Not gonna lie, pretty bummed I got skipped :/ Unless I missed the review of my own card (which is entirely possible, my attention span is crap sometimes)
I appreciate your input on my design. However, I would like to defend some of my design choices that were critiqued.
One of the things Stairc made a point of mentioning was that the premonition wording would have to be used in a set that has other cards that work in a similar nature, due to how strange the ability is. I agree completely with that. However, wouldn't the same be true with Transform cards, which many people submitted? Even in Magic Origins, we don't see a one-of Transform card. We see a cycle of high profile transform cards. Even mechanics like hybrid mana, split cards, and flip cards don't appear as one-of design choices in a set as of yet. My point being is that, if the other cards with transform are not going to be scored lower for having a mechanic that the set has to support, then I have trouble seeing how it is fair that my card is scored lower because of that.
As for giving creatures +1/+0 and haste, perhaps the +1/+0 was not necessary. However, I feel that granting all of your creatures haste is an important part of the cinematic design of this card. If it did not grant haste, then all the creatures who were sent forward in time would just mill around for a turn when they came back into play. That is not the gameplay this card is looking to create. Rather, it is looking for the feel of "Not only do my creatures come back, but they come back charging straight at you! Which is much more red than it would be otherwise.
That being said, I do agree with you both that the saving ability is not red, but white. If I were to design this again, I would make it Red White and get rid of the +1/+0. And yes, admittedly the saving ability hasn't typically been aligned with phoenixes. In my defense though, I was designing this card with a dreamscape-esque set in mind, with the idea of this phoenix actually being the incarnation of the phoenix as a symbol. The Phoenix as a symbol gives hope to people, and makes people think that, just as the phoenix can be reborn, so to can I. Perhaps that idea did not come across as I would have liked, and that is my fault for not tightening up the design. But I wanted to voice my defense of my design, since I feel a 2/10 is an unfair evaluation, especially when points were not taken off of transform cards.
I greatly enjoyed these challenges from an outsider's perspective. Likewise, I loved being a participant. While I may have fumbled this first time, I'll improve my marks from this point onward...
Glad to hear it was enjoyable. We had a lot of fun doing it.
I appreciate your input on my design. However, I would like to defend some of my design choices that were critiqued.
Great. Let's hear it.
One of the things Stairc made a point of mentioning was that the premonition wording would have to be used in a set that has other cards that work in a similar nature, due to how strange the ability is. I agree completely with that. However, wouldn't the same be true with Transform cards, which many people submitted?
That's worth bringing up. Transform is nestled more securely within MTG mainstream than Premonition. The transform aspect makes the card special and unique in a dramatic way and has already been introduced into a prior set. It also has very flexible flavor, whereas a mechanic as bizarre as Premonition seems very odd to place on the first legendary phoenix. The card needs to be one that can stand on its own, out of the context of a dream set.
There's also the matter that the transform mechanic fits cleanly into a Phoenix's identity. The phoenix life cycle has a lot to do with transformation, similar to the transform planeswalkers we're getting in MTG origins. Premonition on a Sphinx would make sense, even outside the context of a dream set, due to the flavor of the sphinx meshing with the mechanic. Premonition doesn't fit a phoenix as well, so it's odd that premonition would show up on the first legendary phoenix. It's the same as if Metalcraft were to show up on the first legendary phoenix. The flavor doesn't make the mechanic feel at home even outside the context of its set.
Basically, if there were NO other double faced cards before the legendary phoenix and none ever again - the mechanic would still fit perfectly with what the phoenix wants to do. It makes sense and works beautifully with the flavor. Premonition? Not so much.
But I wanted to voice my defense of my design, since I feel a 2/10 is an unfair evaluation, especially when points were not taken off of transform cards.
The reason it was a 2/10 in its current form is for several reasons.
1) Premonition is a poor choice for the first legendary phoenix for reasons mentioned in the podcast, and above in this post.
2) It breaks the color pie, which alone makes it unprintable.
3) The +1/+0 isn't necessary.
4) The "saving other guys" isn't in the core identity of the phoenix - which the first legendary phoenix has to deliver extremely clearly on.
It's worth noting that if Ashcloud Phoenix was the only card ever printed with Morph, and a white ability with lifelink was tacked onto it as well, it would score very low as well. Of course, even then it still feels mostly like a phoenix (flipping it faceup is like hatching the egg) but it would still rate very low. In the current version though, it's a stellar design.
Haha, a LOT of us violated the WotC Red flavor pie!
I think the problem is that the first phoenix we think of is Fawkes... or we think of Phoenix Down from Final Fantasy RPGs. Phoenixes are VERY healy in other fantasy works, white is pretty much their second color after the obvious Fire/Red thing.
But a WOTC phoenix, specifically, is mostly about hitting people in the face and being tough to kill. Which maybe we lost sight of in our desire to make the ideal fantasy phoenix.
So that's on us. But maybe you better understand why so many of us designed angels. Phoenixes in fiction often share the role of a WOTC phoenixangel, especially in non-religious-themed fantasy works of fiction that don't have angels in them whatsoever.
You folks though!
You folks repeatedly criticized our cards for not being satisfying to Timmy! But you NEVER told us don't make a Spike card! Hello, that would be part of why you got some spikey, number-finnicky designs. If you want a Timmy card, say so - don't use "Legendary" as a code for "Timmy", because some Legendary cards aren't Timmy cards!
Very fun challenge though, and it was really good to hear all these little bits of concrete advice that we can use for future designs!
The winning design: should it absorb damage from all sources? Or should it absorb damage from noncombat sources? It having protection from ogres )but not hydras!) is a smidge odd imo.
Haha, a LOT of us violated the WotC Red flavor pie! Grin
I think the problem is that the first phoenix we think of is Fawkes... or we think of Phoenix Down from Final Fantasy RPGs. Phoenixes are VERY healy in other fantasy works, white is pretty much their second color after the obvious Fire/Red thing.
But a WOTC phoenix, specifically, is mostly about hitting people in the face and being tough to kill. Which maybe we lost sight of in our desire to make the ideal fantasy phoenix.
That's a great point. I bet that's exactly what happened.
You folks repeatedly criticized our cards for not being satisfying to Timmy! But you NEVER told us don't make a Spike card!
Absolutely. The "first legendary phoenix" is a great opportunity to rock Timmy's world. To a Spike, legendary is a drawback and the creature type is irrelevant unless there's some tribal or protection stuff going on. Part of the design challenge is to see these nuances. It's not just, "make any good card that happens to be a legendary phoenix" but rather to deliver on the reasons behind that goal.
Not gonna lie, pretty bummed I got skipped :/ Unless I missed the review of my own card (which is entirely possible, my attention span is crap sometimes)
As we mentioned at the start of the first part we simply had a huge amount of submissions and couldn't do all of them. Even with us cutting quite a few designs we were still pushing the time limit on both podcasts.
I need to listen to more of the theory podcasts to get a better idea. Which one would you say is your best theory discussion podcast?
Depends if your talking about general game design theory or something more MTG based?
Episode 21 is about Bad Cards
Episode 17 is about Planeswalker Design
Episode 09 is one of our general "Designer Toolbox" episodes that is able to be applied to all game design.
Glad to hear it was enjoyable. We had a lot of fun doing it.
I appreciate your input on my design. However, I would like to defend some of my design choices that were critiqued.
Great. Let's hear it.
One of the things Stairc made a point of mentioning was that the premonition wording would have to be used in a set that has other cards that work in a similar nature, due to how strange the ability is. I agree completely with that. However, wouldn't the same be true with Transform cards, which many people submitted?
That's worth bringing up. Transform is nestled more securely within MTG mainstream than Premonition. The transform aspect makes the card special and unique in a dramatic way and has already been introduced into a prior set. It also has very flexible flavor, whereas a mechanic as bizarre as Premonition seems very odd to place on the first legendary phoenix. The card needs to be one that can stand on its own, out of the context of a dream set.
There's also the matter that the transform mechanic fits cleanly into a Phoenix's identity. The phoenix life cycle has a lot to do with transformation, similar to the transform planeswalkers we're getting in MTG origins. Premonition on a Sphinx would make sense, even outside the context of a dream set, due to the flavor of the sphinx meshing with the mechanic. Premonition doesn't fit a phoenix as well, so it's odd that premonition would show up on the first legendary phoenix. It's the same as if Metalcraft were to show up on the first legendary phoenix. The flavor doesn't make the mechanic feel at home even outside the context of its set.
Basically, if there were NO other double faced cards before the legendary phoenix and none ever again - the mechanic would still fit perfectly with what the phoenix wants to do. It makes sense and works beautifully with the flavor. Premonition? Not so much.
But I wanted to voice my defense of my design, since I feel a 2/10 is an unfair evaluation, especially when points were not taken off of transform cards.
The reason it was a 2/10 in its current form is for several reasons.
1) Premonition is a poor choice for the first legendary phoenix for reasons mentioned in the podcast, and above in this post.
2) It breaks the color pie, which alone makes it unprintable.
3) The +1/+0 isn't necessary.
4) The "saving other guys" isn't in the core identity of the phoenix - which the first legendary phoenix has to deliver extremely clearly on.
It's worth noting that if Ashcloud Phoenix was the only card ever printed with Morph, and a white ability with lifelink was tacked onto it as well, it would score very low as well. Of course, even then it still feels mostly like a phoenix (flipping it faceup is like hatching the egg) but it would still rate very low. In the current version though, it's a stellar design.
It's fair to say the card did not fit the red color and that it did not fit the current way Wizards is portraying phoenixes. However, I still take issue with saying its premonition-esque is not appropriate for a phoenix. The very nature of what phoenixes do is die and come back in the future, which is precisely what putting it face in your library and casting it for free a turn or two later accomplishes. Note that while this uses similar ruling to premonition, it itself does not have premonition, which means the idea of playing the card for free could be flavored in a different manner for this card.
In fact, since we are going specifically off of how WotC portrays phoenixes, I'd argue the mechanic portrayed in my design would be more flavorfully representative of phoenix rebirth than the transform mechanic. Aside from Ashcloud Phoenix, none of the phoenixes have any kind of mechanic that suggests it leaves an egg or remnant of itself behind that could be tampered with and prevent it from being reborn. They simply die and come back at a later time, sometimes when certain conditions are me, which is precisely what this mechanic portrays. I chose this type of mechanic because I thought it perfectly encapsulated the idea of a phoenix, and did so in the most awesome way possible, so it confuses me that this mechanic is being criticized for not being flavorful enough.
All of that being said, I believe the part I take most issue with is at around the 40 minute mark of your podcast you mentioned that this card has to be judged as a stand alone. Now, to be fair, I should have made it clearer that I imagine this card in the context of a set that supports this kind of shenanigans, like dreamscape. However, it seems a bit weird to not assume that this card would be in a set that would provide appropriate context. Considering any mechanic that is not evergreen would need a set that supports that mechanic to really justify being printed, why is this critique being thrown at my design and not anyone else's with non-evergreen mechanics? I understand that the rules don't currently support this kind of card, but my reason for citing Reuben's mock comprehensive rules on the mechanic was to show how it would probably be supported if it was printed in the appropriate set. It would be one thing if the challenge was to design a legendary phoenix for a core set, but that was not the challenge and saying it can't be printed just anywhere, while accurate, is not a not consistent with how you looked at the other cards.
And I just want to make it clear, I am not arguing that it would be better served as being red/white, or possibly an angel. Not even defending the +1/+0 addition. My main concern comes at around the 39-40 minute mark where Stairc rates my card low since the card could not be a "standalone." I simply do not think that is fair to judge this card as a standalone when cards simply do not exist as standalones in magic. They have sets to give them context, and the rules are expanded on to support the mechanics of the set. Besides, often the point of legends are to show off the cool mechanics of the set. Many, many legendary creatures don't make sense without their set and the mechanics the come with it informing the players of how the cards work, (for example, imagine seeing Mogis without having been exposed to the Theros block at all!)
Anyway, I still enjoy your guy's work, I just don't feel that the critique of the card mechanic not being suitable does not hold much water. If could just be because you two had so many cards to go through and were a tad rushed, and that would be completely understandable. If I am missing something critical though, or my rebuttals are not on point or are misinformed somehow, I would like to know so as to improve in the future.
@lifeliek I think your undervaluing how much a color pie break is hurting the design. The main reason we gave it a 2/10 as far as I can remember without re-listening to the podcast is that it brought back other creatures which was what was breaking the color pie. If it had been only bringing itself back it would of scored higher. This is the main thing that is bringing down your marks, I agree that due to how we mention the rules/standalone issues just before scoring it that it maybe sounded like that was the main thing bringing it down.
Example a card like Hornet Sting is a card that is actually actively harming the game and would be rated by us as a 1 or 0. Your color pie break isn't as bad obviously but when combined with the other issues we mentioned it created the overall low score.
Think of it like this:
Most designs start at a 7.
Color pie break makes it like a 4
the host of other issues make it a 2
@lifeliek I think your undervaluing how much a color pie break is hurting the design. The main reason we gave it a 2/10 as far as I can remember without re-listening to the podcast is that it brought back other creatures which was what was breaking the color pie. If it had been only bringing itself back it would of scored higher. This is the main thing that is bringing down your marks, I agree that due to how we mention the rules/standalone issues just before scoring it that it maybe sounded like that was the main thing bringing it down.
Example a card like Hornet Sting is a card that is actually actively harming the game and would be rated by us as a 1 or 0. Your color pie break isn't as bad obviously but when combined with the other issues we mentioned it created the overall low score.
Think of it like this:
Most designs start at a 7.
Color pie break makes it like a 4
the host of other issues make it a 2
Stairc, after you said that you would rate it 8/10 if it was a white angel, said he would contest that and make it a 3/10, for the reasons I expressed above. That is what I am contesting.
Edit: I am not even really contesting the final score, as I understand the issues with the color pie. My issue is that Stairc made it very clear he had problems with the design due to it not being able to work standalone, and I simply do not think that is a fair barometer for a design of this nature.
@lifeliek - You're also making the mistake of dealing with each criticism individually and comparing each individual problem to the card's total grade. None of the issues we brought up on their own would rank this card a 2 out of 10. Once you combine all the issues, however, we believe they do.
It's also worth noting that just because the current card might be unprintable, it doesn't mean that a few small tweaks wouldn't make the card great. Like I said, putting Lifelink on Ashcloud Phoenix would cripple an otherwise great design. However, it would be simple to remove that keyword.
@lifeliek - You're also making the mistake of dealing with each criticism individually and comparing each individual problem to the card's total grade. None of the issues we brought up on their own would rank this card a 2 out of 10. Once you combine all the issues, however, we believe they do.
It's also worth noting that just because the current card might be unprintable, it doesn't mean that a few small tweaks wouldn't make the card great. Like I said, putting Lifelink on Ashcloud Phoenix would cripple an otherwise great design. However, it would be simple to remove that keyword.
I do not take issue with the final score, because like you said I could see where the issues could compound to lead to that. My issue is specifically at the 39-40 minute mark, after Reuben said he would rate it as a 8/10 if it was a white angel, you said that it would be a 3/10 since it would not work standalone. Bear in mind this is a 3/10 after all the other issues were assumed to be fixed. My argument is that is not a fair critique, because all mechanics and cards require context, and no card is "standalone."
I think you misunderstood me slightly. If we're assuming that ALL other issues were fixed INCLUDING the rules oddities around premonition - then I wouldn't rate it a 3/10.
Additionally, there is a spectrum of how much support a mechanic needs. Morph as a single standalone card would not work. It's too complex. Morph as a major block mechanic does because once you learn it once all other versions of morph are simpler and reinforce eachother. Flying, however, is simple enough that it could easily exist on only a single card in the game (in theory) and it'd feel flavorful, cool and in place.
I got one of the lowest rating of the bunch. In the words of Blails: How embarrassing!
I will say from this experience that making a legendary phoenix is no easy task. It has so many requirements it has to fulfill yet at the same time it has much stricter design room than I'd initially anticipated, and even from the beginning I knew it's tough. Beyond that, many of the awkward design choices I made came about because I was concerning myself with developmental and rules issues. I was too caught up trying to get the card to work by-the-book that I didn't take the time to look back and see if the card actually read well. My biggest mistake was not starting off with a designer mindset. This exercise now made me realize that I need to draw a firm line with designing a card (making an interesting concept) and developing a card (refining the concept so it works within rules and within a set environment).
It's possible I did misunderstand you. Let me see:
Quote from Remaking Magic Episode 25 »
Reuben: Okay, so, I think as an angel, and if you remove that little line, it would be a sweet design. I think it would be an 8 or something, if not higher-
Dan: Actually, I’m going to actually challenge that...it’s like a 3. Because, my thing is Warp is so confusing, premonition is based on the mechanic warp which we use as premonition, is so freaking confusing, this card could not be a standalone. It would have to be used in a set like dreamscape. In dreamscape, like as an angel, I’d say, which you can be used to this premonition mechanic, I would say it’s like an 8 or a 9.
Reuben: Yeah, see, I guess I’ve been working on dreamscape so long
Dan: Yeah, you got to remember that rules gurus would look at this and be like “what the heck is this, it’s unprintable!
Reuben: Yeah, so okay, yeah. But as it is it is a bit of a mess.
(Talk about color issues which I agree with)
Dan: -But the fact is that ability, that premonition ability. I know that mentions that he is trying to play to the judges, but without treating this as if it's just a card on its own, without having a whole set explaining how this bizarre mechanic works, a set designed to twist your brain, yeah it’s not...you, you can’t do that. It would cause rule people headaches, it would do weird things, and you can’t do that without properly supporting it.
I left out most of the talk about color pie breaking since I agree with those points. This is the part I take most issue with:
Because, my thing is Warp is so confusing, premonition is based on the mechanic warp which we use as premonition, is so freaking confusing, this card could not be a standalone.
I agree, it wouldn't be standalone. But neither would undying, or transform, or dash. Unless a mechanic is evergreen, it is not going to be standalone, it will be a supported mechanic of the set it appears in. You couldn't take any of these transform phoenixes and just stick them into any old set, because it would feel wildly out of place and would eat up a lot of complexity points for not much gain. The same would be true if anyone tried to put a random transform card into a set before 2011, it simply would confuse people. That would not make it a poor design, it would simply mean that it would need to go in the right set, just like any card with a non-evergreen mechanic.
In short: Critique my card because it's out of color? Reasonable. Critique it because it's overly wordy and has unnecessary abilities? Sure. Critique it because it doesn't feel 100% like a phoenix? Okay, I can see that. But critique it because it doesn't make sense as a standalone? That simply does not seem reasonable.
////////////
Also, and this has nothing to do with my card, but while I agree with your point about some mechanics needing more support, flying is not a good example of a mechanic that needs little to no support to function. Yes, while flying does "work," strictly speaking, without having other flyers to contextualize it. If there was theoretically only one flyer, the mechanic would be pretty pointless, since it would essentially be "This creature cannot be blocked except by other copies of this creature." In fact, flying is the evergreen mechanic that basically requires they offer ways to interact with it in each set in order for it to be reasonable. You don't see cards that say "destroy target creature with vigilance," and flying is the only keyword that I can think of that another keyword was made specifically to interact with it, a la reach. Vigilance or haste would be a better example of what you are trying to convey, since they in fact did start out as one-shot mechanics essentially.
And morph wouldn't work as a standalone mechanic on a card not really because of the complexity issue, (I mean that is a factor, but not really the main one,) but because the mechanic's entire purpose is to obscure the card you played to your opponent, which would not be done if there was only one morph creature in existence. A better example for what you are saying I believe would be transform, since while it technically could only appear on one card and make sense, (the mechanic doesn't inherently necessitate other transform cards to work,) the mechanic would need a high enough as-fan to get people used to the mechanic, would need to have rules inserts to explain how it works, and would need to have special checklist cards at high enough levels for those who don't want to feel forced to play with sleeved cards.
Edit: I want to add that I hope that my very long replies are not seen as me trying to overwhelm or outsmart either of you. I really respect both of your opinions, which is why I try to be a thorough as possible in presenting my point in order to minimize confusion. I really do want to understand why not being standalone would be a valid criticism for a card of this nature, when all the other cards that would not slot into just any set were not given that criticism. It does not seem internally consistent, and if I'm missing something then please point it out to me.
I love the card that ended up winning, but I agree that the return trigger could be a bit more elegant. I'd suggest the card change to the following:
Pyrion, First Son of Fire 1RR - By CardLurd
Legendary Creature - Phoenix (M)
Flying, haste
If a red source would deal damage to ~, put that many +1/+1 counters on it instead.
When a red source deals damage to you, return ~ from your graveyard to the battlefield.
2/2
Aww that's cute Piar, I love it! I still think the creature shouldn't be immune to (and charge up from) goblin punches, but that's a cool return trigger.
I only came up with something I'm happy with after listening to this, but I still want to post it if you don't mind...
Ashfeather of the Firenest 2RR
Legendary Creature - Phoenix
Flying, haste
When ~ enters the battlefield, put two 2/1 red Phoenix creature tokens with flying onto the battlefield.
Sacrifice three Phoenixes: Return ~ from your graveyard to the battlefield.
4/2
So the idea is that she comes with two baby Poenixes, but they need some help getting her back. Also, obviously, Phoenixes don't really mind being sacrificed.
Would love to get your review on this (in here, not on the podcast, of course).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
DIRECT DOWNLOAD
Podcast archive link
RSS feed
iTunes Channel
MTGcast page
In this episode:
Card Renders:
Again, I'm not gonna render like twenty cards....
Contact details:
Reuben Covington
Twitter: @reubencovington
Email: reubencovington@gmail.com
MTGsalvation Account: Doombringer
Dan Felder
Email: minimallyexceptional@gmail.com
MTGsalvation Account: Stairc
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
And yes, lightning serpent was a reference.
BGStandard Green AggroGB
UWRGModern Saheeli CobraGRWU
UBRGLegacy StormGRBU
Wizards Certified Rules Advisor
One of the things Stairc made a point of mentioning was that the premonition wording would have to be used in a set that has other cards that work in a similar nature, due to how strange the ability is. I agree completely with that. However, wouldn't the same be true with Transform cards, which many people submitted? Even in Magic Origins, we don't see a one-of Transform card. We see a cycle of high profile transform cards. Even mechanics like hybrid mana, split cards, and flip cards don't appear as one-of design choices in a set as of yet. My point being is that, if the other cards with transform are not going to be scored lower for having a mechanic that the set has to support, then I have trouble seeing how it is fair that my card is scored lower because of that.
As for giving creatures +1/+0 and haste, perhaps the +1/+0 was not necessary. However, I feel that granting all of your creatures haste is an important part of the cinematic design of this card. If it did not grant haste, then all the creatures who were sent forward in time would just mill around for a turn when they came back into play. That is not the gameplay this card is looking to create. Rather, it is looking for the feel of "Not only do my creatures come back, but they come back charging straight at you! Which is much more red than it would be otherwise.
That being said, I do agree with you both that the saving ability is not red, but white. If I were to design this again, I would make it Red White and get rid of the +1/+0. And yes, admittedly the saving ability hasn't typically been aligned with phoenixes. In my defense though, I was designing this card with a dreamscape-esque set in mind, with the idea of this phoenix actually being the incarnation of the phoenix as a symbol. The Phoenix as a symbol gives hope to people, and makes people think that, just as the phoenix can be reborn, so to can I. Perhaps that idea did not come across as I would have liked, and that is my fault for not tightening up the design. But I wanted to voice my defense of my design, since I feel a 2/10 is an unfair evaluation, especially when points were not taken off of transform cards.
I greatly enjoyed these challenges from an outsider's perspective. Likewise, I loved being a participant. While I may have fumbled this first time, I'll improve my marks from this point onward...
Great. Let's hear it.
That's worth bringing up. Transform is nestled more securely within MTG mainstream than Premonition. The transform aspect makes the card special and unique in a dramatic way and has already been introduced into a prior set. It also has very flexible flavor, whereas a mechanic as bizarre as Premonition seems very odd to place on the first legendary phoenix. The card needs to be one that can stand on its own, out of the context of a dream set.
There's also the matter that the transform mechanic fits cleanly into a Phoenix's identity. The phoenix life cycle has a lot to do with transformation, similar to the transform planeswalkers we're getting in MTG origins. Premonition on a Sphinx would make sense, even outside the context of a dream set, due to the flavor of the sphinx meshing with the mechanic. Premonition doesn't fit a phoenix as well, so it's odd that premonition would show up on the first legendary phoenix. It's the same as if Metalcraft were to show up on the first legendary phoenix. The flavor doesn't make the mechanic feel at home even outside the context of its set.
Basically, if there were NO other double faced cards before the legendary phoenix and none ever again - the mechanic would still fit perfectly with what the phoenix wants to do. It makes sense and works beautifully with the flavor. Premonition? Not so much.
The reason it was a 2/10 in its current form is for several reasons.
1) Premonition is a poor choice for the first legendary phoenix for reasons mentioned in the podcast, and above in this post.
2) It breaks the color pie, which alone makes it unprintable.
3) The +1/+0 isn't necessary.
4) The "saving other guys" isn't in the core identity of the phoenix - which the first legendary phoenix has to deliver extremely clearly on.
It's worth noting that if Ashcloud Phoenix was the only card ever printed with Morph, and a white ability with lifelink was tacked onto it as well, it would score very low as well. Of course, even then it still feels mostly like a phoenix (flipping it faceup is like hatching the egg) but it would still rate very low. In the current version though, it's a stellar design.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
I think the problem is that the first phoenix we think of is Fawkes... or we think of Phoenix Down from Final Fantasy RPGs. Phoenixes are VERY healy in other fantasy works, white is pretty much their second color after the obvious Fire/Red thing.
But a WOTC phoenix, specifically, is mostly about hitting people in the face and being tough to kill. Which maybe we lost sight of in our desire to make the ideal fantasy phoenix.
So that's on us. But maybe you better understand why so many of us designed angels. Phoenixes in fiction often share the role of a WOTC
phoenixangel, especially in non-religious-themed fantasy works of fiction that don't have angels in them whatsoever.You folks though!
You folks repeatedly criticized our cards for not being satisfying to Timmy! But you NEVER told us don't make a Spike card! Hello, that would be part of why you got some spikey, number-finnicky designs. If you want a Timmy card, say so - don't use "Legendary" as a code for "Timmy", because some Legendary cards aren't Timmy cards!
Very fun challenge though, and it was really good to hear all these little bits of concrete advice that we can use for future designs!
The winning design: should it absorb damage from all sources? Or should it absorb damage from noncombat sources? It having protection from ogres )but not hydras!) is a smidge odd imo.
Edit: oops, failed to say Angel
That's a great point. I bet that's exactly what happened.
Absolutely. The "first legendary phoenix" is a great opportunity to rock Timmy's world. To a Spike, legendary is a drawback and the creature type is irrelevant unless there's some tribal or protection stuff going on. Part of the design challenge is to see these nuances. It's not just, "make any good card that happens to be a legendary phoenix" but rather to deliver on the reasons behind that goal.
It was a very difficult challenge.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
Have a listen and decide for yourself.
Only you know your own preferences.
As we mentioned at the start of the first part we simply had a huge amount of submissions and couldn't do all of them. Even with us cutting quite a few designs we were still pushing the time limit on both podcasts.
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
Depends if your talking about general game design theory or something more MTG based?
Episode 21 is about Bad Cards
Episode 17 is about Planeswalker Design
Episode 09 is one of our general "Designer Toolbox" episodes that is able to be applied to all game design.
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
It's fair to say the card did not fit the red color and that it did not fit the current way Wizards is portraying phoenixes. However, I still take issue with saying its premonition-esque is not appropriate for a phoenix. The very nature of what phoenixes do is die and come back in the future, which is precisely what putting it face in your library and casting it for free a turn or two later accomplishes. Note that while this uses similar ruling to premonition, it itself does not have premonition, which means the idea of playing the card for free could be flavored in a different manner for this card.
In fact, since we are going specifically off of how WotC portrays phoenixes, I'd argue the mechanic portrayed in my design would be more flavorfully representative of phoenix rebirth than the transform mechanic. Aside from Ashcloud Phoenix, none of the phoenixes have any kind of mechanic that suggests it leaves an egg or remnant of itself behind that could be tampered with and prevent it from being reborn. They simply die and come back at a later time, sometimes when certain conditions are me, which is precisely what this mechanic portrays. I chose this type of mechanic because I thought it perfectly encapsulated the idea of a phoenix, and did so in the most awesome way possible, so it confuses me that this mechanic is being criticized for not being flavorful enough.
All of that being said, I believe the part I take most issue with is at around the 40 minute mark of your podcast you mentioned that this card has to be judged as a stand alone. Now, to be fair, I should have made it clearer that I imagine this card in the context of a set that supports this kind of shenanigans, like dreamscape. However, it seems a bit weird to not assume that this card would be in a set that would provide appropriate context. Considering any mechanic that is not evergreen would need a set that supports that mechanic to really justify being printed, why is this critique being thrown at my design and not anyone else's with non-evergreen mechanics? I understand that the rules don't currently support this kind of card, but my reason for citing Reuben's mock comprehensive rules on the mechanic was to show how it would probably be supported if it was printed in the appropriate set. It would be one thing if the challenge was to design a legendary phoenix for a core set, but that was not the challenge and saying it can't be printed just anywhere, while accurate, is not a not consistent with how you looked at the other cards.
And I just want to make it clear, I am not arguing that it would be better served as being red/white, or possibly an angel. Not even defending the +1/+0 addition. My main concern comes at around the 39-40 minute mark where Stairc rates my card low since the card could not be a "standalone." I simply do not think that is fair to judge this card as a standalone when cards simply do not exist as standalones in magic. They have sets to give them context, and the rules are expanded on to support the mechanics of the set. Besides, often the point of legends are to show off the cool mechanics of the set. Many, many legendary creatures don't make sense without their set and the mechanics the come with it informing the players of how the cards work, (for example, imagine seeing Mogis without having been exposed to the Theros block at all!)
Anyway, I still enjoy your guy's work, I just don't feel that the critique of the card mechanic not being suitable does not hold much water. If could just be because you two had so many cards to go through and were a tad rushed, and that would be completely understandable. If I am missing something critical though, or my rebuttals are not on point or are misinformed somehow, I would like to know so as to improve in the future.
Example a card like Hornet Sting is a card that is actually actively harming the game and would be rated by us as a 1 or 0. Your color pie break isn't as bad obviously but when combined with the other issues we mentioned it created the overall low score.
Think of it like this:
Most designs start at a 7.
Color pie break makes it like a 4
the host of other issues make it a 2
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
Stairc, after you said that you would rate it 8/10 if it was a white angel, said he would contest that and make it a 3/10, for the reasons I expressed above. That is what I am contesting.
Edit: I am not even really contesting the final score, as I understand the issues with the color pie. My issue is that Stairc made it very clear he had problems with the design due to it not being able to work standalone, and I simply do not think that is a fair barometer for a design of this nature.
It's also worth noting that just because the current card might be unprintable, it doesn't mean that a few small tweaks wouldn't make the card great. Like I said, putting Lifelink on Ashcloud Phoenix would cripple an otherwise great design. However, it would be simple to remove that keyword.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
I do not take issue with the final score, because like you said I could see where the issues could compound to lead to that. My issue is specifically at the 39-40 minute mark, after Reuben said he would rate it as a 8/10 if it was a white angel, you said that it would be a 3/10 since it would not work standalone. Bear in mind this is a 3/10 after all the other issues were assumed to be fixed. My argument is that is not a fair critique, because all mechanics and cards require context, and no card is "standalone."
Additionally, there is a spectrum of how much support a mechanic needs. Morph as a single standalone card would not work. It's too complex. Morph as a major block mechanic does because once you learn it once all other versions of morph are simpler and reinforce eachother. Flying, however, is simple enough that it could easily exist on only a single card in the game (in theory) and it'd feel flavorful, cool and in place.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
I will say from this experience that making a legendary phoenix is no easy task. It has so many requirements it has to fulfill yet at the same time it has much stricter design room than I'd initially anticipated, and even from the beginning I knew it's tough. Beyond that, many of the awkward design choices I made came about because I was concerning myself with developmental and rules issues. I was too caught up trying to get the card to work by-the-book that I didn't take the time to look back and see if the card actually read well. My biggest mistake was not starting off with a designer mindset. This exercise now made me realize that I need to draw a firm line with designing a card (making an interesting concept) and developing a card (refining the concept so it works within rules and within a set environment).
I left out most of the talk about color pie breaking since I agree with those points. This is the part I take most issue with:
I agree, it wouldn't be standalone. But neither would undying, or transform, or dash. Unless a mechanic is evergreen, it is not going to be standalone, it will be a supported mechanic of the set it appears in. You couldn't take any of these transform phoenixes and just stick them into any old set, because it would feel wildly out of place and would eat up a lot of complexity points for not much gain. The same would be true if anyone tried to put a random transform card into a set before 2011, it simply would confuse people. That would not make it a poor design, it would simply mean that it would need to go in the right set, just like any card with a non-evergreen mechanic.
In short: Critique my card because it's out of color? Reasonable. Critique it because it's overly wordy and has unnecessary abilities? Sure. Critique it because it doesn't feel 100% like a phoenix? Okay, I can see that. But critique it because it doesn't make sense as a standalone? That simply does not seem reasonable.
////////////
Also, and this has nothing to do with my card, but while I agree with your point about some mechanics needing more support, flying is not a good example of a mechanic that needs little to no support to function. Yes, while flying does "work," strictly speaking, without having other flyers to contextualize it. If there was theoretically only one flyer, the mechanic would be pretty pointless, since it would essentially be "This creature cannot be blocked except by other copies of this creature." In fact, flying is the evergreen mechanic that basically requires they offer ways to interact with it in each set in order for it to be reasonable. You don't see cards that say "destroy target creature with vigilance," and flying is the only keyword that I can think of that another keyword was made specifically to interact with it, a la reach. Vigilance or haste would be a better example of what you are trying to convey, since they in fact did start out as one-shot mechanics essentially.
And morph wouldn't work as a standalone mechanic on a card not really because of the complexity issue, (I mean that is a factor, but not really the main one,) but because the mechanic's entire purpose is to obscure the card you played to your opponent, which would not be done if there was only one morph creature in existence. A better example for what you are saying I believe would be transform, since while it technically could only appear on one card and make sense, (the mechanic doesn't inherently necessitate other transform cards to work,) the mechanic would need a high enough as-fan to get people used to the mechanic, would need to have rules inserts to explain how it works, and would need to have special checklist cards at high enough levels for those who don't want to feel forced to play with sleeved cards.
Edit: I want to add that I hope that my very long replies are not seen as me trying to overwhelm or outsmart either of you. I really respect both of your opinions, which is why I try to be a thorough as possible in presenting my point in order to minimize confusion. I really do want to understand why not being standalone would be a valid criticism for a card of this nature, when all the other cards that would not slot into just any set were not given that criticism. It does not seem internally consistent, and if I'm missing something then please point it out to me.
Legendary Creature - Phoenix (M)
Flying, haste
If a red source would deal damage to ~, put that many +1/+1 counters on it instead.
When a red source deals damage to you, return ~ from your graveyard to the battlefield.
2/2
Ashfeather of the Firenest 2RR
Legendary Creature - Phoenix
Flying, haste
When ~ enters the battlefield, put two 2/1 red Phoenix creature tokens with flying onto the battlefield.
Sacrifice three Phoenixes: Return ~ from your graveyard to the battlefield.
4/2
So the idea is that she comes with two baby Poenixes, but they need some help getting her back. Also, obviously, Phoenixes don't really mind being sacrificed.
Would love to get your review on this (in here, not on the podcast, of course).