Playing around with the three different ideas Legend, void_nothing, and myself have suggested for a L2 "shrink" mechanic. Compare / contrast:
Ant Mage3BB
Creature — Human Wizard [U]
When Ant Mage dies, create X 1/1 black Insect creature tokens, where X is its power.
Micromorph B(You may cast this card face down as a 2/2 creature for 3. Turn it face up any time for its micromorph cost and put a -1/-1 counter on it.)
[3/4]
Flea Mage3BB
Creature — Human Wizard [U]
When Flea Mage dies, create X 1/1 black Insect creature tokens, where X is its power.
Minimize 2—1BB(You may cast this spell for its minimize cost. If you do, it enters the battlefield with two -1/-1 counters on it.)
[3/4]
Roach Mage3BB
Creature — Human Wizard [U]
When Roach Mage dies, create X 1/1 black Insect creature tokens, where X is its power.
Inflict (You may pay any amount of generic mana less to cast this spell. If you do, it enters the battlefield with that many -1/-1 counters on it.)
[3/4]
Gonna endorse Roach Mage/inflict here, even though the example is a little odd because you'll never cast this one for BB.
I think you could, it's just not something you will often do unless your deck is designed specifically to do just that.
While I like the gameplay flexibility of inflict, I'm pretty sure it has the smallest design space of the three by a wide margin, and will also be the hardest to balance in development. When designing these three, I had to start with a cost-to-P/T ratio that made sense for inflict and work backwards from that to create the micromorph / minimize ones. I think inflict has to walk a pretty narrow path. The inflict version probably also needs to have some additional cost or drawback to compensate for the superior flexibility over the other two.
I actually kind of like the case for minimize. There are more knobs to tweak so it's easier to fine-tune it. It's less complex than morph. I think that if you peg it to always result in the "smallest" version of the creature possible (whatever the rule for that ends up being - I'm gonna say EITHER a power or toughness of 1), then I think it actually does a really great job reinforcing the "shrinking" flavor — better than micromorph does.
Of course I still like micromorph and am going to continue to design with it and lobby for it. I think that a morph variant is something that can help the legendary theme play better (it stops legends 2-4 from being dead cards) and it's time-tested (even if megamorph WAS literally the most hated mechanic of all time — I think micromorph is a superior mechanic by leaps and bounds).
Yeah, inflict might be a pipe dream. I love it, but developing it sounds deceptively troublesome. My weight is already behind minimize and I still amuse myself every time I see my own example design for it.
Going to vote strongly against Micromorph. I really disliked Megamorph and would hate to see it become a precedent for more morph-variant abilities.
I agree with void_nothing that Inflict is the superior option for player control, but it will need the most careful balancing and care for interactions within the set (something along the lines of Quillspike would go nuts in the presence of Inflict), if that becomes too much of a headache, Minimize should be easier to balance by putting the scaling in your hands as a designer. As you've already pointed out, just agreeing with you.
Minimize would allow for strange interactions that would be impossible to balance with Inflict, such as:
Walking Charcoal3G
Creature - Treefolk [U]
Other creatures you control get +1/+1 for each -1/-1 counter on ~.
Minimize 2 - 4GG
2/5
Now, you might not want to go that complex with it right away, I always like pushing mechanics to their limits and prefer ones that create a lot of interesting design space.
So, my vote would be for Minimize.
One thing to keep in mind is that these mechanics don't have a very large design space because they have to be big enough to survive with -1/-1 counters and have a body/abilities that make both the shrunken and normal size versions viable.
That being said, I like minimize the most. Micromorph is connected to the unpopular megamorph, and inflict is both more complex and more restrictive. Alternate cost keywords always add an additional dimension, while also keeping options limited enough not to overwhelm. One of my problems with inflict is that it can't go on inexpensive (CMC 2 or less) cards at all unless you want a free colorless creature that dies instantly.
I really disliked Megamorph and would hate to see it become a precedent for more morph-variant abilities.
Question. WHY do you / did so many players dislike megamorph?
I mean, so did I.
As I see it, the megamorph creatures (minus, you know, spunky over here) were all basically hot garbage to hardcast, and looked it. So, basically, you had a mechanic that was featured on almost exclusively awful, unexciting creatures.
And then, of course, the megamorph costs weren't cheap, either, so you pretty much had the worst of all possible worlds: cards that looked puny, played badly, and forced you into jumping through the morph hoop to extract any real value out of them.
I see micromorph as distinctly better because it's going to go on fatties, which by default are more exciting than tiny little dudes. Then, the micromorph costs are generally going to be low: lower than regular morph and much lower than megamorph. I feel like, despite sticking -1/-1 counters on your own creatures, it's still far more of an upside mechanic than megamorph.
Again, asking this as somebody who had basically the same reaction everybody else did to megamorph. Am I missing other reasons why people disliked it?
I really disliked Megamorph and would hate to see it become a precedent for more morph-variant abilities.
Question. WHY do you / did so many players dislike megamorph?
I mean, so did I.
As I see it, the megamorph creatures (minus, you know, spunky over here) were all basically hot garbage to hardcast, and looked it. So, basically, you had a mechanic that was featured on almost exclusively awful, unexciting creatures.
And then, of course, the megamorph costs weren't cheap, either, so you pretty much had the worst of all possible worlds: cards that looked puny, played badly, and forced you into jumping through the morph hoop to extract any real value out of them.
I see micromorph as distinctly better because it's going to go on fatties, which by default are more exciting than tiny little dudes. Then, the micromorph costs are generally going to be low: lower than regular morph and much lower than megamorph. I feel like, despite sticking -1/-1 counters on your own creatures, it's still far more of an upside mechanic than megamorph.
Again, asking this as somebody who had basically the same reaction everybody else did to megamorph. Am I missing other reasons why people disliked it?
So here's my impression of why megamorph was disliked (and indeed why I disliked it):
1) It was seen/I saw it as a cheap attempt to piggyback on the popularity of morph, one of the most innovative and loved mechanics ever, without actually opening up new space for it.
2) The name. Dear Lord the name. I don't use the "this is like Yu-Gi-Oh" comparison lightly - I don't even think the Amonkhet Invocations are anything like Yu-Gi-Oh - but that sure was a lazy, YGO-ian name.
3) Micromorph would compound these problems because everyone's impression of it would be "morph with a downside" no matter how it's designed. It would probably result in a worse reaction than megamorph in a real set. That's not hyperbole.
In part, I disliked Megamorph due to the overall poor quality of the cards it was featured on.
In part, I disliked Megamorph because I had been expecting the Morph theme of Tarkir block to lead into noncreature Morphs like those we saw in Future Sight, and this was very disappointing by comparison. (This would also have helped the set overall, as they could have included fewer non-dragon creatures, thereby putting more emphasis on the Dragons. I had multiple drafts where not myself nor any of my opponents played a single dragon in the "Dragon Set")
In part I disliked Megamorph due to the cringeworthy name.
But the chief grievance I have with it is that it adds nothing to the design space, and accomplishes nothing noteworthy that normal Morph couldn't. Would you honestly say that Deathmist Raptor is a superior design with Megamorph than it would be with Morph? Even if there were some set-interaction with the +1/+1 counters, the space saved by putting the +1/+1 counter into reminder text rather than on its own line is minimal, and other than cases at high rarity (where it would be Ok to omit reminder text) these cards were quite simple designs that had no need for that 6 word savings. It's just lazy and narrow design.
1. Inflict - Not just because I made it, but because it feels "acoustic" vs "technical" - i.e., there's no numbers and dashes - which I always like, particularly for this set. I also don't think it'd be that difficult to develop. And it manages to use neg counters without evoking negative emotions. It empowers the caster to pace his or her game according to their personal play-style and the needs of the moment.
2. Minimize - Mechanically, I like this too, but it would have to be flavored particularly well for me to love it.
3. Micromorph - I liked Megamorph, and I like Micromorph too. The only reason I'm least in favor of Micromorph is because morph is a flavor-dominant mechanic. Micromorph sounds very contemporary and consequently doesn't jive that well with LE2. The very prefix "micro" sounds cutesy and/or techno in the context of a game.
That's just my 3 cents. I'll work with whatever yall pick. No bones.
Here's how I would've done Roach Mage.
EDIT: Nevermind
Roach Mage (Uncommon) 4B
Creature — Insect Wizard
3/4
Inflict (You may pay any amount of generic mana less to cast this spell. If you do, it enters the battlefield with that many -1/-1 counters on it.)
When Roach Mage dies, create a 1/1 black Insect creature token for each -1/-1 counter that was on it.
What if you did Micromorph X {cost}, with X determining the number of -1/-1 counters. That's what I would have done to improve Megamorph. I mean a 8/8 with one -1/-1 counter on it wouldn't really be micro, would it? Just like a 3/3 with one +1/+1 counter isn't very Mega.
Roach Mage (Uncommon) 4B
Creature — Insect Wizard
3/4
Inflict (You may pay any amount of generic mana less to cast this spell. If you do, it enters the battlefield with that many -1/-1 counters on it.)
When Roach Mage dies, create a 1/1 black Insect creature token for each -1/-1 counter that was on it.
Did you just make a card that gives you four 1/1 tokens for ?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Planar Chaos was not a mistake neither was it random. You might want to look at it again.
[thread=239793][Game] Level Up - Creature[/thread]
Roach Mage (Uncommon) 4B
Creature — Insect Wizard
3/4
Inflict (You may pay any amount of generic mana less to cast this spell. If you do, it enters the battlefield with that many -1/-1 counters on it.)
When Roach Mage dies, create a 1/1 black Insect creature token for each -1/-1 counter that was on it.
Did you just make a card that gives you four 1/1 tokens for ?
Haha sheesh I'm more scrambled than usual trying to finalize LoR for this weekend. (Printing tomorrow.)
Since most of the best ideas in this thread have come from people who are decidedly not me, does anybody have any ideas for a "shrink" mechanic that doesn't use -1/-1 counters?
I have no particular attachment to that kind of counter for L2, and in fact not using them would probably be for the best, if it can be avoided.
Miniaturize {cost} (You may cast this spell for its Miniaturize cost. If you do, it enters the battlefield with a Miniaturization counter on it. It's a 1/1 as long as it has that counter on it.)
Wording might need to be cleaned up a bit, but you get the gist? I'm hesitant to connect the shrink to a single counter, but odd counter types like that are usually hard to interact with, so it should be fine.
Example: Amazing Shrinking Dragon4RR
Creature - Dragon [R]
Flying R: ~ gets +1/+0 until end of turn.
Miniaturize 1R (You may cast this spell for its Miniaturize cost. If you do, it enters the battlefield with a Miniaturization counter on it. It's a 1/1 as long as it has that counter on it.)
5/5
One of the more straightforward ways to implement it would be turn it into an action word.
Shrink RayU
Instant
Shrink target creature. (It becomes base 1/1 until the end of the turn)
Draw a card.
Ant Sneak1B
Creature-Insect Rogue
Whenever Ant Sneak attacks, you may shrink it.(It becomes base 1/1 until the end of the turn.) If you, it can't be blocked this turn.
2/2
does anybody have any ideas for a "shrink" mechanic that doesn't use -1/-1 counters?.
I'm more than fine with a "shrink faction", but just out of curiosity... why?
Two reasons:
1) I had earlier suggested to void_nothing that we might consider moving the "setting" of L2 to Segovia. To be clear, I think that a set like L2 can be more like Magic Origins and feature multiple planes, but I was thinking that Segovia could be the hub of the story. And Segovia is a shrinky-dink plane.
2) I'm running with the idea that the set is going to skew higher on the mana curve, feature a lot of big creatures, generally be slower, and be more bomb-dependent. So, I started thinking, OK... maybe what we need is a mechanic that can go on fatties to give you more options to play them. Now, maybe what we really need to do is focus on something like ZEN/ RotE blocks and focus on how to skew mana production higher. Maybe we need something else entirely. But, exploring a "shrink" mechanic was the first thought I was pursuing as an accommodation for the (presumed) generally higher curve of the set.
Put those two thoughts together, and there you go.
Ant Mage 3BB
Creature — Human Wizard [U]
When Ant Mage dies, create X 1/1 black Insect creature tokens, where X is its power.
Micromorph B (You may cast this card face down as a 2/2 creature for 3. Turn it face up any time for its micromorph cost and put a -1/-1 counter on it.)
[3/4]
Flea Mage 3BB
Creature — Human Wizard [U]
When Flea Mage dies, create X 1/1 black Insect creature tokens, where X is its power.
Minimize 2—1BB (You may cast this spell for its minimize cost. If you do, it enters the battlefield with two -1/-1 counters on it.)
[3/4]
Roach Mage 3BB
Creature — Human Wizard [U]
When Roach Mage dies, create X 1/1 black Insect creature tokens, where X is its power.
Inflict (You may pay any amount of generic mana less to cast this spell. If you do, it enters the battlefield with that many -1/-1 counters on it.)
[3/4]
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
While I like the gameplay flexibility of inflict, I'm pretty sure it has the smallest design space of the three by a wide margin, and will also be the hardest to balance in development. When designing these three, I had to start with a cost-to-P/T ratio that made sense for inflict and work backwards from that to create the micromorph / minimize ones. I think inflict has to walk a pretty narrow path. The inflict version probably also needs to have some additional cost or drawback to compensate for the superior flexibility over the other two.
I actually kind of like the case for minimize. There are more knobs to tweak so it's easier to fine-tune it. It's less complex than morph. I think that if you peg it to always result in the "smallest" version of the creature possible (whatever the rule for that ends up being - I'm gonna say EITHER a power or toughness of 1), then I think it actually does a really great job reinforcing the "shrinking" flavor — better than micromorph does.
Of course I still like micromorph and am going to continue to design with it and lobby for it. I think that a morph variant is something that can help the legendary theme play better (it stops legends 2-4 from being dead cards) and it's time-tested (even if megamorph WAS literally the most hated mechanic of all time — I think micromorph is a superior mechanic by leaps and bounds).
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
I agree with void_nothing that Inflict is the superior option for player control, but it will need the most careful balancing and care for interactions within the set (something along the lines of Quillspike would go nuts in the presence of Inflict), if that becomes too much of a headache, Minimize should be easier to balance by putting the scaling in your hands as a designer. As you've already pointed out, just agreeing with you.
Minimize would allow for strange interactions that would be impossible to balance with Inflict, such as:
Walking Charcoal 3G
Creature - Treefolk [U]
Other creatures you control get +1/+1 for each -1/-1 counter on ~.
Minimize 2 - 4GG
2/5
Now, you might not want to go that complex with it right away, I always like pushing mechanics to their limits and prefer ones that create a lot of interesting design space.
So, my vote would be for Minimize.
That being said, I like minimize the most. Micromorph is connected to the unpopular megamorph, and inflict is both more complex and more restrictive. Alternate cost keywords always add an additional dimension, while also keeping options limited enough not to overwhelm. One of my problems with inflict is that it can't go on inexpensive (CMC 2 or less) cards at all unless you want a free colorless creature that dies instantly.
I mean, so did I.
As I see it, the megamorph creatures (minus, you know, spunky over here) were all basically hot garbage to hardcast, and looked it. So, basically, you had a mechanic that was featured on almost exclusively awful, unexciting creatures.
And then, of course, the megamorph costs weren't cheap, either, so you pretty much had the worst of all possible worlds: cards that looked puny, played badly, and forced you into jumping through the morph hoop to extract any real value out of them.
I see micromorph as distinctly better because it's going to go on fatties, which by default are more exciting than tiny little dudes. Then, the micromorph costs are generally going to be low: lower than regular morph and much lower than megamorph. I feel like, despite sticking -1/-1 counters on your own creatures, it's still far more of an upside mechanic than megamorph.
Again, asking this as somebody who had basically the same reaction everybody else did to megamorph. Am I missing other reasons why people disliked it?
So here's my impression of why megamorph was disliked (and indeed why I disliked it):
1) It was seen/I saw it as a cheap attempt to piggyback on the popularity of morph, one of the most innovative and loved mechanics ever, without actually opening up new space for it.
2) The name. Dear Lord the name. I don't use the "this is like Yu-Gi-Oh" comparison lightly - I don't even think the Amonkhet Invocations are anything like Yu-Gi-Oh - but that sure was a lazy, YGO-ian name.
3) Micromorph would compound these problems because everyone's impression of it would be "morph with a downside" no matter how it's designed. It would probably result in a worse reaction than megamorph in a real set. That's not hyperbole.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
Just a random thought. I liked the idea of there being some advantage to smallness other than just cheaper cost.
• Recent Card Ideas • My Drawings at DeviantArt
Rat Mage 1BB
Creature- Human Wizard
When ~ enters the battlefield, target player discards a card.
Minimize 2- B
2/2
I.e., on this card, minimize will work like evoke in most cases.
In part, I disliked Megamorph because I had been expecting the Morph theme of Tarkir block to lead into noncreature Morphs like those we saw in Future Sight, and this was very disappointing by comparison. (This would also have helped the set overall, as they could have included fewer non-dragon creatures, thereby putting more emphasis on the Dragons. I had multiple drafts where not myself nor any of my opponents played a single dragon in the "Dragon Set")
In part I disliked Megamorph due to the cringeworthy name.
But the chief grievance I have with it is that it adds nothing to the design space, and accomplishes nothing noteworthy that normal Morph couldn't. Would you honestly say that Deathmist Raptor is a superior design with Megamorph than it would be with Morph? Even if there were some set-interaction with the +1/+1 counters, the space saved by putting the +1/+1 counter into reminder text rather than on its own line is minimal, and other than cases at high rarity (where it would be Ok to omit reminder text) these cards were quite simple designs that had no need for that 6 word savings. It's just lazy and narrow design.
1. Inflict - Not just because I made it, but because it feels "acoustic" vs "technical" - i.e., there's no numbers and dashes - which I always like, particularly for this set. I also don't think it'd be that difficult to develop. And it manages to use neg counters without evoking negative emotions. It empowers the caster to pace his or her game according to their personal play-style and the needs of the moment.
2. Minimize - Mechanically, I like this too, but it would have to be flavored particularly well for me to love it.
3. Micromorph - I liked Megamorph, and I like Micromorph too. The only reason I'm least in favor of Micromorph is because morph is a flavor-dominant mechanic. Micromorph sounds very contemporary and consequently doesn't jive that well with LE2. The very prefix "micro" sounds cutesy and/or techno in the context of a game.
That's just my 3 cents. I'll work with whatever yall pick. No bones.
Here's how I would've done Roach Mage.
EDIT: Nevermind
Roach Mage (Uncommon)4B
Creature — Insect Wizard
3/4
Inflict (You may pay any amount of generic mana less to cast this spell. If you do, it enters the battlefield with that many -1/-1 counters on it.)
When Roach Mage dies, create a 1/1 black Insect creature token for each -1/-1 counter that was on it.
Both. Possibly both.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
It's a pretty cute inversion of unleash
Choose one of these judge of creation:
Make Strionic Resonator shine!
You can not grasp the true form of Ashiok's attack!
Did you just make a card that gives you four 1/1 tokens for ?
Finally a good white villain quote: "So, do I ever re-evaluate my life choices? Never, because I know what I'm doing is a righteous cause."
Factions: Sleeping
Remnants: Valheim
Legendary Journey: Heroes & Planeswalkers
Saga: Shards of Rabiah
Legends: The Elder Dragons
Read up on Red Flags & NWO
Haha sheesh I'm more scrambled than usual trying to finalize LoR for this weekend. (Printing tomorrow.)
It's perfectly simple. No really!
Since most of the best ideas in this thread have come from people who are decidedly not me, does anybody have any ideas for a "shrink" mechanic that doesn't use -1/-1 counters?
I have no particular attachment to that kind of counter for L2, and in fact not using them would probably be for the best, if it can be avoided.
Wording might need to be cleaned up a bit, but you get the gist? I'm hesitant to connect the shrink to a single counter, but odd counter types like that are usually hard to interact with, so it should be fine.
Example:
Amazing Shrinking Dragon 4RR
Creature - Dragon [R]
Flying
R: ~ gets +1/+0 until end of turn.
Miniaturize 1R (You may cast this spell for its Miniaturize cost. If you do, it enters the battlefield with a Miniaturization counter on it. It's a 1/1 as long as it has that counter on it.)
5/5
Shrink Ray U
Instant
Shrink target creature. (It becomes base 1/1 until the end of the turn)
Draw a card.
Ant Sneak 1B
Creature-Insect Rogue
Whenever Ant Sneak attacks, you may shrink it.(It becomes base 1/1 until the end of the turn.) If you, it can't be blocked this turn.
2/2
• Recent Card Ideas • My Drawings at DeviantArt
I'm more than fine with a "shrink faction", but just out of curiosity... why?
1) I had earlier suggested to void_nothing that we might consider moving the "setting" of L2 to Segovia. To be clear, I think that a set like L2 can be more like Magic Origins and feature multiple planes, but I was thinking that Segovia could be the hub of the story. And Segovia is a shrinky-dink plane.
2) I'm running with the idea that the set is going to skew higher on the mana curve, feature a lot of big creatures, generally be slower, and be more bomb-dependent. So, I started thinking, OK... maybe what we need is a mechanic that can go on fatties to give you more options to play them. Now, maybe what we really need to do is focus on something like ZEN/ RotE blocks and focus on how to skew mana production higher. Maybe we need something else entirely. But, exploring a "shrink" mechanic was the first thought I was pursuing as an accommodation for the (presumed) generally higher curve of the set.
Put those two thoughts together, and there you go.