I actually really like the colored equip costs, could they maybe be two-brid?
Non colored cards I like:
Bonecrusher
Jet Boots/Jet Pack
Red Cape
Slippery Scepter
Speedster Boots
Tactical Line
Ones I dislike:
Bat-a-rang - This is very oppressive. A card like this would need a much weaker effect like a Leonin Bola
Training Blade - Even though I like the flavor, this goes against a major theme of the set as well as places +1/+1 counters on random creatures, which I'm trying to avoid due to Monstrosity.
Key to the city I like. Mana fixing doesn't get a whole lot more "interesting" than this. We could also add in Evolving Wilds.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"In the beginning, MTG Salvation switched to a new forum format.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
It was at that moment that I realized: I'm kinda just making these things up. We can just write the rules the way we want them to work. People will have fun, and people will get it.
Maybe I just feel they would be a little too restrictive unless you where running a fair amount of Suit-Up creatures.
I like training blades since it can help creatures reach the power 4 threshold but I understand how it can be confusing with Monstrosity.
I'm down for reprinting Evolving Wilds.
Also could we have a artifact creature besides Training Drone?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“There are no weak Jews. I am descended from those who wrestle angels and kill giants. We were chosen by God. You were chosen by a pathetic little man who can't seem to grow a full mustache"
"You can tell how dumb someone is by how they use Mary Sue"
Maybe I just feel they would be a little too restrictive unless you where running a fair amount of Suit-Up creatures.
Yeah, that's kind of the point. The thing about Suit-up is that it doesn't just get better with equipment, it requires equipment. Having all of our equipment be colorless makes it very hard for suit up to be a draftable archetype since either the equipment is so good it gets taken early, or so bad that even suit up decks aren't thrilled to have it. If equipment is colored, it means less people will be fighting over it, which makes drafting them and reading the signals much smoother.
Also could we have a artifact creature besides Training Drone?
Yeah, if someone designs some
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"In the beginning, MTG Salvation switched to a new forum format.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
It was at that moment that I realized: I'm kinda just making these things up. We can just write the rules the way we want them to work. People will have fun, and people will get it.
Which is why I'm fine with it at higher rarities just not at common. However after seeing your explanation for drafting I'm more open to them at common. Maybe 2 colorless/ hybrid could be a good compromise for this.
Cy Guy 6
Artifact Creature- Golem
4/4
City Defender 4
Artifact Creature-Golem
Defender
2/5
Robo Sidekick 3
Artifact Creature-Human Golem?
As long as you control a creature with power 4 or greater, whenever ~ attacks, ~ gets +2/+2 until the end of the turn.
1/1
Moving Parts 2
Artifact Creature- Construct
Sacrifice ~: Add 2 mana to your mana pool. Use this only to cast artifact spells or activate abilities of artifacts.
1/1
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“There are no weak Jews. I am descended from those who wrestle angels and kill giants. We were chosen by God. You were chosen by a pathetic little man who can't seem to grow a full mustache"
"You can tell how dumb someone is by how they use Mary Sue"
Which is why I'm fine with it at higher rarities just not at common. However after seeing your explanation for drafting I'm more open to them at common. Maybe 2 colorless/ hybrid could be a good compromise for this.
Honestly common is the rarity that needs it the most, for the other rarities it doesn't matter nearly as much.
There are lots of Meteorites in comics, right? (Darn, it's an uncommon. Nevermind)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"In the beginning, MTG Salvation switched to a new forum format.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
It was at that moment that I realized: I'm kinda just making these things up. We can just write the rules the way we want them to work. People will have fun, and people will get it.
That be a perfect reprint. TBH I think this card could go through at common.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“There are no weak Jews. I am descended from those who wrestle angels and kill giants. We were chosen by God. You were chosen by a pathetic little man who can't seem to grow a full mustache"
"You can tell how dumb someone is by how they use Mary Sue"
On the one hand, colorless removal that's also mana fixing is pretty dangerous at common. On the other hand, it's mostly uncommon in m15 because most artifacts are uncommon in core sets.
Ok so here are my early picks:
Training Drone
Cy Guy
White Cape
Blue Shoes
Black Hat (maybe this should give deathtouch? Or did we determine that was too strong?)
Red Blade
Green Gloves
Tactical Line (I like speedster boots, but I don't like haste with suit up)
Key to the City
???
Evolving Wilds
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"In the beginning, MTG Salvation switched to a new forum format.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
It was at that moment that I realized: I'm kinda just making these things up. We can just write the rules the way we want them to work. People will have fun, and people will get it.
Only thing I remember is not wanting this card at common since First Strike and Trample are common on eqputment;
Death Dealer 2B
Creature – Vampire Assassin
Suit Up (Whenever this creature attacks or blocks, you may attach an Equipment you control to it.)
As long as Death Dealer is equipped, it has death touch.
1/1
I like the intimidate since it gives some "surprise" evasion.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“There are no weak Jews. I am descended from those who wrestle angels and kill giants. We were chosen by God. You were chosen by a pathetic little man who can't seem to grow a full mustache"
"You can tell how dumb someone is by how they use Mary Sue"
As we're nearing the end of the first common pass, any suggestions for playtesting? I personally use LackeyCCG, but I know there are other options out there.
Potential equipment to fill the last artifact slot:
Smoke Bomb2
Artifact - Equipment (C)
Unattach ~: Prevent all damage that would be dealt to equipped creature this turn.
Equip 2
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"In the beginning, MTG Salvation switched to a new forum format.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
It was at that moment that I realized: I'm kinda just making these things up. We can just write the rules the way we want them to work. People will have fun, and people will get it.
That seems less flavorful to me. I mean, I was thinking more of the "throw a smoke bomb and disorient your opponent" not "throw a smoke bomb and vanish" kinda thing. Besides, isn't the whole point of an unattach-equipment to synergize with suit up?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"In the beginning, MTG Salvation switched to a new forum format.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
It was at that moment that I realized: I'm kinda just making these things up. We can just write the rules the way we want them to work. People will have fun, and people will get it.
Ah ok, I can see that. I usually just think of smoke bombs as something heroes throw to escape. It could be used for offense too. For a smoke bomb, I think it would be more like "target creature gets -3/-0 until end of turn" to represent confusion, but damage prevention works too.
I was thinking it might be annoying in a limited environment, as you could have a semi indestructible attacker (on your turns) or blocker. Having to deal damage twice might be tough. But you can still destroy, exile etc so it should be fine.
I personally like MOON-E smoke bombs. If we are worried it might make combat unfun, maybe just add a cost for the Unattach ability.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“There are no weak Jews. I am descended from those who wrestle angels and kill giants. We were chosen by God. You were chosen by a pathetic little man who can't seem to grow a full mustache"
"You can tell how dumb someone is by how they use Mary Sue"
Hey everyone, it's been quite a while since this project went on hiatus, but I've been recently interested in resuming work. I've taken some time away from the set, and coming back (plus a bit of playtesting) I have some ideas about where we might want to take things moving forward.
Undying - This was an idea that came up while I was asking people independent from this project for ideas. They immediately gravitated towards using Undying, which fits into the slot Revive is trying to fill here both mechanically and creatively. Personally, I think it's a great idea that can basically replace Revive. It's true that revive has a little more design space, but Undying is much more elegant and a lot cleaner (no second costs, no tokens, etc.) The main thing that draws me to Undying is the fact that it naturally fits into what the set is trying to do: our major mechanics deal with large creatures, either caring about them (power 4) or making them (via. monstrosity or suit up). Revive was really the only mechanic that didn't scale up as time went on. Undying, on the other hand, grows your creature just like the others.
Mutate - Something I saw in another thread was a twist on monstrosity that used a creature type (mutant) instead of an independent state (monstrous). They functioned almost identically, but the mutant version adds extra flavor and can be more easily referenced (we can more easily have mutants point to other mutants, rather than having to look for "monstrous creatures"). This is another swap that seems like a good fit.
"Super" - Power 4 is a theme that we all generally liked, but it never really caught on. The flavor was always a bit off, and didn't mesh with every color. A size threshold still seems like a good idea (it's where all of our other mechanics point to) but we needed a twist that set this apart from other versions of this mechanic. Then I thought, what if we looked at the creature's combined power and toughness? For instance, a PT threshold of 8 would mean not only 4/4s, but also 3/5s, 6/2s, and 0/8s would count. This would open up far more options for designs (especially in colors without high power creatures) while keeping the general concept in tact.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"In the beginning, MTG Salvation switched to a new forum format.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
It was at that moment that I realized: I'm kinda just making these things up. We can just write the rules the way we want them to work. People will have fun, and people will get it.
I'm not a fan at all of 'monstrosity except a little bit different'. There is a big difference between returning a mechanic and making a new one, no matter how different they are. Mechanics are supposed to be able to be reused, considering that one of the points of mechanics is marketing a set (not just in a commercial way), having a permanent record clone mechanic just looks like complete garbage. "Super" has the same problem but to less of a degree, resembling a Ferocious 2.0 quite strongly. It's not unredeemable like "Mutate", but it could potentially be a little more interesting.
Mutate - Something I saw in another thread was a twist on monstrosity that used a creature type (mutant) instead of an independent state (monstrous). They functioned almost identically, but the mutant version adds extra flavor and can be more easily referenced (we can more easily have mutants point to other mutants, rather than having to look for "monstrous creatures"). This is another swap that seems like a good fit.
I think you may be referring my thread here? Although I didn't use creature types, only renamed the mechanic to fit the theme. Either way, the theme for these mechanics as written now is very narrow. Very few sets turn stuff into monsters or mutants. However, the idea to add creature types is much more open.
Say not just Mutants, but people can turn into other types. like Hero or Villain, etc. Something like this:
General template:
<COST>: <CREATURE TYPE> mutate 1. (If this creature isn't a <CREATURE TYPE>, put a +1/+1 counter on it and it becomes a <CREATURE TYPE> in addition to its other types.)
ex.
<cost>: Mutant mutate 1. (If this creature isn't a Mutant, put a +1/+1 counter on it and it becomes a Mutant in addition to its other types.)
<cost>: Hero mutate 2. (If this creature isn't a Hero, put a +2/+2 counter on it and it becomes a Hero in addition to its other types.)
<cost>: Villain mutate 3. (If this creature isn't a Villain, put a +3/+3 counter on it and it becomes a Villain in addition to its other types.)
I'm not a fan at all of 'monstrosity except a little bit different'. There is a big difference between returning a mechanic and making a new one, no matter how different they are. Mechanics are supposed to be able to be reused, considering that one of the points of mechanics is marketing a set (not just in a commercial way), having a permanent record clone mechanic just looks like complete garbage. "Super" has the same problem but to less of a degree, resembling a Ferocious 2.0 quite strongly. It's not unredeemable like "Mutate", but it could potentially be a little more interesting.
I would have to completely disagree here, especially since we've seen this kind of thing happen pretty recently with Devotion and Ferocious. The main argument is reinforcing flavor, and the flavor of mutants is extremely relevant here. Being able to make cards that care about mutants (either positively or negatively) is a huge resonance boost for a world and genre where mutants matter. Again, Devotion is the closest parallel here. Devotion is just reskinned chroma with some small mechanical tweaks. Mutate is just the same, and I'm willing to create clone mechanics that fit the world better so long as they actually have mechanical relevance (in this case adding a creature type). Plus, it's not necessarily the case that Mutate will end up exactly like Monstrous; one of the benefits of this "clone" approach is that we're not locked into exactly monstrous, so if we find a riff that works better later in design we have the freedom to change it. For instance, maybe we want to have all mutants buff other mutants, or maybe we want out mutants to mutate on a trigger. We can easily build these things into a new mechanic instead of tacking it onto an old one.
I think the main argument against doing this is that, unlike Chroma, Monstrosity was generally successful. However, I'd also argue that Monstrosity was not beloved, and that very few players would be upset by not getting more monstrosity cards.
I think you may be referring my thread here? Although I didn't use creature types, only renamed the mechanic to fit the theme. Either way, the theme for these mechanics as written now is very narrow. Very few sets turn stuff into monsters or mutants. However, the idea to add creature types is much more open.
Say not just Mutants, but people can turn into other types. like Hero or Villain, etc. Something like this:
General template:
<COST>: <CREATURE TYPE> mutate 1. (If this creature isn't a <CREATURE TYPE>, put a +1/+1 counter on it and it becomes a <CREATURE TYPE> in addition to its other types.)
ex.
<cost>: Mutant mutate 1. (If this creature isn't a Mutant, put a +1/+1 counter on it and it becomes a Mutant in addition to its other types.)
<cost>: Hero mutate 2. (If this creature isn't a Hero, put a +2/+2 counter on it and it becomes a Hero in addition to its other types.)
<cost>: Villain mutate 3. (If this creature isn't a Villain, put a +3/+3 counter on it and it becomes a Villain in addition to its other types.)
Play around with wording.
"Mutate 1 into Mutant."
I'm not sure why we'd be using non +1/+1 counters, but the creature type idea could definitely be interesting. The main thing that dissuades me is that types like Hero and Villain don't appear in this set, and other than Mutant itself I'm not sure any other creature types would matter enough to warrant this.
It was at that moment that I realized: I'm kinda just making these things up. We can just write the rules the way we want them to work. People will have fun, and people will get it.
Mechanics are a selling point for a set, that's the lens you need to consider most in terms of originality. Devotion worked because it was 'Chroma except better'. it has new and improved flavour, elegance and better development. Ferocious worked because Naya's theme was never actually a mechanic, it cared about a different number and was executed in a different way. Using old ideas for new mechanics is fine, but copy-paste 'let's just make it more appropriate' is basically deus ex machina in MTG design. There's no real creativity involved, and if you are going to be uncreative with mechanics, just return them. That's why R&D returns mechanics, to conserve design space and reuse things that worked well. No-one is very upset by 'new exciting mechanic' or 'older mechanic you liked' but plenty are upset by 'older mechanic except not'. If monstrosity isn't good enough, then make it discernibly different, such that it's not obviously a riff. 'Mutate' monstrosity isn't quite different enough. One of the clearest points against such design is that a lot of player won't recognise the subtle environmental support you may be creating and just see you trying to make a new mechanic out of an old one and be upset.
Devotion worked because it was 'Chroma except better'. it has new and improved flavour, elegance and better development.
I feel like this mechanic does have better (more relevant) flavor, and is more elegant given that it utilizes something naturally in the game (creature types) in a way that we've seen before (stuff like Figure of Destiny, Warden of the First Tree, etc.) that matches extremely well with what that creature type is alreadyknownfordoing. As for development, well like I said there are plenty of possibilities we can take advantage of by divorcing the mechanic from Monstrosity.
Using old ideas for new mechanics is fine, but copy-paste 'let's just make it more appropriate' is basically deus ex machina in MTG design. There's no real creativity involved, and if you are going to be uncreative with mechanics, just return them. That's why R&D returns mechanics, to conserve design space and reuse things that worked well.
I see this as far more of a lateral move than you do. If reusing a mechanic is a "meh" on the excitement scale, then repainting it to fit the new environment perfectly will get some people more excited and others less so. Seems like at very worst I'm just trading one meh for another. EDIT: This would be different if I thought the new version of the mechanic was worse some how, but in the case I feel like it has a number of relevant advantages (and it's not clear yet that it won't change anyway).
No-one is very upset by 'new exciting mechanic' or 'older mechanic you liked' but plenty are upset by 'older mechanic except not'.
TBH, the voice of this group specifically I don't find incredibly helpful to guiding my design. This is the group that complained for weeks about "megamorph" (not just the name) and would much rather have gotten something brand new that was completely broken, unplayable, or destroyed the limited environment than something that was sensible but a little boring. "Screw popular opinion" is not a path I like to take lightly, but this is one specific case where "players don't like it" means very little to me (independent of the other good points you make).
If monstrosity isn't good enough, then make it discernibly different, such that it's not obviously a riff.
I think a riff would be perfectly serviceable. Different would be better, yes, but "not obviously a riff" to me sounds a lot like "something completely different".
'Mutate' monstrosity isn't quite different enough. One of the clearest points against such design is that a lot of player won't recognise the subtle environmental support you may be creating and just see you trying to make a new mechanic out of an old one and be upset.
I think the plan is that in a universe where this mechanic is in the set, Mutants would become much, much more relevant. I'm thinking Allies level of relevancy here.
You make good points I just think that starting with Mutate and seeing how it, well, mutates over time is going to result in a much stronger design long term, while sticking with Monstrous will just give us a somewhat lackluster result.
It was at that moment that I realized: I'm kinda just making these things up. We can just write the rules the way we want them to work. People will have fun, and people will get it.
I'm not sure why we'd be using non +1/+1 counters, but the creature type idea could definitely be interesting. The main thing that dissuades me is that types like Hero and Villain don't appear in this set, and other than Mutant itself I'm not sure any other creature types would matter enough to warrant this.
i don't mean +2/+2 counters, just bad editing from copypaste.
besides creature types, you can mutate into other colors and even card types.
ex.
Mutate N into black. (It's black in addition to its other colors.)
Mutate N into artifact. (It's artifact in addition to its other types.)
Hey everyone, it's been quite a while since this project went on hiatus, but I've been recently interested in resuming work. I've taken some time away from the set, and coming back (plus a bit of playtesting) I have some ideas about where we might want to take things moving forward.
Undying - This was an idea that came up while I was asking people independent from this project for ideas. They immediately gravitated towards using Undying, which fits into the slot Revive is trying to fill here both mechanically and creatively. Personally, I think it's a great idea that can basically replace Revive. It's true that revive has a little more design space, but Undying is much more elegant and a lot cleaner (no second costs, no tokens, etc.) The main thing that draws me to Undying is the fact that it naturally fits into what the set is trying to do: our major mechanics deal with large creatures, either caring about them (power 4) or making them (via. monstrosity or suit up). Revive was really the only mechanic that didn't scale up as time went on. Undying, on the other hand, grows your creature just like the others.
Although I did like the idea of Revive, your right in saying Udying works better since it can help out "Super".
Mutate - Something I saw in another thread was a twist on monstrosity that used a creature type (mutant) instead of an independent state (monstrous). They functioned almost identically, but the mutant version adds extra flavor and can be more easily referenced (we can more easily have mutants point to other mutants, rather than having to look for "monstrous creatures"). This is another swap that seems like a good fit.
I like this better then Monstrous, though I do think we should make it a little more differnt then Monstrous.
An idea is Mutate can be used a few times but then hits a stopping point (like Figure of Destiny), since a comman trope is mutants further mutanting and getting more powerful. We could scale how much far they can mutate based on rarity.
"Super" - Power 4 is a theme that we all generally liked, but it never really caught on. The flavor was always a bit off, and didn't mesh with every color. A size threshold still seems like a good idea (it's where all of our other mechanics point to) but we needed a twist that set this apart from other versions of this mechanic. Then I thought, what if we looked at the creature's combined power and toughness? For instance, a PT threshold of 8 would mean not only 4/4s, but also 3/5s, 6/2s, and 0/8s would count. This would open up far more options for designs (especially in colors without high power creatures) while keeping the general concept in tact.
I'm down since for this.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“There are no weak Jews. I am descended from those who wrestle angels and kill giants. We were chosen by God. You were chosen by a pathetic little man who can't seem to grow a full mustache"
"You can tell how dumb someone is by how they use Mary Sue"
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Non colored cards I like:
Bonecrusher
Jet Boots/Jet Pack
Red Cape
Slippery Scepter
Speedster Boots
Tactical Line
Ones I dislike:
Bat-a-rang - This is very oppressive. A card like this would need a much weaker effect like a Leonin Bola
Training Blade - Even though I like the flavor, this goes against a major theme of the set as well as places +1/+1 counters on random creatures, which I'm trying to avoid due to Monstrosity.
Key to the city I like. Mana fixing doesn't get a whole lot more "interesting" than this. We could also add in Evolving Wilds.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
Comic Book Set
Archester: Frontier of Steam (A steampunk set!)
A Good Place to Start Designing
I like training blades since it can help creatures reach the power 4 threshold but I understand how it can be confusing with Monstrosity.
I'm down for reprinting Evolving Wilds.
Also could we have a artifact creature besides Training Drone?
"You can tell how dumb someone is by how they use Mary Sue"
Yeah, that's kind of the point. The thing about Suit-up is that it doesn't just get better with equipment, it requires equipment. Having all of our equipment be colorless makes it very hard for suit up to be a draftable archetype since either the equipment is so good it gets taken early, or so bad that even suit up decks aren't thrilled to have it. If equipment is colored, it means less people will be fighting over it, which makes drafting them and reading the signals much smoother.
Yeah, if someone designs some
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
Comic Book Set
Archester: Frontier of Steam (A steampunk set!)
A Good Place to Start Designing
Cy Guy 6
Artifact Creature- Golem
4/4
City Defender 4
Artifact Creature-Golem
Defender
2/5
Robo Sidekick 3
Artifact Creature-Human Golem?
As long as you control a creature with power 4 or greater, whenever ~ attacks, ~ gets +2/+2 until the end of the turn.
1/1
Moving Parts 2
Artifact Creature- Construct
Sacrifice ~: Add 2 mana to your mana pool. Use this only to cast artifact spells or activate abilities of artifacts.
1/1
"You can tell how dumb someone is by how they use Mary Sue"
Honestly common is the rarity that needs it the most, for the other rarities it doesn't matter nearly as much.
There are lots of Meteorites in comics, right? (Darn, it's an uncommon. Nevermind)
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
Comic Book Set
Archester: Frontier of Steam (A steampunk set!)
A Good Place to Start Designing
"You can tell how dumb someone is by how they use Mary Sue"
Ok so here are my early picks:
Training Drone
Cy Guy
White Cape
Blue Shoes
Black Hat (maybe this should give deathtouch? Or did we determine that was too strong?)
Red Blade
Green Gloves
Tactical Line (I like speedster boots, but I don't like haste with suit up)
Key to the City
???
Evolving Wilds
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
Comic Book Set
Archester: Frontier of Steam (A steampunk set!)
A Good Place to Start Designing
Only thing I remember is not wanting this card at common since First Strike and Trample are common on eqputment;
Death Dealer 2B
Creature – Vampire Assassin
Suit Up (Whenever this creature attacks or blocks, you may attach an Equipment you control to it.)
As long as Death Dealer is equipped, it has death touch.
1/1
I like the intimidate since it gives some "surprise" evasion.
"You can tell how dumb someone is by how they use Mary Sue"
Club Flamingo Wins: 1!
As we're nearing the end of the first common pass, any suggestions for playtesting? I personally use LackeyCCG, but I know there are other options out there.
Potential equipment to fill the last artifact slot:
Smoke Bomb 2
Artifact - Equipment (C)
Unattach ~: Prevent all damage that would be dealt to equipped creature this turn.
Equip 2
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
Comic Book Set
Archester: Frontier of Steam (A steampunk set!)
A Good Place to Start Designing
Smoke Bomb 2
Artifact Equip (c)
Unattach Smoke Bomb: Return equipped creature to its owners hand.
Equip 2
Club Flamingo Wins: 1!
Smoke Bomb 2
Artifact Equip (c)
Unattach Smoke Bomb: Return equipped creature to its owners hand.
Equip 2
Club Flamingo Wins: 1!
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
Comic Book Set
Archester: Frontier of Steam (A steampunk set!)
A Good Place to Start Designing
I was thinking it might be annoying in a limited environment, as you could have a semi indestructible attacker (on your turns) or blocker. Having to deal damage twice might be tough. But you can still destroy, exile etc so it should be fine.
Club Flamingo Wins: 1!
"You can tell how dumb someone is by how they use Mary Sue"
Undying - This was an idea that came up while I was asking people independent from this project for ideas. They immediately gravitated towards using Undying, which fits into the slot Revive is trying to fill here both mechanically and creatively. Personally, I think it's a great idea that can basically replace Revive. It's true that revive has a little more design space, but Undying is much more elegant and a lot cleaner (no second costs, no tokens, etc.) The main thing that draws me to Undying is the fact that it naturally fits into what the set is trying to do: our major mechanics deal with large creatures, either caring about them (power 4) or making them (via. monstrosity or suit up). Revive was really the only mechanic that didn't scale up as time went on. Undying, on the other hand, grows your creature just like the others.
Mutate - Something I saw in another thread was a twist on monstrosity that used a creature type (mutant) instead of an independent state (monstrous). They functioned almost identically, but the mutant version adds extra flavor and can be more easily referenced (we can more easily have mutants point to other mutants, rather than having to look for "monstrous creatures"). This is another swap that seems like a good fit.
"Super" - Power 4 is a theme that we all generally liked, but it never really caught on. The flavor was always a bit off, and didn't mesh with every color. A size threshold still seems like a good idea (it's where all of our other mechanics point to) but we needed a twist that set this apart from other versions of this mechanic. Then I thought, what if we looked at the creature's combined power and toughness? For instance, a PT threshold of 8 would mean not only 4/4s, but also 3/5s, 6/2s, and 0/8s would count. This would open up far more options for designs (especially in colors without high power creatures) while keeping the general concept in tact.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
Comic Book Set
Archester: Frontier of Steam (A steampunk set!)
A Good Place to Start Designing
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
I think you may be referring my thread here? Although I didn't use creature types, only renamed the mechanic to fit the theme. Either way, the theme for these mechanics as written now is very narrow. Very few sets turn stuff into monsters or mutants. However, the idea to add creature types is much more open.
Say not just Mutants, but people can turn into other types. like Hero or Villain, etc. Something like this:
General template:
<COST>: <CREATURE TYPE> mutate 1. (If this creature isn't a <CREATURE TYPE>, put a +1/+1 counter on it and it becomes a <CREATURE TYPE> in addition to its other types.)
ex.
<cost>: Mutant mutate 1. (If this creature isn't a Mutant, put a +1/+1 counter on it and it becomes a Mutant in addition to its other types.)
<cost>: Hero mutate 2. (If this creature isn't a Hero, put a +2/+2 counter on it and it becomes a Hero in addition to its other types.)
<cost>: Villain mutate 3. (If this creature isn't a Villain, put a +3/+3 counter on it and it becomes a Villain in addition to its other types.)
Play around with wording.
"Mutate 1 into Mutant."
........................
I think the main argument against doing this is that, unlike Chroma, Monstrosity was generally successful. However, I'd also argue that Monstrosity was not beloved, and that very few players would be upset by not getting more monstrosity cards.
I'm not sure why we'd be using non +1/+1 counters, but the creature type idea could definitely be interesting. The main thing that dissuades me is that types like Hero and Villain don't appear in this set, and other than Mutant itself I'm not sure any other creature types would matter enough to warrant this.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
Comic Book Set
Archester: Frontier of Steam (A steampunk set!)
A Good Place to Start Designing
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Mutate is workable but I'm not instantly sold on it.
Are you designing commons? Check out my primer on NWO.
Interested in making a custom set? Check out my Set skeleton and archetype primer.
I also write articles about getting started with custom card creation.
Go and PLAYTEST your designs, you will learn more in a single playtests than a dozen discussions.
My custom sets:
Dreamscape
Coins of Mercalis [COMPLETE]
Exodus of Zendikar - ON HOLD
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
I see this as far more of a lateral move than you do. If reusing a mechanic is a "meh" on the excitement scale, then repainting it to fit the new environment perfectly will get some people more excited and others less so. Seems like at very worst I'm just trading one meh for another. EDIT: This would be different if I thought the new version of the mechanic was worse some how, but in the case I feel like it has a number of relevant advantages (and it's not clear yet that it won't change anyway).
TBH, the voice of this group specifically I don't find incredibly helpful to guiding my design. This is the group that complained for weeks about "megamorph" (not just the name) and would much rather have gotten something brand new that was completely broken, unplayable, or destroyed the limited environment than something that was sensible but a little boring. "Screw popular opinion" is not a path I like to take lightly, but this is one specific case where "players don't like it" means very little to me (independent of the other good points you make).
I think a riff would be perfectly serviceable. Different would be better, yes, but "not obviously a riff" to me sounds a lot like "something completely different".
I think the plan is that in a universe where this mechanic is in the set, Mutants would become much, much more relevant. I'm thinking Allies level of relevancy here.
You make good points I just think that starting with Mutate and seeing how it, well, mutates over time is going to result in a much stronger design long term, while sticking with Monstrous will just give us a somewhat lackluster result.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
Comic Book Set
Archester: Frontier of Steam (A steampunk set!)
A Good Place to Start Designing
i don't mean +2/+2 counters, just bad editing from copypaste.
besides creature types, you can mutate into other colors and even card types.
ex.
Mutate N into black. (It's black in addition to its other colors.)
Mutate N into artifact. (It's artifact in addition to its other types.)
Mutate N into black artifact Mutant.
etc.
........................
Although I did like the idea of Revive, your right in saying Udying works better since it can help out "Super".
I like this better then Monstrous, though I do think we should make it a little more differnt then Monstrous.
An idea is Mutate can be used a few times but then hits a stopping point (like Figure of Destiny), since a comman trope is mutants further mutanting and getting more powerful. We could scale how much far they can mutate based on rarity.
I'm down since for this.
"You can tell how dumb someone is by how they use Mary Sue"