As a reminder, this is what manabond looked like:
After some discussion in the last Zeffrikar post, I believe that having a choice of the type of token overcomplicates the mechanic and can lead to some memory problems.
While I considered having (type)bond,
I think the better mechanic is to make a cave token instead:
Of course, that raises the fundamental question as to whether we should just be doing Eldrazi Spawn Tokens instead.
Manabond
- Pros
- Helps landfall/other lands matter mechanics
- Reminiscient of spawn without actually being spawn
- Cons
- Land tokens are somewhat frowned upon by R&D for reasons that escape me.
Eldrazi Spawn
- Pros
- Super flexible creatures (can chump, can play off of other Eldrazi mechanics)
- beloved and proven mechanic to return to
- Cons
- Primarily the sequel problem - Just doing all of the Zendikar mechanics again can be an ok design, but a good (or great) design is going to want to approach old problems with new solutions
That's my 3-minute takeaway of where this conversation stands. I don't know that either manabond or spawn is going to make it into the first draft of the file, but I do know that they're too similar to not step on each other's toes, so we're definitely not going to include both. What are your thoughts?
-Zeff
Remember that spawn serve multiple purposes. They aren't just ramp so you can get Eldrazi; they're also chump blockers for your opponent's giant battlecruiser creatures *and* permanents you can sacrifice to annihilator without feeling too bad about it.
ReplyDeleteOh, I'm a huge fan of the many uses of spawn. My issue is that they necessarily need to eat up a nice chunk of common design space in a given set, and they're complex enough without starting to mess too much with their design directly. So the question to me becomes is there enough space with all the other things going on in this set to make the Spawn feel like a new take, rather than just doing what was already done? I don't know the answer to that question, but pitting these two very similar mechanics against each other adds to whatever insight I already have on the matter.
DeleteAre we keeping landfall at a significant enough proportion to justify land tokens? That's the only reason I can think of to go this route over spawn.
ReplyDeleteParticularly given the oddity that these land pop when you use them, which is a very un-land thing to do.
Sequels would rather revisit old mechanics in a new way than replace them wholesale. Can we make spawn relevant in a different way? Here's one: Spawn Champion.
I really want to emphasize Jay's point that "these land pop when you use them, which is a very un-land thing to do." I really don't think land is the right type for these tokens, Artifact is.
DeleteMy counterargument is that it is a land thing to do in a set where land drops (and land amounts) can matter. Gold counters maybe should be up for consideration as well, since a colorless matters element is also in play.
DeleteZefferal: Lands have a 'mechanical pie' just as much as the colors and artifacts do, and I would consider "a permanent source of mana" as one of the essentials.
DeleteI could see it as a blending of ZEN + ROE, if we're keeping a lot of landfall.
DeleteI agree that these don't really feel like lands. My stance is that all lands should act as stable +1's to your mana count because players are naturally uninclined to devote mindspace to them and Magic is more fun when they don't have to for the same reason that NWO sets are generally more enjoyable even for high-skill players: you get to devote your attention to the cool and interesting stuff.
DeleteThis makes 'real' land tokens problematic because it's often hard to tell whether or not a token is tapped since players often use dice or beads. You generally remember whether a creature is tapped because you pay attention to attacking. Not so for tapping lands.
The thing is, everybody likes Spawn. If you don't include them, people will be disappointed. If you replace them with something similar that's less interactive, people will be mad. Hedron Land tokens that sacrifice for 1 are just too similar to Spawn. They would have to play significantly different to make sense. But even the designs you're suggesting are the same things we saw with Spawn. So you're inviting the comparison, which is a losing proposition.
ReplyDeleteSomething between excavate and manabond:
ReplyDeleteHedronize (Put a hedron token on a land without one. When a player taps that land for mana, he or she removes that counter and adds {1} to his or her mana pool.)
For each hedron token among lands you control, scaling effect.
If N+ lands you control have hedron counters, threshold effect.
As long all lands you control have hedron counters on them, tempo effect.
Why isn't the removal of the counter optional? Doesn't seem like that'd be too broken.
Deleteso make it optional
DeleteAh, I was assuming there was some reasoning behind it, and I was curious.
DeleteRestrictions create puzzles/challenges, but I'm pretty sure this one would be counter-intuitive and annoying. Good call.
DeleteRandom Thought: What if eldrazi spawn in Zeffrikar were lands in addition to everything else they have going on?
ReplyDeleteSimple Genesis G
Sorcery
Put a 0/1 colorless Eldrazi Spawn Land Creature token otb w/ "Sac: Add 1"?
wat?
DeleteHee. That is a very simple very complicated solution. Very natural and very random and confusing all at the same time.
DeleteWe can go deeper.
DeleteGilded Gibbous Genesis {G}
Sorcery (C)
Put a 0/1 colorless Eldrazi Spawn artifact land creature token named Golden Eldrazi Spawn onto the battlefield. It has "Sacrifice this permanent: Add one mana of any color to your mana pool".
@Inanimate YES!!!!!
DeleteI disagree that a sequel requires "new solutions for old problems". I think many sequels are fundamentally about "new problems for the old solutions", no?
ReplyDeleteThere are two kinds of sequels that I can think of: the first is what you suggest, "new solutions for old problems". A good example is the basic crappy horror movie sequel. It's literally "the old problem", the horror monster, with a "new solution", in this case, a new setting or characters to kill. Let's call this one the Revisit (because that's what it basically is). It's also quite comparable to the Remake, but not quite the same, as they're more likely to put spins on the material, or to try out new things with the "old problem".
In this case, the basic idea is that you're approaching the same basic plot structure from a new direction. So, applying this to Battle for Zendikar - if they use the Revisit structure, it'll be the same archetypes / format as Rise of the Eldrazi or Zendikar limited, just with new elements to replace the old ones. Instead of using Eldrazi Spawn for ramp, you'd use Hedrons tokens or whatever - instead of Levelers you have Outlast - and so on, and so forth. Same 'problem' of Battlecruiser Magic, but a different 'solution' to how to implement it.
A good example in Magic is Return to Ravnica. It had the "old problems" - representing ten guilds - with "new solutions" - new mechanics and block structure. It worked well enough.
On the other hand, if you're doing "old solutions with new problems", you're following the model that most people think of when they think sequel - taking the elements of the previous plot, and throwing them into new situations. Let's call this one the Extension. Toy Story 2 is a great example - it takes all the "old solutions" - the characters of the previous movie - and throws them into "new problems" - new scenarios that they have to overcome.
If we apply the Extension to Battle for Zendikar, it'd probably be something like "What ELSE is there to do with our old mechanics?" By putting Spawn in a format that ISN'T about ramp, we can explore their other uses. Or by putting Landfall in a set that ISN'T about super-aggro tempo, we can explore its more 'gradual accumulation of advantage' effects. This is about exploring the different facets of old mechanics.
Scars of Mirrodin is a good example of this. Imprint was brought back with "a new problem" - being Phyrexianised - and we got to see how it adapted and changed. Equipment went through something similar, with Living Weapon representing that adaptation. If Affinity or Monohybrid had been brought back as they planned, instead of their replacements Metalcraft and Phyrexian mana, then they would have been great examples.
In this case, I'm leaning towards the Extension, not the Revisit.
I made a small typo, sorry - the "old solutions" weren't the characters themselves, but the developed relationships of the characters. The 'solution' to the 'problem' of Toy Story 1 was Woody and Buzz developing a friendship. That friendship - the "old solution" - was then tested in Toy Story 2 with "new problems".
DeleteAwesome post. I appreciate the detail you put into delineating these two versions of sequels. I would just add that the game of Magic itself pushes towards Extension sequels because each plane is often anchored by mechanical elements. You're not going to see a Ravnica sequel without guilds, a Tarkir sequel without Dragons, a Mirrodin sequel without artifacts. Alara and Zendikar are tricky because they were so radically changed by the story events of their blocks, but I still expect them to maintain their original mechanical anchors of 3-color arcs and lands, respectively.
DeleteWell said, Inanimate.
DeleteAnother wrench in the works is that Zendikar hosted two completely different mechanical environments, so it's impossible to be a standard sequel to either without ignoring the other. BfZ has to do some kind of hybrid of the two, in addition to being a sequel.
Nich: Agreed. Magic definitely wants to keep its "solutions" but throw them into "new problems", since those solutions tend to be the fun themes and mechanics we play with, while the problems tend to be the overall format and feel.
DeleteJay: Yes, I have absolutely no idea to compare it to because I've never quite seen anything like it. It's going to be quite the challenge.
Innistrad will have the same problem when it's revisited as Zendikar. The Plane changed radically in the third set and the status quo is not clear.
DeleteCreative will have to make a choice at some point for how they want to maintain/retcon the Magic timeline. I think the interesting story for Innistrad is probably "how did it first get to be this way" rather than "what's life like after AVR", at least because of how poorly AVR was received - which is probably a compelling story to tell. The problem is, according to what dates I can find, Sorin & vampirism on Innistrad just barely predate the birth of Urza & Mishra; so even if you give allowances for "we can do a prequel block", there's the whole weird "nowadays planeswalkers are different" thing to contend with if doing any stories set pre-Mending.
Delete