Weekend Art ChallengeClick through to see this weekend's art and the design requirements for your card submission, due Monday morning. Every submission warrants feedback, which I will try to provide, and which everyone is welcome to provide as well.
If you choose, you may use that feedback to revise your submission any number of times. I will post and review the most recent submission from each designer some time on Monday, life permitting. To help ensure I recreate your design accurately, please use CARDNAME instead of ~ in your submissions.
Design a non-creature spell with a keyword or ability word. Whether it's new or old, it needs to be central to the card's purpose/identity.
Titanfall 3WW
ReplyDeleteEnchantment (Mythic Rare)
Creatures you control have Armored 3. (They enter the battlefield with 3 +1/+1 counters on them. Whenever a creature you control would have more damage than +1/+1 counters on it, remove all damage and +1/+1 counters from it.)
2WW: Exile target creature you control until the beginning of the next end step.
It's a complicated and texty ability-- even more so if you're forced to cover the case where a creature has zero +1/+1 counters on it-- but I couldn't resist the flavor of "giant suits of armor for everyone".
What is the second ability doing on Titanfall (apart from auto-comboing with Armored)?
DeleteSo, if I have a 2/2 with Armored 3, it fights as a 5/5; nothing happens when it takes 3 or less damage, but if it takes 4 or more damage, the counters go away and so does the damage?
Yes, that's how Armored is meant to work. It's as if the armor is a 3/3 (or is it 5/3?) creature that you have to kill before you can kill the 2/2 hiding inside it. I'm definitely open to suggestions as to how to execute this better.
DeleteThe second ability is just there because I wanted a way to put armor on creatures that were already out, and flickering was a cool mono-white way to do it. Looking at it again, I agree that it detracts from the card's flavor. We could just remove it, or we could replace it with "2WW: If target creature has no +1/+1 counters on it, put three +1/+1 counters on it" or "When CARDNAME ETB, put three +1/+1 counters on each creature you control."
Oh, I love armored! We might have to clean up the template a bit, but I think it will be obvious -- even to beginners -- how it's supposed to work. First do at least 3 damage to destroy the armor. Then do the normal amount of damage to destroy the creature inside.
DeleteI agree having the flicker ability as well is a bit over the top. Either alone would be quite cool. Or maybe a planeswalker with both?
The detail that's bothering me is that you have to deal /more/ damage than the creature's armored value to defeat its armor.
DeleteWhoops, you're right! Not sure how I missed that. Proposed new version:
DeleteTitanfall 2WW
Enchantment (Mythic Rare)
Creatures you control have Armored 3. (They enter the battlefield with 3 +1/+1 counters on them. Whenever a creature you control with a +1/+1 counter would have 3 or more damage on it, remove all damage and +1/+1 counters from it.)
I realize that this works a little differently, but otherwise the templating gets even uglier. The best I can think of is, "Whenever a creature you control with one or more +1/+1 counters on it would have that many or more damage on it," etc. Either way, this would probably have to be an environment where Armored is one of the only things interacting with +1/+1 counters.
DeleteI like armored a lot! One thing worth remembering is that reminder text doesn't need to be technically correct Magic leagal-ese. Perhaps Armored N can be something like: (CARDNAME enters the battlefield with N +1/+1 counters on it. If has at least as much damage as the number of +1/+1 counters on it, remove all damage and +1/+1 counters from it.)
DeleteIt needs to stop being a trigger anyway in order to actually save the creatures. It doesn't matter too much if Titanfall in particular ends up with wonky text since most people will already know what armor does from the creatures with it.
This reminds me of the +1/+1 equipment tokens from GDS2. (They were essentially reinventing +1/+1 counters with loads of extra text/rules baggage for little payoff.) We have system in place that tracks damage and destruction so this feels like you're reinventing the wheel. Would you consider simplifying it even further?
DeleteArmored n (This permanent etb with an additional n +1/+1 counters)
Armored can then appear at common on virtual vanillas, uncommon with some added abilities that reference adding/removing counters, and rares like:
Titanfall
Enchantment (R)
Creatures you control have Armored n (They enter the battlefield with an additional with n +1/+1 counters.)
Creatures you control have "Remove an armor counter from this creature: Regenerate this creature." <<>>
@Mike: You're right that this is probably too complex to be printed, as is. But I wouldn't want Armored to just say "ETB with additional +1/+1 counters". Unless the card has a way to interact with +1/+1 counters (or unless the set revolves around +1/+1 counters mechanically, the way Shadowmoor did with -1/-1), the keyword is basically is a more confusing way of giving the creature +X/+X.
DeleteFor a version of armored that could actually be printed, I propose this as a happy medium (based on the regeneration template):
Titanfall 2WW
Enchantment (Mythic Rare)
Creatures you control have Armored 3. (They enter the battlefield with three +1/+1 counters on them. If a creature you control would be destroyed, remove all damage and all +1/+1 counters from it instead.)
It's like my current version, except that the armor is only destroyed when lethal damage is dealt, not X or more. In retrospect, that part of the keyword wasn't pulling its weight in terms of either mechanics or flavor, so I'm happy to see it go. Thanks for the feedback!
Hmm. This version isn't strictly better than Collective Blessing, but it is a LOT better for creatures you cast after it, being both cheaper and granting them second life.
DeleteYou have to add "if a creature you control with +1/+1 counters on it would be destroyed" or all your creatures are unkillable forever.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteGood catch. Final version:
DeleteTitanfall 3WW
Enchantment (Mythic Rare)
Creatures you control have Armored 3. (They enter the battlefield with three +1/+1 counters on them. If a creature you control with a +1/+1 counter on it would be destroyed, remove all damage and all +1/+1 counters from it instead.)
Parley with Giants 2RR
ReplyDeleteSorcery (U)
Put a 3/3 Red giant creature token onto the battlefield, then Parley (To parley, each player reveals the top card of their library. Starting with you, each player chooses "top" or "bottom". If top is picked more than bottom, each revealed caard is placed back on top of its owners library. If bottom is picked more than top, each revealed card is placed on the bottom of its owners library. If there is a tie, flip a coin."
really wordy i know. Had trouble getting the idea across and shrinking it, but i wanted to try and capture two sides "talking" about a common solution or something along those lines.
I know what you mean by "flip a coin…" but the card doesn't actually say "If it's head, put the revealed cards back on top of their owners' libraries. If it's tails, put them on bottom" and I think it kinda has to.
DeleteMaybe just choose a side for it default. "If top has more votes, put them on top. Otherwise, but them on bottom."
i like that idea. i would say that the default will be to leave them on top.
DeletePut a 3/3 Red giant creature token onto the battlefield, then Parley (To parley, each player reveals the top card of their library. Starting with you, each player chooses "top" or "bottom". If bottom is picked more than top, each revealed card is placed on the bottom of its owners library. Otherwise put the revealed cards on top of their owners libraries."
Better. Assuming parley has as much to do with the effect of getting a giant as scry does on most cards in Theros, would all cards with parley be "Barley with X"?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Deleteparley X is a possibility definitely, maybe as an expansion of the mechanic in the next set?
Deletei agree that some of the scry cards in theros are a tad off the flavor spectrum. What i was doing here is saying "I summoned a giant, and you parley with him" but i guess it might be better suited on other cards? I think maybe this might just be better as a pone off spell called "Parley" that just does the effect. Would it be white?
I suspect it should just be a one-off spell. Could be white or blue; I think I like white better since it's democratic.
DeleteMutual Trade Agreement {2}{2W}
ReplyDeleteSorcery (cmn)
Gain 6 life.
Share (When you cast this spell, each other player may cast a copy of it. You draw that many cards.)
Share plays differently in three play styles. In a duel, you're hoping either to cast when your opponent can't copy it, or trying to fool them into copying it when they shouldn't so you get a free card. In free-for-all multiplayer, you're trying to convince as many of your opponents to buy in as possible. In 2HG, you want your ally to copy it so you get double the effect and your card back.
Unfortunately, Mutual Trade Agreement is the least exciting of the cards I made to show this idea isn't obviously terrible, but the only one that matches the art.
Cool idea, and I agree with Ant that it's a better way of approaching this design space than Tempting Offer. But I think we can find an effect that's more exciting and fits the art better. I also think the mana cost should be pushed, so that the card gets better in two-player games (where Share is technically a downside mechanic) without becoming too powerful in multiplayer. I propose: "Non-Aggression Pact, Sorcery {2}{W}: Get three 1/1 soldier tokens, Share."
DeleteNow I can't stop thinking up cool spells that could be done with Share in other colors. To me, that's an indication of a very good mechanic.
There are probably enough situationally good effects to fill out a roster of share cards. Whether or not we should do so is mostly going to depend on whether players view it as a downside mechanic or something more inherent to the card. Either way I'm not convinced that it wants to be mixed with hybrid mana given that the easiest way to make the cards worth playing is to give them effects that are significantly better in certain decks.
DeleteIf you use the Daxos "mana of any color" terminology these will look less awkward and you retain all three play options.
DeleteI'd like to hear more about why these don't want hybrid mana. I was thinking they were significantly more interested with a twobrid cost, that means anyone (you, your ally or your enemies) can play, provided they've got the mana open for it.
DeleteWotc views hybrid as a mechanic in and of itself. It is the "main attraction" of any particular hybrid card. Just as we don't see monstrous/heroic creatures or cycling/flashback cards, share/hybrid would be competing with itself.
DeleteTo sum it up: Should any new mechanic be utterly dependent upon another? Can you do it without twobrid?
Whoa, wait a sec. The opponents have to pay the mana cost to get a Shared spell? Okay, then the twobrid makes sense, but it also makes the mechanic a lot worse from my perspective-- you'll typically cast your spell when the opponents are tapped out, and even when they aren't, it's far from guaranteed that they'll choose to cast their copy.
DeleteHonestly, I hadn't even noticed that you were making the opponents pay for the copies. That makes the mechanic easier to balance on higher cost spells, but greatly limits the number of possible costs these spells can exist at; that makes hybrid desirable. I don't think that's undoable, especially in sets 2 and 3 of a block, but I agree with Mike George, especially when it comes to two-brid.
DeleteSo the version Ipaulsen and Jules thought it was originally is, each other player can have a free copy of the spell by giving you a card. That does avoid the Rhystic-y bit and could still be an interesting tradeoff.
DeleteWould I give my opponent casting Mutual Trade Agreement an extra card for a free 6 life? Probably only if I'm about to lose (in which case they wouldn't cast it) or if it's looking like it'll be a close race. Conditional answers are good.
Also, I just realized the previous template would let you copy your opponent's copy and give them an extra card, and so on. Awkward.
Deal with the Devil {B}
Sorcery (cmn)
Draw two cards and lose 4 life.
Share (When you cast this spell, each other player may copy it and may choose new targets for that copy. You draw a card for each copy.)
Can Deal with the Devil please target? I'm imagining it could have interesting multiplayer implications above and beyond the share trigger...
DeleteSo I cast it targeting you, and then you copy it targeting… actually, either would be hilarious at that point.
DeleteThis is very similar to the tempting offer mechanic in the new commander set. I like that in yours, the effect is broken out from the reward.
ReplyDeleteAid of the Ancients 2WW
ReplyDeleteSorcery (c)
Human offering
Put a 3/3 White Giant creature token onto the battlefield. You gain 3 life.
The concept of a 'human offering' is a little dark for white, don't you think? It's a nice design already, but I actually like it a lot better as a black spell: it's a better fit mechanically, and black is more likely to want 3/3s for 4 anyway.
DeleteAlso, it's worth noting that this card would make a lot more sense as a creature. I realize that would violate the terms of the challenge, though.
Yep. Change this to Black or Red and I'm sold. Or if you really want this to be white, change Human to Plains or something less visceral than human (Enchantment, Elemental, Wall, I dunno).
DeleteI'm not sure I understand why Human Offering is too dark for white. Is Fox offering too dark for White? 18 of the 21 foxes in magic are sapient, bipedal beings with the same intelligence, culture and philosophical relationship with death as humans.
DeleteSure, but sentient foxes have never been sacrificed in real life. Humans have.
DeleteThere are real world connotations we have to take into account as designers. This is why demons were removed for a decade. Illustrations with pentagrams were photoshopped or recommissioned. Also, this is why it took 20 years to see the test "Sacrifice a human". The real world connection you designed for has traditionally been a black thing.
DeleteAs cool as elves, demons, dragons etc are, Magic needs humans to establish something players can truly relate to. Literally, "Humans are 2/2 but Minotaurs are 3/3. Minotaurs are bigger than me..."
That said, Human isn't just any creature type. The act of sacrificing a human is not just a mechanical means to an end. Its a taboo that white should not be willing to gain from.
Fox Offering is white, but it was part of a cycle, from an oddly designed set/block, and did not promote the sacrifice of humans.
Earthsworn Encampment 2
ReplyDeleteArtifact - Fortification
Whenever a creature attacks you, you may sacrifice fortified land. If you do, put a 2/2 colorless Soldier token onto the battlefield, then populate.
Fortify 3
I like the design, but the populate feels tacked-on and inappropriate to colorless (which doesn't often make tokens). I think fortify is the keyword that you want to foreground here-- it's what makes the card cool-- so I'd suggest you just go ahead and make two Soldiers rather than populating.
DeleteCARDNAME {2}
DeleteArtifact - Fortification
Whenever a creature attacks you, you may sacrifice fortified land. If you do, put two 2/2 colorless Soldier tokens onto the battlefield.
Fortify {2}
It's clean (and now every number on the card is two), but I feel like it needs some panache. Any ideas? Would this be outrageous at uncommon?
This card is a perfect example of why I never want to see Fortify become a major mechanic. Magic players are trained to ignore lands. While Kamigawa was in Standard people routinely missed both players having Shizo, Death's Storehouse in play; Commander players are constantly missing the extra mana from their Dimir Aqueducts; even lands like Gavony Township get forgotten when the activation costs are too cheap. Yes, you could retrain players to watch the lands, but Magic boards get complex enough as it is, and people are routinely going to feel terrible after making attacks where they forget that this is on board.
DeleteCounter to Jules: Landfall? Devotion? These are things we are not used to paying attention to, but given enough of a chance, they were both extremely successful.
DeleteI like the 3/3 or two 1/1's. two 2/2's seems a bit much.,
Also, similar to the Trespass mechanic below, this is a big disincentive to attacking. What if it was triggered upon an opponent putting a creature onto the battlefield?
DeleteThe feel-bads that Jules are talking about are more analogous to instant speed flashback, IMO. WotC explained that the reason Silent Departure is a sorcery instead of an instant was because "we have found that strongly board-affecting instants with flashback hiding in the graveyard are likely to cause feel-bad moments from forgotten cards."
DeleteLandfall is almost always a one-shot trigger, and "have I played a land or not this turn" is something that players pay attention to (or at least they're supposed to). As for devotion, people tend to spread out their nonland permanents, making it a lot easier to keep track of than lands which are typically clumped on top of each other.
Fortify mitigates this a little bit because it involves stacking a non-land card under a land card, which in theory would stand out more and/or prompt the player to keep the fortified land off to the side as a reminder that this land is "different."
Given that fortify goes on an artifact card and that will stick out a bit, particularly if you move your land up with your 'functional' permanents, it surely is possible to remember such things. Of course, a sneaky player could bury the artifact and wait for his opponent to forget about before springing it on him.
DeleteMainly, you need a certain threshold of lands-matter so that players are actively thinking about lands in every game. I don't think there are enough unique fortify effects (that deserve to exist in that form) to reach that threshold alone, though you could combo it with a landfall/domain mechanic to get there.
Is Earthsworn Encampment really better as a fortification than it would be as a enchantment?
It's pretty ugly as a global enchantment, and even worse-feeling of an on-board trick as an aura. If I don't come up with anything better for the challenge, I might just go with:
DeleteEarthsworn Perimeter WG
Enchantment (r)
Whenever a creature attacks you, populate.
So as long as I keep at least one creature token on the board at all times, my opponent can never hit me with a non-evasive creature?
DeleteCoalition of the Sleepless (rare)
ReplyDelete6W
Enchantment
Convoke
Tapped creatures you control can block as though they were untapped.
I like the idea a lot, except that the effect is (in the long term) worse than Serra's Blessing, a two-mana uncommon. Is there something more, or different, that you can do with the tapped creatures?
Delete"Blocking creatures you control get +2/+2"
Delete"Tapped creatures you control get +1/+1"
"Creatures enter the battlefield tapped"?
I like the idea of "Tapped creatures you control get +1/+1 and can block as though they were untapped." Then this is really doing something mechanically distinctive (rewards you for attacking with creatures by making them better blockers).
DeleteIt's not worse than vigilance because this lets you use your creatures to convoke out more spells without removing them as potential blockers. Does this need more spicing up, though?
DeleteCoalition of the Sleepless (rare)
4WW
Enchantment
Convoke
Tapped creatures you control can attack and block as though they were untapped.
I appreciate that you're trying to keep the card clean, but I don't think there's any cost where this rules text feels good. Once it's cheap enough not to be wildly underpowered, the Convoke feels superfluous. Convoke-able Seedborn Muse may be a better place for the mechanic enabler. Alternatively, you could follow the Masako the Humorless route and give this Flash so you can at least do some surprise blocking.
DeleteThis card definitely isn't meant to be Pro Tour Top 8 material.
DeleteI'd rather see this in a color opposed to blue and white's tapping abilities, but red isn't know for improving its blocking capabilities. This is neat design space, but is is supposed to be white?
DeleteI definitely like this version better.
DeleteInterception 2WU
ReplyDeleteEnchantment (R)
Tap an untapped creature you control: Detain target creature with power less than the tapped creature’s power. (Until your next turn, that creature can’t attack or block and its activated abilities can’t be activated.)
A fixed Opposition! Very neat. I'd test it with "less than or equal to," just to see.
DeleteI totally agree on "less than or equal to". The most broken part of Opposition was the land-tapping; Glare of Subdual is a strong card, but not a broken one, and Interception is typically a weaker effect.
DeleteNoted. Does this hit a sweeter spot in terms of power level?
DeleteInterception WU
Enchantment (R)
Tap an untapped creature you control: Detain target creature with power less than or equal to the tapped creature’s power. (Until your next turn, that creature can’t attack or block and its activated abilities can’t be activated.)
Glare let you tap a lot of things by spamming tokens; Interception doesn't. Typically creatures with a high power have a high cmc, so lowering the cmc shouldn't help you do broken things early, but let you cast this plus another spell in the same turn in the midgame.
This is probably still too strong to be at 2 CMC, but it's going to depend on the environment. The usual lack of high power creatures in blue and white may be enough to keep it in check. Thankfully passing around a Bonesplitter only works on offense, which is far less abusive.
DeleteForbidden Crossroads 2W
ReplyDeleteEnchantment
Trespass - Whenever you are dealt combat damage, place a 3/3 colorless artifact Golem creature token onto the battlefield.
I really REALLY wanted to do something more about just straight up hiring and equipping the rock elementals that people saw as some sort of natural disaster but it all ended up as drawback mechanics.
DeleteTrespass is cool to look at and might be fun on a card or two, but I don't want to play with a set where it's a major mechanic. Either everyone's afraid to attack or the abilities have to be terrible so that nobody minds attacking, at which point they're no fun for their controller. The supposed "happy middle ground" where there's tension as to whether or not to attack is actually still an environment where games languish for lack of attacks, just a somewhat less severe case.
DeleteAgreed.
DeleteMeeting of the Minds 2UU
ReplyDeleteInstant (C)
Fluctuate (When you cast this, exile the top card of your library. You may exile this to put another card you’ve exiled with Fluctuate into your hand.)
Draw two cards.
"Overcoming prejudice takes a bit of reflection."
Why wouldn't you always exile the spell with fluctuate in order to draw the first card you exiled?
DeleteThe spell doesn't resolve if you choose to exile, correct? If this is the case, I have two questions:
Delete(1) Would people often choose to draw one card rather than two? And if they did so, would they feel good about it?
(2) Is this mechanic worth the complexity points you're spending to interact with the stack at common?
I misread it. What Ipaulsen said.
DeleteCutting the effect in half makes it look better to me:
DeleteMini-Flux 1U
Instant (C)
Fluctuate (When you cast this, exile the top card of your library. You may exile this to put another card you’ve exiled with Fluctuate into your hand.)
Draw a card.
This moves it from the Card Advantage Family of blue spells and into the Card Selection Family of blue spells. However, having a lower cost means you can begin to build incremental advantage earlier. If you have at least one other spell (Say Cancel + Fluctuate) to help it out, this becomes comparable to Think Twice (read: almost certainly worse) in the earily/mid-game and probably better than it in the late game.
It is also more pleasing to look at since you are choosing Known or Unknown vs. 2 Cards or 1 Card.
The point is well taken that this mechanic doesn't belong on an Inspiration. It's somewhere between Cycling and Scry, but the game needs to go pretty long before you risk losing your card draw in order to gain a bit more card selection along the way. I'm honestly not sure if this smoothing mechanic is worth the complexity it eats up. As far as reading goes, the reminder text is already long, but might need clarification about the spell not resolving. For tracking complexity it could exile cards face down so you don't have to track your opponents, but remembering old Fluctuate cards might prove worse and having only those face up is unintuitive.
DeleteI'd love to hear more thoughts about whether the mechanic is worth its complexity points. The inherent smoothing combined with the ability to build up a hoard of options by getting back other Fluctuate spells seems at least potentially worth pursuing. Either way, the mechanic likely needs either an alternate cost or a variable number of cards because as is it will never get used on a large spell.
For now let's try:
Unprecedented Meeting {4}{U}{U}
Sorcery (C)
Fluctuate {1}{U} ({1}{U}, Exile this card from your hand: Exile the top card of your library, then put a card you own exiled during Fluctuation besides this into your hand.)
Draw three cards.
Unprecedented Meeting 4UU
DeleteSorcery (C)
Fluctuate 1U (1U, Exile this card from your hand: Exile the top card of your library, then put a card you own from exile into your hand.)
Draw three cards.
Cleaner, though it allows you to scry 1 for {1}{U} as often as you're willing to leave it in your hand.
That was my original version, but I think the card selection is too strong to cost less than 3, at which point it starts to undermine the cycling-esque functionality. Hence my akward wording.
DeleteI don't like Jay's version. It can bring back any card from exile; it makes Arc-Slogger a demented tutor and lets you dodge O-Rings, Paths etc more than you're meant to be able to.
DeleteDesperate Plea 3WW
ReplyDeleteSorcery (U)
Put a colorless 6/6 Golem artifact creature token with defender onto the battlefield.
Conspire.
"To this day, I am unsure why the heartless constructs of Perdition's Peak listened to our pleas. But I never cease to be grateful for it." -Elder Greimas, Recollections.
Feedback welcome.
This is 6 lines without the flavor text. 9 with.
DeleteCut the flavor-text then, most of the rest is reminder text so that should be okay. It's certainly not worse than other uncommon conspire cards, like Giantbaiting.
DeleteShadowmoor came before NWO, but I have no problem with this at uncommon. It seems a little bit mean that the token won't help with future conspiracies, but I think you're right to avoid confusion surrounding whether or not the token can participate.
DeleteAside from not liking this in white (does white ever get a 6/6 at uncommon?) its a clean conspire card. And I like the minor internal tension of the token being unable to help with further conspiracies. Is this white because the illustration nudges you there?
DeleteGood call, Mike. Mono-white has, in fact, never gotten a 6+ power creature at common or uncommon; the closest I could find was Rockcaster Platoon.
DeleteMarket Value
ReplyDelete4WU
Sorcery (R)
Barter—Choose target creature. Any opponent may have you gain control of that creature. If an opponent does, he or she draws four cards. Otherwise, you draw four cards and gain 4 life.
Please help me with this one. I feel like I'm on the verge of a cool card but I can't get the pieces to fit together. I even gave it a silly name, to show how much work it needs. Thank you. (The idea is that barter spells all ask your opponents to help, and reward them somehow. Punisher mechanics, but for non-red colors.)
Did you mean for player B to let you take control of something from player C? Flavorwise, that's a hard sell. Also, what if players B and C agree? Do each of them draw 4?
DeleteI'm also not clear why we should let you and player B profit so much from player C's loss. Also, what happens when player C realizes he can't stop player B from giving away her toys, and says she'll be the one to give it to you?
DeleteHow about?
Barter—Choose target creature. Its controller may give you control of it. If that player does, he or she draws four cards. Otherwise, you draw four cards.
That works better. Now that's a mono-blue card yes? I felt WU worked for the same reason Gwafa did, but I tacked on life gain to help add the color. It's pretty stapled. Does this card work as mono-U with this art? I think 4UU is a fine cost. Also, ideas for a name?
DeleteCould be mono-blue.
Delete4 is a lot of cards. Compare to Soul's Ransom.
"Kidnapping?" …Sounds black.
What about:
DeleteForced Deal (needs a better name)
4BU
Sorcery (R)
Barter--Choose target creature. It's controller may have you gain control of it. If that player does, he or she draws four cards. Otherwise, that player discards his or her hand and you draw that many cards.
"I'm not saying you have to take this deal. Who needs kidneys anyway?"
Or "discards 2-4 cards, you draw 2-4" or "loses 2-4 life, you draw 2-4 cards" or "loses life = to its CMC, you gain that much" or something else.
If the point is that the choice is so obvious that they'll always just give you the Mind Control, why not just make Mind Control? I'd rather see a card where the opponent actually needs to think whether it's worth keeping the creature. Soul Ransom suggests that lies around +2 -2 cards. If you go with life to differentiate it from that card, maybe:
DeleteBarter—Target creature's controller may have you gain control of it. If that player doesn't, he or she loses 6 life and you gain 6 life.
I want there to be a meaningful decision. Let's go with yours. I was considering losing life = to CMC, but that makes it awful against tiny creatures. And bad depending how big it is. 6 is good.
DeleteForced Bargain
4BU
Sorcery (R)
Barter--Target creature's controller may have you gain control of it. If that player doesn't, he or she loses 6 life and you gain 6 life.
"I'm not saying you have to take this deal. Who needs kidneys anyway?"
As much fun as the multiplayer politics may be, I don't see a way in the rules to actually give opponents equal opportunity at the offer. It might work better with just the controller.
ReplyDelete"Barter--Gain control of target creature unless its controller draws four cards. If he or she doesn't, you draw four cards."
I'm a bit concerned because I think this reads a lot worse than the punisher mechanic to most players since the card does things which are not awesome for you. Other avenues to expanding punisher could be giving each color something different:
white: unless they let you make 1/1 tokens
blue: unless they let you draw cards
black: unless they discard cards
red: unless they take damage
green: unless they let you gain life
Doesn't your version just give an opponent 4 cards with no benefit? I'm not sure I understand the complaint.
DeleteI understand it reading poorer, but I think if you're given a reward regardless (you either get a creature OR draw 4 and gain 4), it's okay.
I just typed them in the wrong order; the version Jay posted is identical to mine's intended functionality.
DeleteDiplomatic escort [W]
ReplyDeleteart- zoom in on carriage
enchantment- aura (C)
enchant creature
Enchanted creature gains escort (when this creature becomes blocked you may attack with an untapped creature you control, that creature becomes blocked by the creatures blocking this creature.)
takes up a lot of complexity at common.
As long as you're doing this as part of a vertical cycle I'm on board. The aura should possibly be the uncommon in such a cycle. How would you do the others?
DeleteEscort looks really neat. The aura probably wants to be uncommon, just because it's so weird.
Deletecommon card {2}{W}
Deletecreaure- example [C]
Escort
2/2
rare card {3}{W}{W}
creature- example [R]
escort, escort
whenever a creature blocks a creature you control that creature gets -1/-0 until end of turn.
3/3
The creature with the keyword feels like it's being escorted, rather than serving as an escort. Just saying.
DeleteEscort is really cool! I agree with Jay that it should probably be "escorted," and there are some rules issues to work out with Vigilance, but it looks promising.
DeleteUnlikely Allies
ReplyDelete1G
Sorcery - Common
Culture - Put a +1/+1 counter on each creature you control that shares no creature types with any other creature you control.
Ideally this mechanic would go in a tribal block, to represent a faction that is intentionally non-tribal.
Neat concept, but does this deserve a keyword? I would like to see a handful of other cards before passing judgement, You may be on to something here.
DeleteI'm not convinced that "share no creature types" is a fruitful route. It's come up a few times in discussions, but it seems both hard to track and lacking as far as helping players build decks like traditional tribal does; and on top of that, it can often discourage players from playing their creatures. That said, if playtesting says otherwise I'm prepared to be wowed.
DeleteThis illustration is tough and I found it kind of uninspiring. (Not a complaint, just my honest reaction to it.) It took me a while to arrive at this mechanic, which excites me, but feels a little held back by the illustration. (Again, not a complaint, just a preface)
ReplyDeleteNegotiated Disarmament 1WW
Sorcery (R)
Capitulate (You and target opponent choose one, two, or three. If the chosen values match, X is that number. Otherwise, X is the number that wasn't chosen.)
Each player chooses X creatures he or she controls and sacrifices the rest.
I imagine Capitulate being the backbone of a multi-player themed block, It could appear in every color and at every rarity. (Admittedly, the commons would need some TLC) Although it takes up a lot of head space at first glance, I think Capitulate could be one of those mechanics that is easy to grok after you see it in action.
The second line of text can be a variable barter in blood, pyroclasm, card draw, discard, life gain, creature tokens, land search...anything really. If you consider cards like Burn at the Stake [deals three times X damage] the limitation of choosing only 1, 2, or 3 can be expanded at higher rarities. There's a ton of space to explore here.
My concerns: It doesn't necessarily look exciting. (Can we sell it?) It SEEMS complicated until you play it. (Will players/designers give it a chance?) Is there enough variance? (Will the chosen value always be the same?)
Feedback welcome and appreciated.
Are the numbers chosen in secret?
DeleteDo I really want to play a global sweeper that can be countered by an opponent gaining shroud/hexproof?
The timing of the choosing has to be simultaneous (and therefore secret), otherwise, the second player to choose has 100% control over the outcome.
Delete"You and target opponent simultaneously choose 1, 2, or 3" works, but it also makes this a bit more random feeling. Which is ok.
DeleteI'd like to find a way to keep this going back and forth (like haggling). Is there a way to do that without using 4,000 characters?
I'm not sure how you saw it going if not simultaneously.
DeleteFor a haggling version: "You and target opponent agree on a value for X. If you can't, X is 2." But i have trouble imagining opponents in a duel ever agreeing.
I don't see a good way to do haggling, but the simultaneous version seems to have a lot of potential. My biggest concern is that it may prove too mind game-y for non-Spikes.
DeleteBought Loyalty - W
ReplyDeleteSorcery - Uncommon
Until the beginning of your next turn, creatures can't attack you or planeswalkers you control unless their controller pays 2 for each creature he or she controls that is attacking you or a planeswalker you control.
Buyback 3WW
There's a really nice 'bartering' feel when you and your opponent are both pouring mana into this. The effect that you chose really highlights buyback as an interesting mechanic. Since Ghostly Prison costs {2}{W} and only has to be cast once, I'd guess that the buyback could be a little lower, say {3} or {4}.
DeleteI get super-nervous about creating unfun game states with repetitive control tactics like this. While ghostly prison is vulnerable to three colors worth of removal, a boughtback spell that only targets players is more or less only answerable by blue counterspells. six mana to keep this on loop is about as cheap as I can stomach. Development may disagree.
DeleteGlobal Devolution 2BWW
ReplyDeleteEnchantment rare
When CARDNAME enters the battlefield destroy all creatures.
All creatures have -1/-1
"From the size of their husks we realize that we are far inferior to our deceased ancestors"
Oups... I forgot that it has to hava a keyword. Here goes:
ReplyDeleteTitanic armaments 5
Artifact- Equipment rare
Equip 3
Equiped creature has +2/+2
Titanic Armaments can be equiped to multiple creatures silmutanously.