We're in the midst of testing progress mechanics for Tesla. This page will serve as a place for playtesters to document their thoughts, experiences, and observations about the mechanics we're testing and the environment in general.
If you'd like to help out, but didn't sign up, there's still time. Just shoot me an email (julesdrobinsATgmailDOTcom) and I'll get you everything you need to join. Find times to playtest
via Doodle.
What does Anodize do? It's in my sealed pool, but not in the card list.
ReplyDeleteHmm? Shows up for me. Instant, W, "Target artifact gains indestructible until end of turn."
DeleteI propose this subthread be for rules questions on the cardlist.
ReplyDeleteQ: With the combined mechs, are we playing with any anti-two-for-one rules? I don't see any reminder text to that effect, so if a Mech gets hit with Electrical Fire presumably both halves are just gone? (And therefore there's not much point combining, say, Ruby Pilot with Rootkin Framework, as you turn a 5/6 and a 1/1 into... a 5/6 and a 1/1.)
I assume Dominance doesn't count on an empty board? From a strictly mathematical POV, it's tempting to claim that I do control each creature with the greatest power...
DeleteI assume Eureka doesn't count when you draw it in your starting hand?
When you form a mech from one half summoning sick and one half not (as will usually happen with cores and chassis), is the resulting mech summoning sick? We played yes.
When you form a mech from one half tapped and the other half not (and you don't immediately untap it as with pilots and frameworks), is the resulting mech tapped?
If you plug together two of the Power Source artifacts without any cost to activate, do you get infinite activations?
Good call on the rules questions thread. The answers I've been running with:
Delete1. No anti-two-for-one rules in this implementation. The Chassis that don't change size don't do enough to incentivize mech-making with pilots. After playing a few matches I'm convinced that all Chassis should get bigger on the back.
2. The intent is that it doesn't count on an empty board. We'll switch to a less ambiguous wording if it sticks around.
3. Summoning sickness applies unless all of the permanents have been on the board since the start of your turn. This has the side effect of making it unappealing to use the activated ability combining the turn you play the other half.
Power Source modifies how a permanent enters the battlefield, and therefore looks at the battlefield just before it enters. There is no way I can think of for two artifacts to power one-another.
Missed one: Eureka! doesn't count opening hand, could use clearer wording.
DeleteThough it didn't come up in my matches, I wondered about the summoning sick mecha question too.
DeleteTo me, Dominance doesn't work on an empty board because it requires that you control creatures, which you wouldn't.
Ben: Well, technically, the current text doesn't require that you control creatures; it just requires that you control "each biggest creature". If there are no biggest creatures, then you control them all - and I control them all, and they are all Lurker Berserker Assembly-Workers - since the conjunction of an empty set is true ("true" is the identity for the "and" operator)... Like I said, I didn't think it was the intent, it's just how it's tempting to take the wording overly mathematically :)
DeleteRealized I also failed to address the tapping bit, that was an oversight on my part writing the reminder text. All combination methods should untap both permanents.
DeletePosting these observations in separate threads for ease of discussion:
ReplyDeleteThe Framework chassis offer very little incentive to combine with Pilot cores leading to the Mech mechanic feeling unexciting. The heart of the issue seems to be the lack of size change. I propose we move back to a previous iteration where each common chassis gets +2/+2 on the back side.
Definitely agree. At deckbuilding I was really excited to see I had 3x Ruby Pilot and 4x Rootkin Framework, and then very disappointed as I thought through the implications and how there'd be really no benefit to combining them at all. (A flying pilot would have had some benefit, but haste is a really useless keyword to give to a framework; it's not very good to give to a chassis.)
DeleteThis seems like something we could easily patch into the current set, actually. Give all the frameworks' front side -1/-1 and their back sides +1/+1.
DeleteGood call. I'll see about getting the files updated
DeleteProgress 2.0 and Overthrow interact to make something like split cards. They can grow your team precombat or be cast on the cheap afterwards.
ReplyDeleteNotes from playtest #1. Disclaimer: I only played four games, and it's early obviously. That said, here are my thoughts:
ReplyDeleteI often held back Eureka! cards when I could have cast them in order to maximize the (slim) chance I had at drawing one and getting the free (tiny) trigger. I don't know that it's pulling its weight as a mechanic so far for me. It feels like a big risk for a small gain, and it's super wordy as well.
Overthrow is really good when you're ahead, as is Dominance. I like the feel of both of them mechanically, but flavorfully they both play in the same space, and are both a bit win-more.
On that, Impress the Fodder (Overthrow Goblin token maker) could be an uncommon.
Transcend was cool when I got it, though the abilities were more useful than the creature being an artifact. It might need more enabling (or I might need to put more colorless mana in my sealed decks).
Should Toiling all Night and all Day (1U tap or untap two target permanents) be able to hit lands? On the play, I can make my opponent skip their second turn by tapping both lands. Though this format doesn't seem to be too agressive now, I don't know if this is the intent of the card.
Master Blueprint (draw 2, Dominance draw 3) is a great card. Feels swell when you have it with Dominance and fair without it.
The feeling of having to protect your Dominant creature is interesting.
Reap the Profits (Eureka! +2/+2, 1G +4/+4) feels really strong. This is probably due to the fact that the format as a whole feels very combat focused so far. Something to keep in mind.
On that, creatures with higher toughness than power also feel very strong. This is especially true of creatures with bully, as it's hard to gang-block them.
There aren't enough great artifacts that want to be main-decked compared to other cards so far, which makes cards that sacrifice artifacts feel weak.
I don't feel there's enough direct damage so far. For example, M15 has 7 common direct damage spells: Blastfire Bolt, Forge Devil, Heat Ray, Inferno Fist, Lava Axe, Lightning Strike, and Seismic Strike.
I'm really impressed with how bully plays. I wasn't expecting much, but it seems good, easily stopped, and provides interesting plays. Really impressed overall.
I'm with Jules: I think pumping up chassises (chasses?) +2/+2 is better than leaving them the same size.
Having a 4/4 and a 5/6 at common for green is a little much. Downsizing the 5/6 into a chassis that gets bigger would help. There are going to be a lot of fatties already with mechs. We should be careful that we're providing enough removal to deal with them well enough. I don't think that's true yet.
There's a lot of win-more feeling in this format so far. I felt way behind pretty easily, barring an outstanding top deck. Mechs feel balanced against each other which is good.
I adore the "When this transforms into a Mech" triggers, as they are essentially virtual vanilla creatures, which helps a lot with the complexity of Mechs.
Fresh Start (red sorcery, discard 1 draw 3) doesn't feel red to me. Whether that's because the "draw 3" or the +1 card advantage, I'm not sure. My inkling is it's the card advantage, as I think discard 2, draw 3 would be okay.
Bullies are unchumpable often, which feels uninteractive, especially if this format is as combat centered as I expect it will turn out.
Once Progress 2.0 hits 3 power, it seems pretty hard to trigger. We can be more aggressive in costing those creatures and thus make a more exciting mechanic.
That's all I got so far. Feel free and start other threads to respond if this is too much.
"The feeling of having to protect your Dominant creatures is interesting" - Definitely agree. When I have a 5/2, there's an interesting tension because I want to play my Dominance spells right now, even if they're off-curve and my mana would be more efficiently spent doing something else.
Delete"I adore the "When this transforms into a Mech" triggers" - Not sure about this. When the payoffs are as minor as "target gets -2/-0", "target gets +0/+2" or even "make a Saproling", it feels like wasted potential to get it once rather than holding out to draw a "proper" Core to get it every turn.
"Once Progress 2.0 hits 3 power, it seems pretty hard to trigger" - Not my experience, FWIW. My deck has a fairly high curve, perhaps, but I grew my Progress2.0 creature to 5 power without too much difficulty, and had a fair shot at getting it to 6.
I only got to play 2 games, and am looking forward to playing more, but observations from those games:
ReplyDeleteProgress 2.0 is interesting and fun. It's a lot like Evolve and can be costed similarly - possibly slightly less aggressive because things with activations of {5}{R} etc can drive all your progress creatures up to 6 power single-handedly.
Mine on its own is an upside, albeit a small one. I kept my 2xPaydirt in my deck even after I cut my last card that cares about my graveyard, because the scry is small but will often do /something/.
Dominance is really interesting. Leads to interesting play decisions in a similar way to how morbid did. Having two Lead the Pack meant I was very close to playing my Worker Drone even without any transcend or artifact-matters (I only cut it because I had 3 other 2-power 2-drops). I love a set that can make Alpha Myr so relevant.
As mentioned upthread, the mechs at the moment suffer from there being no benefit to combining frameworks with pilots. I like the idea of there being some common colourless mech-parts and some common coloured mech-parts: that keeps the colour differentiation and variability of the mechanic that we found to be good in the other mecha playtest I participated in.
I love the mix-and-match triggered abilities - that's awesome - but as I mentioned elsewhere it feels bad to settle for getting a trigger once from a Pilot when I might be going to draw a Core that'll give me it every turn.
The Transcend creatures are really good with mechs (which is cool). Wing Maker and Mask Shaper are perhaps too cheap to activate for a common in this set.
I can't see what the Carvings are accomplishing in the cardlist at all. Being bad Eggs for single-colour smoothing?
They're intended to enable splashing for any of the ten off-color activation cards, or any of the ten artifact creatures that get an extra benefit from colored mana. They also allow you to use off color core Equipment, avoid getting as color screwed by playing colorless lands, and up the number of ways to get a bit of value from Power Source in a non-dedicated deck as well as slightly increase the consistency of finding Mech parts.
DeleteHow many of those tasks do they actually accomplish? I guess that's what the playtesting's for.
I don't see that they accomplish any of those goals better than an off-colour basic land would, though. Except the Power Source one, but... I wouldn't want to leave my cantrip manawash on the table waiting for me to draw my Power Source.
DeleteNow if they were a oneoff accelerant (banking mana from one turn to the next), that'd be more interesting. What if they had "{1}, {T}, Sac: Add {1}{R}. Draw a card" instead? That way they can also provide colourless mana for transcend, and they let you give up one early turn to get a later drop out one turn early.
There's arguably lower opportunity cost to playing one of these for fixing than an off-color basic since they still cantrip when not helping you splash, but I'm not opposed to your tweak either. In fact, they originally put you up a mana, but I was worried we'd have too many one-sided games if I added 5 ramp spells without much more efficient removal.
DeleteReducing the mana cost or activation by 1 also makes these more appealing without breaking them, I think.
DeleteThey're pretty decent power-level wise as is, but the final form's going to depend on how the set shakes out. I certainly wouldn't opt for making colorless if transcend didn't stick around.
DeleteFor comparison, Gatecrash common Prophetic Prism cost 2 as well, draws you a card immediately, and filters mana for the same cost as these without requiring a sacrifice. If our goal is to feed artifacts into the graveyard, Carvings may be better. And if our goal is to make sure everyone gets a couple for their deck in draft, Carvings are slightly better than Prophetic Prism. So I suggest we not make a worse cycle than Prophetic Prism, and instead borrow from Terrarion's design (from the orginal Ravnica set).
DeleteMarsh Carving 2
Artifact
Marsh Carving enters the battlefield tapped.
1, T, SAcrifice Marsh Carving: Add 1B to your mana pool.
When Marsh Carving is put into a graveyard from the battlefield, draw a card.
I strongly disagree with Jules that the Carvings in the current design are "pretty decent power-level wise as is". {2} invested up front, then all you get is one mana filtered on a subsequent turn and a cantrip? Filtering 1 mana is nowhere near enough reward to justify the investment of 2. I didn't see anything in the set that cared about artifacts in the graveyard, so it's like playing a blank card with "cycling {2}", which most of us wouldn't do.
Delete(I've yet to see any reason why the Carvings as they currently stand are any more use for colour fixing than playing one more basic land in your splash colour.)
I had been wondering about proposing a cycle of Terrarions as well. But Terrarion's benefit was its flexibility: it'd let you cast whichever splash card you were missing the colours for. A cycle of fixed Terrarions... well, an upfront investment of {1} is much better than {2}, but I'd probably still only play them if I wanted more colourless sources for transcend.
Eureka!'s in kind of a tricky spot. Draw triggers are fun, and this one is no exception, but they inherently come with a lot of logistical baggage for competitive play. I don't think Miracles were worthwhile, and Eureka has other issues: it's wordy, and most of those words are irrelevant 90% of the time. Right now the cards don't look like they do as much as they actually do, but if the "never before seen" mode was the default, the ability would read like a drawback.
ReplyDeleteI think this space is best saved for something like Conspiracy II: Darker Secrets where most of these issues disappear.
Bully played out rather well, though it did require some environment warping. Note the lack of power pumping auras or equipment in the file. That said, Mech don't want many of those anyway, so they might play nice together. We just need to be wary of how many mechanics in the final set press an existing advantage. The sorts of mechanics submitted for this theme inherently lean that way.
ReplyDeleteIt's hard to get the mana sources for Transcend, and the current rewards aren't really worth it. I think our best bet would be to scale up the impact and cost of the Transcend cards so they're more plausible to turn on in the late game and there's more incentive to do so.
ReplyDeleteHm, really? I suppose my pool including 4 colourless common (graveyard-filling) lands was unusual then. Not that I actually had anything I could do with them: no transcend, no graveyard-matters. If I was in black I could play my one Disinter, and I could be playing 2x Crystallium Sentinel if I wasn't playing other things, but 2-3 cards as payoff didn't feel like reward enough.
DeleteThe issue doesn't seem to be just number of colorless sources in the pool, but also the players' ability to run them without color-screwing themselves. Refine was also intended to offer some reward for self-mill
DeleteGood point, refine does also do that. But I also had no refine in my colours either. Putting all that together I think many/most sealed decks would love to have the 2x Abandoned Mill 2x Collapsed Shaft that I had, it just happened that I had an unusual pool with the support but nothing much to do with it.
DeleteNote that transcend pushes the format away from multicolored play. Producing colorless mana (and rewarding that) has the opposite effect of generic mana costs, and is better in a deck with fewer color requirements. That's a boon as much as it is a curse, and a goal we've discussed on this site before, but definitely impacts the entire Limited format considerably.
DeleteI'd like to see a mana Elf that taps for colorless mana, (similar to Boreal Druid but without the Snow Supertype) in the file. It fits a pretty common slot for green, works with our world theme, and the Transcend mechanic.
DeleteGood call, not sure why that didn't occur to me to work in.
DeleteDominance has all the swings we anticipated, but the gameplay's interactive and the swinginess hasn't felt backbreaking (though I imagine I'd be singing a different tune if I'd cast, say, a turn 3 Lead the Pack)
ReplyDeleteOverthrow also showed the potential to be a bit too backbreaking against an opponent with a slow start, but generally interactive and fun. To me, that indicates that we ought to push Overthrow onto slightly more expensive cards to preserve the core gameplay while mitigating the early beatings. 5 drops can manifest on turn 3, but 6s are pretty safe
ReplyDeleteI haven't had refine come up that much, but it certainly feels impactful and had some dynamic gameplay with discard effects and Magitech Salvager.
ReplyDeleteI think a lot of Refine's current problems stem from the types of cards I put it on. It has the potential to open up whole new areas to care about like Devotion, so I'd like to try more Refine cards like the green one to better see how it plays in limited.
DeletePower Source ended up in an awkward spot for this playtest because no amount of cost reduction is liable to make these effects appealing without some higher rarity cornerstones. I suppose I could have made them all cantrip for this playtest, but I intend to give them a try despite low power-level and find out how the gameplay fares.
ReplyDeleteMm, fair enough. I wanted to play my Crystallium Gear because my curve was so high, but I had nothing else in the deck to power it except a couple of artifact creatures, which would mean I couldn't get {2} from it for a big creature spell - only {1} pre-combat and {1} post-combat, which isn't so useful. I did also have a Winding Cog, but as I mentioned elsewhere I didn't have much to benefit from milling myself.
DeletePerhaps we could try throwing together some constructed decks from the set to try out the mechanics in a more focused way? Some of them like refine would have a lot more chance to shine (or be broken) in a dedicated deck.
The biggest disadvantage to the try-everything playtest is that some mechanics that need critical mass to shine just won't get it. A little Pauper Constructed where players focus on those mechanics seems like a great idea.
DeleteI'm all for constructed decks built around a single mechanic (or two).
DeleteAgreed, good idea!
DeleteI've assembled two 60-card decklists from the cardset, ready to try next time I'm on.
DeleteAlex, what mechanics have you made? I'll make a deck or two for different mechanics.
DeleteI have an UB power sources deck (with a few mechs to provide other artifacts to become tapped, and targets for the +1 counters) and a GW progress2.0 deck.
DeleteOkay. I made a UG mine/refine deck and a BR power source deck. I'm not sure how often I'll be on coming up, but I'll update the Doodle when I'm able, so keep an eye on it.
DeleteMech
ReplyDeleteThis was my first time playing with Mechs, and there were a lot of highs and lows. Having three Core Equipment in hand, and knowing I needed to cast them even though they would do nothing to advance my board state was frustrating. As was splashing for Sail Core and Dousing Chassis and drawing them when I had no blue sources. On the other hand, attacking with a vigilant 3/5 or 4/6 that gives a creature +0/+2 or -2/-0 was awesome. I like the mix of colored and colorless Mech halves. Removal was light enough that I never felt bad if a Mech got destroyed. The front sides of the Mechs are a big problem though. The Core Equipment are uneven. Alarm Core was relevant with my 2/2's, but Drill Core was expensive to cast, and didn't do anything but wait for a Chassis. Pilots are fine bodies and good backup plan if there are no Core with the Combine keyword, but I never wanted to tap them to transform. In addition to having to pay to use them, Pilots didn't grant a keyword like Core Equipment, and the mixing and matching of keywords, bodies, and triggered effects are where Mechs are most fun. If Pilots could help find Chassis, or could bail out when the Mech dies, I could see them being a really attractive option.
Replacement Cycle and Transcend
ReplyDeleteThe Replacement cards were fun to play, but mostly because they're so aggressively costed. They don't play to the set's theme much. Transcend on the other hand does play to our theme, but was too difficult to trigger, and not really worth it when it did. The activated abilities on the Transcend cycle were much more relevant. Just activating their abilities to give my artifact creatures vigilance and flying felt thematic. And board state were such that the transcend creatures were never so juicy a target I hoped to activate them targeting themselves. These will need help turning on if they stay in the set.
Probably safe to say the transcend cycle should be uncommon (for swingyness), bigger (so they're better targets for their own abilities) and more expensive. The question then, is: What does a common transcend card look like? I'd love to say we could make vanilla transcend guys, but it just doesn't matter unless there are a lot of things that care about artifacts (and even then it makes no sense in isolation).
DeleteWe could give all the commons, "~ gets +2/+2 as long as it's an artifact" or "~ has [keyword] as long as it's an artifact" and that wouldn't be terrible.
We could also complicate transcend into "For each colorless mana spent casting ~, it ETB with a +1/+1 counter and is an artifact in addition to its other types" for the benefit for making vanilla transcend creatures interesting/relevant. That would also help track their state.
My thoughts exactly on Transcend. The abilities are great, and the actual bodies or turning on thereof are not.
DeleteTranscendent Bear 1G
Delete2/2 Bear
Transcend (For each colorless mana spent casting ~, it ETB with a +1/+1 counter and is an artifact in addition to its other types)
Transcendent Ogre 2R
2/2 Ogre
Transcend (For each colorless mana spent casting ~, it ETB with a +1/+1 counter and is an artifact in addition to its other types)
Transcendent Bird 1UU
2/1 Bird
Flying
Transcend (For each colorless mana spent casting ~, it ETB with a +1/+1 counter and is an artifact in addition to its other types)
(or 2U 1/1, depending on how much colorless mana is available)
Transcendent Dead 3B
1/1 Skeleton
1B: Regenerate CARDNAME.
Transcend (For each colorless mana spent casting ~, it ETB with a +1/+1 counter and is an artifact in addition to its other types)
Ooh, this direction is pretty interesting, and tracking help would definitely be nice. I missed that a Transcended creature was an artifact for a bit, so I can't imagine it's a non-issue for everyone else.
DeleteDominance
ReplyDeleteWith a theme like progress, you have to beware of the rich getting richer. I had Lead the Pack played against me when I had just a single creature on the board, so I went from behind to "never gonna catch up." That sort of thing can happen in a Commons-only playtest, but if I had any chance to interact, like if we compared cards in hand or on top of the library, I guess it would have felt fairer.
Overthrow
ReplyDeleteI played with and against Symbol of Hope and saw it cast for 2W, 3W and 4W. Every time felt fair, which may say more for the set's need for win conditions than anything else. When it was cast for less, it never felt like a moment of progress. I'm not sure if any attack related effects can feel like progress, unless you're trying to meet a marker of some sort, (If three or more creatures engage in combat, if your opponent's life total is blah.) I like it though.
I'm guessing overthrow is a mechanic we definitely want to use, but in another set.
DeleteProgress 2.0
ReplyDeleteI played against Avant Garde and Homing Pigeon. Triggering it certainly feels like progress. This mechanic reminded me of Rebel from Mercadian Masques, except you trade the tool box aspect, and every time you spend mana for it, you get a spell effect. Triggering multiple threats on the board off a single spell was devastating. I found creatures would reliably become 5/X's. Progress 2.0 is much more effective build 'em up effect than Mechs, without any of the risk and a lot less of the luck. I'd much rather hope to draw a 3 mana spell, than a Chassis. It's not a mechanic I'd focus all in one color, since having even one of them on the board is better than most anything. In fact, we might only want 1 of them per color at common. Homing Pigeons high toughness made it extremely hard to kill in combat, so I had to rely entirely on hard removal to get rid of it.
One of the major issues with Progress 2.0 seems to be that given how bottom-heavy mana curves are, it doesn't really matter what their starting power is. A 1/1 is nearly identical to a 2/2. That sounds developmentally terrifying, but might actually make it easier to balance the mechanic and keep it looking appealing by doing things like making Homing Pigeon a 4W 3/2 where it will often end up with the same power, but 3 less toughness for an extra mana, but still read stronger at first blush.
DeleteRefine
ReplyDeleteI only had one Refine card, Thirst for Power, but many spells with a 1B casting cost so I added it to my deck. Unfortunately, I drew it once and held it in hand until the last possible moment. So I'm underwhelmed. It could be a fun mechanic, and it feels on theme when there are cards in the graveyard to fuel it. It's possible it only wants to be in colors with access to Mine. Otherwise, I'm not sure it does enough.
I've seen a grand total of one Mine trigger thus far which may be a result of small sample size or may mean it needs to be on more appealing cards. Either way, it felt worse than expected to hit a land as the top card, and I could see situations even hitting multiple cards where they all feel disappointing. I'm thinking we should tweak Mine to leave up to one on top and mill the rest so you never feel locked into a bad draw.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePlaytest 2 (2 games): I'll keep it shorter this time.
ReplyDeleteI definitely think we should try Transcend with multiple +1/+1 counters as discussed above. During these games, my opponent used counters to mark when the creatures were artifacts, and it helped immensely.
I'll say it again: this set is super combat focused, and high toughness creatures are amazingly strong. I think we should look to Theros which was similarly combat focused in terms of how to address issues that come up.
The Mangler Chassis (Mech that gives -1/-1 til EOT) is too strong at common with a repeatable attack trigger. My feeling is that common Mechs should be "When this transforms" and leave behind a big creature, while uncommon and rare Mechs get repeatable triggers like "When this attacks".
I'm with Jules above that I don't think Eureka! is worth it as a mechanic for this set.
Lastly, I'm not sure Mech's should transform when entering (Combine, the implementation on Cores and Chasses). It feels too easy, even with the 2-for-1 possibility. I still think the 2-for-1-ness works fine and is important. They feel too back breaking to be free, or rather the cost of one half. I think they should work off paying mana (the Pilot and Framework way), both as a way to balance them, as well as to give them more natural scaling: start small and get big.
During this playtest, in Game 2, Ben and I both had two fully transformed Mechs on the table. Through combat trick spells and repeated -2/-0 and -1/-1 triggers, mine were able to take the win.
Delete