In all of our time doing exploratory design for Tesla we've left one major area unaddressed. That's my fault because it's a high level consideration that I should have drawn focus to, but simply didn't notice. Thankfully, Inanimate caught my mistake.Exploring mechanical space to hit our progress theme we've considered a truly staggering number of ways for things to improve, but never mentioned the other half of the emotional response we ought to be producing. Progress isn't just about getting better, it's about the apparently limitless potential that improvement represents. How can we make games of Magic feel like being on the cusp of something great? How can we evoke anticipation?
On the Up and Up
Magic already has a lot of that feeling built in as a result of the mana system. Players get to make more impactful plays as the game goes on, but not predictably. They can see themselves getting closer and closer to casting that big spell, they'll be able to if they can draw just one more land, if they can live just one more turn.
The most straightforward solution is simply to get more big spells into players' hands so they have that experience more frequently.
Another route is to let the players choose to play a greater density of expensive spells all by themselves. Giving them access to more mana than normal will encourage not just a greater number of expensive spells, but spells that are individually more expensive than we'd see otherwise. Like Eldrazi Spawn, Batteries have the added benefit of going away so that a player who's had the chance to cast one expensive spell isn't past the point of having to wait to cast another.
If we're really clever, we can get all that while giving away a bit of information so that the opponent can anticipate your big plays as well. The more of this we build into the set, the more players will turn their focus towards the future.
Another approach to get players including more expensive cards in their decks is to give those cards other utility in the early game. Unfortunately, effects like Cycling tend to decrease the amount of time players actually spend anticipating casting their big spells. Not so for Suspend, but the mechanic has a few issues of its own to contend with. It's wordy, mentally taxing to track, and it isn't always immediately obvious to players what tradeoff they're making.
Develop (and variations thereof) has been discussed both here and on Remaking Magic. It's slightly easier to read than Suspend and no trouble to track. I hope it's clearer that you're paying with time rather than mana, but I'm not as sure about that part. Regardless, there's additional interaction with card draw (hence the weird replacement effect wording) and other cards with Develop (they're in your library so any later Develop cards beneath them will come up sooner). And of course, if the players do bother to track it Develop, everyone can await the arrival of whatever's in your library.
Redefining Success
The mana system is built in, but it's not the only way to get players anticipating exciting moments and working towards them. Something as innocuous as Reinforce will focus players on their opponents' blocking decisions, just waiting for an opportunity to blow each other out. Double-Faced Cards with tiny hoops likewise come with the promise of something awesome built in. You can even look at the back side to help you imagine getting there!
Industrial Revolution pushes the feeling even further by giving players a threshold they can easily see themselves building towards and tying multiple transformations together so there's a bigger shift to anticipate.
So I leave the question to you: what should Tesla leave players building towards?
Just as morph defined face-down creatures as 2/2, component might define permanently revealed cards as costing {1} less. Not good or bad, just observing.
ReplyDeleteSince component can only reduce a given card's cost by {1} and no more, I don't expect it to be terribly dangerous. If it were cumulative, being able to rush any big spell ever might have been a problem.
What is the flavor of component?
My original idea was "provides something you need for the later spell" e.g. a Lightning Bolt that can provide electricity for your invention. I'm not really convinced it comes through.
DeleteIn theory we could allow an already revealed card to be revealed, but it almost assuredly causes more problems for the permanently revealed space down the line.
Maybe like this?
DeleteNewt's Eye 1UU (COM)
Instant
Look at the top four cards of your library. Put one of them into your hand and the rest into your graveyard.
Component — Permanently reveal a card in your hand. (Component cards cost 1 less to cast from your hand.)
I imagined the flavor of Component was "laying the foundation for a future discovery." Think along the lines of a tech tree in a video game. This could be flavored as parts, or as inventions that naturally lead into other ones.
DeleteYeah, the flavor of Newt's Eye is potions and brews associated with traditional magic spells. If we want a flavor of inventions spawning new or improved items, then maybe:
DeleteVulcanize 1W (COM)
Instant
Target creature gets +1/+1 and gains indestructible until end of turn. (Damage and effects that say "destroy" don't destroy it.)
Innovate - Permanently reveal a card in your hand (Innovated cards cost 1 less to cast from your hand.)
Do we want aspire to whiff sometimes?
ReplyDeleteAspire 4 (Reveal the top 4 cards of your library. Put one of them with the highest cost into your hand. Put the rest on the bottom of your library in any order.)
That's an interesting proposition. It does less to encourage big spells during deckbuilding, but does still push games towards having more of them on average. Probably creates less feel-bad.
DeleteI think designing aspire cards' main effects toward end-game utility (ramp, card draw) will do more to push the high cmc focus than the mechanic itself.
DeleteIf I'm playing a linear aggro deck with 18 lands and a bunch of 1-2 drops, I actually get more of a card selection bonus than if I'm playing a slow control deck with 27 lands and a bunch of fat finishers. Expensive spells are actually pretty bad to draw in the early game -- especially if it means I'm sending valuable removal and defensive cards to the bottom of the deck instead.
I significantly prefer Jay's version. That way you always get a card, but the card might just be too expensive. But hey, just wait, you'll get there.
DeleteWhat's interesting is that usually cantrips count as half a land slot, since they so often draw you a land, but these are cantrips that basically never draw you a land (though I did cast Bitter Revelation into four lands twice in a row the other day...).
Development warning: Cards with this are either going to have to be expensive themselves or not do much else, as this is significantly better than cantripping. It is much more like Impulse. This may suck some of the appeal out of the mechanic. I think that in play, though, the mechanic will feel so powerful mid to late game that players will really like it (even though they'll hate it during previews).
If it's a guaranteed hit, then four cards seems like too many, in my opinion. I think three cards, or even two, would be far easier to develop for.
DeleteWe have to walk a fine line for this mechanic, as it is VERY strong, but also seems useful to the set. We don't want Aspire to be a second Cipher.
Another possibility to make Aspire easier to develop is always to have Aspire put the card on top of your library rather than into your hand. If we do that, we get another handy experiential bonus - you are looking forward to your next turn!
DeleteAlso, we could always do this:
DeletePyretic Production {1}{R}
Sorcery (C)
Add RRR to your mana pool.
Aspire {3} ({3}, discard this card: Look at the top four cards of your library. Put one of them with the highest cost into your hand. Put the rest on the bottom of your library in any order.)
A "cycling-like".
Tommy said Jay's Aspire is "significantly better than cantripping. It is much more like Impulse". However, it has the massive drawback that it doesn't work as a smoothing mechanic - or at least, not for manascrewed players, only for manaflooded players. Cheap cantrips are great because a hand of two land and two cheap cantrips is very likely to count as three land. Two land and two cheap Aspire cards definitely won't.
DeleteYes, it's good for making sure you get gas late-game, but you need to survive to the late game first. Games lost to mana screw early on are more frustrating than games lost to mana flood.
I like Inaminate's Aspire as cycling variant. Cycling typically goes on expensive things, this can go on cheap things. Would new players play a 1G 2/2 with Apsire 3 correctly? Is that a problem?
DeleteLooking at more cards is weaker when we're taking the most expensive card we see, but stronger when we're taking a card with CMC 4+. Such a small difference totally reversed the polarity of that knob. Fascinating!
DeleteI agree with AlexC: biking-aspire is better in the late-game but worse in the early-game than cycling, better for mana-flooded players but worse for mana-screwed ones.
Inanimate's is too, but being an alternate mode to casting means we're not stapling it onto spells and increasing their cost, but instead giving players who'd rather have a more expensive effect the option. Put that on land and players can play more lands than usual and now we've fixed both ends.
Granite Quarry
Land (cmn)
{T}: Add {1} to your mana pool. If you control a Mountain, add {R} instead.
Aspire 3 ({3}, Discard this card: Reveal the top 3 cards of your library. Put one of them with the highest cost into your hand. Put the rest on the bottom of your library in any order.)
I like this basic idea a lot, although I prefer 4 cards to 3. I want you to really get something expensive a high proportion of the time. I could even see it doing 6 cards and costing 5 or something so that no one accidentally Aspires something too early in the game.
DeleteI like the cycling version a lot more than the bonus. I almost want to sac from play for when Grizzly Bears are sitting around in the late game...
DeleteTommy: Higher costed Aspire sounds like a great idea. Cycling is cheap and is for early game - Aspire is more expensive, reliable, and for late game. Seems like an interesting dynamic.
DeleteJules: I think Cycling works better to convey 'modal', but I agree that sac-ing from play could be interesting. Perhaps Aspire N is a keyword action rather than a cycling-like keyword? On most cards it could be used as an alternate mode - {X}, discard this card: Aspire N - but on a few it could serve other purposes?
I like Aspire {5} ({5}, discard this card: Reveal the top 8 cards of your library. Put one of them with the highest CMC into your hand and the rest on the bottom of your library in any order.) as about the space I'd like to try.
DeleteIt would not take a ton of cards with this, perhaps a common land cycle, one other common cycle, and an uncommon cycle, in order to push the presence of expensive cards way up. Also, costing it at 5 prevents any worry about it acting as a tutor in constructed.
Cog in the Wheels of Progress (Sacrifice ~: Reveal cards from the top of your library until you reveal a more expensive card. Put into your hand. Put the rest on the bottom of your library in any order.)
DeleteThe problem with sacrifice is that it wants to be done at sorcery speed.
DeleteSac abilities just always feel bad. No matter how awesome it is, even I, at the Spikier end of the spectrum (and having been playing for more than 20 years) die a little inside. New players are far more attached.
DeleteI picture Aspire sticking to lands and instants/sorceries to avoid the feel bad moment when you play your 2 mana 2/2 and later you wish you'd kept it in hand to Aspire.
Science Bear {1}{G}
Delete2/2 Bear
Whenever ~ dies, do science. (Reveal cards from the top of your library until you reveal a more expensive card. Put into your hand. Put the rest on the bottom of your library in any order.)
I guess you dislike Exploit.
DeleteI like Exploit, though that is mostly because they give you so many ways to use it without sacrificing a card. Saccing one of my three Hordling Outburst tokens or a Palace Familiar isn't really saccing a creature. Also, saccing another creature lets me feel clever, in a way that a creature saccing itself does not.
DeleteAnd, in the time since I said that, I do have to admit there is the occasional creature I enjoy saccing, like Yavimaya Elder. But, overall, my cutting room floor is littered with creatures with sac effects where I've learned time and again through play testing "this just isn't fun."
I feel like it would be a lot of fun to block a 6/6 with my 2/2 who's long since been outclassed and get a more relevant card from my deck for doing so. We wouldn't put this mechanic on bombs, and only on expensive spells that also give you something else.
DeleteScience Hellion {4}{R}
4/4 Hellion (unc)
When ~ ETB, destroy target land.
When ~ dies, do science.
Both Science Bear and Science Hellion are way undercosted. Unfortunately, making them more expensive, well...
DeleteIt is such a development nightmare to have "costs more" because it ties your hand behind your back about cost.
For the record, I think just a 4R 4/4 with ETC destroy target land is already over costed. They did just print Survey the Wreckage. I also want to keep "must play" land destruction out of the expensive cards set.
I do think the "when dies" trigger feels good, but that is because it is basically a no effort two for one, and WOTC is incredibly careful about those these days (one of my favorite parts of modern design philosophy).
It's not that you can't print cards with free two for ones, obviously you can, but they end up being unappealingly expensive, like Vengeful Vampire. I think a set certainly has room for one or two cards that die to something more expensive as a bit of grease to get things going in that general direction.
I think a 1GG 2/2 with "When ~ dies, reveal cards until you reveal one costing 4 or more..." would probably be the best Green common in the set, but is within the realm we could consider it (and I really like the "best [COLOR] common" slot being occupied by something relevant to the set's themes, something WOTC has historically been very poor about.)
What if Develop weren't a cost reduction mechanic but a kicker mechanic?
ReplyDeleteCyborg Candidate {4}{G}
Creature-Beast (cmn)
Plan 2 (Rather than cast this card from your hand, you may put it face-up in your library, under the top 2 cards. You may cast it when it's on top.)
If you cast CARDNAME from your library, it ETB with two +1/+1 counters on it. It's an artifact creature.
4/4
What if we combine plan with biking, making it a smoothing mechanic?
Grind between Gears {2}{B}
Instant
Plot 3 (Put this card face-up in your library, under the top 3 cards: You may cast it when it's on top. Draw a card.)
Target creature gets -3/-3 until EOT.
Not frothing over either of these, but worth discussing.
I'm a little bit concerned about the potential feel-bad Plan is liable to create when you have, say, something with Plan 3 that you need one more land to cast. You'll either Plan and not get there or be cautious and feel dumb when you didn't plan and do draw it.
DeletePlot suffers from the same issues, but might not feel as bad to miss since you get something for your effort regardless. You're not down a card if you have to redraw it. That comes bundled with some developmental concerns since if you can cast it you'll get a 2-for-1, but we might be able to solve that with something like:
Await 3 (Put this card face-up in your library, under the top 3 cards: When you draw it, you may cast it for {2} less. Draw a card.)
Either way, I wish there were a clean way to avoid the "under top 3, then draw, now there are only two" thing. It's third down, so the number still makes sense, but it feels buggy.
Await 3 (Draw a card, then put this card face-up in your library, under the top 3 cards: When you draw it, you may cast it for {2} less.)
DeleteLooks a bit odd to see "draw a card" in a cost, but it is cromulent.
Agree with Jules' point (which is what I was going to say exactly).
DeleteAwait is basically making a mechanic out of Sensei's Divining Top. Are you proposing Await have no mana cost? If so, I'm out because I'm uncomfortable with what that would do. If it costs 2 to Await 3, I'm more uncomfortable aesthetically.
I really like the "Put it face up in your library" + "Something happens when it is on top" combo (with the understanding that if you shuffle everything goes face down), and being able to cast it from the top of your library feels very natural. This is of course totally screwed up by Courser of Kruphix et al, but I don't think that is a rules problem.
I'm enjoying all the usage of "cromulent" lately. (:
DeleteI'm still inclined towards the version in the OP - these versions proposed seem a lot weirder.
I do like the idea of the Biking one, though. Very clever to combine the two mechanics to address Biking's problems.
Ideate {U}
ReplyDeleteSorcery (cmn)
Draw a card.
If you've activated an Industrial Revolution ability this game, draw two cards instead.
I'm a little too tempted to use "if you've revolted". This is the sort of wording I'd only like to use if we go with Player Monstrosity style, but at that point I kind of want the mechanic to have all your cards automatically flip when you cast them after a revolution and have double-faced spells.
DeleteFor instance
Ideate {U}
Sorcery (cmn)
Draw a card.
Industrial Revolt (Once per game you may tap 11 untapped permanents you control. Once you do, you have revolted and cards you control with Industrial Revolt are transformed.)
//
Look at the top five cards of your library. Put one into your hand and the rest on top or bottom in any order.
Admittedly, much much wordier.
Aside from Mechas, which have a host of development and rules issues, Industrial Revolution is the closest thing to a good "marquee mechanic" I've seen out of the Tesla project.
DeleteHave we unofficially decided that the story/setting will be based on steampunk tropes?
There are a couple reasons I haven't commented much on this project thus far. One is that I didn't vote for "progress," because I find it such a hopelessly vague term that just about anything in Magic other than taking repetitive game actions that reset the game to an earlier state can be counted as "progress" of some sort. (Even drawing, playing a land, and passing the turn is progress, if you're the 5-color control mirror.) Luckily, Inanimate's idea seems to have been picked up on, with "progress" being the buildup to an "achievement" that feels significant.
The second reason, spinning off that, is that most of the discussion seems to have pivoted around either cluttered board states with lots of permanents, or casting high-cmc spells. While it's okay to have a low-speed format, there have to be things players can do at different stages of the game that meaningfully differ between strategies. One of the things I really liked about the RG Eldrazi deck in ROE draft was that the big Eldrazi cards didn't take forever to hit the field, due to the Spawn, but I also had the option of using the Spawn as chump blockers or (buffed) attackers then casting the Eldrazi when my opponent's hand had been depleted of answers. A friend of mine likes to play the UW Levelers deck. The Aura Gnarlid deck can be really good if the pieces come together right. While those decks are also mid-speed to slow and hope to finish the game by attacking with a giant creature, neither of them does exactly what the spawn deck does in either the early or the late game! Thus far (admittedly harder to do in an artifact set) I haven't seen much to differentiate between colors, or explore how different archetypes would use the same mechanic to build up to different outcomes.
If everyone is playing the race to 10 permanents, and no one wants to take game actions that risk their permanents getting destroyed (like attacking), then I feel bored. Same deal if all the "achievements" are 10+ cmc spells with wildly swingy effects (which I personally loathe).
Jenesis, I totally agree. The biggest thing I've been trying to do throughout this design is differentiate its achievement from Theros, and its 'goals' from Rise of the Eldrazi.
DeleteWhen I mention "big spells" in my ideas, I'm talking about CMC 5+ - not things that cost 10 or more mana. I don't think that a "bigger CMC" theme needs to be the main theme of the set - I think it needs to be one of the many tools we use to encourage people to "look ahead".
Your point that people won't want to risk their permanents is a very important one, and one that needs to be addressed before we move forward on the mechanic, in my opinion.
Thank you for the insights.
Yep, Jenesis has excellent points as usual. "Ten permanents" feels more achievable than "7 mana" at first, but making people not want to risk their little creatures is bad. Tapping Equipment and Auras is also a minor strike against the "ten permanents" version, especially negative Auras on the opponent's stuff. Antisynergy with combining Mecha is another minor strike against it.
DeleteGiven all of which maybe the 7 mana (for some value of 7) version would be better.
Revolution (You may tap NN untapped permanents you control. If you've revolted this game, cards you control with Revolution are transformed.)
DeleteThere will be games where both players are convinced they're the control and no one attacks for a long time. Most of the time, one player should realize they're the beat-down and get aggressive, both in exploiting their opponent's reluctance to block by attacking, and by destroying their opponent's permanents as often as possible. Ideally, this classic dynamic will be all the stronger for having the mechanic.
Part of the point in making the threshold so high isn't just so it's difficult, but so that it looks difficult, to the point that players won't try to rush toward it, because it's clear that won't work.
All mechanics need playtesting to fully understand, but some are more predictable than others. Revolution is the opposite. None of us can evaluate it with any confidence without actually playing it.
Jay, that's a natural dynamic of Magic, but we don't want to encourage games to stall at the "we both think we're in control" stage. We want to encourage people to get to the more interesting part, where one person becomes the beatdown.
DeleteI do think the mechanic should probably work fine - typically, people want to preserve their permanents until they better understand the dynamic of the game anyway. And playtesting, and careful design of the set, should help in encouraging not ALL players to be conserving for revolution.
But the fact it's a natural instinct for players to want to preserve their permanents means that the design, if it encourages that instinct, might also be encouraging slower starts. That's just something we have to keep in mind.
Jay, what number were you thinking of for a threshold that "looks difficult"? If we count lands, 10 is actually quite achievable by turn 5 -- you just need to draw some combination of 5 lands and 5 (permanent) spells in your top 11-12 cards, less if you can make tokens. If you're running the all-1-and-2-drops deck you can even do it by turn 4, though that's admittedly difficult. (Not that I expect any Industrial Revolution cards to be either 1- or 2-drops.)
DeleteWithout token making, it's pretty unusual to have 10 permanents by turn 5 in Limited. But if players are turtling up for just the first five turns of the game, that's not so bad. I don't know what the best number is. I'd try 10 or 12 first, 15 if those are too small. Who knows? 20 could turn out perfect, as crazy as that seems.
Delete@Jenesis: We'll certainly be looking to build all of that depth in eventually, but design needs to start very broad and narrow down later. Otherwise we work ourselves into a corner and can't find a good fit for a major piece when we inevitably have to switch one out. If you think something is trending towards a point where we CAN'T add that depth, that's a problem. If it's just not there currently, it will be down the line.
DeleteAs for story/setting, we're still free to shift as our mechanical baggage demands, but Steampunk is serving as our baseline since it seems like the way to handle technology that's most in keeping with Magic's aesthetics.
As for board stalls with Industrial Revolution: that's certainly a valid concern. We might try a smaller number with "noncreature permanents" so that players are free to do combat as normal and are encouraged to run more artifacts than normal.
I considered "noncreature permanents", but the fact we're tapping and going for the flavor of a revolution really pushes for the inclusion of creatures.
DeleteIf the flavor was of a "breakthrough" or something, and the trigger was controlling rather than tapping, it could work.
A bit more parasitic, but (Possibly?) flavorful:
ReplyDeleteJunk Bot 3
Artifact Creature - Construct (Common)
Breakthrough (Tap 3 untapped permanents you control with Breakthough: Transform those permanents)
2/2
//
Tech Bot
Artifact Creature - Construct
4/4
Or, if we want to make breakthroughs a little more sporadic, and less predictable:
DeleteScrap forager 2
Artifact Creature - Construct (Common)
Breakthrough 4 (Tap 4 untapped permanents you control with Breakthrough: Transform those permanents).
2/1
//
Tech Drone
Artifact Creature - Construct
3/3
Junk fighter 1G
Creature - Human warrior (Uncommon)
Breakthrough 2 (Tap 2 untapped permanents you control with Breakthrough: Transform those permanents)
2/2
//
Armored fighter
Creature - Human Warrior (Green)
1G: Regenerate Armored fighter.
3/3
We can even do some interesting stuff like this:
Research Notes 1U
Enchantment (Rare)
Breakthrough 3
//
Profound Discovery
Enchantment (Blue)
Breakthrough 1
Too complicated? Too swingy in limited?
I'm afraid this is going to feel really bad when you have another breakthrough permanent or two left in the lurch because the numbers don't line up.
DeleteSo a deck with breakthrough wants as many breakthrough cards as possible, but all breakthrough cards are in the DFC slot?
DeleteIn addition to the cheatyfacing in draft problem and the chessiness on blocking problem (sorcery speed only?), I don't like the idea of a given player having a bunch of DFCs in their deck with no incentive to care about what's on the back side.
It is thematic.
DeleteWhat about a mechanic that rewards "thinking"?
ReplyDeleteSteppe Engineer W
Creature - Engineer (U)
Draw Up — Whenever you draw a card, Steppe Engineer gains +1/+1 until end of turn.
1/1
Mapping Khalni Heart
Enchantment, 1G
Draw Up — Whenever you draw a card, you may put a design counter on Mapping Khalni Heart.
Remove three design counters from Mapping Khalni Heart and sacrifice it: Search your library for up to two basic land cards, put them onto the battlefield tapped, then shuffle your library.
It's a reasonable idea for a mechanic-- R&D used it on the Kraken from M15. But I'm not seeing the 'anticipation' angle, especially since this will just be an upkeep trigger in many decks.
DeleteI don't think rewarding card drawing works nearly as well as rewarding playing lands since card drawing is something most colors do super consistently. Unless you're playing Blue, it is basically an upkeep trigger, and maybe every once in a while you get an extra trigger off a cantrip. I'd rather keyword it triggering in some particular way every upkeep.
DeleteAlso, I don't want to encourage a format where everyone is suddenly splashing Blue for Divination.
obviously every color would need more card draw than usual in such a set.
DeleteBut every color could get a common "divination" in this set: night's whisper, tormenting whisper, a two card hunter's Insight, survival cache. It's like saying "Don't do landfall because only green gets rampant growth and its basically just a once a turn trigger anyway."
obviously every color would need more card draw than usual in such a set.
DeleteBut every color could get a common "divination" in this set: night's whisper, tormenting whisper, a two card hunter's Insight, survival cache. It's like saying "Don't do landfall because only green gets rampant growth and its basically just a once a turn trigger anyway."
Lands are NOWHERE NEAR once a turn.
DeleteCards are guaranteed at the start of your turn. A land is anything but. Making a set that encourages you to play lands drastically alters what effects you're looking for - some effects that normally would be ignored are not. And the unreliability of drawing a land pushes players to include more lands in their decks, to more reliably trigger landfall - which is an interesting deckbuilding decision.
Card draw is entirely different. You will ALWAYS draw a card at the start of your turn, barring very unusual circumstances. And drawing cards is ALREADY good. It doesn't significantly alter the draft order of cards, or the priority of cards, or give a new dimension to them.
Everything Inanimate said. Landfall is interesting because it is on the other side of "once a turn" line.
DeleteAlso, I think they invested way too much effort making other colors interact with lands in Zendikar. Cards like Ruin Ghost are really ugly to me.
I'm not convinced draw triggers are a complete dead end, but for the reasons others have noted I do think they'd require a set to be heavily crafted around them. For a start, I'd want multiple cantrips in every color and non-removal ways to stop the triggers (e.g. Turn to Mist).
DeleteI didn't appreciate the pun on Scrapyard Sovereign at first. Hooray for pronunciation differences!
ReplyDeleteThe biggest strike against Industrial Revolution (IR) is the lopsided gameplay it can create in formats outside of this set. It's requirement is broad enough for backwards compatibility, but can you imagine trying to use even the constructed worthy IR cards in Modern? Additionally, what will Limited play like when you need a 4th of your deck on the battlefield to get to Phase II of the game? I know we are just suggesting tapping 10 permanents as the requirement and that it could be less, but I'm worried if we reduce to a number that's reasonable for Limited and older formats, the feeling of striving to achieve something will be lost.
ReplyDeleteWhat about just trying to get a threshold of spells cast? It could be artifact spells only if we want to preserve flavor, or any spell if that's not too broad. I'm picturing a mechanic that simplay cares if ten or more spells have been cast.
Bit Drill 1R (Com)
Artifact Creature - Construct 2/1
Paradigm Shift - If 10 spells have been cast this game, transform NAME.
//
Behemoth Drill
Artifact Creature - Juggernaut 4/3
The problem is how to track the number of spells cast during a game. MTGO would have no problem with this, but cardboard Magic would. I'm going to think about some ways to track it and get back to you. In the meantime, here are some articles where Maro discusses the Day/Night mechanic that almost made it into Kamigawa Block and Innistrad Block. It's a similar threshold, although two ways, where we are imagining IR as a one time per game shift.
"Flipping Out"
http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr142
"Every Two Sides Has a Story"
http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/mm/158
A mechanic that's perfect for Limited but over-powered in Constructed is a problem. The opposite may not be ideal, but it's fine. You can put the set's Constructed kindling elsewhere in the set.
DeleteIf you have the mana to cast Siege-Gang Commander, you're 1 permanent shy of revolting… probably the permanent with revolution.
The thing I like about counting your permanents is that you get there inevitably, even if you're land-flooded. It makes drawing land mid- and late-game fine or even good, much like landfall did. Counting spells played—or the CMC of cards in play or in the graveyard—all reward the player most likely to be winning anyhow. Revolution can too, but it can also save a player who's behind on action cards.
I am not interested in our main mechanic not having a constructed impact. What if landfall, infect, DFC's, bloodrush, devotion, or delve hadn't had Constructed kindling?
DeleteCounting spells doesn't reward whomever's winning if you count all spells cast (not just spells you've cast.) It actually can rubberband the losing player back into a game, which 10 permanents can never do. If you aren't drawing lands and have a fist full of spells, 10 permanents is not going to help you.
Bestow had basically no constructed impact and was a great mechanic. I'm not concerned at all about something not showing up in constructed, and I'm not convinced it is impossible to tap ten permanents in constructed.
DeleteThat said, I don't love "tap ten permanents" either.
I think how difficult it is to track immediately kills counting ten spells, and I don't like thtat it would have both players entering phase 2 at the same time. It is possible you could iterate on this until it became something.
I was listing major mechanics in the large sets of blocks, but not every mechanic. When I look at the question posed by this Tesla update I see the formation of a marquee set mechanic. And a marquee mechanic should absolutely appear in constructed. It's going to be the focus of most players and build excitement for the set.
DeleteBestow is a Limited mechanic through and through, with a couple constructed playable cards (Boon Satyr and Eidolon of Countless Battles). Compare that to devotion, which immediately saw play in Blue, Black, Red and Green, and was featured in all 15 Mythic Rare Gods in the block. Surely it's the marquee mechanic of the Theros set, if not the whole block.
If we were doing factions, like the 10 Ravnica Guilds, or clans and dragon broods of Tarkir, I wouldn't be as worried about the constructed playablility of the mechanic. There's always room with shallow mechanics like those to include a few constructed worthy cards.
You're on to something about both players hitting Phase 2 at the same time. But then again, who should we focus on, the player whose behind and can catch up because their opponents play helped them make Phase 2; or the player whose ahead and has to worry about their actions catching their opponent up?
I'd classify devotion as Theros' filler mechanic. Heroic got more press, and bestow (plus multiple cycles of instants and auras) existed in large part to support heroic. But devotion saw more Constructed play. What that tells me is that different players will focus on different mechanics, based on their interests, and so we can make one mechanic the best for Limited players and another the best for Constructed.
DeleteI would definitely have said devotion was the filler mechanic (it only lasted a set, really, as it barely even appeared in Born), and I certainly would have said Bestow was hands down the marquee mechanic. It was the thing in the block that made you evaluate things differently and made the block feel different (although, the reason Theros block was mostly a failure in my mind is that it didn't ever capture a different feeling, aside from the feeling of "Oh, he put an Observent Alseid on his Wingsteed Rider... I guess I just lose.").
DeleteThat said, obviously I'm mostly a limited player. (Tangent: I actually like most of the mechanics from Theros, and want to see them back, I just don't think they put them together well.)
This is actually a really interesting side conversation, and we haven't even touched on the Enchantment theme of the set. But I would argue that we should look to the first card they show us for the marquee mechanic of a set. And I would further argue that a marquee card is going to be one that appeals to constructed play. A strong limited card can't sell a set, because the only way to evaluate cards for limited is in context of every other card in the limited format. But a Mythic with a splashy mechanic sells a set. (Maybe when I mean marquee mechanic I should just say a splashy mechanic.)
DeleteOn topic, a mechanic that seems too hard to play in Constructed, or to have too many hoops to pull off, will seem underpowered. People won't be excited to put cards with it into their deck. Keep in mind, no set comes out in a vacuum. Its cards have to compete with cards from previous sets still in Standard. The last thing you want to do is create a format where no one plays your new set and continues to focus on strategies from the previous set. WotC has done a great job in recent years avoiding this. They value constructed play potential much, much higher than limited. Even if the Limited for a new set is deep, skill intensive and fun. They would rather a set appeal to building decks.
An obvious way to track "spells cast" is putting counters on the cards that care about tracking spells. But having those counters do nothing but track spells isn't great. It's a lot of fiddling, so there should be a better payoff. Here's Engineer + level up + DFC, for fun.
DeleteDrone Mechanist 1W (UNC)
Creature - Human Artificier
Engineer (Whenever you cast an an artifact spell, you may pay 1. If you do, put a level counter on this.)
Level 0-2
2/1
Level 3-9
Flying
3/2
Level 10+
If there are ten of more level counters on Drone Mechanist, remove all level counters from Drone Mechanist and transform it.
///
Drone Captain (White color indicator)
Artifact Creature - Human
5/4
Flying
Other attacking creatures you control have flying.
Problem with this, like previous level up cards, is that progress is split permanent to permanent, rather than everything moving to Phase II at the same time. Maybe the Level 10+ effect could be "If there are ten of more level counters on Drone Mechanist, remove all level counters from permanents you control with engineer and transform them." And maybe that would be only at Uncommon or Rare rarity, where the Commons only transform themselves. Hmmm.
Another problem here is that there's no easy way to make instants or sorceries that care if ten spells have been cast unless they are parasitic (If a player controls a permanent with ten or more counters on it, EFFECT)(If a player controls a transformed permament, EFFECT) etc.
"If a player controls a permanent with ten or more counters on it, EFFECT."
DeleteThat's not bad, actually.
I don't want to play a set where I have to count to ten little cubes on my cards. That can be fun every once in a while with some giant hydra, but it gets old real fast.
DeleteIR is likely hopeless for Modern, but I think it's actually very easy to push for Standard ramp and/or control decks. You make a reasonable but slightly below playable permanent and then give it some awesome back side reward, just like Shaman of Forgotten Ways.
DeleteE.g.
Recycling Plant {2}
Artifact (R)
{T}, Discard a card: Draw a card.
Industrial Revolution (Tap 10 untapped permanents you control: For the rest of the game, cards you control with Industrial Revolution are transformed.)
//
{T}, Discard a card: Draw a card for each artifact card in your graveyard.
Also, I just remembered: if we're talking about DFCs, let's not forget Chah's "Timecharge" seen here: http://goblinartisans.blogspot.com/2011/12/21-ways-to-design-card-10-break-premise.html
ReplyDeleteHere's my version, with some minor adjustments;
Timecharge N (At the beginning of your upkeep, put a charge counter on this. If there are three or more time counters on this, you may transform it.)
And you can cast the transformed side.
This is basically a super-simple Suspend - but if you push it, you can get some REALLY interesting results.
Stuff like Curse of the Cabal, Deep-Sea Kraken, the Aeon Chronicler cycle, Arc Blade and the other "cyclical" Suspend cards, etc... all of those are a LOT more easy to do when the "Suspend" part is an entire card of its own.
In addition, the Suspend face doesn't have to be completely useless. For example:
Prototype Warbot {3}
Artifact Creature - Construct (C)
Timecharge 2
2/2
///
Masterwork Warbot {5}
Artifact Creature - Construct (C)
4/4
Thoughts? Is it possibly a more grokkable version of Develop and its cohorts?
Having the back sides of DFCs exist in zones outside of the battlefield is super problematic.
DeleteI disagree. Well, it varies with the zone. Stack and graveyard are fine.
DeleteHand I'll agree is very problematic, especially if you need to be able to check what the back face of a card in your hand is without letting the opponent see.
I think the proposal is just to cast the front side as a normal spell and then when it gets enough counters it will flip over. This has a lot of advantages over Develop. The biggest downsides are 1. Having to use DFCs, which are logistically complex (but possibly an already sunk cost for Tesla) and 2. No clear "ticking down to 0", you have to remember each card's threshold.
DeleteThe second one seems easy to solve by making it ETB with counters and removing them instead. I'm excited to try this version!
I was actually proposing that you can cast its backside, or cast its frontside and wait for it to grow into its backside.
DeletePreventing the backside from being cast certainly simplifies the mechanic, but I also think it makes it far less interesting.
Jules, I agree that counting down is probably the better idea. I preferred counting up for some minor reasons:
1.) If we do effects on the frontside, this lets us key the effects to how long it's been timecharged.
2.) It lets cards that add charge counters from previous sets interact with timecharge in a positive manner.
But yeah, counting down - and changing it to time counters - would a good idea.