Next up on our list of proposed Tesla mechanics to investigate is an adaptation of Charged as originally proposed by fading shadows of a memory beloved: Ben Nassau's Power-Up.The original Charged ticked down.
That made the mechanic feel like a drawback, so Ben wisely decided to flip things on their head.
Unfortunately, this version leads to an awkward setup where counters keep piling up long after they're meaningless. It would be nice to use +1/+1 counters, but that's bound to cause a developmental nightmare with any trigger condition that occurs regularly.
Luckily, we can salvage this idea by tying the effect to the placement of the counter, as Jay Treat suggested.
There are still a couple of points that could use improvement. With the above implementation, once we hit the threshold it's not hard to keep getting the trigger every turn (especially given the compounding advantage of all the previous triggers). This can easily lead to repetitive gameplay concerns. The threshold itself will also need to be consistent across cards to make sure players are able to track multiple cards effectively.
On top of that, there's a bit of a flavor mismatch here. The concept of clockwork winding down in the original implementation has resonance, but batteries don't just keep charging. They hit a cap and then can't be charged further until they're spent.
This version doesn't have as much inherent feel-good and is a bit textier, but neither of those issues is a total deal breaker if the gameplay is substantially better. Whether or not that's the case is up for debate (or preferably, playtesting).
And there are, of course, other configurations. We could make cards that trigger every time they Power-Up for the same effect, or that scale directly with the number of counters. We could sacrifice or bounce the permanent instead of resetting the counters, or have a scaling effect based on the charge when it eventually dies. The point is there are a lot of directions to take this space, and that's not even fiddling with the trigger for charging. It will take time to sort out the best approach; in the meantime, your task is to
design some cards for your favorite implementation of this mechanic or another playing in similar space.
Random brainstorming:
ReplyDeleteI like the "when CARDNAME becomes tapped" trigger!
Have "power up" say "may" and have no reason to keep putting counters on.
Have "power up" overload at a certain point -- trample at 3, sac at 6?
Just put a max of 3 in the text.
Have Wind-up salvager, but instead say "Remove three charge counters: Return target etc" or "Remove all charge counters on ~: if there are three or more, return target"
Could power-up charge something other than itself (also to prevent charge-counters on creatures)? Eg. put a battery token OTB or charge counter on a permanent or charge counter on you? And then also need to spend N. A bit like thallids?
Or, as I thought of a moment too late, instead have it charge up each turn, but need to spend multiple charge counters to do things?
DeleteTo address each of your points in turn:
Delete1.) This makes needless choices and triggers for MTGO.
2.) That just makes it a downside mechanic again, and adds another number to count for.
3.) This one seems good to me.
4.) The former is fine. The latter is ugly and weird. It's only been seen once on a rare; I doubt it'd be acceptable at common.
5.) Battery tokens = interesting but a LOT more complex. Charge counters on a permanent / you = needless addition of text, me thinks.
Good brainstorming, jack. I agree with Inanimate's response.
DeleteI'll second both of Jay's opinions.
DeleteMy favorite version of all of these is the last one, simply because it solves the gameplay issues while remaining exciting and interesting. My concerns with it are this:
ReplyDelete1.) That's a lot of text for common, which could be pretty problematic. Sure, it's simple, and it's a unified effect for the most part - at least, I'm assuming it is - but it's still a lot of text.
2.) The current iteration is going to lead to a lot of repeatable effects. They're easily dismantled by blocking, which is great; but we do have to be careful to make sure the effects aren't oppressive. Landfall is a good place to look for effects that don't feel 'oppressive'.
3.) Why does tapping it charge it up? Tapping means 'exhausting' - doesn't it seem like exhausting a creature to wind it up is weird? How is it able to attack and get MORE energy? That seems backwards.
Possible solutions:
What if we used Outlast technology? COST, TAP: Put a charge counter on this. This has two unique benefits that Outlast doesn't - one, it can go on non-creatures. Two, the charge counters are currency, which has a very different feel than +1/+1 counters do! So even though it's superficially similar, I'm pretty confident that it'd play extremely different.
Another method is to alter the trigger condition. The problem with this is that we'd need to find a trigger condition that puts the card 'at risk', I think. While other mechanics - like Constellation - didn't require you to risk your dudes for the effects, I honestly think it just leads to better gameplay when you have that tension. Unfortunately, I can't think of an action riskier than attacking (as it is currently) or shutting it down for the turn (like Outlast).
Regarding how the effects 'go off' - I think at common, the 'go-off' trigger needs to be unified. Death triggers and Sac effects have the benefit of being a one-off effect so they won't take over the game, but they also have the problem of scaling; we want to make sure the effect is balanced at all scales, which is difficult when we're making a bunch of common-suitable effects. And, as I've noted, the current iteration has the issue of repeatable effects, which means we have to be very careful with what effects we use.
One possible solution is to find a trigger that is one-time yet doesn't scale. For instance, "When this dies, if it had X or more charge counters on it" I think is probably the best possible version of such an iteration.
However, I think as-is would work just fine - like Landfall or Constellation - as long as the effects are carefully balanced. Luckily, since we can do it every X times instead of every time, it works out great.
I really like this mechanic as-is, and I think it has a lot of potential. I'm excited to explore it and see what possibilities we all come up with, and I think it's a promising direction for Tesla that matches the creative themes of 'progress' and 'discovery'.
By the way - my issue in #3 wasn't that tapping gave it energy; it's that tapping WHILE DOING SOMETHING ELSE gave it energy. That's why I proposed the Outlast-ripoff version; it made it clear it had to devote all of its resources to 'recharging'. And the mana investment makes that flavor more clear as well.
DeleteDoes gaining counters upon untap make more sense?
DeleteJay: I considered that, and I guess I forgot to mention it in the post. I think it's too delayed to be effective, as Inspired showed us. (Of course, a part of that was the execution of Inspired; many of them were fragile in combat, which meant you wanted to use the set's omnipresent Auras and combat tricks to save them. Perhaps if 'Power Up' creatures weren't as fragile in combat the ability would be more appealing.)
DeleteI don't hate either the Outlast or Inspired versions. It should also be noted that both avoid the potential confusion of getting an effect after attacking, but before blockers.
DeleteThe Inspired version will play out very similarly, whereas the outlast version requires a somewhat tempo-based environment to make the choice of whether or not to Power-Up interesting.
Jules: I agree that the Inspired version will probably play out very similarly, but the format surrounding the creatures is very important to the 'feel' of a mechanic. Inspired in Theros had the benefits of a format that made survival easy; removal was expensive and conditional, while combat tricks and Bestowed Auras gave them bigger bodies to survive more combats. Changing any of these variables would greatly change the 'feel' of Inspired. It also doesn't help that Inspired was a small-set ability; making it a large-set ability with more support would make it feel a lot more pivotal to the set.
DeleteI still don't really like the Inspired version, though. I feel like the Outlast-ripoff has more flavor resonance while also playing in a much more interesting way, since it poses some compelling decisions. I agree that it demands a tempo-based format, much like Level Up did. The question is how to differentiate it from Outlast. The obvious answer is that Outlast exists solely to change stats and spread abilities; so Outlast-ripoff Power-Up should try -not- to do these things, instead being used (for example) as a currency for abilities individual to each creature.
Wind-Up Smasher 2
ReplyDeleteArtifact Creature - Construct
Power Up (Whenever this becomes tapped, put a level counter on it.) [1/1]
(1-3) CARDNAME attacks each turn if able. [2/2]
(4+) CARDNAME can't be blocked by Walls. [5/3]
Wind-Up Slasher 3
Artifact Creature - Construct
Power Up (Whenever this becomes tapped, put a level counter on it.) [1/1]
(1-2) [3/1]
(3+) Remove three counters from CARDNAME: CARDNAME deals 3 damage to target player. (3/1)
Clockwork Slasher 3
Artifact Creature - Construct
Power Up (Whenever this becomes tapped, put a level counter on it.)
(0-2) [1/4]
(3+) Remove three counters from CARDNAME: CARDNAME gets +3/+0 until end of turn. (1/4)
Nice.
DeleteThis mechanic would prohibit +1/+1 counters for the set, but it's otherwise a very elegant use of existing technology with a different, more steampunk take on it.
Oh God, they're learning. Everyone hide! The robots are learning!
DeleteThis is real interesting, but I'm concerned about removing level counters - that feels like a flavor fail.
DeleteWe can also call them charge counters and still use modified leveling format technology - but removing the counters may still be the wrong way to go.
DeleteI'd definitely call them charge counters. That's a lot more backwards compatibility than the three cards that care about level counters, and it hits the flavor better. Generally speaking, I like this version quite a bit (and it could easily be combined with any of Inanimate's suggestions). The real question is whether it's enough better than the written out version to justify the added comprehension complexity.
DeleteCompare this to Tune-Up.
DeleteI like the idea of not caring about what type of counters the powering up gets in general, but I would rather use a restriction:
ReplyDeletePower Up (whenever this permanent gets tapped, put a charge counter on it. This permanent cannot have other type of counters on it)
Couldn't we construct the set to not have an issue with this, rather than using such a clunky phrase? For instance, Infect needed no such clause, because only -1/-1 counters appeared in the set on creatures.
DeleteAgreed with Inanimate 100%.
DeleteFusion Tromper {1}
ReplyDeleteArtifact Creature-Soldier Construct (cmn)
Fusion (Whenever ~ attacks or blocks, put a +1/+1 counter on it, then pay {1} for each +1/+1 counter on it, or sacrifice it.)
1/1
Kind of the opposite of traditional clockwork creatures. It grows bigger and bigger, but you have to pay more and more. Ideally, there will be turns where you have to leave it dormant, but as the game goes on, drawing land will let you power it on again and more impactfully each time.
Toxintail Gibberer {3}
Artifact Creature-Hyena Construct (unc)
Fusion (Whenever ~ attacks or blocks, put a +1/+1 counter on it, then pay {1} for each +1/+1 counter on it, or sacrifice it.)
Whenever ~ attacks, it deals damage to each player equal to the number of +1/+1 counters on it.
2/2
Corrosive Growth {1}{G}
DeleteInstant (cmn)
Target creature gets +2/+2 and gains trample until EOT.
Fuel (Remove a +1/+1 counter from any number of creatures you control. Copy ~ targeting each creature you remove a counter from this way.)
Corrosive Intel {U}
Instant (cmn)
Whenever target creature deals combat damage to a player this turn, draw a card.
Fuel (Remove a +1/+1 counter from any number of creatures you control. Copy ~ targeting each creature you remove a counter from this way.)
I don't know, this feels like it's too much of a drawback at the higher stages. You can't attack with your big creature because you can't afford to use it, which is a bad feeling.
DeleteThis reminds me of the Bolster mechanic I previously suggested, which worked like so:
Bolster [COST] (Pay [COST] plus an additional [COST] for each +1/+1 counter on this: Put a +1/+1 counter on this. Activate this ability only as a sorcery.)
-
Fuel is an interesting mechanic, but it feels very narrow. I love the idea of it 'linking' to the creatures who fuel it, that's a MASSIVE flavor win.
If the sacrifice effect is delayed until end of combat, then you can always get one last hit in. That way you're never sitting there with a creature you can't use:
DeleteFusion (Whenever this attacks or blocks, put a +1/+1 counter on it, then sacrifice it at end of combat unless you pay 1 for each +1/+1 counter on it)
I like that better.
DeleteI'm worried about reading poorly as well; I'm pretty sure Bolster makes for fewer interesting choices, but it's much more printable.
DeleteAs for Fuel, I like it a lot, but it's going to be very difficult to find a set it works in. The most likely place I see it showing up is set 2 of a block that happened (like Theros) to have a bunch of different +1/+1 counter mechanics.
Bolster is a question of mana commitment, much like Level Up. So it'd work best in a format where your mana each turn matters - probably something very tempo-oriented?
DeleteStrictly better than Fuel (in a set that has no reason to want to remove +1/+1 counters):
DeleteFueled (Copy this spell for each creature you control with +1/+1 counters on them. Each copy targets one of those creatures.)
I like this especially well with "conductive" flavor.
DeleteSteam Golem {3}
ReplyDeleteArtifact Creature-Golem (cmn)
Steam-Powered (Whenever CARDNAME attacks or blocks, it gets +1/+1 until EOT for each mana you've spent this turn.)
1/1
Steam Roller {4}
Artifact Creature-Juggernaut (unc)
CARDNAME attacks each turn if able.
Steam-Powered (Whenever CARDNAME attacks or blocks, it gets +1/+1 until EOT for each mana you've spent this turn.)
3/1
Steam Dragon {5}
Artifact Creature-Dragon (rare)
Flying
Steam-Powered (Whenever CARDNAME attacks or blocks, it gets +1/+1 until EOT for each mana you've spent this turn.)
{2}: CARDNAME gets +1/+0 until EOT.
1/1
Steam Wagon {1}{BR}
DeleteArtifact Creature-Goblin (unc)
Haste
Steam-Powered
1/1
I like this, but it seems like it has two problems:
Delete1.) It's difficult to balance. This kind of ability seems pretty explosive. Note that Manaplasm is comparable in some ways - sure, it gets bonuses off of cost-reduced stuff, but it also doesn't benefit from activated abilities like Steam-Powered does.
2.) It encourages people to play their spells pre-combat main phase. This isn't necessarily an issue, but it's counter-intuitive to the way the game 'really' plays, and generally we want to encourage players to play the game 'correctly', you know? I doubt this is a major issue; it's just a small concern I have.
It's wicked hard to balance. I'm on board for keywording Manaplasm's ability instead.
DeleteI disagree with the phrase "counter-intuitive." In fact, playing spells after combat is counter-intuitive to new players. I agree that this will require a change in behavior for established players, but that sounds like a win-win to me.
I guess it was biased of me to say that was the way the game 'really' plays. And I guess formats like Rise of the Eldrazi and Theros have also introduced 'shake-ups' that are different from the way the game is played by experts, so this is probably fine too.
DeleteI think Manaplasm's version has another bonus to it too - flavor. If I spend the mana on something else, how does my dude get powered up by it? That seems weird! But getting power from casting spells... that makes sense. (:
I don't think the Manaplasm ability is doable at common. If we suppose that you cast one spell a turn and it's usually the most common CMC in your deck - 3-4ish I assume - that's +3/+3 and +4/+4 once per turn, for free. That's nuts! And that's just the average - it has some wicked extremes, like casting a 6CMC spell.
Yeah, too much mana gets spent to keep a 1-to-1 correlation from being extremely swingy. We could try a toned-down version of Iteration (http://goblinartisans.blogspot.com/2014/07/tesla-pick-and-choose.html), giving say, +2/+2 until end of turn.
DeleteOf course, that sort of implementation is going to cause issues when experienced players try to explain to new players that they're responding to the trigger.
I don't know, the scaling nature of Iteration right now, where it gets progressively more difficult to increase as it gets bigger, seems like a clever way of balancing it to have a maximum size.
DeleteRight you are. Not worth key-wording.
DeleteCould see making a cycle of rare artifact creatures or something.
Bolt Gnome {2}{2R}
ReplyDeleteArtifact Creature-Gnome (cmn)
Power-Up-To-Doom (Whenever CARDNAME becomes tapped, put a +1/+1 counter on it.)
When ~ has 3 +1/+1 counters on it, sacrifice it. It deals 3 damage to target creature or player.
0/3
Howling Gnome {3}{2G}
Artifact Creature-Gnome (unc)
Power-Up-To-Doom (Whenever CARDNAME becomes tapped, put a +1/+1 counter on it.)
When ~ has 3 +1/+1 counters on it, sacrifice it. Put three 2/2 green Wolf creature tokens OTB.
2/2
Ancestral Gnome {2}{2U}
Artifact Creature-Gnome (rare)
Power-Up-To-Doom (Whenever CARDNAME becomes tapped, put a +1/+1 counter on it.)
When ~ has 3 +1/+1 counters on it, sacrifice it. Draw three cards.
1/1
Not remotely married to the twobrid costs. Just felt like these needed color.
DeleteWhat bothers me about this is that you don't get to smash in combat when you get your third counter. We could move the sack trigger to EOT, or we could charge up on untap like Inspired.
DeleteThis doesn't feel as good as Theros' quests because you get the effect but lose your powered up creature. Not as elegant, but:
Cobbled Swordsman {2}
Artifact Creature-Soldier Construct (cmn)
Tune-Up 2 — Whenever CARDNAME untaps, if there are fewer than two +1/+1 counters on it, put one on it.
1/1
Cobbled Physician {3}{W}
Artifact Creature-Cleric Construct (unc)
Tune-Up 3 — Whenever CARDNAME untaps, if there are fewer than three +1/+1 counters on it, put one on it. Otherwise, gain 3 life.
2/2
Cobbled Hatchling {2}{2R}{2R}
Artifact Creature-Dragon Construct (rare)
Tune-Up 4 — Whenever CARDNAME untaps, if there are fewer than four +1/+1 counters on it, put one on it. Otherwise, CARDNAME gains flying and "{R}: CARDNAME gets +1/+0 until EOT" until EOT.
2/2
I think moving the sac to EOT would work well.
DeleteI dislike the drawback of sacrificing here. You get a cool creature!... and then it dies!? That sucks, man! ):
DeleteI like Tune-Up. It's got the same 'drawback', but you get to keep the cool creature. And, it captures the flavor of an 'upgrade' super well! Tune-Up is probably my favorite iteration of this mechanic so far.
I love Tune-Up as a simplified version of Level Up-esque gameplay. Power-Up-to-Doom, on the other hand, has too much in game feel-bad in addition to reading negatively.
DeleteFor Tune-Up, is there a way to get a consistent ability word? We haven't seen any variable ability words yet, and while this might warrant it, I wonder if we can keep it at the same amount of counters (say 3) for each creature? Or just have it read Tune-Up and let players read each card?
DeleteYou can omit the number and it still works. Given that adding the number just aids comprehension and has literally no mechanical or rules consequence, why not keep it?
DeleteCould potentially make the consistent part a keyword, but we have to word it so that not-placing-a-counter-because-we're-at-max is an event the rest of the card can trigger on.
Inspired by jack and Inanimate's conversation:
ReplyDeletePowered Sentry {2}
Artifact Creature-Construct (cmn)
Vigilance
Powered 3 (CARDNAME can't attack or block unless you remove three charge counters from it.
{1}: Put a charge counter on each powered creature you control.)
4/4
It's still a downside mechanic, but it can make for very strong-looking cards, and the ability to mitigate the cost for multiples will actually make players feel good about it.
DeleteAlso:
DeletePowered Sentry {3}
Artifact Creature-Construct (cmn)
Powered 3 (CARDNAME can't attack or block unless you remove three charge counters from it.
{1}: Put a charge counter on each powered creature you control.)
Remove a charge counter from CARDNAME: It gets +1/+1 until EOT.
3/3
Powered Harrier {3}{W}
Artifact Creature-Construct (unc)
Powered 3 (CARDNAME can't attack or block unless you remove three charge counters from it.
{1}: Put a charge counter on each powered creature you control.)
Remove four charge counters from CARDNAME: Tap target creature.
3/4
Powered Replicator {4}
Artifact Creature-Ooze (rare)
Powered 3 (CARDNAME can't attack or block unless you remove three charge counters from it.
{1}: Put a charge counter on each powered creature you control.)
{4}, Remove four charge counters from CARDNAME: Put a token copy of it OTB.
4/4
The 'universal ability' reminds me of Revolution from a few Weekends ago. (I loved that ability, and it's really been churning my gears as well...)
DeleteThis is still a drawback mechanic, so I think it's inherently problematic in that regard. Do we need the 'can't attack or block' stipulation? Couldn't we just have the cool 'universal counter-granting' thing without the drawback? Why not just have it like this:
Power Source ({1}: Put a charge counter on each powered creature you control.)
The number, of course, is subject to change.
Woops, I forgot to change the reminder text to "each creature with a power source". Pretend I did that. (:
DeleteI'm glad you enjoyed Revolution, it is definitely one of my favorite GA designs. Maybe I'll find a way to incorporate something like it in my game.
DeleteAs far as this ability, I don't understand the template: Powered 3 (CARDNAME can't attack or block unless you remove three charge counters from it.
1: Put a charge counter on each powered creature you control.). Can you explain what it means?
I don't think I've seen a keyword with two lines before, though I've seen plenty with two abilities. To put as the FAQs would:
DeletePowered is a keyword with two abilities:
Creatures with powered have a combat restriction. They can't attack or block unless their controller pays {X}, where X is the number associated with the ability. In Tesla, all instances of powered are powered 3
Permanents with powered also have an activated ability, "{1}: Put a charge counter on each powered creature you control." That ability affects every creature you control with powered, helping you to pay the cost to attack and block with them.
So, here you say it means they have to pay 3 mana, but in the rules text it suggest you have to remove three charge counters?
DeleteIs the "paying 3" really a shortcut for activating the ability 3 times and then removing three charge counters?
Also, Powered Sentry has an ability that involves removing charge counters. The idea is for that ability to work with the removing three or not work with the removing three?
I'm not convinced we need the drawback part either, but it certainly makes it easier to develop. Otherwise every card needs something to do with the counters which doesn't cause too much board complexity or scale too quickly. Trying a variant:
DeleteSputtering Glider {3}
Artifact Creature-Construct (C)
Feedback (Whenever ~ untaps, put a charge counter on it and each other artifact you control with Feedback.)
Remove two charge counters from ~: ~ gains flying until end of turn.
2/2
Jules: I like this. It mitigates the scariness of just pumping all of your mana into your Power-Up guys, since you need to get your dudes into the red zone to get the Feedback going.
DeleteWhat if the feedback only worked on each feedback creature untapping? Something like "Whenever ~ untaps, put a charge counter on it and each other untapping artifact you control with feedback."
That way, you need to send your creatures into the red-zone for them to get the bonus. Might make it a bit less scary.
Note that noncreature artifacts would be really good together, since there's no threat in them tapping for their abilities. That means they should be balanced around that.
The more I think about this ability, the more I like it. It's got some explosive potential, but it is cunningly well balanced as well. I think it merits some more exploration!
I like this card, though I think it would be more elegant (and not overpowered) if it only cost removing one counter.
DeleteAlternate:
Aspiring Glider 3
Artifact Creature-Construct (C)
Charge (Whenever ~ untaps, it becomes charged. Put a charge counter on it if it has no charge counters.)
~ has flying as long as it is charged.
2/2
Wow Tommy, that is great! It's elegant in its simplicity and the flavor is simply magnificent. I love the "on/off" nature. It just works great.
Delete@Tommy — I messed my FAQ up. I meant that you have to remove counters from the creature to do combat with it. Yes, when you have one powered creature that equates to spending {3}, but you can spend {2} this turn and {1} next turn, and you can ignore the "cost" of additional powered creatures because one payment satisfies them all.
DeletePart of Powered's identity is as a mana-sink: a way to get use out of mana you'd waste otherwise.
Most common powered creatures wouldn't have any other ability to remove charge counters, but I included that option to show that the charge counters can have multiple purposes on rarer cards.
Feedback has potential. While it's all-upside, I have to say that Sputtering Glider is far less exciting to me as a player than Powered Sentry.
So charge is "Can you attack with this once? Here's an upgrade." It's more limited than inspired, but that cap does allow us to make bigger effects. I do like how much less physical work it involves.
Agreed, though it makes the charging flavor feel weird to me. I'd expect this effect to be a mechanic called something like "Veteran."
DeleteI think what this wants to be is the Ordeals from Theros.
ReplyDeleteHow about a variant of Ashling the Pilgrim?
Explosive (When this becomes tapped, put a +1/+1 counter on it. If there are 3 or more, remove all those counters and this explodes.)
When this explodes, tap target creature.
Just changed the name for templating, explode isn't the right word.
Or a variant of Monstrosity:
Power-up (Whenever this becomes tapped, put a +1/+1 counter on it. If there are three or more, if it isn't powered-up, it becomes powered-up.)
When this becomes powered-up, tap three creatures.
Or, we make tie all of the above to Outlast:
Power-up — 3 (3, T: Put a +1/+1 counter on this. If it has three or more counters on it and isn't powered-up, it is powered-up. Activate only a sorcery.)
When CARDNAME becomes powered-up, tap all creatures target player controls.
Basically, these are variants where you pay for Monstrosity over time rather than in one big go.
On artifacts, the +1/+1 counters would be charge counters.
I'm wary of having counters on creatures that aren't +1/+1 or -1/-1.
The main reason we have +1/+1 counters so frequently is that they allow creatures to grow over time, which is something the game really wants, but doesn't otherwise have. We're fine to forego them as long as we make sure to address that need elsewhere (which many of these implementations do). That said, I'm not opposed to using them, it's just not a deal-breaker if we don't.
DeleteSlow Monstrosity is fun, but as with the Monstrosity triggers, these ones probably shouldn't show up at common. Fearing an eventual effect is fun. Fearing five different ones is mentally taxing. I'd like to try this setup with Jay's Tune-Up.
Jules: Bass was advocating using +1/+1 counters on creatures. I'm not sure what you're rebutting here?
DeleteI like these mechanics, since they distill the great ideas behind many of the other ideas here while removing the drawbacks.
Explosive I think is great, except for that "remove all counters". Perhaps combine it with your first version of Power-Up and take a note from Tune-Up, to get this final version:
Explode (Whenever this becomes tapped, put a +1/+1 counter on it. If there are already three or more +1/+1 counters on it, instead it explodes.)
Your Monstrosity variant is neat, but my is it wordy. It's a lot like what I proposed - Outlast-ripoff - but with the addition of that "power-up" trigger a la Tune-Up, which I think is neat. I think it has a lot of great ideas behind it, but that means it also has a lot of complexity. Combining and simplifying these ideas would result in an excellent mechanic.
Jules is pointing out that +1/+1 counters aren't the only way to improve creatures, which is true, and charge counters are one of the more promising ways to do it.
DeleteI'm not a fan of any of the outlast-like mechanics, because they ask players not to use their creatures for a few turns. This one then gives the player spell effects they can use every turn at no cost in cards *and* at no risk of losing the creature in combat.
Does a creature die when it explodes?
I would say creatures don't explode, but that's a problem of the place holder name which I selected just because "explode" works as a noun (explosive) and a conditional state (explodes). The confusion I didn't catch, but it is of course, perfectly intuitive.
DeleteReflavoring the nice mechanic 'Aspire' by Doombringer. http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/creativity/custom-card-creation/576743-dms-aspire-variations
ReplyDeleteAutomata Aeronaut {3}
Artifact Creature - Construct (C)
Supercharge - Whenever you cast a spell with greater converted mana cost than Automata Aeronaut's, it gains flying until end of turn.
2/2
Birds fly with grace. War-machines fly into your face.
Just remember if you use my mechanic that the term Converted mana cost can be problematic at common.
DeleteMaybe use the Keyword version I suggested in the thread you linked?
Oh hey man! I'm TurboJustice over at MTG Salvation. I explained in my comment why I opted not to use the keyword version, but I'll refrain here - I think splitting the triggers introduces more text and complexity, and the +1/+1 bonus is going to matter a lot less than Prowess generally does.
DeleteSupercharge once again demands that we find a good way to talk about CMC at common. Even if we do, it's a little bit tough to track what triggers and what doesn't when you cast a given spell. Not problematic enough to be unprintable, just noting the cost in complexity points.
DeleteFor what it's worth, I love how this mechanic allows us to put really splashy effects on bigger things without breaking the game.