I like the transforming enchantments angle better, but the backside should really be basic. Same name -> same card has held for all of Magics history, and it seems like a weird rule to mess with without a clear need.
Is the intention that the enchantment always cost C and the activated ability have the same cost as the normal creature?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I primarily play limited, so most of my spoiler season comments view cards through that lens.
Is the intention that the enchantment always cost C and the activated ability have the same cost as the normal creature?
That was the original game plan, but there is no reason why I can't deviate from that. It was a constraint for constraint's sake.
I would like for the activated ability to represent the cost of the creature, though. The cost of the enchantment, on the other hand, can be balanced out to whatever seems appropriate for the design.
As for "same name -> same card," I think that equivalence was broken back when we had Llanowar Mentor making Llanowar Elves tokens. So I would prefer to use the wording that makes functional sense rather than the one that enforces artificial symmetry, if symmetry is not required (as I believe it isn't.)
Is the intention that the enchantment always cost C and the activated ability have the same cost as the normal creature?
As for "same name -> same card," I think that equivalence was broken back when we had Llanowar Mentor making Llanowar Elves tokens. So I would prefer to use the wording that makes functional sense rather than the one that enforces artificial symmetry, if symmetry is not required (as I believe it isn't.)
Admittedly mentor tokens don't have the same mana cost as the real thing, but they aren't actually a card named Llanowar Elves. Removing a supertype from one of the versions seems more fundamental, like reprinting Bane Alley Broker as a "Creature-Human." I acknowledge there isn't a strong reason that it needs to be basic, but from your response to SecretInfiltrator in the other thread it seems like there isn't a strong reason to remove it either. I'm just saying that I think the burden of proof is on giving different versions of the same card different typelines, rather than on giving them the same typeline.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I primarily play limited, so most of my spoiler season comments view cards through that lens.
For me, it's about having a consistent definition of "basic" for this set where "basic" is one of the central themes. It's a supertype with embedded rules, and while those rules are obviously up for renegotiation when I'm expanding the supertype to include nonland permanents, I still think that the idea of "a deck can have any number" of these cards is fundamental to the supertype. And if I put that supertype on a card where it clearly cannot apply (i.e., on the back of a transformed card,) I'm muddying the waters for how I want players to understand "basic" in this set.
To give you a counterexample, let's use this theoretical card:
Legendariness3U
Sorcery [R]
Choose a name that is not the same name as a MAGIC card or a token on the battlefield. Put a legendary 3/3 blue Squid token with the chosen name onto the battlefield.
By implication, I'm saying that this card would be a mistake, because it's a trivial and devalued use of the legendary supertype. Sure, it can hold Konda's Banner, but that's really nothing more than a pseudo-tribal effect. I'm not looking to do another take on tribal, here.
I'm not looking to do another take on tribal, here.
News is out! Guesswork's next set is tribal!
The enchantment versions certainly stop the rules funnyness via Moonmist.
I'll reserve judgment for now as I'd like to see what you'll do with this. But don't know enough about how this is going to work to provide really helpful feedback.
Heh. I did a tribal set for my old gaming group's Custom Cube last year. It was fun, and I think it was pretty flavorful, but it wasn't really anything new in terms of design (at least the tribal side of it wasn't.)
If anybody can come up with a new and non-gimmicky way to do tribal that isn't a flavor-first approach, I will bake them a cookie!
Pearled Merfolk 2U
Basic Creature — Merfolk [C]
Alternate art 1
[1/4]
Pearled Merfolk 2U
Basic Creature — Merfolk [C]
Alternate art 2
[1/4]
Nexus Flues U
Enchantment [U]
2U, Transform Nexus Flues: Return target artifact, enchantment, or land to its owner's hand.
>>>>>1/4>>>>>
Pearled Merfolk
Creature — Merfolk [U]
Alternate art 3
[1/4]
Clay Ogre 2R
Basic Creature — Ogre [C]
Alternate art 1
[3/2]
Clay Ogre 2R
Basic Creature — Ogre [C]
Alternate art 2
[3/2]
Pit Fires R
Enchantment [U]
2R, Transform Pit Fires: Pit Fires deals 3 damage to target player.
>>>>>3/2>>>>>
Clay Ogre
Creature — Ogre [U]
Alternate art 3
[3/2]
The white and black ones in the previous thread would undergo revision if I used these versions, here.
[EDIT]: Removed "creature or" from Pit Fires (it's still kinda strong.)
Is the intention that the enchantment always cost C and the activated ability have the same cost as the normal creature?
Interested in Custom Card Creation.
My Cube:Cardinal Custom Cube
A custom version of a third modern masters: MM2019
(filter->rarity to see in set rarity).
I would like for the activated ability to represent the cost of the creature, though. The cost of the enchantment, on the other hand, can be balanced out to whatever seems appropriate for the design.
As for "same name -> same card," I think that equivalence was broken back when we had Llanowar Mentor making Llanowar Elves tokens. So I would prefer to use the wording that makes functional sense rather than the one that enforces artificial symmetry, if symmetry is not required (as I believe it isn't.)
Admittedly mentor tokens don't have the same mana cost as the real thing, but they aren't actually a card named Llanowar Elves. Removing a supertype from one of the versions seems more fundamental, like reprinting Bane Alley Broker as a "Creature-Human." I acknowledge there isn't a strong reason that it needs to be basic, but from your response to SecretInfiltrator in the other thread it seems like there isn't a strong reason to remove it either. I'm just saying that I think the burden of proof is on giving different versions of the same card different typelines, rather than on giving them the same typeline.
Interested in Custom Card Creation.
My Cube:Cardinal Custom Cube
A custom version of a third modern masters: MM2019
(filter->rarity to see in set rarity).
To give you a counterexample, let's use this theoretical card:
Legendariness 3U
Sorcery [R]
Choose a name that is not the same name as a MAGIC card or a token on the battlefield. Put a legendary 3/3 blue Squid token with the chosen name onto the battlefield.
By implication, I'm saying that this card would be a mistake, because it's a trivial and devalued use of the legendary supertype. Sure, it can hold Konda's Banner, but that's really nothing more than a pseudo-tribal effect. I'm not looking to do another take on tribal, here.
News is out! Guesswork's next set is tribal!
The enchantment versions certainly stop the rules funnyness via Moonmist.
I'll reserve judgment for now as I'd like to see what you'll do with this. But don't know enough about how this is going to work to provide really helpful feedback.
Are you designing commons? Check out my primer on NWO.
Interested in making a custom set? Check out my Set skeleton and archetype primer.
I also write articles about getting started with custom card creation.
Go and PLAYTEST your designs, you will learn more in a single playtests than a dozen discussions.
My custom sets:
Dreamscape
Coins of Mercalis [COMPLETE]
Exodus of Zendikar - ON HOLD
If anybody can come up with a new and non-gimmicky way to do tribal that isn't a flavor-first approach, I will bake them a cookie!