Last week we considered a multitude of
implementations for Tesla’s Mecha
mechanic. The comments are filled with great ideas for tweaks, but also with a
number of people asking to leave Mecha by the wayside for a while. I considered that course of action myself; while Mecha is an
exciting (potentially marquee) mechanic that deserves a spot in a set, the mechanic can’t drive a modern design on its own.When we began this project we decided to hold ourselves to the standards of Wizards of the Coast R&D. Many of us have internalized some of those methods by playing with the sets they release, but the truth of the matter is that we have a pitifully small sample size.
Tesla doesn’t have a cohesive top down theme like Innistrad or Theros, and it’s not returning to an old favorite like Scars of Mirrodin or Return to Ravnica; in fact there hasn’t been a single set since the 5th Stage of Design began that we can model it after! That doesn’t mean we can’t learn those lessons: modern design isn’t about a mechanical theme. Mechanical themes are just tools; we use them to build experiences.
Scars
of Mirrodin delivered the experience of the
Phyrexian invasion. We got to feel violated, hopeless, thwarted. We got to
watch the world we knew collapse around us.
Innistrad
delivered horror. We were obsessed with death, constantly surprised, had everything we knew turned on its head. We felt rising tension as Werewolves sat on
the board, waiting to devour us.
Theros
delivered a hero’s journey. We got to focus on individuals, watch them grow, overcome insane odds. We watched forces that once worked together factionalize and turn against each other.
So now we have to ask: What experience does Tesla deliver? I can think of a few possibilities.
Enlightenment
Tesla could let us soar to the heights of human ingenuity.
(as proposed by Ipaulsen)
Let us explore new frontiers.
Let us understand what has always vexed us.
Loss of Identity
In Tesla we could become indistinguishable.
We could turn into robots (emotionally speaking).
We could forget what we once were.
Transhumanism
Tesla could help us transcend what we are.
(My MSE template is screwed up, but the intent is to
go from non-artifact human to non-human artifact.)
Experience unbounded potential.
Think in ways we never could before.
Industrialization
Tesla
could be about leaving behind the way things have always been.
(as proposed by Tigt)
About grand futures for those who can adapt and a bewildering
present for those who can’t.
About becoming one more cog in something bigger.
_______________________________________________________
What direction do you
want to take Tesla? Design a card for
one of the visions above, or envision a new experience and create a card
for it. I’m looking forward to seeing what we can come up with!
Random musings...
ReplyDeleteRepresenting Transhumanism, a new Equipment keyword: Augment (As this enters the battlefield, choose a creature you control it could be attached to. If you do, it enters the battlefield attached to that creature.)
Representing 'industrial revolution', convoke for artifacts: Galvanize (Each artifact you tap as you cast this spell pays for 1.)
Thinking in ways never thought of before, representing 'innovation': Assemble (When this creature enters the battlefield, put a Contraption card you own from outside the game that costs less than this card onto the battlefield. When this creature leaves the battlefield, remove all Contraptions it assembled from the game.)
Galvanize is neat.
DeleteI'd make assemble an action word, but otherwise nice:
When this creature enters the battlefield, it assembles a contraption (Put a Contraption card you own from outside the game that costs less than this card onto the battlefield. When this creature leaves the battlefield, remove all Contraptions it assembled from the game.)
Do the contraptions need to leave with the creature? Tracking that could be an issue.
Jay: Not particularly. I thought it'd be a safety measure, and help better tie it to the creature - they're tagged as being 'assembled by that creature', hence the wording on Steamflogger. It does add a lot of text, though.
DeleteAugment likely has fun gameplay, but I don't think we should print it because it steps on Auras' toes. I don't want players thinking "If equipment attach immediately, why have auras at all?"
DeleteGalvanize is definitely a good pick, and I agree with Jay on contraptions.
Clarke's Third Law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
ReplyDeleteI think one of the common themes interwoven in your examples is technology as a surrogate for magic. I think the feeling we should be aiming for should be one aimed at discovery and enlightenment.
Possible card ideas to follow.
Idea the first: Kindle mechanic - repeated experiments with magic result in refined processes and better results.
DeleteStim Pack - 2W
Instant
Target creature gets +1/+1 and gains first strike until end of turn. Then, for each card named CARDNAME in your graveyard, you may have another target creature get +1/+1 and gain first strike until end of turn.
Give that mechanic an ability word, pronto!
DeleteStim Pack
2W
Instant (U)
Target creature gets +2/+2 and gains first strike until end of turn.
Iterate - For each card named CARDNAME in your graveyard, other creatures you control get +1/+1 until end of turn.
Would this get unfun if combined with Relentless Rats? Would that be better off as a one-of?
DeleteI can also see some funky rare that hurts you at first but the 4th card might as well have "Win the game" grafted on.
I guess what I'm saying is, I like it.
Does this text really do anything on an uncommon? Do you see this seeing play outside of limited?
DeleteReally, this mechanic is pretty uninteresting in limited because it is so hard to get multiples. If the block will go on to have a Large - Small - Small structure it will rapidly go from very difficult to impossible to make the iterate text matter.
This ability also has an unfortunate yo-yo problem, well illustrated by this card. How many of these do you want to run in your limited deck? The base (with no copies in your graveyard) is really bad. I don't even want to run one copy. If I happened to have 3 copies in my pile, I still wouldn't want to run any.
So, make it better so that people are more willing to draft and play them so that people will want multiples and the text will matter? But now we have the problem that the cards won't "float" enough... people who decide to "move in" won't be able to get enough copies.
For what it's worth, I think the best version of this that has been done was Replicate in Cold Snap (though we all know how that went over.)
I don't disagree with anything you're saying, but it is a mechanical space that I think can be explored further. I have more experience with Tempest block than I do Odyssey, so I know that Kindle basically sucked but I'm not sure whether they solved any of its issues with the Kindle-cards in Odyssey block.
DeleteAs far as block evolution goes, the bursts addressed this problem by having cards that counted as spell x even though it isn't spell x.
DeleteStill, kindle (in my mind) is a casual constructed mechanic. Not every mechanic has to appeal to the spikes.
Perhaps instead of counting every card named X, it would count every card with Keyword X?
DeleteMaybe. Could be very parasitic that way, but might be a worthwhile ave.
DeleteIt's fascinating that we would consider Tigt's implementation parasitic when it's strictly easier to trigger than the original.
DeleteDepends on your definition of parasitic. People typically run four of a given card in a deck, so if that card references other copies of itself, not really a parasitic mechanic in my mind. If that card is optimized by only playing with other cards with a keyword or the same ability (see slivers) then the mechanic is parasitic.
DeleteParasitic mechanics are not a bad thing in and of themselves. They do tend to skew drafts and discourage cross-block synergy, which is why you don't want too much parasitism in your set, but R&D isn't averse to using parasitic mechanical space in moderation.
While I do think Stim Pack 1 needs to start stronger, we definitely want commons with iterate to be unplayable on their lonesome, playable with two, great with 3 and bonkers with 4+.
DeleteThe mechanic is better (on average) in Constructed than Limited because you can always put 4 in your deck.
I would try using this mechanic in just set 1, where it will be great for 3 months, get weaker when the second set is added, and 'go away' when the third comes, helping the block transition into something new.
For something less parasitic but not too snowbally:
Science (When you cast ~, you may exile any number of cards with science from your graveyard. Copy it for each card exiled this way.)
Did Tigt suggest "You may have any number of copies of ~ in your deck" as a potential keyword? It's likely a dead-end, but we'd find out quickly, and if it's not—if we can somehow make a handful of such cards without hurting Limited or Constructed—that would nail the factory theme.
Here's a way to make Kindle-effects linear without being parasitic:
DeleteStim Pack
2W
Instant (U)
Target creature gets +2/+2 and gains first strike until end of turn.
Refined - Other creatures you control get +1/+1 until end of turn for each card with mana cost 2W in all graveyards.
Rekindle
1R
Instant (C)
Refined - Deal 1 damage to target creature or player for each card with mana cost 1R in all graveyards.
This lets you have "Burst" tech that's easier to use in limited and backwards-compatible in constructed.
Whee, Chops's Refined is a pretty interesting direction. Guides "build-around-me" in a direction it hasn't gone before.
DeleteRekindle would need to start at at least 1 damage, preferably 2:
Rekindling
2R
Instant (C)
Refined - Rekindling deals 2 damage to target creature or player. Then it deals an additional 1 damage to that creature or player for each card with mana cost 1R in all graveyards. (This card isn't in the graveyard as it's resolving.)
Alex, I don't think you did this intentionally (considering you appended that rules text at the end), but what if it just counts cards that cost less than it? It would put a different emphasis on building a deck with regards to your curve, and it gives development an interesting axis on which to balance a card.
DeleteSoylent
1G
Instant (C)
Target creature gets +2/+2 and gains trample until end of turn.
Posterity - That creature gets an additional +1/+1 until end of turn for each card that costs less than CARDNAME in your graveyard.
I'm worried the less version will run into issues for some players when they cast a {2}{G} card with a {G}{G} one in the yard, so I'd go with the exact cost version (though only counting your own yard to avoid discouraging spellcasting). Great tweak, Chops!
DeleteI like the above version better, but one other way to ameliorate some parasitism would be to count a subtype rather than the keyword. Namely, Arcane for backwards compatibility.
I like the feel of this.
ReplyDeleteOf what? Stim Pack?
DeleteOne aspect of steampunk that I think most of the proposals so far miss is the consistent sense of adventure. In that sense, Zendikar might be a useful design paradigm: it has a strong mechanical theme that dominates the world in a very visible way (lands or artifacts respectively), but that actually creates a lot of cool spaces for human-sized characters to play around in. Of the designs above, landfall captures this best, but I came up with a couple of other mechanical ideas that kind of capture this direction:
ReplyDeleteSmooth Operator 2U
Creature- Human Rogue (Common)
2/3
1, Operate: CARDNAME can't be blocked this turn. (To operate, tap an untapped artifact you control.)
Could be this block's landfall, with the flavor of humans using machines to accomplish their own goals.
Drakeskin Airship 3
Artifact Creature- Ship
2/2
Flying
Vehicle (When this creature enters the battlefield, you may exile a creature without Vehicle you control until it leaves the battlefield. This creature can't attack unless a creature was exiled this way.)
Fun, flavorful mechanic that makes combat strategy and ETB abilities more interesting. Plus, we get to print the enchantment "Automate: Creatures you control with Vehicle can attack as if they didn't have Vehicle."
Is the following flavor mismatch reason enough to make a near-identical keyword with a more appropriate name?
DeleteDrakeskin Airship 3
Artifact Creature- Ship
2/2
Flying
Champion a non-artifact creature
The flavor mismatch isn't the only reason. Champion as originally worded would have to be re-templated anyway, in the same way that we went from Oblivion Ring to Vanishing Light. Another relevant example is the change from Chroma to devotion for a combination of templating, specificity, and creative reasons. And the Defender clause is mechanically important-- it works to mitigate the feel-bad when you don't have any relevant creatures to champion. So there are several potential reasons for Vehicle being different.
DeleteI do agree that 'non-artifact' is probably better than 'without Vehicle', though-- good call.
I think operate's going to have some trouble filling landfall's shoes because utilizing it requires you to forgo using the cool tap abilities on your artifacts for a long time, whereas landfall rewards you for doing something you want to anyway. That said, I'd like it a lot better if it didn't happen every turn. Could it be a kicker subset?
DeleteOperate (As an additional cost to cast ~ you may tap an untapped artifact you control.)
Vehicle runs afoul of some of the same issues. I imagine it would go over better if it didn't feel like your other creature completely went away. That could be accomplished via equipment, additive P/T, or just coming back more frequently. What do you think of:
Vehicle (As an additional cost to attack with ~, exile another creature you control until end of turn. It returns to the battlefield tapped.)
It could even pump equal to it's P/T as long as it's exiled, but I haven't found a NWO friendly way to word that.
I like the kicker-style operate a lot! Feels more special and less grindy, as you said. So it might look like:
DeleteSmooth Operator 2U
Creature- Human Rogue (Common)
2/3
Operate (As an additional cost to cast this, you may tap an untapped artifact you control).
When CARDNAME enters the battlefield, if it operated, creatures you control can't be blocked this turn.
I'm less in love with the proposed vehicle changes. Having it happen every turn seems like it would cause development problems with ETB abilities; additive effects tend to be complicated, as you say, and to make less flavor sense. I'm inclined to stick with 'losing defender' as being the right upside (?) for the mechanic, but I could certainly see different implementations. For example, here's one that doesn't rely on exiling and leaves the pilot with a bit more freedom:
Vehicle (You may pair this creature with a non-artifact creature you control when either enters the battlefield. If this creature isn't paired, it can't attack; otherwise, the creature it's paired with can't attack.)
Definitely loving the new Smooth Operator. I think this route's got promise.
DeleteAs for vehicle, I like how cleaned up your new version is. Gameplay looks good here, my one concern is reading as a downside.
Vehicular (Tap another untapped creature you control to attack [or block?] with this.)
DeleteOkay, so Jay wins the clean template award.
DeleteThe universe has rules, and we can uncover those rules to understand the universe.
ReplyDeleteWhether you are plumbing the depths of the universe...
Astronomer's Apprentice 2R
Creature - Human Scientist
Discover Sorceries (When you cast this spell, look at the top card of your library. If that card is a sorcery, put it into your hand. If not, put it on the top or bottom of your library.)
2/2
Or just the world outside your door...
Research Surveyor 1G
Creature - Elf Scientist
Discover Lands (When you cast this spell, look at the top card of your library. If that card is a land, put it into your hand. If not, put it on the top or bottom of your library.)
2/2
Experimentation is at the heart of all discovery...
DeleteWhether you are putting something together...
Eccentric Inventor 3R
Creature - Goblin Scientist
Rigor 2 (Whenever a player casts a spell with converted mana cost 2, put a +1/+1 counter on this.)
1, Remove a +1/+1 counter from CARDNAME: Put a 3/1 colorless Construct creature token with haste and trample onto the battlefield.
2/1
Or taking it apart...
Articulate Engineer 1W
Creature - Human Scientist
Rigor 1 (Whenever a player casts a spell with converted mana cost 1, put a +1/+1 counter on this.)
1, Remove a +1/+1 counter from CARDNAME: Destroy target artifact or enchantment.
1/1
Rigor represents how Tesla inhabitants study patterns and then use that knowledge to control their environment. Experimentation and Research leading to Technology.
My instinct is to make Rigor only trigger on your spells, but I want to make sure the ability triggers often enough to be worth the complexity. I imagine there is a simpler trigger out there for an effect like this. I also imagine that some non-creature artifacts could have Rigor and use it produce charge counters.
Galvanic Tome 4
Artifact
Rigor 2, 3 (Whenever a player casts a spell with converted mana cost 2 or 3, put a charge counter on this.)
4, T: Draw a card.
1, Remove a charge counter from CARDNAME: Draw a card.
Nice direction.
DeleteI like discover but it might prove too hard to balance, since the difference between a card and nothing is significant. Along similar lines:
Discover Sorceries (Reveal cards from the top of your library until you reveal a sorcery card. Exile the rest.)
Here, the bonus (which is just card selection) is smaller but guaranteed, and the risk is merely in decking yourself. We could make effects that use cards exiled (or discarded) this way, or we could turn the downside off entirely and put the revealed cards on the bottom of your library.
Rigor doesn't read great (except for the bonkers abilities you've stapled on) but I wouldn't be surprised if it plays quite well. I'll say that if creatures will always have ways to spend the counters, and we're going to put it on non-creatures too, it might as well only ever use charge counters.
Rigor 1.0 actually used Charge counters exclusively, but I was worried it would look like it did nothing. 2.0 has the virtue of design space like this:
DeleteUrsine Biologist G
Creature -- Human Scientist
Rigor 2 (Rigor 2 (Whenever a player casts a spell with converted mana cost 2, put a +1/+1 counter on this.)
1/1
(Get it! She studies BEARS!)
But Rigor with Charge counters is more appealing to me as a player and a designer, since the abilities can be more of the focus for each card.
Discover Sorceries (When you cast this, reveal cards from the top of your library until you reveal a sorcery card. Put the other revealed cards on the bottom in a random order.)
(It would have to be random, since otherwise would just play a deck with no sorceries and stack your whole deck.)
Rigor has a lot of potential, though I definitely think it should just be your spells to avoid dissuading people from playing their cards. That said, throwing converted mana cost in at common is going to eat up a lot of complexity points, so it limits what else we can do alongside it.
DeleteAs for discover, I'm not worried about the swinginess of version one, Scry 1 is stronger than most people give it credit for. I am worried about the feel bad of hitting being so rare for most options. If we only used Discover Lands and Discover Creatures at common, it might still work.
As for the guaranteed version, there are lots of games where it would play out great, but I think the tutoring potential is going to be the nail in its coffin. I really don't want Standard decks with 12 copies of the same sorcery because they only play one and two different Discover Sorceries creatures.
Here are my notes idea by idea. Overall, I don't know why we're going to Tesla yet. Creatively, I'm excited about the idea of going to a world where magic and mechanics mix and there are all these odd gear contraptions floating around. Mechanically, for the most part I don't feel it yet. I don't see much specific direction except "mechs," and that is a part of the creative that doesn't excite me.
ReplyDeleteCreative Spark -- We've had basically this exact card two blocks in a row (Warped Physique and Nightmarish End). My experience with cards that want you to have lots of cards in hand is almost uniformly negative (unless the card actually draws you cards like Sturmgeist or Aeon Chronicler). The reason for this is that there are very few ways to interact with your own handsize, and (except drawing more cards) they aren't very fun. For example, if you get flooded, you can hold extra lands. If the game goes long, and you draw a 2 mana 2/2, you can realize "this card is basically dead, so I might as well keep it." The
Skylimit Crew -- I don't know what power toughness this is. I think I want it to be a 4/4, but that probably makes it not common. I think landfall can fit well thematically, turning on all the machines. It would be good to have a well understood mechanic floating around.
Fallen Researcher -- This is an interesting mechanic, but I don't think this is the right execution. As written, I think you'll never be able to cast a sorcery with it. I would want an "until end of turn" in the ability, but I wouldn't want it violating timing rules. The reminder text would also have to remind you that you have to pay for it. The timing on this card is awkward, since you have to get the thing to die at just the right time for it to be useful. I'm not convinced this mechanic can appear at common. There are also some clear developmental concerns. Look how much Archaeomancer costs (and it gets played!). All that said, I am delighted by the notion of engineering a situation where I sack this guy for some benefit so I can "flashback" my Divination. Grind Grind Grind!
Predatory Form -- Design tries to keep creature copying out of common and uncommon because it is so confusing to new players (and, let's face it, experienced players too). I think this would be cool to put on an Essense of the Wild-esque rare for judges to be excited by.
DeleteDepersonify -- Speaking of things with really confusing rules actions, it's blue Humble (already printed as Ovinize, though that was an 0/1). I don't mind bringing this back as a one off, but I think most times WOTC tries a variation of this effect it causes so much confusion they regret it (for example, printing Diminish).
Staunch Captain -- I think facedown cards have a lot of potential for a world about artifacts. I'm not sure how excited I am about keywording this sort of weird undying. What is going on here thematically? Still, I think there is a spark worth pursuing here. 2/2s (especially 2/2s for 3) struggle to stay relevant in modern Magic, but a set with lots of stuff like equipment to boost up guys/gals could work really well with it.
Shady Technorat -- I don't object to this card, I think it would be neat, but I don't think I want it to be an ability that shows up a lot. That would cause the games to be all about blocking, and lead to an awful lot of stalemates. Something like Bloodthirst is different because you don't if you need to block your opponent's creatures. This is on the table, so everyone knows they better leave back extra blockers. On one or two cards, though, I think it might create a neat game state.
Transcendent Virus -- I like this one a lot, definitely the best of the lot. Seeing this ability on one card tells me what the block is about, and it might help shape my limited deck in a way that most of the other cards here don't. My only complaint is that I think I'd rather this just be a 1/1 and have Sync be that you put a +1/+1 counter on it, like Heroic creatures. I'd be quite happy to play a 1 cost 1/1 with Sync.
Combine-y thing -- There is something appealing about bringing yet another un-card to black border, but this really doesn't excite me. As implemented here it revolves around getting a really precise combination of things to happen: You have to draft at least one core and at least one chasis, you have to play one it has to die, you have to have the other in your hand, and then you have to play the other. If all this happens you get a pretty huge bonus, but it just seems way too random. I think the last thread about Tesla had a better implementation of this where creatures transformed into equipment. I especially don't like, ruleswise, that it remains a single card in the graveyard (which seems complicated to track).
DeleteTreaded Base -- This is another attempt at an un-card. I'm certainly not inspired by this particular card, but I could imagine exploring this space. One thing I don't like is that there are immediate rules questions if you ask what happens if you equip two of these things to the same creature. I'm always skeptical when I can make a hard rules questions with just two commons with the same mechanic. If this has a space in the block, to me it feels like it is probably a third act mechanic. I don't sense a wide amount of design space, but it would be something interesting and cool.
Monopoly -- Swingy card is swingy. I like it, but I'm not convinced it is blue. Might it be white? Note that cards with multiple types, like artifact creatures, might do weird things with this card.
Scrap Smelter -- I think the existence of Voltaic Key makes me pretty worried about this mechanic in general. I like the idea though... could it perhaps only untap other Cogs? Could be an excuse to make a "--Cog" subtype. That also avoids randomly giving artifact creatures pseudo-vigilance, which would make a lot of people fall for on board tricks. With enough cogs, and a wide enough variety of effects, I could see this leading to some really amazing and unique limited game states. On the other hand, it could also get really oppressive. If I saw WOTC was printing one of these, this is the one I'd be most excited about.
DeleteHere are some more cog designs:
Grinding Cog 0
Artifact -- Cog (Common)
1, tap: Target player puts the top card of their library into their graveyard.
Prismatic Cog 1
Artifact -- Cog (Common)
Gear (When you tap this, you may untap a Cog that costs less.)
1, tap : Add one mana of any color to your mana pool.
Blasting Cog 2
Gear (When you tap this, you may untap a Cog that costs less.)
1, tap : ~ deals 1 damage to target player.
"As written, I think you'll never be able to cast a sorcery with it. I would want an "until end of turn" in the ability." - Nope, that's not the case. You can cast a sorcery just fine during a death trigger, or the resolution of any other spell or ability. But you're right that leaving up mana for a Fallen Researcher trigger is going to be pretty odd.
DeleteI like the Cog mechanic and your takes on it.
Thanks for all the thoughts. I like your Cog cards as well for lack of board complexity. I agree that surprise untap creatures are an issue, but I'd really like to avoid making Cog parasitic. Worst comes to worst, we can make it "noncreature artifact."
DeleteAlexC covered the rulings for Fallen Researcher, hopefully confusion would be averted on a printed card because people assume real cards work.
I could see putting Monopoly somewhere besides blue, but the "the rich get richer" definitely isn't white. Black, maybe.
Good call on Treaded Base, somehow I never got to that point in the thought process. Thanks for catching it.
On Combine, it may prove not to be worth all the fuss, but you seem to be definitively in the minority as far as visceral excitement goes.
Transcendent Virus: My original version of Sync was exactly what you're proposing, but like Scourge of Skola Vale, I think reducing the board complexity that players need to track is worth the additional wordiness. I'm happy to be proved wrong.
Shady Technorat: My intention was to have this trigger on a single cycle, but you're right that even that might be too much.
DeleteStaunch Captain: The intended flavor is the body of someone you knew turned into a mindless factory worker. Now just another part of the machine.
Depersonify: Thus far I agree, this was my attempt at adequate reminder text. No clue if it's enough, but certainly a step up from the no reminder text they've tried before.
Predatory Form: A lot of the complexity comes from copying things besides simple creatures, but Auras might still make this impossible at common. I thought the gameplay was novel enough to be worth mentioning in case it was workable.
Skylimit Crew: This was intended to be a 3/3 and just a weak common. I'll fix it when I get to a computer with MSE.
Creative Spark: There's not a ton of control, but certainly more than, say, cascade. It opens up some potentially interesting space developmentally for cards that aren't good early because they can't be played/have no good targets, and aren't good really late because your hand size is tiny, but shine in the mid game. Would it work? That's what playtesting is for.
Thanks for going through everything. It's always helpful to have another set of eyes to catch issues that I missed.
One of the biggest conflicts in the Victorian era that steampunk is based on was definitely those in power vs. those without; the working class definitely didn't enjoy much of what the Industrial Revolution was doing to them, and away from home there was colonialism and all the awful that came with it.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it would be a great idea to lean too heavily on the latter, as it would be too easy to make "savage vs. advanced" (low-tech vs. high-tech is a valid theme but I'd not use it this closely related to real historical atrocities). I don't think cards would be a good medium for exploring that; they're all one easily digestible concept, and usually involve things going boom and dead. Maybe something more suited towards a block novel.
There would definitely be a Luddite faction in there (what else would Green be doing?), but it would also be cool to see the duality of technology. On the one hand, you have Mr. Gatling. On the other, you have medical advances. Seems like an excellent place for White vs. Black conflict; as allies of blue, they would definitely fight over what technological progress should be used for.
I'm not wholly sure about Red's role. Red would definitely be behind workers' strikes (white would probably be behind strictly controlled factories), but would also love to ride on a train going faster than it thought possible. Goblins, obviously, would be ALL ABOUT boilers and locomotives and untested inventions.
As far as gameplay goes, that mockup definitely tells me DFCs would be better suited to any Curse of the Fire Penguin-esque tech.
DeleteAlso, we need a priceless-relic-ruining archaeologist; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_William_Howard_Vyse
DeleteNot clear, Tigt, are you sayings DFCs are better or worse than Curse of the Fire Penguin.
DeleteFor me, I'm looking at the card and I'm not sure why we can't just slip the attached card under like we do with bestow auras.
I'm glad you're talking about the dominant conflict in the genre. Tesla doesn't /have/ to be Steampunk, but it's pretty overdue and the best way to differentiate it from Mirrodin.
DeleteI was musing to a friend the other day that I didn't have clear story expectations from the Steampunk genre. With Fantasy you can expect to get a chosen one and clearly evil villains. With Horror, you can expect relatively weak protagonists and nasty death. With Westerns, you can expect the line between good and bad to be blurry. His answer was that X-punk tend to reimagine the world where a particular threat to society is extrapolated out. Cyberpunk is about corporations dominating the world. Steampunk tends to be more about industrialization and colonialism. So that's what this block has to focus on.
More on the genre:
http://kathrineroid.wordpress.com/2011/02/05/writing-steampunk/
I almost never see steampunk as anything deeper than the spirit of adventure/invention, which is not nearly enough for MtG. The costs of rapid technological advancement may be a lot more fertile; relentless resource acquisition, health and safety degradation, inhumane working conditions, scientific dead ends, rapid societal uprooting and change, all in the name of the god Progress.
DeleteAlso I'm truly unsure anymore about how best to implement "textbox layering." I'd have to experiment to see if it can do anything that regular old auras couldn't.
I've seen a variety of steampunk stories that aren't about the risks of industrialisation (though I've seen some that are too). The joy of exploration, of technological innovation, of choosing what to use these new inventions for. I'm not so keen on steampunk horror, though there's plenty of it, and coming after Scars of Mirrodin-New Phyrexia I'd recommend we don't major too much on that side of steampunk for Tesla either. So I'd say the excitement of adventure and the moral ambiguity of technology could be elements of the theme here, similar to what Tigt said. (Not too sure how those play into cards though.)
DeleteLots of good thoughts and options here!
Delete@AlexC: Moral ambiguity could probably be done Nyx Infusion Style where it can either help you or hurt an opponent.
Cogs look interesting. Hope we can get them working right.
ReplyDeleteReminds me of an old idea of mine. Widgets. Little artifact creatures, each with an ability that let you tap some number of untapped Widgets for an effect. As in...
Murderous Widget 1
Artifact Creature - Widget (C)
Tap two untapped Widgets you control: Murderous Widget deals 1 damage to target creature or player.
1/1
I'm not suggesting we do exactly this...it's not a great design. But I think multiple artifacts tapping in concert feels industrial and awesome.
It's not bad though. Seems simpler and faster to execute than cogs, which I've been a fan of since we first discussed them.
DeleteI like this a lot. Maybe each one should involve tapping itself, though; prevents combos from igniting within one turn if we use the regular tap symbol too.
DeleteI might be too hard on my own design here, since it went badly last time I tried. Thing is, I was younger and dumber back then.
DeleteYeah, this particular one would need to be uncommon because of board complexity, but I could see this setup working with effects like those on Inspired Auras (http://magiccards.info/query?q=e%3Abng+t%3Aaura+o%3A%7BT%7D&v=card&s=cname) in Born of the Gods. I definitely like the cooperative feel of tapping all at once. I've been working on Cog variants that do that, but all of them have been too wordy. You approach isn't.
DeleteI really like the transhuman approach. When I first discovered Magic, Ashnod's Transmogrant was one of my favorite cards - the flavor is so creepy and cool. It's interesting and treads new ground that Mirrodin hasn't, artifact-block wise.
ReplyDeleteMagisynth Volunteer (common)
1W
Creature - Human Soldier
Transcendant - W, T: Tap target creature. If this creature is an artifact, you may tap another target creature.
1/2
Grafted Muscles (common)
1
Artifact - Equipment
Augment 1 (1: Attach this to target creature you control. Equipped creature becomes an artifact in addition to its other types. Augment only if this already isn't attached and only as a sorcery.)
Equipped creature gets +3/+0.
Magisynth Growth (common)
G
Instant
Put a +1/+1 counter on target creature. It becomes an artifact in addition to its other types.
It's a shame that Mirrodin's creatures were metal-ized and Esper's had etherium replacements because /mechanically/ artificial transhumanism really hasn't been explored, but thematically it has. Still, there are other ways to express that theme and if we do get good mechanics out of it, we can make it work.
DeleteI like the idea of non-artifact creatures that power up when they become artifacts. Equipment that artifact-izes the equipped creature is cool too.
DeleteDunno about those specific designs, though. Tapping two creatures per turn is the sort of effect that takes over games. +3/+0 is a lot for a 1-mana common equipment. And Magisynth Growth seems a bit memory-issue-y to me.
Magisynth Growth could easily be a Mageta's Boon, a flash aura that makes enchanted creature into a artifact. There are similar tweaks to the others.
DeleteIt's an interesting idea. Making artifact-creatures-matter in the form of making the creatures want to make themselves artifacts. There were a couple of ventures in this direction in the Scars block - Liquimetal Coating, Silverskin Armor, Argent Mutation - but I never saw them used for anything much besides making Shatter into Vindicate.
My only quibble is that this is an interesting direction, but is it steampunk? Or even post-apocalyptic? It sounds more like a direction for a different set than Tesla.
Re: memory issues: in this set, anything that gets a +1/+1 counter becomes an artifact.
DeleteI like that idea. It lets this setup be self contained on a lot of cards which should alleviate a lot of confusion on first reading and makes the text relevant more often.
DeleteWhat if Tesla was a world where a group of individuals has discovered a way to create an advanced steam/clockwork technology and is using that to control and oppress its less fortunate citizens. We could create a steampunk inspired setting, but done in a way that makes sense for magic. one thing I was thinking was a boiler system created where summoners pit a water elementals and a fire elementals against each other inside of a special boiler room meant to harvest the steam that would result from their constant clashing. I think If we used different ideas like that for how steam was created or what function clockwork has in society etc we could do an interesting take on steampunk. Mechas could still fit as a clockwork driven colossus. Common themes in Steampunk are corruption (usually in the government or a similarly powerful organization), at least one fantastical element, and rebellions. Steampunk settings also tend to be somewhat dystopian. So we could set up a society with a rich ruling class or government and a rebellion of "common folk" who scrap together anything they can to fight back against the government and their oppressive clockwork mecha or something like that.
ReplyDelete"Pitting a water elemental and a fire elemental against each other" unfortunately sounds exactly like the Izzet's Weirds. See the flavour text on Gelectrode. Of course, we could explicitly say that the magitech on Tesla is using the same magical underpinnings that the Izzet discovered on Ravnica.
DeleteDefinitely an interesting avenue to go down. Oppression is certainly dangerous mechanical space since making it feel thematic likely also involves making it unfun, but maybe we can make it feel like your creatures are oppressed without you feeling bad.
DeleteMirrodin and Esper are both "Having-artifacts-matters" worlds, conceptually speaking. Clearly artifacts are going to be an important part of Tesla one way or another, but I think it's very important for them to move in a different (and preferably more specific) mechanical direction. Not sure what that might be, but it should definitely feel more active, like "artifactfall" or operate as I've proposed above, and it should make non-artifact creatures matter more.
ReplyDeleteRemember how the made Theros the enchantments block but didn't do any enchantments-matter cards until the last set? Or how Innistrad was tribal, but not in the way Onslaught and Lorwyn were?
DeleteGiven all the artifacts-matter cards from the two Mirrodins and Alara, I'm thinking this really needs to find another way to be an artifact set. It could have a ton of artifacts but just not care about card types. It could also value non-artifacts to turn the paradigm on its head.
My thoughts exactly.
DeleteThe idea of using mechanics because of things inherent to them has always interested me more than explicitly calling them out.
DeleteNot that the latter is a bad thing, or even a worse thing. But after two Artifacts Matter I'm eager to see Artifacts Already Matter.
You hit the nail on the head. I like Cog for rewarding you WITH the artifacts you play instead of FOR them, but there are a lot of routes we could take.
DeleteGreat thought-kindling, Jules. It's really great to see Tesla get all this new energy and ideation.
ReplyDeleteI want to try and focus on what makes the elite so different from the masses. The elite could be transcending humanity through advanced artificial means, while the masses are trying to organize a rebellion. Perhaps too nuanced, but I imagine the biggest impediment to the lower class isn't the upper class holding them down but their own internal conflict: They're being turned into faceless workers, automatons losing their identity; regaining their individuality is at odds with the organization necessary to rebel against the puppet masters.
a very rough split card:
Stand Alone // Stand Together
1B // 1W
Sorcery // Sorcery
Target creature gets +3/+0 until EOT. Regenerate it. // Creatures you control get +1/+1 until EOT.
Here are my thoughts:
DeleteI like this sort of idea and once again suggest a Matrix-like world. Faceless masses (Organics) that have no idea they can rebel against an evil elite (or maybe good elite - who knows).
Mindless Organic
2B
Creature - Human Drone (C)
Mindless Organic can't block unless you control an artifact creature.
2/2
The Wrail have enslaved all people of Tesla, using them as batteries for their own twisted ends and calling them collectively that which designates them as inferior: Organics.
Elite (Wrail) augment themselves with tech/transcend humanity/etc.
Vim Infusion
1W
Target creature gets +2/+2 until end of turn.
Upgrade - If it's an artifact, you gain life equal to its toughness.
“You haven’t tried essence of brushwagg yet? It is simply divine.”
Then someone (Legendary) wakes up and starts to rouse the people to action.
Braug, Resistance Leader
3RG
Legendary Creature - Human Warrior (M)
Protection from artifacts
Whenever Braug, Resistance Leader or another Human creature you control deals combat damage to a player, you may destroy target artifact that player controls.
Etc., etc.
Go wider, instead of artifact creatures make it colorless creatures, then we can have truly faceless creatures: morphs. (Morphs are colorless, right?)
DeleteOh man. Morph works GREAT for that.
DeleteWhat i found most interesting about this post, was the idea that the "organics" are dependent on the "Artificial". I think this would be a really neat and subtle theme to spread through the first block, where the organic creatures of the world still think they cannot possibly survive with out the technology they have become dependent on. THen in the next smaller blocks, they can start to rebel and break their ties with technology.
DeleteExample mechanics:
Cannot attack unless you control an artifact.
Cannot block unless you control an artifact.
some ability, use this only if you control an artifact.
do X. if you control an artifact, do Y+X.
organics that have P/T boosted or equal to number of artifacts.
etc.
These mechanics (if used on non-artifact creatures) could represent that idea that the creatures have no belief in themselves without the aid of technology.
I like the idea of relating organic and artificial in some way, as long as it doesn't get too linear or backwards-incompatible. The morph idea is also intriguing.
DeleteI love the colorless/morph idea. Then the elite could base their status on the fact that they've transcended the colors of magic (hint hint Eldrazi in set 3?).
DeleteInteresting stuff here! Having the rebellion's conflict be internal is certainly an angle I hadn't considered, and might well hit home during a time when the only little guys making a dent in big corporations are things like Facebook that rocket up, but don't raise the tide for anyone else.
DeleteOn the matrix front, I agree we can tell a really cool story, but I'm worried about having too many cards that read as drawbacks. Normally I'd just switch the wording to look like a bonus when you do have something colorless, but then we lose the dependence feel.
Revisiting my Assemble Mechanic design for the enlightenment theme:
ReplyDeleteRingamajig 1 (COM)
Artifact - Contraption
Assemble 2 (Any number of creatures with total power 2 or greater can tap to assemble this contraption. It enters the battlefield disassembled and can't attack, block, or have its abilities activated unless it's assembled.)
T: Add 2 to your mana pool. Disassemble Ringamajig.
It can't have an activated ability to assemble, since while disassembled, its activated abilities can't be activated. I could word Assemble to say "or have its other abilities activated unless it's assmebled." but that gets confusing if the card doesn't have any other activated abilities (like on Brass Whelp, a Contraption Creature.) Actually, if the rules for what a disassembled contraption can't do aren't in the flavor text, it could just be.
Assemble N (This Contraption enters the battlefield disassembled. Any number of creatures with total power N or greater can tap to assemble it.)
The order you have there seems a little inside-out to me.
DeleteAssemble N (This Contraption enters the battlefield disassembled. It cannot attack, block or have its abilities activated until it is assembled. Tap any number of other creatures with total power 2 to assemble this contraption.)
I totally respect the plan here, roughly that two small creatures or one big creature can put the robot together. "Other" isn't strictly necessary, but it should dispel some confusion and make the cards play better... You could simplify things in a lot of directions. Here's one...
Assemble N (This Contraption enters the battlefield disassembled. It cannot attack, block or have its abilities activated until it is assembled. Tap N other creatures to assemble this contraption.)
I also tread this ground with Assemble a while ago. Having a creature that showed up helpless isn't super appealing though, so my version was more akin to Monstrous: http://t-i-g-t.tumblr.com/post/78030139824/chasing-steamflogger
DeleteTap an untapped creature you control: Put a charge counter on CARDNAME.
DeleteT, remove two charge counters from CARDNAME: Add 2 to your mana pool.
Much easier to understand, and plays almost identically. Probably not common either.
@Devin I used that order to keep the 2 in "Assemble 2" as close as possible to what defines that two. Plus, the keyword is called assembled, so I didn't want the reminder text to start by describibg what DISassembled meant. There's a lot of rules info in the reminder text and I'm not sure what has to be explicitly included. look at how Equipment was shorthanded, it started out as:
DeleteEquip COST (COST: Attach to target creature you control. Equip only as a sorcery. This card comes into play unattached and stays in play if the creature leaves plays.)
But now, it's just:
Equip COST (COST: Attach to target creature you control. Equip only as a sorcery.)
And in some sets, like Scars of Mirrodin and Modern Masters, the reminder text was removed from the commons entirely. There is a possibility that describing what a Disassembled contraption can't do is entirely unnecessary. I don't know.
@Tigt We both came up tapping creatures with power N to assemble a thing. That's cool. If you don't think playing a creature that shows up helpless is appealing, imagine how cheap they can be. Assemble could be like Echo on recurring installments, but instead of paying mana, you are paying manpower.
Brass Whelp (Uncommon)
2
Artifact - Contraption
Assemble 5 (This Contraption enters the battlefield disassembled. Any number of creatures with total power 5 or greater can tap to assemble it.)
Brass Whelp is a 5/3 Hound Artifact creature as long as it's assembled.
If Brass Whelp would be destroyed, instead remove all damage from it and disassemble it.
@Evan What you're pointing out is true, but it isn't a mechanic. The problem I have with what you're suggesting is that it doesn't feel like anything. It doesn't feel like building a creature out of parts. it doesn't feel like discovery through invention. Charge counters COULD be a subtheme, as they were in Scars of Mirrodin, but they aren't going to evoke the same feeling that a cohesive keyword will. They couldn't really carry a block. having said that, version of the Assemble mechanic might need a counter to help illustrate when something is put together or in pieces.
Oh yeah, the cheapness can be a draw. Apparently that's not attractive to many players of average skill or involvement, though; the same guys who play anything regardless of how much mana it takes.
DeleteWhat I'm describing is a mechanic. It's not a keyword, but it's a mechanic.
Delete@Nich: I think you're right that the keyworded version has a lot more visceral impact, but Tight's concerns are valid. These are just inherently unappealing for a lot of players. That would be fine if I were convinced the rest would love them, but as it is there's a ton of rules text and we can't cut off the reminder text right off the bat. People won't know how to play with the cards.
DeleteI wonder if this needs to be all or nothing or if assembly can just be a threshold. There's a wide range, but even a pretty radical departure can capture the same feel:
Assemble 2 (Whenever ~ attacks you may tap two untapped creatures you control. If you do, ~ gets +2/+2 until end of turn.)
I don't know what option is best, but we should at least investigate the less wordy ones that don't read like drawbacks because they're preferable if we can get equally good gameplay.
Thanks for the feedback guys. I appreciate it.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhat if colorless were it's own color?
ReplyDeleteExample:
Gather Parts (C)
2
Sorcery
Unaligned (Gather Parts may only be cast using colorless mana.)
As an additional cost to cast Gather Parts, sacrifice an artifact.
Draw 3 cards.
Also:
Machina Drone (C)
2
Artifact Creature - Construct
Forged (This creature enters the battlefield with a +1/+1 counter on it for each colorless mana spent to cast it.)
1/1
Also:
Factory (C)
Basic Land
T: Add 1 to your mana pool.
I actually did a short article on my blog about this a few years back. I still think it's a neat idea.
Deletehttp://madolaf.blogspot.com/search/label/Forged
Unaligned is problematic because it doesn't allow for the equivalent of {2}{G}, only {G}{G}{G}. Forged, on the other hand, could certainly work as a sort of reverse Sunburst.
DeleteThe real question is why are we doing this? If there's a good reason, I'm happy to pursue it, but if the reason is "because we can" I don't want to add a sixth color. 5 is a better number of colors from a game balance standpoint; if it weren't, we would have had six in the first place.
Unaligned should be scarce, but powerful. Maybe a few at common, just to give the mono-artifact deck a reason to include less colors. The core of the mechanic forces the spells to cost less than they would if they were colored. It gives good reason for a basic colorless land, as well.
DeleteThe basic land idea is incredibly problematic, sadly. Especially if you're proposing (as you did on your blog) "Tournament Organizers will have these handy to pass out with other lands when needed." Jon Loucks proposed something rather similar in the Great Designer Search, saying:
DeleteOn Cavern: Like the other basic lands, players have access to any number of caverns at tournaments, and can play any number in their deck. I can avoid creating a new basic land type by creating a new rule ~305.6b "A basic land with no basic land types has 'T: add 1 to your mana pool.'" This should avoid some of the rules issues a new type creates. Caverns would be distributed to tournament organizers and through booster packs as a possible basic land. I chose to give player's access to caverns because I didn't want people drafting cards they couldn't cast.
This... did not go down well with the judges. Ken Nagle said "This designer proposes printing and shipping costs for something like a million free cards rather than solving the problem via game design."
I never got why they needed to infinitely plentiful. Coldsnap included basic snow lands and if you wanted them in your deck, you had to draft them. We can do the same for Factory. (Nothing stopping us from using every basic land slot in the packs for Factory, if we need more than common.
DeletePresumably one solution could be to eschew tokens in the block and instead reserve those resources for printing these additional Factory-lands.
DeleteI know there's a portion of the playerbase that is genuinely excited by new tokens, but the fact that each pack already gets a basic land AND a random token/fact card does suggest there's an opportunity to replace that slot with something such as this.
I did a small twitter poll to see how people would interpret 'smaller'. There wasn't 100% agreement, but I think my definition was the most popular, easily explained, and quick to evaluate:
ReplyDeleteOne creature is smaller than another if its power or toughness is lower than the second creature's and neither is larger. ie 2/3 is smaller than 3/3 and 3/2 is larger, but 2/3 is neither smaller nor larger than 3/2. Sadly, we can't define it to be consistent with evolve, because 3/2 can't be both larger and smaller than a 2/3.
Why did I do this poll?
If we wanted to force the size-setting issue of mech suits, we could use this terminology, and get double-duty out of it for some kind of oppression mechanic.
Rocket Mech {3}
Artifact-Equipment (cmn)
Equipped creature is 3/2 and has flying.
Equip a creature smaller than 3/2—{2}
(or perhaps:
Rocket Mech {3}
Artifact Creature-Mech (cmn)
Flying
Suit-Up {2} (CARDNAME can't attack or block unless it's suited-up. {2}, Exile a smaller creature you control until CARDNAME leaves the battlefield. Suit-Up only as a sorcery.)
3/2
?)
Clyxian Elite {3}{G}
Creature-Human (cmn)
Dominate — CARDNAME can't be blocked by smaller creatures.
3/3
(I'm not married to any of those executions, but exploring that space)
I'd just kind of assumed we wouldn't find any agreement between intuitions on the matter, but I guess actually putting in the legwork pays off. This is certainly rich space to explore:
DeleteThe Little Kithkin that Could {1}{W}
Creature-Kithkin Scout
Protection from larger creatures
1/2
We'd probably include reminder text in common creatures just the same, but I think it has potential.
Delete