Click through to see this weekend's design challenge. Your single, final submission is due by Monday morning. Every submission warrants feedback, which I will try to provide, and which everyone is encouraged to provide as well. You may use that feedback to revise your submission any number of times. If and only if you provide a direct link to art for your submission, and the artist's name, will I mock it up and include it in a follow-up review.
(On the off-chance you missed the new index Jules put together for Tesla, it's got a lot of great old ideas.)
This has been proposed before in different challenges, but some sort of reverse Evolve fits well for Theme #4.
ReplyDeleteVedalken Thoughtbrokers 3UU
Creature - Vedalken Wizard (MR)
Dominate (When this enters the battlefield, if you control a creature with less power or less toughness than this, this dominates.)
When Vedalken Thoughtbrokers enters the battlefield, choose a creature you control and a creature an opponent controls. Exchange control of those creatures. If Vedalken Thoughtbrokers dominated, you gain control of both of those creatures instead.
2/4
Occulary Ordainer 2UU
Creature - Vedalken Wizard (R)
Dominate (Whenever a creature enters the battlefield under your control with power or toughness less than this, put a +1/+1 counter on it.)
Whenever Occulary Ordainer dominates, gain control of target creature with power less than the number of +1/+1 counters on it for as long as you control Occulary Ordainer .
1/4
Probably going to excite Johnnies the most, but Timmy likes to grow his creatures if you go for straight-up backwards Evolve. These particular cards will excite people who like to steal creatures too xD
Evolve is self-limiting, but Dominate can snowball much more easily once it gets going. For that reason, I think it should be slightly harder to trigger, by only checking power:
DeleteFactory Boss 2B
Creature - Vampire Minion (C)
Dominate (Whenever a creature enters the battlefield under your control, if that creature has less power than this, put a +1/+1 counter on this.)
2/1
"Has less power" tells the story so well, too, if you forget your Magic-ese for a moment.
DeleteUnbounded growth is dangerous, but appealing. It's probably quite tricky balancing a card with this without making it look terrible. For example:
Bossy Ogre 4RR
4/4 Ogre
Dominate (Whenever a creature enters the battlefield under your control, if that creature has less power than this, put a +1/+1 counter on this.)
Can that be common?
This search makes me think I'm being too cautious.
Ivy Lane Denizen wasn't very overcosted for its ability, and that let you put the counter anywhere. It's possible that Dominate looks amazing, but plays balanced. That seems like a good place for a mechanic to be. I love the story that the mechanic tells, and how well it combines with of 1/1 or 0/1 tokens (a good way to represent the worker masses).
DeleteBossy Ogre reminds me of vanilla Monstrosities like Gluttonous Cyclops, so I think it's fine for common.
I'm pretty sure this will play well enough regardless, but we should watch out for the difference between this and evolve: evolve rewards you for curving out, whereas dominate makes you want to hold back on playing your little creatures. Nevertheless, I'm optimistic for this or something like it
DeleteDominate does reward you for curving out with spells like Goblin Rally or Voidwielder.
DeletePower-only Dominate is cleaner and perhaps makes more sense (and also kinda curbs a little of the snowball effect). It's funny in that the smaller the creature is, the harder it is to trigger, so a 1/1 with Dominate is horrible to set up whereas a 5/5 is really easy. If the Limited curves are correctly set up (like James' examples, Lightning Elemental/Slash Panther if we're also going by toughness, Siege Mastadon, Blinding Mage, those sorts of cards), you can keep some sort of balance on it. I think 3 would have to be the minimum power of such creatures (maybe one 2?) unless there's a large amount of 0/1 tokens in the set; I could perhaps see 0/1 Cog artifact tokens being a thing though?
DeleteI forgot all the iterations we've considered, but I'm inspired to share:
DeleteChain of Command — The creature with the single highest power among you creatures you control has [ability].
I like Chain of Command quite a bit, the flavor is top-notch and it looks fun to play. I really like how it can reward curving out with multiple chain of command creatures, letting your top dog get a whole bunch of bonuses.
DeleteYeah, that's a decent way to implement a similar feeling mechanic without ending up holding lower-power creatures in your hand. It might get a little messy with power being tied though?
DeleteFor theme #6 (Great Leap Forward), with a little bit of #4 flavoring:
ReplyDeleteOverseer's Rod 1
Artifact - Equipment (U)
Equip 2
Equipped creature gets +2/+0.
Bourgeois - As long as equipped creature has the greatest power, it has Hexproof.
Equipment that wants you to pile everything onto one creature, instead of sharing the wealth with your little creatures. The Bourgeois ability would also appear on creatures, and grant an effect if that creature has the greatest power. This card is directed at the Voltron player, who wants to build a huge threat and protect it.
As likely the only bourgeois card that boosts power, it's probably a cool exception in context, but I'm finding it hard not to let that combo skew my perception of the mechanic.
DeleteWould this go on creatures? Just 5/5s or 2/2s as well. Would this go on other boosts? Auras as well as equipment?
This was my first attempt at a bourgeois creature. I like the idea of the mechanic, but I am worried about how it's anti-synergistic with itself.
DeleteRat King 2B
Creature - Rat Minion (C)
Bourgeois - As long as CARDNAME has the highest power, it has lifelink.
3/2
I wouldn't want any commons with this below 3 power, but it has some potential. My biggest concerns are making players not want to cast their spells and dwarf their Burgeois creature, and possible feel-bad from these not turning on often enough.
DeleteThinking about it more, I don't think Bourgeois has the depth to justify a mechanic name and would likely only fit on a couple cards. With that, here's my new submission:
DeleteMeans of Production 3U
Sorcery
Draw two cards.
Artifact Monopoly - If you control more Artifacts than any other player, draw three cards instead.
Industrial themed rich-get-richer card. Probably works similarly to Metalcraft, but may encourage more players to put artifacts in their decks just to shut down opponent's Monopoly. There could be Monopolies for other characteristics like color in subsequent sets.
I think the gameplay with that is a little weird, because if you are playing a deck that aims to have Artifact Monopoly and I'm not you basically get it for free. If we both emphasize it, then basically a random person gets it and the other gets nothing.
DeleteIf you've built a deck around winning monopoly, you've already paid the price; I don't mind it being easy in certain matchups. Competing with another player for monopoly is a contest, and will change the focus of the game for a time, which is great. The hard part, I'm guessing, is balancing so both scenarios balance.
DeleteCard Mining 2U
ReplyDeleteSorcery (cmn)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/W._Va._coal_mine_1908.jpg (Wikipedia)
Exploit (As an additional cost to cast this, you may turn a face-up creature you control face down.)
Draw a card for each face-down creature you control.
A bit on the nose. Could also focus on colorless creatures, or creatures with power <= 2/2.
DeleteAs a common mechanic that works as a cost but can sometimes be free (flipping a Grizzly Bear) or even a bonus (flipping a 1/1 token—that's possible, not sure it's wise), I expect this to appeal most to Spike. If the block were to include morph cards (in a later set, perhaps), then Johnny might enjoy getting unlimited flips out of them. And if not, he can still combo it with old morphs in eternal formats.
Card Mining is meant to reward having done a lot of exploiting, as a glue card. Most card with exploit would simply use it as a kicker.
DeleteTheme 5, Lockstep — loss of identity
DeleteI feel like Exploit should be mandatory, so that it can let you cost cards as if it's a drawback. I've been trying to think of other keyword names that get at the sense of reducing someone to an unthinking husk:
DeleteSoul-Sucker 2B
Creature - Vampire (C)
Automitize (As an additional cost to cast this, turn a creature you control face-down. It's a 2/2 creature.)
3/3
That would certainly make for cleaner cards, but I bet it would severely hamper the mechanic's perception. As for the more general mechanic, it conveys the theme impeccably, but I'm a little bit worried about the narrow breadth of appeal. I could only really see doing this if, as Jay suggested, we later add Morph.
DeleteOther potential names from a creative-wannabe:
DeleteDevalue
Anesthetize
Suppress
Repress
Depress
Inhibit
Dampen
I like most of these as well as Exploit which Jay suggested.
For what it's worth, tokens can't be flipped face down. It's a nonintuitive interaction that would mean you really wouldn't want many token makers in a set with Exploit.
DeleteMy research says that they can be flipped face down, but I agree it's a dangerously nonintuitive interaction.
DeleteAnd my guess would have been that you can flip them face down, but that they're still tokens. Clearly something that would need to be addressed if we move forward with some version of this.
DeleteCirceus has suggested this exact mechanic before for the Suvnica project, calling it Voidmind:
Deletehttp://multiverse.heroku.com/quicksearch?q=voidmind
Both the solidarity of a union strike in #6 and the conformity of an assembly line in #5 require creatures all being on the same page:
ReplyDeleteAimless Shambler 2B
Creature-Zombie (C)
Groupthink (As long as all creatures you control are tapped, CARDNAME gets +1/+0 for each creature you control.)
1/3
This could also work when they're all untapped, but I want to avoid encouraging stalemates. Either way, it's probably a bit too swingy as is.
Probably plays like battalion / battle cry, which is not a bad thing.
DeleteThis doesn't actually help any assembly-line mechanics unless there's something like, "Tap untapped creatures you control with total power 8 or more: Build a thing."
Not in love with the flavor of a single creature groupthinking with itself.
DeleteNot really better, but you made me think of this:
DeleteTeamwork (Creatures with teamwork have ~'s abilities while attacking or blocking with it.)
Teamwork (Creatures have ~'s other abilities while attacking or blocking with it.)
Yeah, I didn't find a clean way to need two creatures, but that would probably be a prerequisite of a successful version of this mechanic.
DeleteTeamwork has a lot of potential for fun, but I'm worried developmentally. The first version is very parasitic, but with the second we couldn't even do a flying one at common, are there enough effects we can do?
Teamwork could just be a tribal mechanic, for either robots or resistance fighters depending on who needs it more:
DeleteSpike Bot 3
Artifact Creature - Construct
Whenever CARDNAME attacks, other attacking Constructs you control get +1/+0 until end of turn.
2/2
Resistance Captain 2W
Creature - Human Rebel
First Strike
Whenever CARDNAME attacks, other attacking Rebels you control gain First Strike until end of turn.
2/2
tribal probably is the best middle point between those two options
DeleteNetwork which I have below is a very similar tribal mechanic. I advise putting Rogue on artifact creatures if we want them to be a faction.
DeleteStaunch Supporter 1W
DeleteCreature-Human Soldier (C)
Follow the Leader (Whenever ~ attacks, a creature you control with the greatest power gets +1/+1 until end of turn.)
1/1
Question on all these "greatest power" mechanics: does this wording only check your creatures, or does it look at the whole board? It would stink to have a bunch of 2/2s against a 3/3 on the opposite side that stops you from using your stuff. My assumption is it only looks at your stuff but it seems vague to me.
DeletePutting the Vehicle rule revisions to work for theme #5:
ReplyDeleteBallista Platform 3
Artifact - Vehicle (U)
Creatures aboard Ballista Platform have Reach and First Strike.
Tap all creatures aboard Ballista Platform: Ballista Platform deals X damage to target player, where X is the number of creatures aboard Ballista Platform.
Board 1 (1: Target creature you control gets off all other Vehicles and boards Ballista Platform. Board only as a Sorcery. When one creature aboard Ballista Platform attacks or blocks, all other creatures aboard must attack or block the same player, planeswalker, or creature if able.)
Gah, the reminder text is too darn long. Hope it all fits on the card.
Anyway, this ought to appeal to Spike-y Limited players since it requires some careful decision-making about who to put onto the vehicle. Vorthos types might appreciate the top-down design too.
Other vehicles and collective-tap cards could easily appeal to Timmy and Johnny, but this one probably won't do too much for them.
This is WAY too texty: 11 lines on a card. I think we've seen smaller versions of board, and for this particular card, the first and second abilities are redundant.
DeleteReach and First Strike are redundant?
DeleteBut yeah, it's way too texty. Most of it's reminder text, but it's important reminder text.
Maybe we should remove the attacking and blocking together thing from the standard vehicle effect. Some specific vehicles could still do it, but if not all did it would make the mechanic much simpler.
I guess I should post a revised version.
DeleteBallista Platform 3
Artifact - Vehicle (U)
Creatures aboard Ballista Platform have Reach and First Strike.
Tap all creatures aboard Ballista Platform: Ballista Platform deals X damage to target player, where X is the number of creatures aboard Ballista Platform.
Board 2 (2: Target creature you control gets off all other Vehicles and boards Ballista Platform. Board only as a Sorcery.)
I kinda miss the longer version, but it was just too many words. It was either this or say "attack and block together" which is not very clear.
We still can't use the euphemistic phrase "gets off [someone/some thing]" but this is much better.
Delete'Redundant' wasn't the best word. This card doesn't need both abilities to be good/interesting. They're doing very different things and could live on entirely separate cards. Instead, they're blurring the card's identity and pushing the text to 9 tiny lines.
I think #1 (exploration / possibility) deserves more love than it's getting-- as a secondary theme, if nothing else. A couple of variations on Jay Treat's Explore:
ReplyDeleteAs an ability-
Explore (When this creature would deal damage to a player, instead you may exile that many cards from the top of that player's library and play any of those cards this turn.)
As an action-
When CARDNAME deals damage to a player, explore 2. (Exile the top 2 cards of target opponent's library. You may play them this turn.)
As an ability word-
Explore--When CARDNAME deals damage to a player, exile the top card of that player's library. If it's a land, ACTION.
Not coming up with any specific designs as of yet, but stay tuned.
Also putting out there a mechanic Jules came up with back here (http://goblinartisans.blogspot.com/2014/02/weekend-art-challenge-022114nightsong.html):
Delete2R
Sorcery
CARDNAME deals 3 damage to target creature or player. Explore. (Look at the top card of your library. You may put that card on the bottom of your library. If it's a land, you may reveal it and put it into your hand.)
Which was iterated from:
2R
Sorcery
CARDNAME deals 3 damage to target creature or player. Explore. (Look at the top card of your library. If it's a land, you may reveal it and put it into your hand.)
In response to Ipaulsen:
DeleteGiven how much people hate being milled, I think players will absolutely hate having this done to them. I think it is great on a one off rare like Daxos, but I can't imagine this being a real mechanic. Think how often this would lead to lands getting lost in opponent's decks, etc.
I also don't love the idea that my opponent's goal is basically to play through my deck. This is griefing to the nth degree.
I could see something like "Mill them X, and if it is a creature, put it in play face down," which seems a little more manageable.
If we mill our own deck instead, can we build too it to abuse Explore, or just to optimize it?
DeleteGoing for a rogue AI feel for #3:
ReplyDeleteVilcloud Trooper
4
Artifact Creature - Rogue Construct (C)
Network—Whenever Vilcloud Trooper attacks with a creature that shares a creature type with it, it gets +2/+2 until end of turn.
2/2
Alternatively, it could be just a Rogue. Feedback appreciated as always.
I feel like you have something thematic in mind, but to me this feels incredibly Melvin-y in a not particularly good way.
DeleteCould this just be Battalion?
Heh. "Rogue Construct."
DeleteShould the creature and the creature(s) it networks with all get the bonus?
The goal is for this to only be on Rogue Constructs (or just Artifact Creature - Rogues) in order to make it feel like they benefit from rising up to doom humanity.
DeleteI'm afraid that if everything that networks gets a bonus, it's gonna be way too swingy with even two or three bonuses. Let's say I attack with the Trooper, and then a Network--first strike and Network--+1/+1 counter. Suddenly my three guys each get +3/+3 and first strike. Even a common Network--+1/+1 gets scary in multiples and strictly better than exalted. There's no way we could make commons like that and still have it be a fair mechanic. If the everyone-gets-bonuses mechanic ends up being way better gameplay-wise, we could do it at only higher rarities, but I suspect that won't be the case.
It sounds like your constructs aren't rogues in the sense that other Magic rogues are, but are instead automatons gone rogue, in which case we shouldn't use that subtype.
DeleteWhat about Construct Rogue?
DeleteI like the use of a pre-existing creature type applied to a different setting to create a new creature type. It's an efficient use of resources and creates a fascinating overlap for players to create rogue Rogue tribal decks.
DeleteIt's a pun. The noun 'rogue' and the adjective 'rogue' have nothing to do with each other in this context. You might as well use 'goblin' to describe a terrible person and put it on a bunch of humans. It /devalues/ the type.
DeleteRebel Construct, on the other hand, is perfect.
Jay, why do you think Deranged Outcast is a Human Rogue?
DeleteDo you think it's because his cannibalistic tendencies seem playfully mischievous? Or is it because they decided to apply Rogue in its adjectival sense to tell a story about how this creature has deviated from the moral expectations of his fellow humans?
If the world of Tesla is one in which we have less need for the noun "rogue" and more for the adjective, it seems silly to reject that usage out of concern that it devalues a traditional Fantasy application of the term.
I mean, WotC is naming real, honest-to-God Magic cards "Hot Soup". They're clearly willing to use the English language however they like to achieve something truly evocative, so why can't we?
Isn't one of our major goals here to show what we would do better than Wizards currently is? What do we gain from looking at their mistakes and emulating them doublefold?
DeleteI don't see it as a mistake. I think being willing to push the boundaries of what words mean in order to deliver a concept is worth it. That said, I didn't consider Rebel which is also a good flavor hit.
DeleteI think having someone open Skynet, Destroyer of Humans and seeing either "Construct Rogue" or "Construct Rebel" and saying "That's awesome!" is more than fine. I still prefer Rogue here because Network is meant to be a tribal mechanic and Rogue is a currently supported type whereas Rebel is not.
What was the mistake?
DeleteIf Deranged Outcast was given the type rogue because the adjective describes him and not because he is a rogue, then it was a mistake. Mixing definitions in a game destroys their meaning.
DeleteIf the word 'elf' also meant 'necromancer' in the English language, would we put make necromancers with the type Human Elf, just for the pun? Then I can put the necromancer in my Elf tribal deck even though it's not the kind of Elf that deck was built for. It's a lie, and so is using 'rogue' to mean two different things.
I think "Rogue" on Deranged Outcast is serving as the equivalent of creature type "Criminal". I think that's how it's usually used in Magic; the other meaning, associated with playful mischief, isn't really how it's been used in Magic at all.
DeleteA fair amount of Magic's Rogues come from Lorwyn/Shadowmoor, the Land of Playful Mischief, hence that dichotomy.
DeleteIf we're to generalize the class-type as meaning "Criminal", than there's even less issue with Ben's suggestion. An underground network of criminal automatons may be bit too NetRunner, but I'm not sure our vision of mecha is the most pure Magic proposal to begin with.
I'm fine with making all the automatons soldiers, or clerics, or rogues, so long as the meaning is consistent with the rest of Magic. If all the robots are sneaky, back-stabbing and/or thieving criminals, I fully approve. If they're just rebelling against their makers, that's something different. Rebel, to be precise.
DeleteAn idea I had for a mechanic called Explore was a riff on Extort:
ReplyDeleteJungle Explorer [1G]
Creature — Human Scout
Explore (Whenever a land enters the battlefield under your control, you may pay [G/U]. If you do, draw a card.)
2/2
This is incredibly, incredibly broken. If this appeared at common you could easily end up getting a cheap Concentrate just by playing a land. Compare this to the lone rare Seer's Sundial.
DeleteEven if it were just this one card, this is crazy strong. We could up the cost (and you can always up the cost high enough) but the fact that drawing a card gets your more land to trigger more card draw is going to make this hard to balance.
DeleteI thought that'd be the case. My original idea was it was essentially scry, "When a land etbs, pay [G/U] to look at the top of your library then put it back or on the bottom", but after Theros, I worried it might be too weak. I should've gone with my original thought.
DeleteNot in love with the name "Unleaded", but I like the idea of a mechanic that rewards colour dedication, but is still useful in multicolour strategies.
ReplyDeleteConcussive Feedback - 2RR
Sorcery - (R)
Unleaded - Concussive Feedback deals 3 damage to each creature and each player. If only Red mana is spent to cast Concussive bolt, it instead deals 3 damage to each creature you don't control, and each opponent.
This is very nearly a strictly better Flame Wave.
DeleteI do like the idea of Unleaded encouraging mono-colored decks in a block that will have a lot of playable artifacts. That would certainly require us to not "color" the artifacts by giving them colored activated abilities and what not.
Ultimately, I expect the design space probably isn't quite large enough to build a monocolor theme around (meaning we'd want something else to encourage monocolor), but it allows some neat things. Here's my contribution:
Centaur Courserer 2G
Creature - Centaur Warrior (C)
Unleaded -- When ~ enters the battlefield, if only Green mana was spent to cast it, put a +1/+1 counter on it.
3/3
It could be worth it gameplay wise to not punish colorless mana on Unleaded (thus encouraging artifact sources), though it makes the wording uglier:
DeleteUnleaded -- When ~ enters the battlefield, if no White, Blue, Black, or Red mana was spent to cast it, EFFECT.
Centaur Bot 3
DeleteArtifact Creature - Centaur Construct (C)
Unleaded — When ~ enters the battlefield, if only Green mana was spent to cast it, put two +1/+1 counters on it.
2/2
Some more food for thought in various mechanics I came up with for an old sci-fi based artifact set I once did:
ReplyDeleteGliding Pterradon 3R
Creature - Dinosaur (C)
Primal (Whenever an artifact is put into a graveyard from the battlefield, put a +1/+1 counter on this creature.)
Remove a +1/+1 counter from Gliding Pterradon: Gliding Pterradon gains flying until end of turn.
3/3
The idea is that this went on artifact-hating guys in Red and Green (of course), and worked well in Limited while blowing up their stuff, but also had the "sneaky" tactic of building your own deck full of cards like cheap artifacts, Spellbombs, Mycosynth Wellspring, Oxiddia Daredevil and Shrapnel Blast.
Opal Disruptor 2U
Artifact Creature - Human Rogue (C)
Hack 1 (Whenever this creature deals combat damage to a player, that player exiles the top card of his or her library. Until end of turn, you may play the exiled nonland cards.)
1/3
Similar to the various Explore stuff going on, this was a top-down mechanic based on stealing information (and would later find a home in my Pirate set xD). Nightveil Specter-lite, it has a New Phyrexia "violation" sorta feel to it almost if that's something we're going for in-theme.
Gallant Paragon 1W
Creature - Human Soldier (C)
Augment 1 (When this creature enters the battlefield, you may attach an Equipment card from your hand or the battlefield with converted mana cost 1 or less to it.)
2/1
If we wanted Equipment as a sub-theme in some way; this represented the faction that used artifacts as holy weapons. Started out being able to grab equips from the deck but that was a little too crazy.
Evangelos Enthraller 3RR
Artifact Creature - Angel (MR)
Flying
Melt Down — 1R, Exile an artifact card from your graveyard: Gain control of target creature until end of turn. It gains haste until end of turn.
4/4
Top-down based on the idea of wasteland dwellers that use scrap to survive. Sorta similar to my salvage idea (although that knocked all the cards back to the 'yard when the salvager died to as not to end up with another "fighting-for-resources" Delve moment as often).
I like the mechanical space of Melt Down, but repeated activations on the same card does fight for resources. I could see this going in a couple other directions:
DeleteForged Drake 1UU
Creature - Drake Construct (C)
Flying
As an additional cost to cast ~, exile an Artifact card from your graveyard.
3/4
Furnace Beetle 2
Artifact Creature - Insect (C)
Melt Down -- 4R, exile CARDNAME from your graveyard: CARDNAME deals 2 damage to target creature.
2/1
Forgeborn Boar 3R
Creature - Beast (C)
When CARDNAME enters the battlefield, you may exile an Artifact card from your graveyard. If you do, put a +1/+1 counter on CARDNAME and it gains Haste.
3/2
I just came up with a new way to convey exploration / development / evolution: branching upgrades! I thought of this in connection to theme #1 but it could also be relevant for #4 and #6. Card mock-up here:
ReplyDeleteLink
How do we track what form the creature is currently in?
DeleteIt reads like we can swap between A and B at will (and at instant speed). Intentional?
It should be easy to track modes with a counter. I tried to put that in the rules text explicitly, but 2 lines doesn't leave a lot of extra space. I'm not sure whether swapping between A and B should be allowed; I ended up allowing it, but you could assume that it doesn't work and still get most of the play value out of the card. Instant speed is mostly to save space.
DeleteDoes the counter indicate mode A or B?
DeleteA sorta "Primal Clay" mechanic I suppose then, haha? I like the idea, not sure if you should be able to switch around though. Once you've made your choice, I think you should be stuck with it (if you can find space, that is).
DeleteThis is a very interesting idea.
DeleteI don't think it should be possible to switch modes.
And I think the idea with the counter is that you put it on either the A section or the B section to indicate which version you're using.
I also don't think you should be able to switch modes. Makes for a more meaningful decision.
DeleteI think, like monstrosity, it won't be too hard to remember which card is in which mode. I could be wrong though. Warning: *Some playtesting required*
Thanks for the feedback! You guys are probably right that mode-switching is not desirable. So the new template for the ability could look like this:
DeleteDevelop 3 (3: Put an A or a B counter on this unless it already has one.)
Or, monstrous-style:
Develop 3 (3: If you haven’t developed this, develop it into A or B.)
I imagine players could mark the option by putting the counter on the corresponding level arrow.
I'm not backing this up with playtesting and could certainly be wrong, but I feel confident that the 8mm of difference between the placement of a counter on the 'A' versus the 'B' will be lost much of the time the card is tapped, untapped or moved about.
DeleteThe template could put the A on the left and the B on the right, which would help. Even better perhaps, the art could have a clear dichotomy between the two modes.
In hindsight, the leveler layout probably isn't the best way to do this, as many people have been saying. For one thing, it comes with a lot of weird space and layout constraints; it also implies a linear progression, which is exactly what I'm trying to avoid. With my limited knowledge of MSE it's the best that I can do, but I definitely agree with the comments from Jay and everyone else.
Delete