Click through to see the illustration and design requirements for your single card submission, due Monday morning. Every submission warrants feedback, which you may use to revise your submission any number of times. Skye and/or I will aim to review the most recent submission from each designer.
 |
| Earth Elemental by TyphonArt |
 |
| Elara: Boar Guardian by Sickbrush |
 |
| Elder Ent 1 by moonxels |
 |
| elve chick by entroz |
Design a green evasion mechanic that meets
Skye's criteria. Choose one (or none) of these illustrations.
I'm gonna snap up the first idea yesterday's discussion inspired—reverse prowess:
ReplyDeleteWarden of the Wald {G}{G}
[elve chick by entroz]
Creature—Human Warrior (unc)
Flash
Talent (Whenever another creature ETBs under your control, ~ gets +1/+1 until EOT.)
2/2
I'd have made a 1G common w/o flash, but wanted to make it clear flash would play a notable role in any set with talent.
I went with ETB rather than cast because I favor synergy over making the reference to prowess explicit. I went with 'another' over 'any' so this doesn't self-trigger b/c the other talent creatures won't have flash and we don't want unnecessary triggers.
Essentially the Griffin Protector/Sanctifier of Souls mechanic. Primary in green and white, the other colors might get secondary or tertiary depending on the needs of the set.
DeleteI like this a lot as a mechanic, but I'm not sure it really feels 'evasive' enough. Prowess lends itself well to evasion because your opponent is never sure whether you can cast an instant and thus ruin their block. In this case, most often Talent is going to trigger at sorcery speed, so it's less likely to scare your opponent away from blocking.
DeleteI agree that 'tough to block' is the right idea, but I don't think 'my numbers get bigger' is the solution, frankly. The concern to me is that evasion is about pushing through damage to help end games, and avoiding chumping and trading, and I'm not sure Talent is good enough at achieving these things to count as evasion.
It is, to reiterate, a really cool mechanic though.
I think this is a neat mechanic to attach a name to, although I might throw in a number (unless you want a card like Bronzebeak Moa to have Talent Talent Talent)
DeleteI think I would classify this as pseudo-evasion, in that the bluff potential of a +x/+x is only as strong as your ability to make good on it. As soon as you are empty handed etc it stops being relevant, whereas even trample or menace still do something empty-handed.
Even so, I like the mechanic and could see it going places, especially in concert with other combat abilities.
I don't recall if Wizards has done this, but you can totally print Talent and Talent 3 on different cards.
DeleteThis is definitely in the psuedo-evasion camp and relies significantly on flash creatures and/or instants that produce tokens.
+N/+N is evasion in the exact same way first strike is (making it harder for creatures to trade with it), except that it deals extra damage if they choose not to block.
I don't like the reliance on flash. It's too A/B. Would a single but larger boost ("Has +2/+2 if another creature entered the battlefield under your control this turn") work better to get through even if your opponent knows about it before combat?
DeleteOr would it be too blatant to just make it unblockable if a creature entered the battlefield? That's a nice mix of "you can get it through sometimes but not always" although it doesn't really let your opponent interact with it unfortunately.
While flash has seen more presence lately (which I'm a fan of, being a control player even in limited), flash in green is both quite rare and I think it would warp the limited environment drastically.
DeleteYou really only need one cheap, playable, common, green flash creature to make the threat real.
DeleteI really enjoyed both Skye's and Jay's evasion mechanics this week. Ideally, I'd like to see an evasion mechanic that lets early utility green creatures remain relevant in the late game. Something like:
ReplyDeleteMoss Boar 2G
Art #2
Creature-Fungus Boar (c)
Camouflage (This creature can't be blocked unless all attacking creatures with greater power are also blocked)
When Moss Boar enters the battlefield you may put a land card from your hand onto the battlefield.
2/2
I like it! I could definitely see this being black with a flavor touch-up. I like the idea of these using the bigger creature as a distraction, or siegebreaker, or vanguard... they follow in its wake, or hide among the chaos it causes.
DeleteIn black, I could see this being flavored as attendants to the creature with greater power, following it closely. In red (maybe?) I could see it being flavored as taking advantage of the chaos.
It's very good that when I see this I immediately think 'green evasion, wow!'
This is great and really, really green. And it could go in just about any set.
DeleteI think this is pretty cool! There was a moment of confusion for me if this is the only attacker, since the answer to the question "Are all attackers with greater power blocked?" is 'N/A'. I think that could be quickly settled in the comprehensive rules, but maybe the reminder text could use a tweak?
DeleteIn any case, really like the flavor, very green. A+
This is super-green. Both stronger and weaker than escorted. I really want to playtest this to see how it plays: It might feel like a win-more mechanic or it might be great.
DeleteI like this a lot. Tying it to big creatures is obviously very green. Jay has a good point you'd need to see if it actually helps.
DeleteI also wonder about variants, where it can't be blocked at all if you have an attacking creature of higher power (or maybe even just any creature of higher power, is that too good where your opponent can't interact with it?)
I'm a big fan of this as well, I feel that it communicates the expectation for your opponent very clearly (like menace) and goes well on small creatures, but your 4/4 can still get in later if you have a craw wurm lying around.
DeleteI feel that this is a mechanic that green would actually benefit the most from, which is really rare when you talk about evasion. Excellent job, Wobbles.
As for allowing it to branch out, naming it something like Stealth fits more of the G/B feel, while something like Shieldmate gives it a very G/W feel
Here's my take on a green evasion mechanic (that could also be put in white).
ReplyDeleteSteadfast Ent
[Art #3]
Creature - Treefolk (C)
Rouse (Whenever this creature becomes blocked, put a +1/+1 counter on target untapped creature you control.)
2/5
Inspired by mentor, modular, and warcry from Eternal (although warcry is sort of an anti-evasion ability, I like the way it encourages attacking by rewarding future attacks)
I had the ability target and require an untapped creature to decrease the combat fussiness so it could make it down to common. It also makes it play very well with vigilance, which is another ability green and white share. There's a little bit of fussiness in that you can't untap a creature in response to blocks to target it, but I think I prefer that over the complexity of allowing that interaction.
This has interesting implications for green-white "go wide" play. Should it be templated to get a counter for each blocker? Because I can see the most likely play dynamic is throw enough blockers up to kill the ent, and therefore only get you a single counter. This has kind of been how mentor has been playing out. It's like it has a secret "must block" sub-ability.
DeleteOoh, I really like that. Yes, a +1/+1 counter for each creature blocking it. That makes the natural counter to this ability really big creatures, which feels very green to me.
DeleteI'm not sure I love the obvious message—Don't attack with everyone—but I suspect in practice this would just fit into natural play patterns where you're casting creatures or leaving smaller ones back.
DeleteThe distinction between "whenever attacks" and "whenever blocked" is significant. I agree the former is like warcry which is the opposite of evasion, and this choice makes it evasion. That also means I'm usually better off not blocking a Steadfast Ent at all, which means it'll rarely trigger, which means the ability is making promises it can't fully deliver. I'd want to play it before discarding it, but I'm wary.
The vigilance combo is elegant.
While this is a bit of an edge-case, we couldn't print this in a set with -1/-1 counters, which is a bit of a downer. I think a two-mana 2/2 that leaves behind a counter is pretty good, especially because you can curve a 2/2 into a 3/2 the next turn and that 2/2 is almost always getting in.
DeleteWhat I dislike is that it discourages combat tricks that aren't very cheap. When you want to buff your next threat, you need to deploy it before you attack, which means if your trick is more than 1 mana, you'll be playing seriously off-curve, which is a bit of a trap.
Elvish Bladedancer
ReplyDeleteArt 4
1GG
Creature - Elf Warrior (U)
Challenge (~ can only be blocked by Creatures with total power equal or greater to its power)
4/3
My first instinct when talking about a green evasive ability was something that keys off of power, both your own and that of others. As opposed to skulk you need to have equal or greater power, but that would be too harsh on the defending player, so creatures now can team up to block together. It is still relevant on a small creature. A 1/1 can't be blocked by walls, a 2/1 can't just be blocked by a 1/1 token but needs two of them to stop and a big creature may need your entire board to block to stop it.
It should play well in white too, though it can be trouble combined with first strike.
Scaling daunt that has heard of double-blocking. Not quite as elegant on paper, but the core concept "you can only block this if you can kill it" is intuitive. Oh, but it's comparing power. How would you feel about comparing their power to our toughness?
DeleteI like the idea of an ability that amounts to "CARDNAME can't be chump-blocked or stalled". I like even more that we could have an evasion ability based on toughness.
DeleteHmm, a version that scales based off toughness is not that appealing to me as a player. Typically I only want to block if I can kill the creature anyway, and I'm happy if my opponent is chump blocking. Removing walls is nice.
DeleteI do love how this (either power or toughness) scales with main phase pump spells.
I think it works better with power than toughness, though I did briefly consider it. There is some awkwardness in that green creatures tend to have more toughness than power, but on second thought I realized that's actually not too bad. It means even if you can overcome the condition on say a 4/6 you might still be chumping, just with better creatures.
DeleteAlso what Zachariah said is true, you don't want to really discourage chumping. Even if it is strictly speaking an advantage, it would read a bit bad.
As for elegance, I was actually pretty glad I could get it down to a pretty concise sentence. It might take a moment or two but I think it's fairly intuitive.
I like the power version because it does more work, it means your creature can't be traded for cheaply.
DeleteBut OTOH, I agree, toughness is more intuitive (and if its stats are nearly square they're quite similar).
Trample and daunt exist purely for the purpose of discouraging chump blockers.
DeleteI think comparing power to toughness feels very off. It feels cleaner to have each side squared up by power. Either way, I like how this scales naturally with creature size, but I worry about the fact that your two-mana 2/1 (effectively) doesn't have evasion. This means your mid/endgame creatures can end the game FAST, but your smaller creatures don't really get any benefit from the templating.
DeleteHah, derp on my part on the 'discourage chump blockers' bit.
DeleteANd I disagree, Skye. A 2/1 with Challenge can attack past an 1/X that would profitably block it and can't just be held back by a 1/1 token, trading for two of them if they want to block. It also swings past any walls or other 0/X defenders.
Granted, a 2/1 will lose value in the lategame, but at that point I'd expect the green deck to have some fatties of its own where it is relevant again.
Moss-Maddened Tusker - 2GG (Common)
ReplyDeleteCreature - Boar
Thrasher (This creature can be blocked only if all untapped creatures defending player controls block it.)
4/3
So I guess the idea here is of green creatures who are so over-the-top aggressive that everybody has to work together to try to control them. Then there are various levers here that can be pulled to create punisher components to make the defender decide whether they really want to risk blocking.
This could very easily go in red as well. Put it on those high power/1 toughness guys.
DeleteI designed something almost identical. I phrased it as "This creature can't be blocked unless all creatures able to block it do so."
DeleteThat might actually be better phrasing given that there are creatures that can't block even when they're untapped.
DeleteAll-or-nothing is simple, and evocative of Lure. Seems like a significant choice.
DeleteTwo Tuskers (and nothing else) is weak, but three+ is strong. Interesting. This has potential.
My main question is whether we can safely print enough of these to warrant the keyword.
This will make playing a 'can't block' creature pretty feelbad for the defender. It is also basically unblockable on a flyer if the defending player has any non-flying creatures. Which isn't an issue in green itself but play it with say a white aura or something and it could cause issues. Could you potentially reword it to "This creature can be blocked only if all Creatures that could block it block it" or something? Not happy with that wording either, admitedly.
Deleteif we used the all creatures able to block it do so, then your opponent only needs one flying blocker, since the others are not allowed to block it per the rules.
DeleteI second Jay though, this seems very risky to print at a volume that we could keyword.
Thrashing Boar (Common)
ReplyDelete{2}{G}
Creature - Boar
Thrash {2}{G} (Whenever ~ becomes blocked, you may pay {2}{G}. If you do, it gets +2/+2 until end of turn.)
3/2
Rootwalla but only when blocked?
DeleteI don't love that restriction, though it's cool how making it a trigger obviates the need for once/turn text. Does this trigger twice when it's double-blocked?
I was considering something similar, maybe even without the cost, just a bigger bushido for attacking only. I know that's really simple, but it does the job of making small creatures harder to block very well.
DeleteI'm not sure if it does much for big creatures though? I guess if it does double-activate it would.
@Jay: I'd like to test both being able to pay for each blocker and only once. The way I worded it atm is the latter (but isn't very clear), see Alley Grifters oracle ruling for example.
DeleteCould you expand on the reasons you dislike the restriction? I feel like giving it that restriction makes it feel like evasion in gameplay. I can't use it to deal more damage or dodge damage-based removal; only to dissuade blocking.
@Jack: That's what I started out with as well, but I feel adding the extra lever makes for better design space AND better gameplay. There's now a choice you have to make: attack, or play your bigger card.
Good point. Having the extra knob is better in just about every way, I just liked the simpler version. I guess they can always have Thrash 1 if they want to make it easy.
DeletePlayers already have the full version. This will read as weaker to them, as limited. How do you make players happy to swallow that pill?
DeleteAh I see your point. I hadn't yet considered that, so thanks for making me aware of that :)
DeleteI expect it will cause games to stall less than the regular Rootwalla ability, but that will likely not be apparent to players.
It does allow us to push the stats on creatures a bit more than the old rootwalla ability, which might help.
I really need to get some actual playtests going :p
Boar Familiar 3G
ReplyDeleteCreature- Boar (Common)
3/3
Companion (Whenever this creature attacks, you may choose another attacking creature. Those creatures can't be blocked this combat unless both are blocked.)
Another better variation on escort.
DeleteI like how two Boar Familiars choosing each other is no better. The first choosing the second choosing some third creature is a bit tricky at first (but once players figure out none of them can be blocked unless all are, it becomes easy again).
See also: ~ can't be blocked unless all attackers are blocked.
This feels very Naya to me. I worry that this makes your 3/3 and a random 4/5 into 7 damage or a one-sided wrath on turns 6-9. once your opponent blocks and has fewer creatures than you, they can't block anymore. I think this is fine as an uncommon+, but I think its too strong in multiples for a common.
DeleteIt's interesting how this effectively lets you chain creatures together if you have multiple with Companion. X creatures with Companion forming a chain and then one without, kind of like banding. Also plays very well with flying or other evasive abilities.
DeleteHm. A few more ideas I'm considering.
ReplyDeleteIndomitable (If this is blocked, it deals full combat damage to each blocking creature and to defending player.)
That's trample++, in that it's harsher on double blocks and always gets damage through even when it's blocked for real. And it matters on small creatures because it guarantees some damage getting through. But I don't know if 1 or 2 player damage in that situation is enough to matter, it doesn't usually get multiple evasive attacks.
Pack (When this is blocked, you may reveal the top card of your library. If it's a creature card, put it into your hand. Else, put it on the bottom of your library.)
Similar to the dinosaur mechanic, but explicitly on blocking instead of any damage. And locking in a bonus which is appropriate to green rather than having many possibilities. After all, you can put any punishment on blocking and have a mechanic that disincentivises blocking without ruling it out.
Feral {2} (This can't be blocked unless defending player pays {2})
Not sure about flavour. I've toyed with this in blue. But it *could* be green with the right flavour. And it's the most obvious example of "partial evasion" I can think of. I wonder if the cost should scale with something (e.g. scaling up if you have more cards, more creatures, or something, or scaling up as opponent's situation gets better or worse).
Any suggestions for improving one of them?
Indomitable is the greenest and evasionyist of these. It reads exciting without being inherently complicated. It gets sticky when you grant that creature trample as well, but what doesn't?
DeleteBased on Rhox's templating: ~ assign its combat damage to each creature blocking it as well as the defending opponent.
I just noticed that your wording has it deal damage to defenders blocking other attackers. Was that intended? That would be way too much to keyword.
Thank you!
DeleteYes, that's just failure to template unambiguously enough.
And yes, I was thinking of Indomitable (or "Beserk"?) as a replacement for trample since they have a lot of the same space, and indomitable avoids a few edge cases of trample. (It may have its own weird edge cases, not sure.)
Hm. Or:
DeleteGuerrilla 1 (CARDNAME can't be blocked unless defending player sacrifices a land.)
That might be a bit harsh, but it goes some way to allowing them to block a small creature, but only with some real commitment, and discourage repeated chump blocking of a large creature.
I'd spend some effort looking for a land based mechanic (because we're in green) but this is the first I found and it doesn't feel especially green. Could be W or B though (and probably R) based on flavour and destruction or taxing mechanics.
I think Guerilla could have been printed 10 years ago, but I think we avoid punishment like that, especially lower than rare. I like Pack's flavor a lot, but it feels very strong to me. I think Indomitable/Berserk could be very good, but I would probably remove the player damage.
DeletePrimal (Can only be blocked by vanilla creatures)
DeleteStill not found one I really want to build a card around. This came from asking, other than flying, what's the most common sort of creature that could be "block only if you have the right response"
Lord of the Yew 3G
ReplyDeleteCreature - Treefolk
(Ent art)
Toxic 1 (When this creature deals damage to a creature, it also deals 1 damage to that creature's controller.)
3/3
Hi Eli.
DeleteThe trick with rattlesnake evasion like toxic is that the blocking has to be (at least often) worse than not blocking. Whether I'm beating, trading, or chumping Lord of the Yew, it's better to take the 1 damage from toxic than the 3 damage from combat.
See afflict.
Hi Jay! My thought was that it might discourage a trade if you were already 50/50 on it, and help you feel like you're getting something done if it gets blocked by a wall or Wishcoin Crab.
DeleteWhat would you think of Toxic 2 with the same stats?
It seems this mechanic would be unworkable if as you go higher on the number, the creature becomes better for blocking faster than it becomes good for attacking, so I'm curious if that would happen with Toxic 2.
Check out afflict.
DeleteYep, I know afflict exists. This is different, although perhaps not significantly so, because it has an effect when blocking as well.
DeleteTrample does a good job at representing Green's big creatures with a powerful mechanic, so I'm going to try to cover Green's naturally quick and nimble beasts. Cheetahs have been portrayed with Flash before, but once they're on board they lose most of their flavor. Why should a turtle have any say in whether or not my opponent gets hit by my cheetah? Two ideas:
ReplyDeleteNimble (This creature can't be blocked by creatures with toughness greater than their power)
A bear with Nimble isn't going to go unblocked for most of the game, but it is less likely for it to get blanked early in the game (e.g. a 3-mana 2/3 no longer completely blanks your bear). A 4/4 or 5/5 creature with nimble is much tougher to double-block (but the larger a nimble creature gets, the less flavorful). I'd be worried that sometimes nimble means 'unblockable' and sometimes it's just flavortext.
Swift (This creature can't be blocked by creatures with summoning sickness)
I don't know if it's even OK to reference summoning sickness on a card (probably not), and even if it is technically OK, it doesn't feel great. I like the flavor here that a summoning sick creature can't react fast enough to block a swift creature, but the gameplay implications aren't great. Sometimes this is flavortext and other times your opponent literally has no outs because they can't play creatures to save them. There are also potentially some memory issues here.
I'm a little rusty and I don't really like either of these mechanics, but they could be interesting ideas to build off. I do think that the swift flavor of some of green's creatures is relatively untapped space.
Heh. Swift is strictly weaker than haste, so it's ironic when nimble was proposed to be more ongoing than flash.
DeleteNimble is an interesting concept. I like the idea of pursuing something along those lines. Maybe T>P works, but it feels a bit off to me that we classify a 0/1 the same as a 1/4 the same as a 5/6. What if we just consider every creature with toughness 4+ bulky?
Nimble (This creature can't be blocked by creatures with toughness 4 or greater.)
Or if we just compare toughness?
Nimble (This creature can't be blocked by creatures with greater toughness.)
I'm a little late to the challenge, but I wanted to share this idea for a mechanic:
ReplyDeleteBravado [N?]
Whenever this creature becomes blocked or fights, it gets +1/+1 [+N/+N] until end of turn.
It's meant to be primarily in green, secundary in red.
Fight bonuses require static or replacement effects.
DeleteIf ~ would fight or be blocked, it gets +1/+1 until EOT.
Granted, opponents wouldn't choose to fight this, but conceptually it's a bit weird this gets the defensive bonus when fighting but not blocking.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDefinitely a bit late, but I just found this so what's the worst that happens?
ReplyDeleteDistraction (If ~ becomes blocked, creatures with lesser power can't be blocked this combat.)
Imagine a bunch of elves sending in a big ol' behemoth to make their enemies focus on it.
It could probably go into white easily, since it rewards playing wit other, smaller creatures. It does have a similar problem to trample in that you can't put it on 1 power creatures easily, but it works better on 2 power than trample does.
No problem, Stormtide! The flavor is definitely there, but Distraction does very little until you hit 3 power or more. I do like that it presents your opponent with a real choice, but I see it mostly playing out as your Distraction creature goes unblocked and you get in for 3-5 damage, and they arrange blocks to kill off the majority of your small creatures.
ReplyDeleteThe threat of distraction is unusual because it scales less off of your Distraction creature, and more off of your dorks. If you only have 2-3 damage coming through, it's not much pressure either way, but if you have 10 damage in dorks and a 4/4 distract, your opponent is probably not blocking your 4/4.
I think this could be great for a constructed card, but might struggle in limited. A 4-drop with this ability in green or red would be solid, but the punisher nature of the ability feels very rakdos to me, rather than green.