This mechanic was adapted from a proposal by void_nothing in the UB-Evergreen Kewyord Suggestions thread. It never got much discussion though so I created this thread to show case it along with some example cards. The mechanic name is placeholder and I'm open to suggestions.
Flex(Whenever this creature attacks or blocks, you may give it +2/-2 until end of turn.)
Bashing Shieldmate B
Creature - Human Soldier [U]
Flex If you must make a choice between a sword or a shield, take the shield! - Gobber
0/3
Torrent Elemental 3U
Creature - Elemental [U]
Flex, Flex, Flash The thing about the weather is... its always changing
0/5
Reclusive Master 1U
Creature - Merfolk [R]
Prowess, Flex
Whenever Reclusive monk deals combat damage to a player, scry X where X is the amount of damage dealt by Reclusive Monk.
0/3
Modular Zombie 2BB
Creature - Zombie [R]
Other Zombies you control get +0/+2 and have Flex
Flex
2/4
Let me know what you all think. Is the mechanic interesting? Fun? How would you use it?
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
- Manite
The concept is interesting but it seems like it would benefit from being Flex X rather than a static amount. That said black doesn't really do this to its own creatures. It does get it enough to justify this effect but pushing this as evergreen seems out of place.
The concept is interesting but it seems like it would benefit from being Flex X rather than a static amount. That said black doesn't really do this to its own creatures. It does get it enough to justify this effect but pushing this as evergreen seems out of place.
As a block mechanic, Flex X might work better. As an evergreen, the complexity gain isn't worth the gain in design space and game play. And given I'm gearing this up as a UB combat keyword, I think its better to just pick a single value for X and effectively hard code the value into the ability. I think flex 2 is the optimum for maximizing design space and interesting gameplay, but I could be wrong and am open to hearing other's thoughts.
I agree that this type of effect isn't really in black at the moment, but Green didn't really have damage dealing effects before Fight either. As P/T inversion is currently only really in Blue and is tertiary in both black and red, I don't have much of a problem with giving black Flex. I'm not really color shifting the ability at all, I'm just making it more common.
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
- Manite
Question is, why use this over blue +1/-1 or black +1/+1 mana pumps? Sure, red gets both Firebreathing and Prowess, but Prowess at least asks for a hoop to jump through (albeit a very simple one). And the blue and black mana pumps allow you to hold mana until you know whether or not your creature is going to get blocked; this mechanic entails taking a risk up front. That's more BR than UB.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MTGS Wikia Article about "New World Order"
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
PSA to everyone who keeps forgetting about the Reserved List:
You're on a website dedicated to talking about MtG. You're only a few keystrokes away from finding out what cards are on the Reserved List. You're also only a few keystrokes away from finding out why some cards on the Reserved List got foil printings in FtV, as Judge promos, or whatnot, as well as why that won't happen again. Stop doing this.
Question is, why use this over blue +1/-1 or black +1/+1 mana pumps? Sure, red gets both Firebreathing and Prowess, but Prowess at least asks for a hoop to jump through (albeit a very simple one). And the blue and black mana pumps allow you to hold mana until you know whether or not your creature is going to get blocked; this mechanic entails taking a risk up front. That's more BR than UB.
Regarding Flex vs "B: +1/+1"/"U: +1/-1";
1. Flex seems to be much simpler and more NWO friendly than either the shade or shift ability. In real games with flex, players never have to bother checking the opponents mana when making combat decisions, and a creature with flex can only have 1 of 2 possible bodies, rather than the shade or shift ability which usually has many depending on mana availability.
2. Flex will play a bit differently than the shade or shift ability. Shade and shift abilities both require real costs, usually mana, to be balanced, meaning that the cards act as and are balanced as mana sinks. Flex has no such limitation. A 3 mana card with flex on turn 3 actually curves into a 4 drop on turn 4 in a way that ingenious skaab just kind of doesn't. In short, Flex plays the tempo game much better than shade or shift abilities do.
Does flex involve taking special risks though? Or is it just the usual risks of making combat decisions that every color does anyway.
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
- Manite
Flex V2 (Whenever this creature attacks or blocks, you may swap its power and toughness.)
...Its a bit more complex than Flex V1, but I think you pick up quite a bit more design space. and it accomplishes the same modal-body gameplay. This version has more play with different kinds of tricks. It loses the ability to stack in multiples though, which may actually be a benefit as most evergreen keywords don't stack in multiples.
What do you all think? Better or worse than Flex V1? What problems do you see with Flex V2?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
- Manite
1) Why not Flex N (Whenever this attacks or blocks, you may give it +N/-N)?
2) Why does this need to be on a number of creatures? Reach needs to be keyworded. FLying needs to be keyworded. Trample, Deathtouch, and the like benefit from being keyworded.
3) What's the reminder text for Bushido again? Because I'm inclined to say that Flex is functionally inferior to Bushido in every way, and that's not very much fun.
I just don't get the appeal of this as a keyword. I understand liking Morphling-effects. I like Firebreathing too. But I don't want them to be keyworded, and I certainly don't want them to be triggered keywords.
Flex V2 (Whenever this creature attacks or blocks, you may swap its power and toughness.)
This effect is cool as "0: Switch ~'s P+T." (Now think of that on a first-striker...). As a triggered ability, it's just clunky...
Mind you, I'd be completely okay if you wanted to print a Kor-like shared activated ability in a set, where lots of illusions had "0: Switch ~'s P+T." - That'd be cool. MAYBE even ability word it... despite the fact it leads to consistency problems (see landfall in non-landfall sets...).
1) Why not Flex N (Whenever this attacks or blocks, you may give it +N/-N)?
Same reason there isn't Prowess N. Simplicity has real value.
2) Why does this need to be on a number of creatures? Reach needs to be keyworded. FLying needs to be keyworded. Trample, Deathtouch, and the like benefit from being keyworded.
How does skulk benefit from being keyworded? Prowess? Realistically, do flying, reach, and deathtouch benefit/need to be keyworded in order to function?
3) What's the reminder text for Bushido again? Because I'm inclined to say that Flex is functionally inferior to Bushido in every way, and that's not very much fun.
Bushido N (Whenever this creature blocks or becomes blocked, it gets +N/+N until end of turn.)
Bushido and Flex aren't particularly similar on offense or defense. Bushido makes a creature generically better when blocking or being blocked. Flex just gives a creature a modal body.
I just don't get the appeal of this as a keyword. I understand liking Morphling-effects. I like Firebreathing too. But I don't want them to be keyworded, and I certainly don't want them to be triggered keywords.
There is an existing desire for a shared UB evergreen combat keyword to ease designing of sets. UB lacks intersecting design space when compared to other color pairs.
This effect is cool as "0: Switch ~'s P+T." (Now think of that on a first-striker...). As a triggered ability, it's just clunky...
Having to make the decision when you are attacking/blocking just feels bad?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
- Manite
1) Why not Flex N (Whenever this attacks or blocks, you may give it +N/-N)?
Same reason there isn't Prowess N. Simplicity has real value.
Prowess isn't Prowess N because after testing they found that the vast majority wanted to be Prowess 1 so rather than add the additional complexity for an incredibly marginal gain they got rid of it. Also If they wanted they could just give the creature multiple instances of Prowess. If after extensive testing you find the Flex actually wants to be +2/-2 the majority of the time then that is a reasonable place to settle but it massively limits what can be done with the mechanic due to scaling by 2.
This effect is cool as "0: Switch ~'s P+T." (Now think of that on a first-striker...). As a triggered ability, it's just clunky...
Having to make the decision when you are attacking/blocking just feels bad?
Players don't like making decisions with limited information and then being punished for a bad decision. This is simple a fact of humans, and as a designer it is your duty to force them to make certain decisions when it has been proven to be better for them. A perfect example of this is Ulamog's Crusher, they found that people were simply sitting back with their huge creature because after investing so much they didn't want it to die in combat. So they forced players to do the right thing by adding what is usually seen as a detriment.
Prowess isn't Prowess N because after testing they found that the vast majority wanted to be Prowess 1 so rather than add the additional complexity for an incredibly marginal gain they got rid of it. Also If they wanted they could just give the creature multiple instances of Prowess. If after extensive testing you find the Flex actually wants to be +2/-2 the majority of the time then that is a reasonable place to settle but it massively limits what can be done with the mechanic due to scaling by 2.
Exactly. Even after just doing some mental play testing and some simple example designs, I'm fairly sure that Flex 2 is what a designer is going to want the overwhelming majority of the time. Of course, If I move forward with the mechanic I will test other versions as well, but I'm reasonably confidant design space and game play are optimized with Flex set to being +2/-2.
Players don't like making decisions with limited information and then being punished for a bad decision. This is simple a fact of humans, and as a designer it is your duty to force them to make certain decisions when it has been proven to be better for them. A perfect example of this is Ulamog's Crusher, they found that people were simply sitting back with their huge creature because after investing so much they didn't want it to die in combat. So they forced players to do the right thing by adding what is usually seen as a detriment.
Fair point. Which brings me to...
Flex V3(0 : This creature gets +2/-2 until end of turn. Use only once per turn.)
...Personally, I think game play is at its most interesting when players are being asked to make decisions with limited information. That is basically the entire appeal of card games. But I also accept the wisdom of avoiding feel bad moments in design.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
- Manite
I'm not a huge fan of how Flex requires every creature it's on to have minimum 3 toughness. That's a big design constraint.
Its not as large of a design constraint as you might think. For reference, there are 1146 blue creatures in Modern. Of those 623 have toughness greater than 3 meaning you could just slap flex on them without issue. Once you realize that you can create a flex creature by simply applying a -2/+2 to any existing creature with power 2 or more, this brings the total percentage of modern legal blue creatures that could be easily designed with flex to 81%. Black is similar at 83%. Granted, designing a flex creature does put some constraints on the toughness of the creature.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
- Manite
How does skulk benefit from being keyworded? Prowess? Realistically, do flying, reach, and deathtouch benefit/need to be keyworded in order to function?
Flying is a self-referential keyword, which makes keywording mandatory. Trying to make flying function without a keyword would be insane. Abilities can have certain characteristics that make keywording more or less beneficial.
1. Self-Referential keywords. These keywords refer to themselves, and as such need a reference point to function at all. Ex: flying, shadow, horsemanship
2. Complexity/wordiness. These keywords would simply fill up the whole text box or use unintuitive terminology in order to function without a keyword. Ex: trample, protection, regenerate, first strike, indestructible
3. Damage modification. Any ability of a source that modifies the result of damage it causes receives a keyword. Ex: lifelink, deathtouch, infect, wither
4. Repetition. Phrases and abilities (usually evergreen) that appear on a large volume of cards will sometimes receive keywords, especially when they appear on lots of auras, equipment, and combat tricks. Ex: prowess (currently), landwalk, menace, reach
5. Block/set mechanic. Non-evergreen mechanics that don't fall under the other four categories sometimes receive keywords to create thematic unity within a given set or block. This was what prowess was in KTK, before it became evergreen. Skulk is another example.
Keywords in categories 4 and 5 can often function just fine without being keyworded, and your mechanic doesn't fit into the first three categories. The fact you want the keyword common enough to be evergreen is worth being questioned.
The fact you want the keyword common enough to be evergreen is worth being questioned.
Fair. All I can really say in response is that there is an existing desire to carve out shared design space for UB. In the words of Mark Rosewater.
"While philosophically the two colors mesh well, mechanically they are the two ally colors that have the least in common. Now, this is a pain for making hybrid cards, but shouldn't a clear mechanical identity make gold cards easier to design? The problem here is that while blue and black don't overlap much in actual mechanics, they have a lot of abilities that are close to the other but just a little different."
This lack of intersecting mechanical design space makes designing for UB rather difficult. Personally, I feel the best way to improve the situation is with a combat focused keyword that can be shared by blue and black. At this point, we should wonder, "why flex over any other possible UB combat keyword?" My only real answer to this is that the morphling ability has played well in every environment that I know of. Ultimately I think that is the true benchmark a mechanic needs to meet to be evergreen. As Flex is just simplified morphling, I think we can say that sprinkling a few Flex creatures into basically any set will either improve the gameplay of the set, or at least not hurt it. As I haven't gotten around to testing the mechanic yet, I should point out that this is just my suspicion. I could be wrong and am open to hearing arguments/experiences contrary to my own.
TLDR: I like morphlings and UB wants a keyword.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
- Manite
Same reason there isn't Prowess N. Simplicity has real value.
Flanking 2 > Flanking, Flanking.
2)How does skulk benefit from being keyworded? Prowess? Realistically, do flying, reach, and deathtouch benefit/need to be keyworded in order to function?
Prowess - multiple creatures with prowess generates an incentive to run a prowess deck.
Skulk - pretty much everyone agrees this is a mistake. But it does incentivize deck building.
Deathtouch benefitted because pre-Deathtouch there were like 5 versions of it that all worked differently. Imagine 5 versions of flying (and Shadow kind of counts...)
Keywording is for simplicity, recognization, and for helping the format.
3) What's the reminder text for Bushido again? Because I'm inclined to say that Flex is functionally inferior to Bushido in every way, and that's not very much fun.
Bushido N (Whenever this creature blocks or becomes blocked, it gets +N/+N until end of turn.)
Bushido and Flex aren't particularly similar on offense or defense. Bushido makes a creature generically better when blocking or being blocked. Flex just gives a creature a modal body.
The problem with Skulk is that you would usually rather have flying.
The problem with Bushido is you would usually rather have Bushido. Also, note Bushido N.
There is an existing desire for a shared UB evergreen combat keyword to ease designing of sets. UB lacks intersecting design space when compared to other color pairs.
Skulk > Flex. If you think Skulk is a good keyword, you don't need Flex. If you think Skulk is a bad keyword, you shouldn't have used it as an example of good keywording above.
Having to make the decision when you are attacking/blocking just feels bad?
Yeah! I don't have to think about whether I should allow my Menacer to be blocked by 1 creature, or about whether I should instruct my flyer to fly low enough that the llanowar elf COULD block, or about whether my Deathtoucher should put on kid gloves. And I certainly don't want to lose a game of magic because I forgot to announce that I'm triggering Flex!
The UB keyword debate is perilous. I've come up with a half dozen mechanics I could see printed, but aren't as elegant or useful as deathtouch, flash, or menace. At this point, I'd settle for a Prowess N.
The problem with Flex (?) is you would usually rather have Bushido.
Would you? If I have a 1/3 and my opponents board is empty, I would MUCH rather have Flex than Bushido on that creature. The keywords just don't do the same thing.
Skulk > Flex.
Skulk is just yet another evasion mechanic in a color pair over loaded with evasion mechanics that lacks the design space of other evasion mechanics. Flex is a different mechanic entirely. I don't think I would try to directly compare them.
Yeah! I don't have to think about whether I should allow my Menacer to be blocked by 1 creature, or about whether I should instruct my flyer to fly low enough that the llanowar elf COULD block, or about whether my Deathtoucher should put on kid gloves. And I certainly don't want to lose a game of magic because I forgot to announce that I'm triggering Flex!
How do you feel about Flex V3 then. It totally removes the timing restrictions and trigger fatigue and gives the creatures controller basically no excuses for missing Flex. For reference...
Flex V3(0 : This creature gets +2/-2 until end of turn. Use only once per turn.)
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
- Manite
Enh, pump mechanics that use anything but 1 or X feel weird to me. Like, +1/+1 is a pretty generic pump and the lowest simple one at that, so it's easy enough to remember and to stack on top of each other.
Also, the timing trigger is a problem, would be better if it worked like Bushido. I do not want to announce that my attacking 1/3 will become a 3/1 before I even know which creature blocks it.
You removed that problem with Flex V3, but that one feels even more akward and not evergreen at all.
Would you? If I have a 1/3 and my opponents board is empty, I would MUCH rather have Flex than Bushido on that creature. The keywords just don't do the same thing.
If my opponent controls no creatures, aren't I already winning?
First Strike, Flying, Deathtouch, Reach, and many other keywords don't help if my opponent doesn't have creatures either...
Skulk is just yet another evasion mechanic in a color pair over loaded with evasion mechanics that lacks the design space of other evasion mechanics. Flex is a different mechanic entirely. I don't think I would try to directly compare them.
Oh, I'm not saying Skulk isn't somewhat redundant, but in terms of changing the game, a 2/2 skulk creature is more interesting than a 2/2 flex creature.
Yeah! I don't have to think about whether I should allow my Menacer to be blocked by 1 creature, or about whether I should instruct my flyer to fly low enough that the llanowar elf COULD block, or about whether my Deathtoucher should put on kid gloves. And I certainly don't want to lose a game of magic because I forgot to announce that I'm triggering Flex!
How do you feel about Flex V3 then. It totally removes the timing restrictions and trigger fatigue and gives the creatures controller basically no excuses for missing Flex. For reference... Flex V3(0 : This creature gets +2/-2 until end of turn. Use only once per turn.)
1. This is an ability word, not a keyword (in terms of how this kind of thing has been done in the past). Don't keyword the Kor-effect. Lancers en-Kor or effects like that.
2. This would be +1/-1.
3. Also, why not +1/-1 or -1/+1 to give it potential with First Strike? (and yeah, I know infinite toughness... you could say use it only if power is 1 or greater.)
Make no mistake, the mechanic of Flex V3 is more interesting and very aggressive (it feels UR to me), and could be interesting in groups (like the Kor mechanic), but I don't see it as being evergreen even if you were willing to keyword it.
Violate(Whenever ~ deals damage to a player, put the top card of their library into their graveyard until a land is put into the graveyard in this way.)
The big problems associated with mill-based keywords that trigger off of damage to a player is that if they're not connected to the P/T, they seem odd. (A 1/1 with "Mill 4" for example), while if they are connected to P/T, they're redundant as you'll kill them from damage before milling. In contrast, if not tied to combat damage, then they're hard to format and in a flavor problem. See Belltower Sphinx (Wait, if my planeswalker or goblin deal damage to it, I get hit? How does that make sense?).
Because violate mills until you hit a land, then the math becomes more favorable. Roughly lands take up 1/3rd of a deck, so in a vacuum dealing 1 damage to an opponent will likely mill 3 cards, so 20 damage equals 60 cards. A deck with 1/1 violators will win after only 15 or so damage, on average. Combo with optional direct mill cards, and you have a limited and/or constructed playable deck.
I'm also thinking about how to template Violate, Prowess, Flanking, etc. so Violate mills until you hit 1 land, while Wiolate 2 hits until you hit 2. Similarly, "Prowess, Prowess" would trigger once as Prowess 2. This cleans up gameplay, as there are less triggers and stifle is more practical against such cards; yet if the 1 is "left off" Prowess, Flanking, etc. it will look more elegant.
Now, should violate be evergreen? As someone that likes mill, I'm inclined to say "yes", but as we've seen blue and black both have color pie slices that care about (instants, creatures) in the 'yard, and the notion of violating an opponent (possibly milling their best card) while pscyhologically problematic, doesn't have much game play value unless you completely mill them. It's annoying, but that's the point - it will make an opponent think before blocking, even if that thought process is not conducive to good game play.
If my opponent controls no creatures, aren't I already winning?
My point was that the mechanics are simply different. The exact situation was just an example to demonstrate the point. Flex is a keyword that gives the creature a modal body. In other words, a creature with flex is always going to be the best of two possible bodies regardless of what is going on in the game. Bushido makes a creature better at blocking and harder to block.
Oh, I'm not saying Skulk isn't somewhat redundant, but in terms of changing the game, a 2/2 skulk creature is more interesting than a 2/2 flex creature.
We may have to agree to disagree on this point. In my experience, a 2/2 skulk creature is effectively vanilla. The entire problem with skulk is that it just doesn't really work unless the creature with skulk has very low power (0-2) and toughness greater than its power. Skulk matters on a 2/3, it is basically trinket text on a 2/2.
1. This is an ability word, not a keyword (in terms of how this kind of thing has been done in the past). Don't keyword the Kor-effect. Lancers en-Kor or effects like that.
Ability words are like Landfall. They are used whenever many cards share a similar (but not equivalent) ability. Flex could easily be keyworded in the same way equip is keyworded.
2. This would be +1/-1.
In general, +1/-1 is less interesting than +2/-2. When wizards designs morphlings with a limited number of activations, they basically always use +2/-2: maw of kozilek, Multiform Wonder, ravenous bloodseeker, shipwreck moray. As Flex is limited to only a single use per turn, +2/-2 just makes more sense to use than +1/-1.
3. Also, why not +1/-1 or -1/+1 to give it potential with First Strike?
The point of Flex is to simplify the morphling ability as much as possible while still capturing interesting gameplay. Allowing creatures to swap P/T around a bunch may seem appealing but it dramatically increases complexity of the ability and, I suspect, will reduce design space.
Make no mistake, the mechanic of Flex V3 is more interesting and very aggressive (it feels UR to me), and could be interesting in groups (like the Kor mechanic), but I don't see it as being evergreen even if you were willing to keyword it.
The morphling ability is already being used deciduously. Flex is just a simplified version of it. What about it prevents you from seeing it as evergreen?
Violate(Whenever ~ deals damage to a player, put the top card of their library into their graveyard until a land is put into the graveyard in this way.)
There are a small group of players who do enjoy mill but mill is a mechanic that isn't generally enjoyed by the magic community. In addition, Mill isn't something designers actually want in every set and doesn't play well in every environment. Those benchmarks, being almost always useful for designers and playing well in almost every environment, are what need to be met in order for a keyword to be worth giving evergreen status.
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
- Manite
Oh, I'm not saying Skulk isn't somewhat redundant, but in terms of changing the game, a 2/2 skulk creature is more interesting than a 2/2 flex creature.
We may have to agree to disagree on this point. In my experience, a 2/2 skulk creature is effectively vanilla. The entire problem with skulk is that it just doesn't really work unless the creature with skulk has very low power (0-2) and toughness greater than its power. Skulk matters on a 2/3, it is basically trinket text on a 2/2.
I haven't played a lot with Skulk, but it does facilitate diversity of P/T. In previous formats, I've run drafts with lots of removal and big creatures that dodge removal. Skulk creatures sneak in under them - and that's relevant.
But yeah, the fact you can only put Flex V2 on a creature with 3 toughness actually is a serious problem, as it limits what it can go on and makes it so it's rarer to see, and thus less printable.
Skulk, too, has this problem, as a 5/5 Skulker is pretty useless.
Ability words are like Landfall. They are used whenever many cards share a similar (but not equivalent) ability. Flex could easily be keyworded in the same way equip is keyworded.
Equip and Crew do work that way. You're right, I'm wrong. I don't think this should become a habit though...
A. +1/-1 can be put on a 2/2.
B. +1/-1 can be used twice to make a 3/3 a 5/5, just like your flex V3.
C. 1 is a more obvious, nuanced, clean, simple number than 2 in this, and most, contexts. There's a reason we have +1/+1 counters and not +2/+2 counters anymore.
When wizards designs morphlings with a limited number of activations, they basically always use +2/-2: maw of kozilek, Multiform Wonder, ravenous bloodseeker, shipwreck moray. As Flex is limited to only a single use per turn, +2/-2 just makes more sense to use than +1/-1.
Sometimes this is a cost effect. Discarding a card or paying an energy for +1/-1 is not very efficient. But 0 is cost efficient.
+2/-2 is quite limiting (again, to 3 toughness), and in some formats that might make sense, but I don't see why it needs to be this way in all formats.
Morph being 2/2s for 3 is largely because 1/1s for 1 aren't imposing. But most other keywords that rest on a number, use the number 1 as that base.
Mind you, I suppose you could do Flex N (0: This creature gets +N/-N until end of turn) and it's be fine. But then Flex 1 is better than Flex 2.
Violate(Whenever ~ deals damage to a player, put the top card of their library into their graveyard until a land is put into the graveyard in this way.)
There are a small group of players who do enjoy mill but mill is a mechanic that isn't generally enjoyed by the magic community. In addition, Mill isn't something designers actually want in every set and doesn't play well in every environment. Those benchmarks, being almost always useful for designers and playing well in almost every environment, are what need to be met in order for a keyword to be worth giving evergreen status.
In brief, I want to say this: Mill can lead to win conditions, and - arguably - this should be a greater focus on the game. But it's easy to create Violators that benefit from your opponent having a full 'yard that don't care about winning by deck out.
But the big hurdle for the UB mechanic just is that it is difficult to think of a mechanic that benefits from wider use (setting aside Mill); Morphling simplified or otherwise just doesn't need to be in every format.
In contrast:
Flying - WURB...Gevasion; essential.
Reach - G? anti-flying, practical, cheap.
Trample - G? Pseudo-evasion, essential for large green creatures.
Flash - GUpseudo-instant creatures, very useful.
Hexproof - GUcounters spot removal, provides an important metagame option.
First Strike/Double Strike - WR enables combat tricks, makes combat difficult, useful pseudo-evasion.
Deathtouch - GBpseudo-evasion, pseudo-removal; plays 2 important roles.
Haste - GRuseful, flavorful, practical, cheap.
Lifelink - WBwe print this ability a lot, flavorful.
Vigilance - W? - we print this ability often, flavorful.
Prowess - UB, provides incentive for deck construction. NOT ESSENTIAL, but if we want each color pair to have a shared evergreen, it will fit the bill.
Final Thought: UR gets about face effects, and it's a much more elegant, clean effect than this. While Prowess is certainly fun, in terms of ideal evergreen keywords, I think I'd appreciate your V3 templating used for UR About Face coupled with BU Skulk, than Prowess and Flex V3.
But returning to Mill; many players don't like playing Mill. Fair enough. But in the same way Prowess can change how you play, so would a Mill effect. That might be worth promoting it to evergreen instead of hobbling morphling...
A. +1/-1 can be put on a 2/2.
B. +1/-1 can be used twice to make a 3/3 a 5/5, just like your flex V3.
C. 1 is a more obvious, nuanced, clean, simple number than 2 in this, and most, contexts. There's a reason we have +1/+1 counters and not +2/+2 counters anymore.
Flex V3 reads...
Flex V3(0 : This creature gets +2/-2 until end of turn. Use only once per turn.)
The bolded text is entirely intentional. An ability that can be activated repeatedly at instant speed and impacts the board state in doing so isn't NWO or new player friendly. Simplicity is key.
While you are correct in saying that a 2/2 can get +1/-1, it isn't all that interesting to do so. The difference between a 2/2 and a 3/1 across all boards isn't great. In general, when a card is modal and the player controls the decision, the greater the difference between the modes, the more interesting the card is and the better it plays. For example, EX Card 1 isn't very interesting, while EX Card 2 is a reasonable card.
EX card 1 BR
Sorcery
Choose one:
- Deal 3 damage to target creature
- Target creature gets -2/-2 until end of turn.
EX card 2 GR
Sorcery
Choose one:
- Deal 3 damage to target creature.
- Destroy target enchantment.
All that said, if I do want a 2/2 with flex, its actually pretty easy to make one. For all intents and purposes, Palace Guard is a 2/2 with Flex.
Palace Guard 2B
Creature - Human [C]
Flex V3
0/4
Morphling is not simple. To simplify it is to lose the flavor.
I'm not worried about the flavor. I'm worried about the gameplay of the morphling ability, which has been printed quite a lot over the years connected to many different flavors: Ingenious skaab, Ravenous Bloodseeker, multiform wonder, scion of glaciers, shorecrasher Elemental, vildin-pack outcast, watercourser. In general, when the ability is limited in usage, usually because the cost requires spending a limited resource, then the ability gives +2/-2 rather than +1/-1 because +1/-1 just isn't all that interesting by itself.
Morphling simplified or otherwise just doesn't need to be in every format.
Most evergreens don't need to be in every format. Mechanics become evergreen because they are useful for designers and play well almost always. You can deisgn a set without Deathtouch really easily, but sprinkling in a few deathtouch creatures will make virtually any format deeper and more fun. Flex is similar. You don't ever really need it, but if you were to add it to a few cards in your set, (I think) the set would almost certiainly play better as a result.
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
- Manite
Flex V3(0 : This creature gets +2/-2 until end of turn. Use only once per turn.)
The bolded text is entirely intentional. An ability that can be activated repeatedly at instant speed and impacts the board state in doing so isn't NWO or new player friendly. Simplicity is key.
I missed this. The problem is that it is the opposite of simple - it makes it needlessly complex.
Flex V4: 0 : This creature gets +1/-1 until end of turn.
While you are correct in saying that a 2/2 can get +1/-1, it isn't all that interesting to do so.
If you have a 2/3 with Flex V3 and your opponent was at 4, you're happy.
If you have a 2/3 with Flex V4 and your opponent was at 4, you're happy.
If you have a 2/2 with Flex V4 and your opponent was at 3, you're happy.
The "ineffectiveness" of +1/-1 only makes sense with your once-per-turn limit.
Morphling is not simple. To simplify it is to lose the flavor.
I'm not worried about the flavor. I'm worried about the gameplay of the morphling ability, which has been printed quite a lot over the years connected to many different flavors: Ingenious skaab, Ravenous Bloodseeker, multiform wonder, scion of glaciers, shorecrasher Elemental, vildin-pack outcast, watercourser. In general, when the ability is limited in usage, usually because the cost requires spending a limited resource, then the ability gives +2/-2 rather than +1/-1 because +1/-1 just isn't all that interesting by itself.
Ah, but the gameplay of Morphling just is it's flexability. In fact, arguably of all of morphling's many abilities, the ability to get +1/-1 is the least useful!
Morphling simplified or otherwise just doesn't need to be in every format.
Most evergreens don't need to be in every format. Mechanics become evergreen because they are useful for designers and play well almost always. You can deisgn a set without Deathtouch really easily, but sprinkling in a few deathtouch creatures will make virtually any format deeper and more fun. Flex is similar. You don't ever really need it, but if you were to add it to a few cards in your set, (I think) the set would almost certiainly play better as a result.
You say sprinkling a few creatures with FLEX V3 in will make the format deeper and more fun.
1. FLEX V4 is more fun and more useful and more challenging than V3.
2. Morphling cards can be useful, but Flex is no Morphling.
3. Ironically, Mill-effects do make virtually any format deeper and more fun - either as an alternate win condition, or are a benefit-drawback. You don't want to run mill in a constructed format dominated by delve, threshold, reanimator, dredge, or the like. But if I mill your combo piece... mwahahahahaha!
FLEX V5
Morph (1: This creature gets +1/-1 or -1/+1 until end of turn.)
I missed this. The problem is that it is the opposite of simple - it makes it needlessly complex.
Flex V4: 0 : This creature gets +1/-1 until end of turn.
This has less text and is more useful.
Complexity =/= Text length. In fact, there are many different kinds of complexity: Comprehension Complexity, Board Complexity, Strategic Complexity. Comprehension Complexity is kind of what you are getting at and it is also the least important kind of complexity when considering evergreen keywords. In truth, a creature that can have 2 possible bodies is dramatically simpler than a creature than can have many possible bodies, as would be the case with your Flex V4.
The "ineffectiveness" of +1/-1 only makes sense with your once-per-turn limit.
A limit that needs to be in place to minimize the complexity cost of Flex as a keyword.
This actually brings up a question about how much you'd cost this. A 1/3 Flex V3 for 1U is undercosted. A 0/3 Flex V3 for U is undercosted.
Costing is dependent on environment. In general, a 2 mana 1/3 Flex and a 1 mana 0/3 Flex are costed about right. You would need to tune the exact costs and bodies to the format though.
Ah, but the gameplay of Morphling just is it's flexability. In fact, arguably of all of morphling's many abilities, the ability to get +1/-1 is the least useful!
You keep referring to the card morphling while I'm referring specifically to the morhpling ability. Lets stop this confusion. Lets just use the term water breathing from now on. When I say water breathing, I mean an ability that gives a creature power while reducing its toughness. Flex is a simplified version of the card Morphling's water breathing ability, an ability that has been used time and time again through out magics history. Flex is trying to get the gameplay of the water breathing ability while minimizing the complexity cost.
3. Ironically, Mill-effects do make virtually any format deeper and more fun - either as an alternate win condition, or are a benefit-drawback. You don't want to run mill in a constructed format dominated by delve, threshold, reanimator, dredge, or the like. But if I mill your combo piece... mwahahahahaha!
Strategically, a lone instance of mill by itself accomplishes nothing, regardless of what your opponent mills. I'd be happy to discuss mill with you, but I don't think this is the correct thread for that.
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
- Manite
Lets just use the term water breathing from now on. When I say water breathing, I mean an ability that gives a creature power while reducing its toughness.
The ability you're referring to is half-Morphling, or the Flowstone ability. Flowstone is quite decidedly R. Bleed into blue is generallu morphling-inspired.
Semantics is boring. My point is Morphling is a card people still remember playing despite not being relevant for over a decade. How it played mattered, and it was a 3/3 for 5.
3. Ironically, Mill-effects do make virtually any format deeper and more fun - either as an alternate win condition, or are a benefit-drawback. You don't want to run mill in a constructed format dominated by delve, threshold, reanimator, dredge, or the like. But if I mill your combo piece... mwahahahahaha!
Strategically, a lone instance of mill by itself accomplishes nothing, regardless of what your opponent mills. I'd be happy to discuss mill with you, but I don't think this is the correct thread for that.
If I mill 1 card, and it's the 1 combo piece you needed to win the game in your deck, I've accomplished quite a bit. Imperial Seal effects exist.
Am I happy with a UB evergreen ability being mill-related? If it's competently done and not redundant with damage being dealt, simple, and flavorful... the answer has to be "yes." Do I want WOTC to print a new sorcery-speed cycle of top-deck tutors that encourage me to run mill-disruption creatures (rather make them unplayable by printing Mental Note-effects)? SURE!
In contrast, I can tell you right now that I played during the flowstone era and I don't recall ever caring about it. NO, wait, I cared. Flowstone was great for killing my opponent's creatures. Flex V3, V4 are all about getting in more damage. And U? U don't play that.
In contrast, Morphling (0: ~ gets +1/-1 or -1/+1 until end of turn. Use this ability only if it would not reduce it's power to below 0.)? U does that. And you know what? I'd love to play in a format with a few Morphlings creatures around. But it'd still be outside of B's color pie.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Flex (Whenever this creature attacks or blocks, you may give it +2/-2 until end of turn.)
Wavecrash Elemental 2U
Creature - Elemental [C]
Flex
1/4
Opportunist Cut-Purse 1B
Creature - [C]
Flex
1/3
Flaming Monstrosity 3R
Creature - Beast [U]
Flex
4/3
Bashing Shieldmate B
Creature - Human Soldier [U]
Flex
If you must make a choice between a sword or a shield, take the shield! - Gobber
0/3
Torrent Elemental 3U
Creature - Elemental [U]
Flex, Flex, Flash
The thing about the weather is... its always changing
0/5
Reclusive Master 1U
Creature - Merfolk [R]
Prowess, Flex
Whenever Reclusive monk deals combat damage to a player, scry X where X is the amount of damage dealt by Reclusive Monk.
0/3
Modular Zombie 2BB
Creature - Zombie [R]
Other Zombies you control get +0/+2 and have Flex
Flex
2/4
Let me know what you all think. Is the mechanic interesting? Fun? How would you use it?
- Manite
As a block mechanic, Flex X might work better. As an evergreen, the complexity gain isn't worth the gain in design space and game play. And given I'm gearing this up as a UB combat keyword, I think its better to just pick a single value for X and effectively hard code the value into the ability. I think flex 2 is the optimum for maximizing design space and interesting gameplay, but I could be wrong and am open to hearing other's thoughts.
I agree that this type of effect isn't really in black at the moment, but Green didn't really have damage dealing effects before Fight either. As P/T inversion is currently only really in Blue and is tertiary in both black and red, I don't have much of a problem with giving black Flex. I'm not really color shifting the ability at all, I'm just making it more common.
- Manite
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
Regarding Flex vs "B: +1/+1"/"U: +1/-1";
1. Flex seems to be much simpler and more NWO friendly than either the shade or shift ability. In real games with flex, players never have to bother checking the opponents mana when making combat decisions, and a creature with flex can only have 1 of 2 possible bodies, rather than the shade or shift ability which usually has many depending on mana availability.
2. Flex will play a bit differently than the shade or shift ability. Shade and shift abilities both require real costs, usually mana, to be balanced, meaning that the cards act as and are balanced as mana sinks. Flex has no such limitation. A 3 mana card with flex on turn 3 actually curves into a 4 drop on turn 4 in a way that ingenious skaab just kind of doesn't. In short, Flex plays the tempo game much better than shade or shift abilities do.
Does flex involve taking special risks though? Or is it just the usual risks of making combat decisions that every color does anyway.
- Manite
Flex V2 (Whenever this creature attacks or blocks, you may swap its power and toughness.)
...Its a bit more complex than Flex V1, but I think you pick up quite a bit more design space. and it accomplishes the same modal-body gameplay. This version has more play with different kinds of tricks. It loses the ability to stack in multiples though, which may actually be a benefit as most evergreen keywords don't stack in multiples.
What do you all think? Better or worse than Flex V1? What problems do you see with Flex V2?
- Manite
2) Why does this need to be on a number of creatures? Reach needs to be keyworded. FLying needs to be keyworded. Trample, Deathtouch, and the like benefit from being keyworded.
3) What's the reminder text for Bushido again? Because I'm inclined to say that Flex is functionally inferior to Bushido in every way, and that's not very much fun.
I just don't get the appeal of this as a keyword. I understand liking Morphling-effects. I like Firebreathing too. But I don't want them to be keyworded, and I certainly don't want them to be triggered keywords.
This effect is cool as "0: Switch ~'s P+T." (Now think of that on a first-striker...). As a triggered ability, it's just clunky...
Mind you, I'd be completely okay if you wanted to print a Kor-like shared activated ability in a set, where lots of illusions had "0: Switch ~'s P+T." - That'd be cool. MAYBE even ability word it... despite the fact it leads to consistency problems (see landfall in non-landfall sets...).
Same reason there isn't Prowess N. Simplicity has real value.
How does skulk benefit from being keyworded? Prowess? Realistically, do flying, reach, and deathtouch benefit/need to be keyworded in order to function?
Bushido N (Whenever this creature blocks or becomes blocked, it gets +N/+N until end of turn.)
Bushido and Flex aren't particularly similar on offense or defense. Bushido makes a creature generically better when blocking or being blocked. Flex just gives a creature a modal body.
There is an existing desire for a shared UB evergreen combat keyword to ease designing of sets. UB lacks intersecting design space when compared to other color pairs.
Having to make the decision when you are attacking/blocking just feels bad?
- Manite
Players don't like making decisions with limited information and then being punished for a bad decision. This is simple a fact of humans, and as a designer it is your duty to force them to make certain decisions when it has been proven to be better for them. A perfect example of this is Ulamog's Crusher, they found that people were simply sitting back with their huge creature because after investing so much they didn't want it to die in combat. So they forced players to do the right thing by adding what is usually seen as a detriment.
Exactly. Even after just doing some mental play testing and some simple example designs, I'm fairly sure that Flex 2 is what a designer is going to want the overwhelming majority of the time. Of course, If I move forward with the mechanic I will test other versions as well, but I'm reasonably confidant design space and game play are optimized with Flex set to being +2/-2.
Fair point. Which brings me to...
Flex V3 (0 : This creature gets +2/-2 until end of turn. Use only once per turn.)
...Personally, I think game play is at its most interesting when players are being asked to make decisions with limited information. That is basically the entire appeal of card games. But I also accept the wisdom of avoiding feel bad moments in design.
- Manite
Its not as large of a design constraint as you might think. For reference, there are 1146 blue creatures in Modern. Of those 623 have toughness greater than 3 meaning you could just slap flex on them without issue. Once you realize that you can create a flex creature by simply applying a -2/+2 to any existing creature with power 2 or more, this brings the total percentage of modern legal blue creatures that could be easily designed with flex to 81%. Black is similar at 83%. Granted, designing a flex creature does put some constraints on the toughness of the creature.
- Manite
Flying is a self-referential keyword, which makes keywording mandatory. Trying to make flying function without a keyword would be insane. Abilities can have certain characteristics that make keywording more or less beneficial.
1. Self-Referential keywords. These keywords refer to themselves, and as such need a reference point to function at all. Ex: flying, shadow, horsemanship
2. Complexity/wordiness. These keywords would simply fill up the whole text box or use unintuitive terminology in order to function without a keyword. Ex: trample, protection, regenerate, first strike, indestructible
3. Damage modification. Any ability of a source that modifies the result of damage it causes receives a keyword. Ex: lifelink, deathtouch, infect, wither
4. Repetition. Phrases and abilities (usually evergreen) that appear on a large volume of cards will sometimes receive keywords, especially when they appear on lots of auras, equipment, and combat tricks. Ex: prowess (currently), landwalk, menace, reach
5. Block/set mechanic. Non-evergreen mechanics that don't fall under the other four categories sometimes receive keywords to create thematic unity within a given set or block. This was what prowess was in KTK, before it became evergreen. Skulk is another example.
Keywords in categories 4 and 5 can often function just fine without being keyworded, and your mechanic doesn't fit into the first three categories. The fact you want the keyword common enough to be evergreen is worth being questioned.
Fair. All I can really say in response is that there is an existing desire to carve out shared design space for UB. In the words of Mark Rosewater.
"While philosophically the two colors mesh well, mechanically they are the two ally colors that have the least in common. Now, this is a pain for making hybrid cards, but shouldn't a clear mechanical identity make gold cards easier to design? The problem here is that while blue and black don't overlap much in actual mechanics, they have a lot of abilities that are close to the other but just a little different."
This lack of intersecting mechanical design space makes designing for UB rather difficult. Personally, I feel the best way to improve the situation is with a combat focused keyword that can be shared by blue and black. At this point, we should wonder, "why flex over any other possible UB combat keyword?" My only real answer to this is that the morphling ability has played well in every environment that I know of. Ultimately I think that is the true benchmark a mechanic needs to meet to be evergreen. As Flex is just simplified morphling, I think we can say that sprinkling a few Flex creatures into basically any set will either improve the gameplay of the set, or at least not hurt it. As I haven't gotten around to testing the mechanic yet, I should point out that this is just my suspicion. I could be wrong and am open to hearing arguments/experiences contrary to my own.
TLDR: I like morphlings and UB wants a keyword.
- Manite
Flanking 2 > Flanking, Flanking.
Prowess - multiple creatures with prowess generates an incentive to run a prowess deck.
Skulk - pretty much everyone agrees this is a mistake. But it does incentivize deck building.
Deathtouch benefitted because pre-Deathtouch there were like 5 versions of it that all worked differently. Imagine 5 versions of flying (and Shadow kind of counts...)
Keywording is for simplicity, recognization, and for helping the format.
The problem with Skulk is that you would usually rather have flying.
The problem with Bushido is you would usually rather have Bushido. Also, note Bushido N.
Skulk > Flex. If you think Skulk is a good keyword, you don't need Flex. If you think Skulk is a bad keyword, you shouldn't have used it as an example of good keywording above.
Yeah! I don't have to think about whether I should allow my Menacer to be blocked by 1 creature, or about whether I should instruct my flyer to fly low enough that the llanowar elf COULD block, or about whether my Deathtoucher should put on kid gloves. And I certainly don't want to lose a game of magic because I forgot to announce that I'm triggering Flex!
The UB keyword debate is perilous. I've come up with a half dozen mechanics I could see printed, but aren't as elegant or useful as deathtouch, flash, or menace. At this point, I'd settle for a Prowess N.
Would you? If I have a 1/3 and my opponents board is empty, I would MUCH rather have Flex than Bushido on that creature. The keywords just don't do the same thing.
Skulk is just yet another evasion mechanic in a color pair over loaded with evasion mechanics that lacks the design space of other evasion mechanics. Flex is a different mechanic entirely. I don't think I would try to directly compare them.
How do you feel about Flex V3 then. It totally removes the timing restrictions and trigger fatigue and gives the creatures controller basically no excuses for missing Flex. For reference...
Flex V3 (0 : This creature gets +2/-2 until end of turn. Use only once per turn.)
- Manite
Also, the timing trigger is a problem, would be better if it worked like Bushido. I do not want to announce that my attacking 1/3 will become a 3/1 before I even know which creature blocks it.
You removed that problem with Flex V3, but that one feels even more akward and not evergreen at all.
If my opponent controls no creatures, aren't I already winning?
First Strike, Flying, Deathtouch, Reach, and many other keywords don't help if my opponent doesn't have creatures either...
Oh, I'm not saying Skulk isn't somewhat redundant, but in terms of changing the game, a 2/2 skulk creature is more interesting than a 2/2 flex creature.
1. This is an ability word, not a keyword (in terms of how this kind of thing has been done in the past). Don't keyword the Kor-effect. Lancers en-Kor or effects like that.
2. This would be +1/-1.
3. Also, why not +1/-1 or -1/+1 to give it potential with First Strike? (and yeah, I know infinite toughness... you could say use it only if power is 1 or greater.)
Make no mistake, the mechanic of Flex V3 is more interesting and very aggressive (it feels UR to me), and could be interesting in groups (like the Kor mechanic), but I don't see it as being evergreen even if you were willing to keyword it.
What do you think about this:
The big problems associated with mill-based keywords that trigger off of damage to a player is that if they're not connected to the P/T, they seem odd. (A 1/1 with "Mill 4" for example), while if they are connected to P/T, they're redundant as you'll kill them from damage before milling. In contrast, if not tied to combat damage, then they're hard to format and in a flavor problem. See Belltower Sphinx (Wait, if my planeswalker or goblin deal damage to it, I get hit? How does that make sense?).
Because violate mills until you hit a land, then the math becomes more favorable. Roughly lands take up 1/3rd of a deck, so in a vacuum dealing 1 damage to an opponent will likely mill 3 cards, so 20 damage equals 60 cards. A deck with 1/1 violators will win after only 15 or so damage, on average. Combo with optional direct mill cards, and you have a limited and/or constructed playable deck.
I'm also thinking about how to template Violate, Prowess, Flanking, etc. so Violate mills until you hit 1 land, while Wiolate 2 hits until you hit 2. Similarly, "Prowess, Prowess" would trigger once as Prowess 2. This cleans up gameplay, as there are less triggers and stifle is more practical against such cards; yet if the 1 is "left off" Prowess, Flanking, etc. it will look more elegant.
Now, should violate be evergreen? As someone that likes mill, I'm inclined to say "yes", but as we've seen blue and black both have color pie slices that care about (instants, creatures) in the 'yard, and the notion of violating an opponent (possibly milling their best card) while pscyhologically problematic, doesn't have much game play value unless you completely mill them. It's annoying, but that's the point - it will make an opponent think before blocking, even if that thought process is not conducive to good game play.
My point was that the mechanics are simply different. The exact situation was just an example to demonstrate the point. Flex is a keyword that gives the creature a modal body. In other words, a creature with flex is always going to be the best of two possible bodies regardless of what is going on in the game. Bushido makes a creature better at blocking and harder to block.
We may have to agree to disagree on this point. In my experience, a 2/2 skulk creature is effectively vanilla. The entire problem with skulk is that it just doesn't really work unless the creature with skulk has very low power (0-2) and toughness greater than its power. Skulk matters on a 2/3, it is basically trinket text on a 2/2.
Ability words are like Landfall. They are used whenever many cards share a similar (but not equivalent) ability. Flex could easily be keyworded in the same way equip is keyworded.
In general, +1/-1 is less interesting than +2/-2. When wizards designs morphlings with a limited number of activations, they basically always use +2/-2: maw of kozilek, Multiform Wonder, ravenous bloodseeker, shipwreck moray. As Flex is limited to only a single use per turn, +2/-2 just makes more sense to use than +1/-1.
The point of Flex is to simplify the morphling ability as much as possible while still capturing interesting gameplay. Allowing creatures to swap P/T around a bunch may seem appealing but it dramatically increases complexity of the ability and, I suspect, will reduce design space.
The morphling ability is already being used deciduously. Flex is just a simplified version of it. What about it prevents you from seeing it as evergreen?
There are a small group of players who do enjoy mill but mill is a mechanic that isn't generally enjoyed by the magic community. In addition, Mill isn't something designers actually want in every set and doesn't play well in every environment. Those benchmarks, being almost always useful for designers and playing well in almost every environment, are what need to be met in order for a keyword to be worth giving evergreen status.
- Manite
Point taken.
I haven't played a lot with Skulk, but it does facilitate diversity of P/T. In previous formats, I've run drafts with lots of removal and big creatures that dodge removal. Skulk creatures sneak in under them - and that's relevant.
But yeah, the fact you can only put Flex V2 on a creature with 3 toughness actually is a serious problem, as it limits what it can go on and makes it so it's rarer to see, and thus less printable.
Skulk, too, has this problem, as a 5/5 Skulker is pretty useless.
Equip and Crew do work that way. You're right, I'm wrong. I don't think this should become a habit though...
But it DOES WORK.
A. +1/-1 can be put on a 2/2.
B. +1/-1 can be used twice to make a 3/3 a 5/5, just like your flex V3.
C. 1 is a more obvious, nuanced, clean, simple number than 2 in this, and most, contexts. There's a reason we have +1/+1 counters and not +2/+2 counters anymore.
Sometimes this is a cost effect. Discarding a card or paying an energy for +1/-1 is not very efficient. But 0 is cost efficient.
+2/-2 is quite limiting (again, to 3 toughness), and in some formats that might make sense, but I don't see why it needs to be this way in all formats.
Morph being 2/2s for 3 is largely because 1/1s for 1 aren't imposing. But most other keywords that rest on a number, use the number 1 as that base.
Mind you, I suppose you could do Flex N (0: This creature gets +N/-N until end of turn) and it's be fine. But then Flex 1 is better than Flex 2.
Morphling is not simple. To simplify it is to lose the flavor.
Please look at this thread and comment there:
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/creativity/custom-card-creation/770716-violate-ub-evergreen-keyword-candidate-sample
In brief, I want to say this: Mill can lead to win conditions, and - arguably - this should be a greater focus on the game. But it's easy to create Violators that benefit from your opponent having a full 'yard that don't care about winning by deck out.
But the big hurdle for the UB mechanic just is that it is difficult to think of a mechanic that benefits from wider use (setting aside Mill); Morphling simplified or otherwise just doesn't need to be in every format.
In contrast:
Flying - WURB...Gevasion; essential.
Reach - G? anti-flying, practical, cheap.
Trample - G? Pseudo-evasion, essential for large green creatures.
Flash - GUpseudo-instant creatures, very useful.
Hexproof - GUcounters spot removal, provides an important metagame option.
First Strike/Double Strike - WR enables combat tricks, makes combat difficult, useful pseudo-evasion.
Deathtouch - GBpseudo-evasion, pseudo-removal; plays 2 important roles.
Haste - GRuseful, flavorful, practical, cheap.
Lifelink - WBwe print this ability a lot, flavorful.
Vigilance - W? - we print this ability often, flavorful.
Prowess - UB, provides incentive for deck construction. NOT ESSENTIAL, but if we want each color pair to have a shared evergreen, it will fit the bill.
Final Thought: UR gets about face effects, and it's a much more elegant, clean effect than this. While Prowess is certainly fun, in terms of ideal evergreen keywords, I think I'd appreciate your V3 templating used for UR About Face coupled with BU Skulk, than Prowess and Flex V3.
But returning to Mill; many players don't like playing Mill. Fair enough. But in the same way Prowess can change how you play, so would a Mill effect. That might be worth promoting it to evergreen instead of hobbling morphling...
Flex V3 reads...
Flex V3 (0 : This creature gets +2/-2 until end of turn. Use only once per turn.)
The bolded text is entirely intentional. An ability that can be activated repeatedly at instant speed and impacts the board state in doing so isn't NWO or new player friendly. Simplicity is key.
While you are correct in saying that a 2/2 can get +1/-1, it isn't all that interesting to do so. The difference between a 2/2 and a 3/1 across all boards isn't great. In general, when a card is modal and the player controls the decision, the greater the difference between the modes, the more interesting the card is and the better it plays. For example, EX Card 1 isn't very interesting, while EX Card 2 is a reasonable card.
EX card 1 BR
Sorcery
Choose one:
- Deal 3 damage to target creature
- Target creature gets -2/-2 until end of turn.
EX card 2 GR
Sorcery
Choose one:
- Deal 3 damage to target creature.
- Destroy target enchantment.
All that said, if I do want a 2/2 with flex, its actually pretty easy to make one. For all intents and purposes, Palace Guard is a 2/2 with Flex.
Palace Guard 2B
Creature - Human [C]
Flex V3
0/4
I'm not worried about the flavor. I'm worried about the gameplay of the morphling ability, which has been printed quite a lot over the years connected to many different flavors: Ingenious skaab, Ravenous Bloodseeker, multiform wonder, scion of glaciers, shorecrasher Elemental, vildin-pack outcast, watercourser. In general, when the ability is limited in usage, usually because the cost requires spending a limited resource, then the ability gives +2/-2 rather than +1/-1 because +1/-1 just isn't all that interesting by itself.
EDIT:
Most evergreens don't need to be in every format. Mechanics become evergreen because they are useful for designers and play well almost always. You can deisgn a set without Deathtouch really easily, but sprinkling in a few deathtouch creatures will make virtually any format deeper and more fun. Flex is similar. You don't ever really need it, but if you were to add it to a few cards in your set, (I think) the set would almost certiainly play better as a result.
- Manite
I missed this. The problem is that it is the opposite of simple - it makes it needlessly complex.
Flex V4:
0 : This creature gets +1/-1 until end of turn.
This has less text and is more useful.
If you have a 2/3 with Flex V3 and your opponent was at 4, you're happy.
If you have a 2/3 with Flex V4 and your opponent was at 4, you're happy.
If you have a 2/2 with Flex V4 and your opponent was at 3, you're happy.
The "ineffectiveness" of +1/-1 only makes sense with your once-per-turn limit.
3 mana 2/2s... ah, Grey Ogre.
This actually brings up a question about how much you'd cost this. A 1/3 Flex V3 for 1U is undercosted. A 0/3 Flex V3 for U is undercosted.
Ah, but the gameplay of Morphling just is it's flexability. In fact, arguably of all of morphling's many abilities, the ability to get +1/-1 is the least useful!
You say sprinkling a few creatures with FLEX V3 in will make the format deeper and more fun.
1. FLEX V4 is more fun and more useful and more challenging than V3.
2. Morphling cards can be useful, but Flex is no Morphling.
3. Ironically, Mill-effects do make virtually any format deeper and more fun - either as an alternate win condition, or are a benefit-drawback. You don't want to run mill in a constructed format dominated by delve, threshold, reanimator, dredge, or the like. But if I mill your combo piece... mwahahahahaha!
FLEX V5
Morph (1: This creature gets +1/-1 or -1/+1 until end of turn.)
Complexity =/= Text length. In fact, there are many different kinds of complexity: Comprehension Complexity, Board Complexity, Strategic Complexity. Comprehension Complexity is kind of what you are getting at and it is also the least important kind of complexity when considering evergreen keywords. In truth, a creature that can have 2 possible bodies is dramatically simpler than a creature than can have many possible bodies, as would be the case with your Flex V4.
A limit that needs to be in place to minimize the complexity cost of Flex as a keyword.
Costing is dependent on environment. In general, a 2 mana 1/3 Flex and a 1 mana 0/3 Flex are costed about right. You would need to tune the exact costs and bodies to the format though.
You keep referring to the card morphling while I'm referring specifically to the morhpling ability. Lets stop this confusion. Lets just use the term water breathing from now on. When I say water breathing, I mean an ability that gives a creature power while reducing its toughness. Flex is a simplified version of the card Morphling's water breathing ability, an ability that has been used time and time again through out magics history. Flex is trying to get the gameplay of the water breathing ability while minimizing the complexity cost.
Strategically, a lone instance of mill by itself accomplishes nothing, regardless of what your opponent mills. I'd be happy to discuss mill with you, but I don't think this is the correct thread for that.
- Manite
Flowstone Blade, Flowstone Embrace, Flowstone Slide
The ability you're referring to is half-Morphling, or the Flowstone ability. Flowstone is quite decidedly R. Bleed into blue is generallu morphling-inspired.
Semantics is boring. My point is Morphling is a card people still remember playing despite not being relevant for over a decade. How it played mattered, and it was a 3/3 for 5.
If I mill 1 card, and it's the 1 combo piece you needed to win the game in your deck, I've accomplished quite a bit. Imperial Seal effects exist.
Am I happy with a UB evergreen ability being mill-related? If it's competently done and not redundant with damage being dealt, simple, and flavorful... the answer has to be "yes." Do I want WOTC to print a new sorcery-speed cycle of top-deck tutors that encourage me to run mill-disruption creatures (rather make them unplayable by printing Mental Note-effects)? SURE!
In contrast, I can tell you right now that I played during the flowstone era and I don't recall ever caring about it. NO, wait, I cared. Flowstone was great for killing my opponent's creatures. Flex V3, V4 are all about getting in more damage. And U? U don't play that.
In contrast, Morphling (0: ~ gets +1/-1 or -1/+1 until end of turn. Use this ability only if it would not reduce it's power to below 0.)? U does that. And you know what? I'd love to play in a format with a few Morphlings creatures around. But it'd still be outside of B's color pie.