Weekend Art ChallengeClick through to see this weekend's art and the design requirements for your single card submission, due Monday morning. Every submission warrants feedback, which I will try to provide, and which everyone is welcome to provide as well.
If you choose, you may use that feedback to revise your submission any number of times.
Design a sorcery or instant that illustrates something completely agnostic to artifacts about Tesla. We want to see the other half of this world. By "agnostic to artifacts" I mean it can't care about or mention them—as far as this card knows, artifacts have never existed.
This weekend, I will give feedback during the submission process (as I am able), but I will not post a final review.
Blacksmog Infiltrator 1B
ReplyDeleteCreature - Rogue
CARDNAME is unblockable as long as the defending player controls an artifact.
2/1
"Design an Instant or Sorcery..."
Delete"...completely agnostic to arifacts..."
DeleteEhh, I'm willing to allow creatures. But yeah, they can't reference or care specifically about artifacts.
DeleteMy fault I saw the art and just designed something for tesla.
DeleteHere is one that fits the requirements;
Stranglesmog 1B
Instant
Target creature gets -X/-X until end of turn, where X is equal to the amount of colorless mana in its casting cost.
Does this make sense / work?
Totally valid.
DeleteThis kills rhinos better than bears... Is that the aim?
I like this card itself, but it doesn't seem like there's a whole lot of design space here unless we do things like card draw that feel really disconnected from the creature. Is it still worth it at that point?
DeleteMy first pass. I may create an ability word for the trigger.
ReplyDeleteInsight Syphon (Common)
B
Sorcery
Target opponent discards a card.
If you've cast another black spell this turn, draw a card.
"I hope you wrote that down somewhere."
-Liliana Vess
What ability word might you use?
DeleteI've been playing around with this trigger recently-- I call it "associate" and use it to represent people getting ideas from what other people are doing. That certainly fits with the general steampunk vibe. You might also consider Patrician's Scorn as a precedent for this-- same trigger, *and* it has somewhat Victorian flavor.
DeleteI had something like this called ritual a long ways back. This could easily be Progress here.
DeleteI'm leaning towards something evocative a fun.
DeleteInsight Syphon (Com)
B
Sorcery
Target opponent discards a card.
Spell streak — If you’ve cast another black spell this turn, draw a card.
“For your sake, I hope you wrote that down somewhere.”
-Liliana Vess
I like this mechanic pretty well, I just want to make sure to keep it on cheap spells so players don't wait the whole game hoping for a few more lands to get value.
DeleteDoes anyone care that this is basically Combo from Hearthstone? I do admit I have often thought "Wow, Magic could do that" when playing a Rogue deck.
Delete"Care" in what sense?
DeleteThe "If you've cast another spell this turn..." ability word was essentially the building block of my GDS2 work and something I'm sure I wrote about here when we first started up, so obviously I've certainly thought it was appropriate for the game as a "Storm-lite" variant, which is basically how it has turned out in Hearthstone.
As to concerns regarding the perception that mechanics have been appropriated from other games, I don't think there's any reason to shy away from doing so if you think it fits the game you're working on.
I haven't played Hearthstone, so the lift was unintentional. If Tesla is a world that's abandoned magic for science, but now is slowly starting to relearn the 5-colors of Magic, this type of mechanic makes flavor sense. Asking you to care about the color of other spells you've cast in a turn is a good way to separate the mechanic from what an Artifact theme would be doing without it feeling artbitrary. (And, in fact, putting colored artifacts in the third set of the block to integrate mechanics would evolve the format and show how Tesla has assimilated the 5-colors of Magic into it's steam-punk ethos.)
DeleteI certainly didn't mean "care" aggressively... I was basically asking "Hey, did anyone else notice that..." but in retrospect I admit the wording was a bit weird. I think I was typing my comment in the 30 seconds before I went off to teach or something.
DeleteI really like the idea of having third set colored aritfacts as a way of evolving the block.
DeleteI think that is a bit undercut by the fact that we already had an artifact block where the third act twist was colored artifacts.
DeleteI really liked the idea from the original pitch for the plane: "A world without mana rediscovers magic." It paints a contrast for the set between tech-using overlords and the masses who fight back by tapping into long-forgotten sources of magic. I've previously explored this idea using things like Sunburst, but here's a completely different approach:
ReplyDeletePlague Burst B
Instant (C)
Eruption (As you cast this spell, you may return a land you control to its owner's hand. When you do, copy it and you may choose a new target for the copy.)
Target creature gets -1/-1 until end of turn.
This could play well alongside land-matters mechanics like Landfall or Retrace (on magical Illusion creatures maybe?).
It could play well with those. We'd need to be very careful with it because it's basically "spend your land drop for the turn" which retards board development if used early and proved to be a trap the original Zendikar team learned to avoid in their context.
DeleteThat's my biggest concern too. This kind of effect probably wants to be on higher CMC spells so that you can continue to cast your spells, but then the copying effect may be too powerful. Not sure where to go with this.
DeleteNot sure either. They also basically did this in Kamigawa with Barrel Down Sokenzan, etc.
DeleteIf this isn't something Standard wants, I imagine it being very reasonable as a mechanic in an expert-level supplemental product (and Legacy).
DeleteYeah, I just don't see this decision being terribly fun except for the uber-spikes. If we want to reward yu for having plenty of mana out, why not a threshold for land # or a kicker mechanic?
DeleteBurden of Greed {3}{B}
ReplyDeleteinstant [U]
Target player loses 1 life for each tapped artifact he or she controls.
reprint
The card can't mention artifacts.
Deletedidn't see that...
DeleteSolemn Erasure {W}{B}
Instant [U]
Exile target noncreature, nonland permanent.
because if hero's downfall is top level playable while murder isn't at all then I'm sure revoke existence would follow suit with the same mod. this is interesting in that it can't get rid of creatures ever unlike revoke existence.
Basically this kills artifacts, enchantments and planeswalkers. The combination of {W}{B} could do this, but so could {W}{R}, {B}{G}, {R}{G} or {G}{W} and honestly the non-creature part pushes me toward one of the {G} answers.
Deleteso far black is the only color that really goes after planeswalkers. green black is a possibility but definitely not with exiling and certainly not with nonland. I honestly don't think R/G or G/W are even a possibility here, I don't think they can do this actually.
DeleteMono-green can do this—Bramblecrush
Deleteah, but can it do it in a card that is liable to be a tournament staple? yes. are they gonna print this for two mana in green (exiling included) perhaps. is this card out of color because another color also has similar cards? no.
DeleteThere are two different color pie restrictions:
DeleteThe first is mechanical. You're right that this can be done without green.
But the second is feel. The noncreature clause makes this feel green, and ignoring that is like allowing
"Target creature gets -5/-0 until end of turn. Switch it's power and toughness until end of turn."
in blue.
but revoke existence is a white card a feels white. people complained when fade into antiquity was printed.
DeleteI'd be really excited to see this as a GG sorcery.
DeleteGG sorcery does sound pretty spicy.
DeleteOn another note entirely, I'd be excited to see an instant Bramblecrush at Tower Above's mana cost.
Wipe Memories
ReplyDelete1UB
Sorcery (U)
Target player puts the top seven cards from his or her library into his or her graveyard.
Conspire (As you cast this spell, you may tap two untapped creatures you control that share a color with it. When you do, copy it and you may choose a new target for the copy.)
The intention with this card is to continue with the Organics/Elite fight I mentioned recently. My idea is that the elite get artifacts and morphs (with maybe an ability word to reward colorless-ness) and the citizens of Tesla who are trying to rise up can care about color. Conspire hits this both mechanically and flavorfully (win!)
In terms of the actual card design, this is meant to reward a UB player with the ability to maybe deck someone in limited. Way more powerful in my opinion than Memory Sluice. I wanted flavortext saying something about attacking some Elite, but it didn't feel like it served the card enough.
14 cards seems like too much for an uncommon to mill in Limited, but I like the card otherwise, and love the conspire idea.
DeleteIf you get one copy of this in Limited and resolve it with conspire, then your opponent has 40 - 7 (starting hand) - 14 cards = 19 cards left. Assuming it's not til a few turns in, that gets them to 15 or so. Hm...
DeleteWould this still work at 5 cards? Memory Sluice is 1 mana for 4 or 8 cards. How's 1UB for 6 cards? UB for 5 cards? 1UB for 5 cards?
I could bump up the cost instead.
I feel the need to point out that conspire isn't agnostic to artifacts, unless we're doing colored artifacts.
DeleteColorless instants, or ways to color permanents also work. I'd consider this sufficiently agnostic to artifacts.
DeleteI like giving Conspire more time in the sun - I'd probably try this at 2UB and 7 cards still.
I considered Conspire as well for the non-artifact side, and I think it's a good fit mechanically. I like the 'magic' faction getting lots of small tokens (which this plays into), and the artifact faction getting things like Overlord. I don't think mill is a great way to use Conspire though, and I'd really like to see something that felt like an evolution of the mechanic.
DeleteJust to be clear, conspire doesn't care about or mention artifacts, because they're colorless.
DeleteI'm not sure there's much to evolve with conspire mechanically considering this art. I could make it capping - searching through a library and exiling cards - but I'm not sure if that would reward drafters enough. It's worth considering. I'd like to keep this UB, and they don't really share much space.
One thing to note is that conspire hasn't shown up on traditional gold multicolor cards yet, so that could be considered an evolution.
For now lets make it 1UB and 6 cards.
According to Maro, one of the biggest failings of Scars (the first set of my personal favorite block of all time) is that the factions were too separated mechanically and there was little incentive to mix them. They did well at remedying this later in the block.
DeleteIf you are playing a deck with Conspire, having artifacts in your deck actively hurt you, which is going to lead to an unpleasant draft experience that pushes you towards one of the poles.
1UB for 6 cards seems printable, depending on how much other mill there is in the block.
DeleteColorless artifact creatures won't help conspire, and indeed, mono-colored creatures (artifact or not) won't help conspire as much as the hybrid creatures of Shadowmoor, but if the mechanic is good for the story, we could support it mechanically, perhaps by making lots of token creatures (that aren't colorless).
Could one consider a version of a conspire-like mechanic that didn't mention color?
DeleteMaybe a Convoke/Conspire Kicker variant.
DeleteGroup Effort (As an additional cost to cast CARDNAME, tap X untapped creatures you control.)
One could also just do something like:
DeleteUnion -- If you control four or more creatures, [EFFECT].
Simple, and links into what players want anyhow. We have to take it easy on board wipe to enable.
DeleteWhile I still like Conspire for thematic purposes, and I think that given there will be other mechanics that help it to be not too factionalizing like Scars, there are certainly ways to achieve the effect otherwise. For one of the past WACs I had Populism -- If you control three or more creatures, etc. Still political that way.
DeleteOr it could be something like:
Work Together -- As an additional cost to cast CARDNAME, tap any number of untapped creatures you control.
Target player puts the top X cards of his or her library into his or her graveyard, where X is three times the number of creatures tapped this way.
This is the Dimir version of Burn at the Stake.
I like versions that don't care about color much better for Tesla. That said, the latest version is both too swingy and too hard to parse for common. Can it be cheap and just mill equal to the number tapped?
DeleteSorry, should've clarified that this is rare. Common isn't one of our restrictions this week. If you want a common one:
DeleteMy Brain Hurts
UB
Sorcery (C)
Work Together--As an additional cost to cast My Brain Hurts, tap any number of untapped creatures you control.
Target player puts the top card of his or her library into his or her graveyard for each creature tapped this way.
Ugh. There are so few situations where My brain hurts isn't just worse than Tome Scour. Might be hard to find effects that scale cleanly across colors and rarities.
DeleteThere could be designs of "X where X is 3 plus the number..." You still have a point though. But I'm not too worried. It's a variable mechanic like devotion, so there are plenty of designs to be had, exciting ones even.
DeletePrepare for War
1W?
Sorcery (C)
Work Together
Put a +1/+1 counter on each creature tapped this way.
Communal Ritual
RG
Sorcery (U)
Work Together
Add to your mana pool any combination of R or G for each creature tapped this way.
After Them!
B
Instant (C)
Work Together
Target creature gets -1/-1 until end of turn for each creature tapped this way.
Group Unsummon
4UU
Instant (R)
Work Together
Return X nonland permanents to their owner's hands, where X is the number of creatures tapped this way.
Everyone Think!
3U
Sorcery (U)
Work Together
Draw a card for each creature tapped this way.
Burn at the Stake (reprint)
2RRR
Sorcery (R)
Work Together
Burn at the Stake deals X damage, where X is three times number of creatures tapped this way.
Heroes' Anniversary
1WG
Sorcery (U)
Work Together
You gain 3 life for each creature tapped this way.
Collective Epiphany
RR
Sorcery (M)
Work Together
Exile the top X cards of your library, where X is number of creatures tapped this way. You may play those cards this turn.
Raid the Catacombs
1{B/G}{B/G}
Sorcery (U)
Work Together
Return X target creature cards from your graveyard to your hand, where X is number of creatures tapped this way.
Encourage the Big Guy
2G
Sorcery (C)
Work Together
Until end of turn, target creature gets +X/+X and gains trample, where X is the number of creatures tapped this way.
Not all of these are good, but the point is I think there's plenty of exciting space to mess around with.
Cool
DeleteThis effect is super swingy, and I fear it will end up just making a ton of "win more" cards. Particularly the sorceries are going to leave you vulnerable to a counterattack, meaning that there is a very narrow set of circumstances where you can cast them.
DeleteBurn at the Stake gets around this because there is no follow up turn, you only cast it when it wins you the game. I really have to stretch my mind to construct a board state where I'd cast Everyone Think even if it was in my hand.
Fair point. I think that the vulnerability means that maybe we can push a few cards to be worth the counterattack. Or we could have more tokens than average to give extra bodies to tap, like the Eldrazi Spawn to make casting them more appealing.
DeleteAnother point is that the swinginess is not for everyone. I can imagine playing most of these in multiplayer games pretty safely, but I'm sure we can design some that are interesting and worth it in 1v1 without breaking a game.
Weed the Garden
GG
Sorcery (C)
Work Together
Put a 1/1 green Saproling creature token onto the battlefield for each creature tapped this way.
This is a dangerous and swingy card. Master of Waves says hi.
Paint the Town Red
RR
Sorcery (U)
Work Together
Paint the Town Red deals X damage to each creature, where X is the number of creatures tapped this way.
This could be constructed playable.
Also just looked this up: devotion in Theros block is mostly not a common mechanic. Obviously the mana pips are on every card and so in that way it's common, but cards that use it are mostly uncommon (and mythic, but that's because of the Gods).
Ghostly Poultice
ReplyDelete3
Instant - Uncommon
Until end of turn, damage that would be dealt to permanents causes their owners to lose that much life instead.
Is this intentionally colorless? Or is it supposed to be 3B?
DeleteColorless Overrun? I like that this is dangerous all around. It could easily win a game out of nowhere, but it could easily cost you the game too, or be dead in hand.
DeleteProbably rare, and probably much higher than {3}, especially since this has the ability to decide the game on the spot.
DeleteI find it interesting that in some situations you could win the game by casting Giant Growth on your opponent's creature in response to this.
How would Giant Growthing an opposing creature help?
DeleteThey attack with 7 power of creatures and have 10 life left, and you can block all their creatures.
DeleteI don't think that's how it works.
DeleteSay you're attacking a 2/2 into a couple of 1/1s and cast this before blocks for some reason. If nothing blocks, the opponent takes 2 damage. If one of the 1/1s blocks, the opponent takes 2 damage and you take 1 (a creature can be dealt damage greater than its toughness). If both block, the opponent takes 2 damage and you take 2. In no case does anything get destroyed (because of the replacement effect).
Probably the best way to think of this is as an offensive Fog that also makes players lose life equal to attacking/blocking creatures' power. That's a pretty novel effect in itself; I'd be inclined to put it into black, but the symmetry makes the colorless identity at least plausible.
"damage dealt to" not "damage dealt by"
DeleteOh wow, I missed that. Yeah, this is absurdly broken as a 3 mana instant.
DeleteBetter templating?
"Until end of turn, if damage would be dealt to a permanent, that permanent's controller loses that much life instead."
While this is certainly a unique effect, I'm not sure that means it's colorless. If anything I'd put this in {W}{B}
DeleteUncover Secrets 3U
ReplyDeleteSorcery- Common
Draw two cards.
Adventure (This spell costs 1 less to cast for each creature that attacked this turn.)
Right now Tesla seems in danger of being slow-paced and grindy. Adventure is a way to encourage early aggression, making bluffs/combat tricks a bit more interesting in the process, and to give more of a mechanical sense of excitement to the gameplay. I'm not at all wedded to the name: alternatives I considered include Quest, Expedition, and Swashbuckle. Feedback welcome and much appreciated!
I like it!
DeleteNote that the way it's worded, it would be untrue to the flavor to put this on any instants.
I agree, no instants (though adding "you control" ot the condition could enable Rout-like instant designs). Creatures / artifacts / enchantments should be fine, though.
DeleteIs this supposed to count creatures that died during combat? As worded, I think (but don't swear) that it doesn't. My vote would before it not counting dead creatures, but I sort of think it was intended to.
Delete(I'd definitely put "you control" for flavor, even if it only mattered with Hypersonic Dragon.)
I like anything that instills a sense of adventure. Would "for each tapped creature you control" detract from the focus too much?
DeleteI like Adventure. Not sure how Tesla-y it is, but it definitely deserves a home.
DeleteProposed new wording:
DeleteThis spell costs 1 less to cast for each creature you attacked with this turn.
I want to count creatures that die in combat (so counting tapped creatures won't work), and I believe this template does the trick. The best precedent I can find for it is Keldon Twilight.
If Windbrisk Heights works, so do this, and quite nicely.
DeleteI like this mechanic. I'm not sure blue is the right home for it; blue's strategies rarely involve attacking with a lot of creatures. However, if Adventure is a five-color mechanic, this is a good blue implementation of it.
DeleteThanks! Yes, I was assuming that Adventure would show up in all colors-- the art just seemed blue to me. If any color wants to have a higher concentration of this, it's probably red.
DeleteI love adventure but I don't like it counting creatures that died. It feels thematically off (as they aren't really on an adventure, per se...) and it is way less interesting on the other side of the table if you have no chance to interact with it.
DeleteThere were part of the expedition party. Even if they didn't make it back, they contributed to the team's discovery.
DeleteI could see going either way on it, but my hunch is that counting the dead creatures will make for better gameplay, because players will be assured of getting to cast their spells even if something goes wrong during combat.
DeleteI suppose whether "nothing can go wrong" makes better game play is unclear. For example, Bloodthirst would not be a better mechanic if it only cared if the creature attacked, not if it got through.
DeleteThat said, since the bonus is so incremental in this case, I'm not sure I terribly mind counting all the creatures that attacked, though I could see it creating memory issues, particularly if there are a lot of tokens running around.
I think if dead creatures count, this is going to encourage a "one big turn" theme where you play a bunch of Adventure cards at once, which isn't necessarily what I think the mechanic wants. For example, you could play a bunch of Uncover Secrets in one turn.
Good points, Tommy-- I hadn't considered Bloodthirst as an analogy or the possibility of 'one big turn'. Even so, I think I still prefer the mechanic as is, and I think it's partly the name that's causing the issues. I really like Inanimate's suggestion of "Venture" for a similar mechanic below, since it has both the senses of "venture out" and "nothing ventured, nothing gained". With that in mind, here's my official submission:
DeleteUncover Secrets 3U
Sorcery- Common
Draw two cards.
Venture (This spell costs 1 less to cast for each creature that you attacked with this turn.)
Could also cost 2UU (or 1UU?!) to address the "one big turn" concern, but I'd worry that it wouldn't be sufficiently exciting since "UU, Sorcery, Draw two" is probably printable on its own.
I think it is also something that you could vary between colors. Some colors want "One big turn" and hence have one color depth Venture cards and other colors want to exploit cards like Tormented Soul as Llanowar Elves and those colors could have venture at two color depth.
DeleteI'm somewhat inclined towards going with your wording, but making this spell into a 4UU Draw three cards with Venture, and then let Red have things like:
Lava Axier 4R
Cardname deals 5 damage to target player.
Venture
Venture seems like it has potential to make for some fun games, and I'm not even convinced the "one big turn" thing is bad. To set that up a player would likely have to pass on casting some of those spells for a few turns, and they'd still be giving up a lot of card advantage to go off. As long as we don't make too many Venture cards feed into each other we should be okay.
DeleteI think the "one big turn" thing could be really cool, but I think I would push it into specific colors and keep other colors have CC in their cost.
DeleteIt is a huge plus for the mechanic that it can play in a variety of different ways.
I like Tommy's suggestion of pointing some colors toward one big turn and others toward incremental profit. In any case, I want to try venture out.
DeleteSomewhat against the spirit of this particular challenge, but Venture also goes very well on artifacts... perhaps some ancient relics that have laid buried for millenia, but are so powerful that they have shaped the technomagick that defines Tesla.
DeleteAnd now our no good planeswalkers are gonna come dig them up and destroy the world or something. (Maybe that is a bit too much exactly the plot of Zendikar, but I'm sure it can have different twists.)
Your Life For Your Soul {2}{B}
ReplyDeleteInstant
Regenerate target creature. Gain life equal to its toughness.
Heal the Scars in black; could key off power or CMC instead. Sadly, doesn't tell us much about the block.
Black's lifegain typically happens at the same time black deals damage to something; e.g. lifelink, Drain Life, Last Kiss, etc.
DeleteI agree with Evan-- there's something off about this. It's interesting, but weird, that it's sometimes correct to target enemy creatures. Maybe add "if it regenerates this way" at the end of the second sentence?
DeleteIs there a major upside to using the toughness clause instead of just granting lifelink? It seems like it just makes the card feel worse because the creatures with high toughness are less likely to need regenerating.
DeleteI thought the flavor would carry the design, but clearly not. Eh.
DeleteNeural Mist 2
ReplyDelete(Black) Sorcery (C)
(This card is black.)
Target player loses 3 life. If B was spent to cast Neural Mist, that player discards a card.
Assuming {1}{B} for Target player loses 3 life and discards a card is something we'd print, and {2} for Target player loses 3 life is something a non-black player would run, is the goal to ease the color restrictions of the set to enable mono-colored play, or what?
DeleteSort-of, yeah. It's kinda messing around in the area of colorless matters which could or could not be a thing, but it also makes a subset of spells you can take like artifacts in draft and pushes one base color plus artifacts for Limited. Thinkinh about it, twobrid is probably a better way to make these kinds of cards, but I like the space they fill for an artifact set.
DeleteGrasp of the Gaunt 1(2/B)(2/B)
Instant (C)
Target creature gets -X/-X until end of turn, where X is the amount of mana spent on Grasp of the Gaunt.
Is another idea, messing around with sorta similar space but taking them in different directions. The idea here would be a color getting a flexible effect, then colorless getting a single spell (black can -3/-3 for 1BB and -4/-4 for 3B as well as -5/05 for 5, but colorless can only -5/-5 for 5).
The upside is here is unclear as compared to a flat -4/-4 where it's clear you're getting a more efficient spell with black mana.
DeleteThat also works (indeed, that was presumably the concept for Flame Javelin etc); just trying to fiddle around with new ideas. Normal Flame Javelin-type twobrid hasn't really been used since so it's probably fresh enough to move into a more major role for a set.
DeleteI'm not terribly excited about two-brid because I think it's pretty uninteresting for everyone but Spike, and doesn't thrill that psychographic either. That said, if we do it I'm with Jay as far as execution goes.
DeleteHand of Light 1W
ReplyDeleteInstant
Agnostic to artifacts (This can't target or be the target of artifact permanents or abilities.)
Gain life equal to target permanent's converted mana cost. It gains agnostic to artifacts until end of turn.
Lol.
DeleteAt first I thought it was just artifact-hexproof, but the fact that it can't target them either helps sell it. It's weird that it works on both permanents and spells. Actually, does this work on spells? Isn't this like giving a creature protection from blue in that it would only function on the battlefield and so could still be countered?
Also, I assume this is uncommon?
I always wondered why we couldn't/didn't give instants/sorceries Protection from Blue, since they can have abilities (that function) while on the stack.
DeleteThe biggest thing I ran into in making Agnostic is that we really ought to add a rule saying "artifact abilities are the abilities of artifact spells or permanents" and "red abilities are the abilities of red spells or permanents". To my knowledge that's not currently the case; but it's a simple change that gives us some space to make cleaner cards.
Cheeky submission is cheeky.
DeleteConfusing discussion is confusing.
Spell with keyword grants keyword.
Abilities only function on the battlefield unless they explicitly state otherwise, and I don't expect it to come up often enough to justify making this work on the stack.
DeleteIf the challenge is to show the non-artifact side of Tesla, I kind of feel like making a bunch of colorless-matters cards are both against the spirit of the challenge *and* unlikely to find homes in an artifact set (if your theme revolves around artifacts, commit to your theme!)
ReplyDeleteThere have been several suggestions to include true-colorless (e.g. morph) alongside artifacts, so I'm more or less OK with ideas that involve colorless instant or sorcery spells. I do think they'd be difficult to do, though-- they break the color pie and risk eating up artifact design space.
DeleteWhile Ipaulsen's points are valid, I agree that it would be nice to see a bit more branching out from our established theme.
DeleteLet's try to tie this more thematically to what's going on in our world. I like the idea of a class struggle surrounding a technocratic society. As the culture of Tesla stratifies, what's the natural antithesis to reliance upon technology? Why, relying on one's own flesh and blood:
ReplyDeleteGaze of Despair (common)
1B
Sorcery
Target player loses 1 life and discards a card.
Bloodcraft - If you control a damaged creature, that player loses an additional 1 life and discards an additional card.
I imagine this mechanic finding a home in black, red, and green.
I like this. Is this the kind of thing we can expect players to keep track of well enough for these to function? I think so, but it's a decent question.
DeleteThe card itself is a pretty good common execution also. I want to playtest this mechanic, which is a good sign.
Morbid did a lot of good things for Innistrad Limited, and this seems like it would create similar decisions and gameplay, so I second Ben's wish to playtest it.
DeleteI'm not sold on this being right for Tesla, though. It strikes me as being directly opposed to the feel of steampunk; given the flavor you've described, it almost wants to read "damaged nonartifact creature". (Which would break the challenge rules-- but that's exactly my point.)
Morbid made us wonder if a given trade would be worthwhile or not, but at least we got the initial trade. Here, we've got to wonder if our opponent will keep his creature, and will lose ours, and he'll get bloodcraft out of the deal. I'd be concerned this makes attacking more unappealing. Even from the side of the player with bloodcraft, you've got to wonder if your creature will survive so you'll get this bonus, of if you'll end up with nothing to show for your attack.
DeleteI like Bloodcraft too. It plays well with high toughness saboteurs (e.g., 2B 1/3, when this damages an opponent they discard a card.) which are a good flavor fit for the setting anyways. I also like it alongside cyborg-like augmentations:
DeleteTruestrike Eye R
Enchantment - Aura
Enchant Creature
When ~ becomes attached to a creature, it deals 2 damage to that creature.
Enchanted creature has First strike.
@Jay: I think mechanics that make you rethink whether attacking is favorable or not are good for injecting variety into the game. Innistrad block was a lot of fun because if your opponent attacked into a losing fight (e.g. she sends a 1/1 at you while you have an untapped 2/2) you have to think about whether she *wants* her creature to die or not. Bloodcraft plays in similar space: you control a 1/3 and your opponent attacks you with a 2/2. Do you block?
DeleteAs for attacking, you don't typically attack into situations where the opponent keeps her creature and you lose yours anyway. Yes, many combat tricks are stronger in a set with bloodcraft, but I'm not sure that's a bad thing. It's good for attacking to have risk.
I'm definitely on board with your starting point. As for Bloodcraft itself, I'm worried that it will trigger on it's own significantly less frequently than morbid. If that's still enough remains to be seen.
DeleteI think this mechanic has a ton of potential for taking gameplay in interesting and unusual directions.
DeleteThis art... doesn't really seem appropriate to any conception of Tesla, but whatever...
ReplyDeleteIn the Palm of Your Hand
1BB
Sorcery (U)
Gain control of target creature with power 2 or less. You lose life equal to that creature's toughness.
Bending the color pie a bit, but not much more than Enslave already has.
I purposely chose something different to help us think differently about the set.
DeleteReplacing toughness with CMC might be a better balance, but I like it. I think black should have some control.
Balance in what sense? I mostly chose toughness because:
DeleteA) it felt more evocative of being a statistic that represents a creature's lifeforce that need be overcome to control that creature
and
B) it's serves as a parallel of sorts to the first clause.
Developmentally speaking, you probably lose an average of three life on cast. If it were checking CMC, I suspect there would be a significantly greater variance in that value.
Also, I feel like having it check CMC could cause players to mentally shortcut the effect as being Threads of Disloyalty.
I'm okay with occasionally exploring the color pie. I'm not okay with black getting a 3 mana indefinite control magic, even if the target is conditional. I like the design here, not the development, and I believe it should at least cost more.
DeleteDevelopmental balance. There are some pretty nutty creatures with 1 or 2 power.
DeletePretty sure the average toughness of a p<=2 creature is a lot closer to 2.
That said, I agree toughness is better aesthetically, and in contrast with Threads.
@Ben - Would you be more ok with:
DeleteWhat is Control Magic?
1BB
Sorcery (U)
Destroy target creature with power 2 or less. Return it to the battlefield under your control at the beginning of your next upkeep, then you lose life equal to that creature's toughness.
And I ask that seriously, as to whether you take greater issue with the expression of the function or if you think the effect is too dangerous on a single card.
I can see this design being problematic in an environment such as the current Theros block, where Mono Black Aggro is a reality (as this could be a brutal tempo play). But that doesn't quite seem like the direction Tesla is heading.
Oddly, that does feel better to me. I don't know if it's the flavor or the delay until the upkeep. I could totally see making it a black Zombie this way.
DeleteReally, I think what bothers me most is that it feels like very little set up for an indefinite effect. Captivating Vampire required Vampire friends, Enslave could be Naturalized and cost 6 mana, Crown of Ages required other artifacts and an initial payment.
In terms of whether its dangerous on a single card, I really think that's a matter of costing. I think it's the unconditionality of it that gets me.
Hope that all makes sense.
There's no doubt that the flavor of the rules text can make or break a design.
DeleteYour feelings towards indefinite effects and the amount of set-up seem a bit extreme in this circumstance, since you're comparing this design to cards that can both steal a much greater range of permanents AND two of them can do that repeatedly. But I do understand that losing control of your cards, no matter how weak they, can feel terrible.
I'm sold on In the Palm of Your Hand being in black, but have to wonder whether it'd be any less clean as an Enchantment?
DeleteWell, line for line, it's a bit wordier I guess:
DeleteEnchantment - Aura
Enchant creature with power 2 or less.
You control enchanted creature.
When CARDNAME enters the battlefield, you lose life equal to the enchanted creature's toughness.
As an enchantment, I feel like it would probably be more black if it had a punisher-clause instead of the life-loss. But I'm pretty sick of punisher-clauses.
Just because we could justify this in black doesn't mean we should. Magic doesn't want all that many permanent Mind Controls, so I see no reason to branch them into a second color. As for my thoughts on workarounds like "What Is Control Magic?," see my reply to tehWERR's post.
DeleteYeah, I don't know that this card should exist. It feels like trying to bend something too much. But keep in mind that I am not the sole arbiter of how Magic should be. Just one opinion among many.
DeleteIf this card is going to exist at this CMC and rules text, I'm fine with it being black. Regarding the first part, the closest comparison is Sower of Temptation which was a 3:1 but could be undone partially with Giant Growth or entirely with Shock. This is 'just' a 2:1 and costs life, but isn't inherently counterable. I'd be more comfortable with it at rare.
DeleteThoughtbleed 3B
ReplyDeleteSorcery (U)
Target player reveals his or her hand. You choose a card from it. That player discards that card, and each player loses life equal to its converted mana cost.
----------------
Tesla is shaping up to be a slow grindy format based on most of the mechanics proposed so far, so here's a card to keep those bomb-driven decks honest.
This seems like a very well-thought-out design. It's very clear in what it means to do-- punish slow, bomb-heavy decks-- and does exactly that. I love how the high mana cost is actually an important feature of how the card plays. Normally targeted-discard spells will specify 'nonland', but I wouldn't insist on it in this case because choosing a land isn't usually correct anyway and because there's a greater possibility of whiffing on turn 4.
DeleteWhy thank you Ipaulsen! I admit when I settled on it I was very nervous to do a gatherer search afraid it would turn out it had already been done!
DeleteVery nice. My compliments to the chef.
DeleteWhy does it hurt each player? That clause feels like it disincentivizes both playing fatties AND casting this spell to discard fatties.
DeleteHurting each player makes it cheaper, and more narrow. This is a card for aggressive decks that are more than happy to trade life points one for one.
DeleteI think one could easily design a BR version that only damaged the opponent or maybe even a Black version that drained them, but it would be more expensive and not serve the very specific role this card fills.
Note: the original motivation to design the card that way was because of the art, in which the caster is clearly hurting.
Now, I know this is an ability suggested a lot and invented by many others, but I think it works well for this set, both flavorfully and mechanically. Here goes:
ReplyDeleteMental Pollution 1B
Sorcery (C)
Target player discards a card.
Unleaded — If you spent only black mana to cast Mental Pollution, that player discards another card.
(Name placeholder, of course.)
The flavor is multifaceted - it can both represent exploiting resources, purity both of energy and of 'integrity', and single-mindedness and determination. The mechanics are where it gets interesting... I think Tesla could be a great monocolor set. Artifacts serve as a natural buffer available to any deck to fill out their curve, and allow a monocolor set to exist without using hybrid technology.
Now, I'm not sure that Unleaded is the ability we're looking for in the 'monocolored set' vision, as it's kinda the most direct and obvious way of implementing that. I understand this; Unleaded is more of a stand-in, than anything else. But I do think designs like this could find their home here.
I also considered an ability called 'Venture' that rewards you for having entirely tapped creatures - which works great with Galvanize and artifacts that would require creatures to tap to 'Operate' them, while also encouraging attacking - but then I saw Adventure a bit further up, and decided to ditch it. The flavor would represent commitment - like to a business venture - but it is also flexible enough to accommodate adventures too.
For reference:
Account Withdrawal 1B
Sorcery (C)
Target player discards a card.
Venture — If all creatures you control are tapped, that player discards another card.
I agree that Monocolored and Unleaded could fit flavorfully in the setting, but extra attention would need to be placed on ensuring there were sufficient draft archetypes to make the format interesting. I liked how Theros did this with Devotion, which rewarded you for having lots of Black permanents, but was agnostic regarding your lands or non-permanent spells.
DeleteVery good note. I agree that devotion served as a great model. Another good example is RTR and GTC's limited environments - they strongly pushed you towards two-color decks, but each two-color combination had a 'slow' and a 'fast' strategy, allowing for more variety.
DeleteUnleaded probably plays pretty well, but I think mana cost mechanics have a pretty high bar to pass since they're so inherently unexciting. That said, this is my favorite thus far.
DeleteVenture seems like fun in a lot of normal limited games, but it's really unfortunate that the optimal strategy is probably to play as few creatures as possible to always get the bonus.
Both very good points, Jules. That's a keen observation on Venture, I hadn't noticed that issue. :/
DeleteWould they print this?
DeleteMental Pollution BB
Sorcery (C)
Target player discards two cards.
I'm not sure they'd do that at rare today because it's such efficient disruption. The Unleaded version is strictly better, and I'd honestly expect all common unleaded cards to require 3 colored mana before they start pumping out card advantage.
With that caveat that it might be hard to develop, I think unleaded has potential to work.
I like the goal with venture, but it turns on automatically when you have no creatures, so it's no good as-is.
"If you control more tapped creatures than untapped creatures..."?
DeleteJay: Ah, that's a fantastic point about Venture that I hadn't noticed. I forgot "all" still works with zero creatures out.
DeleteJules' version is okay, but doesn't play like I was hoping - rewarding the "all-in". I'll tinker with it, and see if I can fix it.
Magocrat's Disdain 1W
ReplyDeleteEnchantment - Aura (u)
Enchant creature
When ~ enters the battlefield, name a nonland card.
The named card can't be cast.
Aura of Meddling Mage? Clever. I like.
DeleteThe gameplay's good, but it's really weird that this aura doesn't LOOK like it cares what it's on. I suppose it could be "The named card and cards that share a name with enchanted creature can't be cast." if that weren't so wordy.
DeleteIt could also have "Enchanted creature gets +1/+1 for each copy of the named card in all graveyards", or something like that, but that probably feels too close to a nonbo.
DeleteIf it were 1WU, it could have Flash and counter a spell as it's cast.
DeleteI think thematically this should be Enchant Creature You Control.
DeleteExhausting Haze 1BB
ReplyDeleteInstant (R)
Each opponent loses 1 life for each non-land permanent that became tapped or had any abilities activated this turn. You gain life equal to the life lost this way.
Glad this is a rare because it would make games stretch due to overcautiousness at lower rarities. The activation clause feels extraneous to me.
DeleteThere are several ways this could become really tricky to track correctly. Maybe:
DeleteEach opponent loses 1 life for each tapped non-land permanent on the battlefield. You gain life equal to the life lost this way.
Might just auto-win Commander games. Why does everyone pay for every tapped permanent whether they control it or not, and you don't?
Exhausting Haze - 1BB
DeleteInstant (R)
Target opponent loses 1 life for each tapped non-land permanent they control. You gain life equal to the life lost this way.
Seems like this would cause less grief and stale-mating in multiplayer games.
Make it a sorcery and I'm sold. Not sure what it should cost, but it's definitely a card.
Delete1BB seems appropriate. 2BB is a bit too clunky, and wreaks of "bulk rare" status. BBB also seems a bit too prohibitive, especially if this is becoming a sorcery (which I fully support).
DeleteExhausting Haze - 1BB
Sorcery (R)
Target opponent loses 1 life for each tapped non-land permanent they control. You gain life equal to the life lost this way.
Soulripper's Studies 3BB
ReplyDeleteSorcery (Rare)
Search your library for a card, then shuffle your library and put that card on top of it.
Gravestorm (When you cast this spell, copy it for each permanent put into a graveyard this turn. You may choose new targets for the copies.)
Unfortunately shuffling is going to keep this from working the right way. We'd have to do something awkward like exile the card and put it on top at end of turn.
DeleteCast this, search for an unrevealed card, shuffle, put it on top, then search your library for a Gruesome Encore, reveal it, shuffle, put it on top, search your library for a Gruesome Encore, reveal it, shuffle, put it on top, search your library...
DeleteGruesome Encore just because the name describes the act?
DeleteI might be okay putting this in a set with gravestorm:
Soulripper's Studies 3BB
Sorcery (Rare)
Search your library for X cards, then shuffle your library and put those cards on top in any order. X is the number of permanents put into a graveyard this turn, plus one.
The futility of the effect being copied escaped me earlier.
DeleteI'm pushing hard for discovery being a hook in Tesla (see Kindle/Refine mechanic). Another flavorful method of discovery is autopsy. We can learn a lot from used bodies and spells. I think graveyard as a resource mechanics like Delve and gravestorm could be a lot of fun here. Graveyard recursion would be more at a premium, as would graveyard hate.
In any case, Jay's retemplating works for me.
Light at the End 6B
ReplyDeleteSorcery (C)
Occult (CARDNAME costs 1 less to cast for each creature that died this turn.)
Destroy target creature.
/They always save the best for last./
This definitely implies "CMC matters" as a mechanic/subtheme, right?
DeleteWhy would it imply that? Can't we just like killing things?
DeleteIs destroying a creature the best reward for creatures having died? I mean, it's always a nice reward, but won't players be sad they don't have enough mana left to cast another occult card that's even cheaper thanks to Light?
I just assumed that even with Occult this is safe at 4B, so for players to want to put this in their decks at seven mana, there'd be some auxiliary reward for having a big spell around. I might be approaching this from the wrong direction, though.
DeleteBecause this means a set with higher than normal CMC, there's potential for CMC-matters stuff. Note that this didn't happen when convoke or affinity originally came out, but we could try it.
DeleteI don't like that it kills something after everything has died. Obviously this isn't the card you want after a wrath. Probably the best way to use this is to trade a lot during a huge combat or suicide a bunch of your little dorks to take out one big threat. I like occult, but I think it should be on something more like:
5B
Sorcery (C)
Occult
Return up to three target creature cards from your graveyard to your hand.
That one's good too. I actually posted this version because I was interested in people's reactions to a kill spell as a reward. I agree it's a bit nombo-y, not sure if the feeling of suiciding a bunch of guys to take down something huge makes up for it.
DeleteI don't think CMC matters is necessarily entailed, Sip of Hemlock is CMC 6 and Mecha might give Tesla a similar aversion to killing huge things willy-nilly. I imagine this mechanic showing up on individually huge creatures that are summoned through the "dark arts." Perhaps the result of a recently unearthed tomb or something.
Also, it's worth comparing Occult with the Nemesis of Mortals mechanic (costs less for each creature in your graveyard) as they work in similar spaces and each have advantages over the other.
DeleteI like this, but there can only be so many cost reduction mechanics in one set. :P
DeleteI mocked up the cards and did a review of them without reading the comments of other people, taking the lattest version of the cards of each person at the time of writing. Reading through the comments here I was judging them in a similar fashion most of the time. tinyurl.com/oyns3h2
ReplyDeleteThanks, Fading!
DeleteLINK
Just as a note on my design, the Enchantment version was only meant to illustrate what I was getting at in discussion with Ben. And bear in mind that Enslave was reprinted in New Phyrexia, so while it was definitely part of their objective to highlight transgressive design, it is still a part of the NWO era of Magic.
DeleteYeah, if my comments came off as sounding like this couldn't be done that was not my intent. You're right that this is presently in pie, I was arguing that it shouldn't be.
DeleteJules, I was commenting on Fading's blurb in the link which remarked only upon Enslave being a part of Time Spiral.
DeleteGot that, I just reread my previous comment and thought it was a bit blunt.
Delete@metaghost: for what its worth I really like black having this, and indeed, I forgot that Enslave was reprinted recently. My only problem with it is that without playtesting, we cannot see what it will do to the format. I expect to see it printed one day. As far as the enchantment/10 rating I intended that to be a joke. I did not see you had a non-enchantment version of the card since I was trying to get the lattest version of each submission but not to get influenced by the discussion when I made my review to try and see how much I diverge or converge with the concessus on the cards.
DeleteAs a sidenote, I really like using giigke docs for this kind of thing because of the way the comments work over there: you can comment next to the part of the text that interests you.
Delete