger (Once-per-turn, free of cost, no board impact)
    Goblin Tunneler (Once-per-turn, free of cost, impacts combat)
    Llanowar Elves (Once-per-turn, free of cost, affects board)
    Merfolk Looter (Once-per-turn, free of cost, no board impact)
    Merfolk Mesmerist (Once-per-turn, cheap, no board impact)

    Brindle Boar (Sac-effect, no board impact)

    Of the 10 commons with activated abilities, four have no significant board impact, four are centralized around combat, while only two (Lawkeeper and Llanowar Elves) offer a more dramatic utility that can alter various lines of play.

    This suggests to me that, if the OCA path were pursued, effects should be constrained to tap-effects with a relatively narrow purpose. Save the Lawkeeper's for Uncommon, where I personally believe they belong regardless.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Thanks for breaking that down, metaghost. This shows it is reasonable to have 10 activated abilities on common creatures, provided that the majority don't affect the board directly and/or are limited to once-per-round effects. We can even think of Drifting Shade and Fiery Hellhound as once-per-round effects since their abilities can be templated as X: +X/+0 until EOT and you very rarely pump the same guy on different turns.

    As long as we're on one plan (looks like the Straight Plan) regarding color distribution and the like, we can finish the first draft of the set with bond and then make an alternate in which we just swap out those ten+ cards for OCAs. We can then test each and see how the play. That even allows us to test the mixed plan easily too.

    Let's brainstorm some 'simple' OCAs at the bottom of Chah's OCA article.

    ReplyDelete
  20. The shard proposal was my idea, and I don't mind going to the mat for it.

    When I first started looking at this, I went back to study what R&D made with the nonevergreen mechanic from the recent cores. Scry in M11 appeared on 4 common cards in blue and black. Bloodthirst in M12 appeared on 5 commons, in the BRG/Jund shard. With those things in mind, this was my reasoning when I suggested it (and I still think it's solid):

    1. Lair needs to be limited where it shows up. I think we agree on this already in principle, but not in the execution. I strongly think that 8-10 Lair commons is too many.

    2. So I really see this as a problem of how to restrict the number of Lair cards at common. Again, looking at M11 and M12, the easiest way to restrict the number of cards seems to be limiting its color range. The main advantage is that it creates different limited strategies to choose from. I'd like to see a limited Lair deck play differently from say, a RB limited control, or UW evasion deck.

    Spreading a small number of Lair commons across the entire color wheel dilutes their impact, and doesn't contribute to supporting different styles of play. My original concept was that the OCAs would fill in this function for the non-lair decks, but maybe it plays too similarly to matter.

    3. With #2 in mind, I wanted to think about the best color restriction, and decided green was the most important lair color.

    Cards like Rampant Growth or Sylvan Ranger are the easiest ways to enable land-based abilities. Additionally, Lair pushes creature efficiency up, and green and white tend to have the best limited creatures. Finally, red is usually starved for creature mechanics at common, and red has the classic Kird Ape, which I'd like to see in the set.

    So that's how I decided RGW/Naya was the best shard for lair.

    It's possible that the colors are wrong; maybe Bant would be better, or maybe the URG wedge. But I think the principle is really solid.

    I'm also coming around to HavelockV's notion that this should not be a common ability. Maybe the uncommon plan really is best, and the OCAs need to take over at common.

    tl;dr
    Daniel votes =
    Shard Plan, +
    Uncommon Plan, ++
    Straight Plan, -
    Mixed Plan, -
    Simic Plan; Isn't this the same as the Naya shard plan, only with a different color palette?

    ReplyDelete
  21. I think that implicit in our interpretation of the Straight plan is the idea that there shouldn't be a Lair deck in limited, really; but rather that consistent Lair commons can help contribute to a theme of allied-pairs in a way that doesn't tread into multicolor.

    The fact that it plays nicer with basic lands than it does with Manaliths is another factor; as is the complexity and/or uncoresetness of OCAs.

    ReplyDelete
  22. We need different categories for the plans that skew Lair/OCA. Rather than use the shard colors for categorization, the difference should be:

    A: Draft Archetype Plan: Skew multicolor incentives into 3 colors, whatever those colors are. No Lair or OCA in other colors.

    B: Distinguish Multicolor Expression Plan: Have milticolor elements in all colors, but have some colors use Lair while other colors use OCA.

    ReplyDelete