I always wanted to do something reminiscent of Lorwyn/Shadowmoor, where there is a plane that contains a mirror of itself. The plane would shift between the two mirrors of itself whenever some condition is met. The set could contain DFC's that would flip dependent on which mirror of the plane is "on". This could include all cards, even instants and sorceries. It could be something as simple as night and day, with different spells and permanents being stronger in one or the other. I haven't ever really thought this idea out fully, and I'm not sure what would trigger the shift, but hopefully I'm getting the idea across. This is brainstorming, right?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
(22 Total) - October 2014; December 2014; January 2015; April 2015; June 2015; August 2015; September 2015; November 2015; December 2015(T); January 2016; March 2016(T); April 2016; June 2016; October 2016; December 2016(T); February 2017; April 2017; December 2017; November 2018(T); January 2019; April 2019; June 2019
(8 Total) - May 2015; May 2016; June 2016; August 2016; October 2016; December 2016; October 2017; May 2019
(7 Total) - September 2015; October 2015; January 2016; March 2016; April 2016; July 2016(T); March 2019(T)
No mimicking siege of Ravniva's big feature. I don't really consider it Innovative/shocking either.
I'm not sure how many PW Seige of Rav is slated to include, but I would find an asfan of planeswalkers equivalent to that of cards with Devoid extremely shocking if not innovative. Heck, it would have to be innovative just to develop it!
@Legend
Having more plaenswalkers in one set than four is not doable. It's a big development issue and it screw the uniqueness identity of the planeswalkers. A creatureless set is not only undevelopable but is a pure gimmick (by which I mean the only reason to even consider it is really just for novelty, there's no real incentive otherwise).
So far the route to a shocking and innovative block is to adhere to existing design conventions and explore easy to develop design space of existing mechanics because everything else is a gimmick.
How about Hocus: The Shard Block and Pocus: The Wedge Block? EDIT: Oooh, and they can literally be the clashing of two planes - Alara and Tarkir.
@Legend
Doing a set with no creatures or all cantrips are both shocking, but they're not innovative, they're gimmicky. There's nothing really interesting about having a set with no creatures or all cantrips, it's just going to cause problems. For it to be innovative, you have to be able to answer: why are you doing this? Without saying, in order to do something shocking.
Right, DJK. As with the examples I gave (Planeswalkers and DFC), those achieved both the shock and awe of innovation without being a gimmick. Having a block that is all cantrips or without creatures leaves room for little else in terms of its themes and execution as well. You have to ask yourself; what about those ideas make the game fun? Wizards has already decided that creatures and their interactions are integral to fun and interesting gameplay in magic, so creature less is out. Cantrips is just trying to make Eternal format/Combo: The Block. And it really doesn't resonate as cool or fun with casual players to just get to draw more, especially when it weakens the core effect of the card its on.
Having rival planes duke it out in a 2 part block could be fun, although I'm more inclined to create a new plane. One of the things that I've been thinking about (that flatline mentioned) was the though of having the two sets mirror each other in some way. Lowyrn and Innistrad have this to a degree with dark/light and day/night, and I feel Tarkir hits past/future, but there are plenty of other opposites to consider:
* Hot/Cold
* Dry/Humid
* Sane/Insane
* Artistic/Scientific
* For the many/For the one
* Civilized/Barbaric
* Destiny/Free Will
* Wealthy/Poor
* Living/Dead
* Devout/Heretical
* Positive/Negative
Those are some big ones anyway. I'm sure you all can think of more too.
* This is leaning more towards a bottom-up design method rather than top down...
I think this is wise.
A binary flavored block sounds cool, but if we start with Clean/Dirty, Light/Dark, etc. flavor, then it immediately becomes a set with top down origins, which in this forum is historically a bad idea.
A "binary set" wouldn't even need DFC's necessarily, it could just have cards that benefit from the plane being in a specific state. For instance, one card could be stronger as long as the plane was in "state 1", while another card would be more powerful while the plane was in "state 2". A third card could be equal, but different in the two plane states. This would make people decide whether they wanted to make a deck that was totally focused on a single plane state, or one that was more balanced between the two. The only problem I come to in this idea is, what should trigger the shift between the two plane states? Whatever it is, it needs to be able to set up a scenario where players are battling over which state the plane is in to try to maximize their spells (of course that wouldn't happen if the two decks each focused on the same board state). The trigger should also be something that already naturally occurs in Magic so that the set's cards could be used outside the set. This seems like a somewhat complicated idea, but it might be fun to see if it could be done in an easy to understand, elegant way.
Edit: I'm certainly not the most learned MTG designer, but wouldn't taking an idea like "let's have cards that can basically be one of two different cards depending on which of two opposing board states is 'on'", then building off of that idea be considered "bottom up"?
(22 Total) - October 2014; December 2014; January 2015; April 2015; June 2015; August 2015; September 2015; November 2015; December 2015(T); January 2016; March 2016(T); April 2016; June 2016; October 2016; December 2016(T); February 2017; April 2017; December 2017; November 2018(T); January 2019; April 2019; June 2019
(8 Total) - May 2015; May 2016; June 2016; August 2016; October 2016; December 2016; October 2017; May 2019
(7 Total) - September 2015; October 2015; January 2016; March 2016; April 2016; July 2016(T); March 2019(T)
What about split card where the different sides were different types, like:
CARDNAME 1W
Instant
Creatures you control get +1/+1 until end of turn.
///
CARDNAME2 1WW
Enchantment
Creatures you control get +1/+1.
Here are a few incomplete ideas which may or may not be worth exploring.
Auras that enchant a graveyard, a library, an exile, or a planeswalker.
Equipment that attach to permanents you don't control.
NonPWs that create emblems.
A mechanic whereby each color gains something from things it's bad at. "If you can't beat 'ems" Like red permanents that count enchantments opponents control for instance. Since red can't destroy the enchantments.
Some things like auras, equipment, or fortification that only interact with planeswalkers. Some objects they clearly brought from off world that natives don't understand but work well with PWs.
Perhaps a "spark" spell type like the "splice onto arcane" or awaken mechanics which do an epic thing and adds "btw target creature is a PW and has this +0:ability"
Or something that just adds abilities to planeswalkers. Or the next creature you play enters as a PW.
Or PWs with a negative loyalty that you have to rescue from some sort of torpor or something. Perhaps they enter under your opponents control.
Combine the
Bottom of the library matters idea and the everything cantrips idea into some sort of cards replace themselves with the bottom card or pay this cost: swap this in your hand with whatever the bottom card is.
Not really transmute, transfigure, cycling, or drawing cards but somehow random not random.
You could maybe do it to your opponents too. Like this set's hypnotic specter might make them discard cards at random but they get their bottom card back or something.
For the split card creatures both halves could represent the exact same creature but in two different states like super tiny or huge and you mark it with a counter. Or a DFC instead. With lots of opportunities for when "little guy gets big smash a random artifact" or "when big guy shrinks if he was equipped he's smushed to death"
Tiny guy is hexproof, big guy is a flag bearer
Tiny guy is unblockable, big guy tramples
Lots of space of there
This could lead to some other what's big what's small mechanics. Like limited resources rewards for having very little but also sometimes having fatties without traditional ramp.
Split card creatures could also represent creatures currently in an alternate dimension of somekind. Possibly dementia space or bizarro world.
Idk, but there's my brainstorming session. Disregard, dismantle and reassemble as you see fit, or not, at your discretion.
I've been thinking about a different take on the idea of enchantments that represent planes. Each plane would be a double-faced enchantment with the subtype Plane, with the front having the following keyword:
Planeswalk (Turn this card face down, then turn all other face-down planes face-up)
To flip a Plane would require you to either pay a cost (NOT a mana cost, but something like sacrificing permanents or discarding multiple cards so you can't keep flipping it every turn) or meet a condition to trigger an ability.
For example:
Esper, Haven of Artifice WUB
Enchantment - Plane R
Sacrifice two artifacts: Planeswalk
////////
Esper
Whenever an artifact is put into a graveyard from play, it's controller draws a card, then discards a card.
The block itself would have little enchantment removal, as you can use your own plane cards to answer your opponent's. Outside of the block they'd still be easy enough to interact with that it would be fair.
Another idea I came up with when speculating on what BFZ would contain is cards that care about colorless mana. For example:
Voidstone Golem
Artifact Creature - Golem C
Voidstone Golem enters the battlefield with a +1/+1 counter on it for each colorless mana spent to cast it.
0/1
And of course, we'd need this:
Wastes
Basic Land
: Add 1 to your mana pool.
If you want to do a pseudo "6th-color" this probably works better than Snow mana.
Ok, I'mg going to breifly run through the spectrum of ideas that you all have present thus far. I may miss some or not going into details, but I doing my best to show that your thoughts are not on deaf ears.
Pervasive counters on creatures that do something other than +1/+1 or -1/-1.
Potentially interesting, though I'd be curious what those might be. Do you mean something akin to charge counters what are just a named counter, or something that grants a different kind of modifier?
Player counters that aren't poison.
This is something I see toyed with a lot, and its really more up to what those counters might be and how they contribute to the game.
Real exploration of snow as a "sixth color" (Guesswork is already doing something like this for Dominaria block, but who knows when that project will go off hiatus).
I'm not a fan of snow mana personally, and an alternate sixth color concept wouldn't be my first choice, as trying to create and diferentiate a new color identity would be quiet a challenge even as a team and I dont see the gameplay rewards being high.
Voltron/Power Rangers esque Team Up creature teams? "By your powers combined!"
A direct analogy would be Exodia.
This has potential depending how it's implemented. So long as it isn't too parasitic it could be quite fun. Maybe have a creature subtype the merges with another, or groups of creatures that reach some specific goal. I;d be interested in hearing suggestions/seeing examples.
A plane of "Super Hero" Teams could be the locale.
Perhaps.
Sub-Games within games. Not as complicated as shahrazad, but along that line.
Not quite shocking really.
Personal Incarnation on the literal level. Each time a player casts it, it's something unique. Not sure how that mechanically plays out right now.
Interesting idea, but it would highly depend on how it mechanically plays out. Explore that.
* This is leaning more towards a bottom-up design method rather than top down...
I think this is wise.
A binary flavored block sounds cool, but if we start with Clean/Dirty, Light/Dark, etc. flavor, then it immediately becomes a set with top down origins, which in this forum is historically a bad idea.
Not that every top down block on here has been bad,but I do agree that bottom up will be the focus. I'm still entertaining thoughts on both flavorful/mechanical directions ti make a two set block distinct.
What about split card where the different sides were different types, like:
CARDNAME 1W
Instant
Creatures you control get +1/+1 until end of turn.
///
CARDNAME2 1WW
Enchantment
Creatures you control get +1/+1.
Yes, we have covered this as a potential idea and Im not against it. It depends on implementation (DFC/Splits/Whatever), what tools it gives us as designers, and is it fresh/fun?
Here are a few incomplete ideas which may or may not be worth exploring.
Auras that enchant a graveyard, a library, an exile, or a planeswalker.
There was the future sight card that enchanted a card in your grave, and it could be an fair extension from "enchant player" to enchant library or graveyard. But the question then becomes, how would this be different then enchanting a player and having the effect target said library/graveyard?
Equipment that attach to permanents you don't control.
Nah. There is already the work around with things that could take your opponents stuff first. Doesn't real push the shock factor either.
NonPWs that create emblems.
Im personally not a fan of this as it takes something that is distinct to one card type and disseminates it.
A mechanic whereby each color gains something from things it's bad at. "If you can't beat 'ems" Like red permanents that count enchantments opponents control for instance. Since red can't destroy the enchantments.
That could be a good underline sub theme or a solid cycle of cards if done correctly, but counting on your opponent's permanents wouldn't be the way to do it.
Some things like auras, equipment, or fortification that only interact with planeswalkers. Some objects they clearly brought from off world that natives don't understand but work well with PWs.
I don't see a planeswalker set/PW support set working well or being that innovative.
Perhaps a "spark" spell type like the "splice onto arcane" or awaken mechanics which do an epic thing and adds "btw target creature is a PW and has this +0:ability"
Or something that just adds abilities to planeswalkers. Or the next creature you play enters as a PW.
Or PWs with a negative loyalty that you have to rescue from some sort of torpor or something. Perhaps they enter under your opponents control.
See above. The spark idea sounds interesting at first, but then again how is it different from an aura granting activated abilities. Putting loyalty on creatures seems weird too, as suddenly the state based effect of having no loyalty on something loses meaning.
Combine the
Bottom of the library matters idea and the everything cantrips idea into some sort of cards replace themselves with the bottom card or pay this cost: swap this in your hand with whatever the bottom card is.
Not really transmute, transfigure, cycling, or drawing cards but somehow random not random.
You could maybe do it to your opponents too. Like this set's hypnotic specter might make them discard cards at random but they get their bottom card back or something.
Some cards the dig/shift off the bottom of the library could be fun, but not as the main set theme. The bottom of the library is just a slightly less manipulatable top. The result would jsut be creating card that manipulate the bottom of the library the same way we do that top now.
For the split card creatures both halves could represent the exact same creature but in two different states like super tiny or huge and you mark it with a counter. Or a DFC instead. With lots of opportunities for when "little guy gets big smash a random artifact" or "when big guy shrinks if he was equipped he's smushed to death"
Tiny guy is hexproof, big guy is a flag bearer
Tiny guy is unblockable, big guy tramples
Lots of space of there
This sounds like transform. I certainly dont want to emphasis duel sided creatures that turn into the other side. If you mean keep them distinct/seperate, then yes that is something we are dancing around too.
This could lead to some other what's big what's small mechanics. Like limited resources rewards for having very little but also sometimes having fatties without traditional ramp.
True.
Split card creatures could also represent creatures currently in an alternate dimension of somekind. Possibly dementia space or bizarro world.
True. One of my suggestiong dualities was Sane/Insane as opposites which would represent a good use of DFC/Splits I feel.
I've been thinking about a different take on the idea of enchantments that represent planes. Each plane would be a double-faced enchantment with the subtype Plane, with the front having the following keyword:
Planeswalk (Turn this card face down, then turn all other face-down planes face-up)
To flip a Plane would require you to either pay a cost (NOT a mana cost, but something like sacrificing permanents or discarding multiple cards so you can't keep flipping it every turn) or meet a condition to trigger an ability.
For example:
Esper, Haven of Artifice WUB
Enchantment - Plane R
Sacrifice two artifacts: Planeswalk
////////
Esper
Whenever an artifact is put into a graveyard from play, it's controller draws a card, then discards a card.
The block itself would have little enchantment removal, as you can use your own plane cards to answer your opponent's. Outside of the block they'd still be easy enough to interact with that it would be fair.
Another idea I came up with when speculating on what BFZ would contain is cards that care about colorless mana. For example:
Voidstone Golem
Artifact Creature - Golem C
Voidstone Golem enters the battlefield with a +1/+1 counter on it for each colorless mana spent to cast it.
0/1
And of course, we'd need this:
Wastes
Basic Land
: Add 1 to your mana pool.
If you want to do a pseudo "6th-color" this probably works better than Snow mana.
I did mention toying with planes and this idea has some potential. The Colorless one, not so much. Not shocking.
Aspect - a new card type that functions as a cross between an enchantment and a planeswalker, granting you(as a player) a new ability, Channel-style. You can only get matching type aspects: if a fire type aspect enters the battlefield while you control another ice aspect, both stay, if you control a fire aspcet, you sacrifice one of them.
Aspect of Everfrost1UU
Aspect - Ice (R)
Creatures can't tap or untap unless their controller pays 1. (Tapping is a cost of attacking)
{5}
Each color is assigned two aspects - one for each set; despite staying in the same color, they are opposite(water/ice, wind/stone, fire/lightning).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Wizards can start putting booster packs inside dog poo and dog owners will still complain.
Aspect - a new card type that functions as a cross between an enchantment and a planeswalker, granting you(as a player) a new ability, Channel-style. You can only get matching type aspects: if a fire type aspect enters the battlefield while you control another ice aspect, both stay, if you control a fire aspcet, you sacrifice one of them.
Aspect of Everfrost1UU
Aspect - Ice (R)
Creatures can't tap or untap unless their controller pays 1. (Tapping is a cost of attacking)
{5}
Each color is assigned two aspects - one for each set; despite staying in the same color, they are opposite(water/ice, wind/stone, fire/lightning).
I don't quite get the flavor of this. Creatures can attack your aspect?
Each aspect requires comcentration; once broken, you de-power to your initial form.
Then it shouldn't work like a planeswalker. If its an aspect/transformation of me, you shouldn't be attacking an abstract....nothing. What the {5} could represent would be counters that you remove as you took damage.
Maybe a "tapping untapped creatures matters" block on a civilized plane, where concerted effort drives the game?
You could introduce mobilize X as a new way of paying costs:
Sledgehammer Giant 4R
Creature - Giant Warrior
Mobilize 8: Sledgehammer Giant gets +4/+0 until end of turn. (To mobilize 8, tap any number of untapped creatures with a total power of 8 or greater you control.)
4/3
Or maybe a set that highlights the difference between instants or sorceries. Almost all cards treat them as basically two variations of the same thing, so maybe a set that actually highlights the differences between the two would be fun to design.
For example:
Promulgating Weird 2R
Creature - Weird
Whenever a player casts a sorcery spell, put a +1/+1 counter on Promulgating Weird.
Whenever a player casts an instant spell, remove all +1/+1 counters from Promulgating Weird.
2/2
Neither of these ideas are shocking. Mobilize would probably work best so long as the number was the same across permanents that used it.
Last but not least, why not do something that lets the regular game interact with the command zone. It is a zone of the game, after all, so why shouldn't cards in regular, non-Commander Magic be able to interact with it?
Because the command zone has been used exclusively for commanders (which you dont have in traditional magic) and eblems (non interactive.) Making it iteractive would destroy what the command zone is. Further, it would turn it into just another zone with a different name but the same properties as exile.
You're not listening. This "all or none" ideas are pretty much always a gimmick, and don't offer interesting or fun. They create challenges for designers but mean next to nothing for players.
How about a kind of counter that a player can get that functions like RPG experience to an extent? Not necessarily as the focus of the set, but it could play like:
"Whenever ~ deals combat damage to a player, you get an experience counter"
and
"2U, Remove an experience counter from yourself (awkward wording): Draw a card."
How about a kind of counter that a player can get that functions like RPG experience to an extent? Not necessarily as the focus of the set, but it could play like:
"Whenever ~ deals combat damage to a player, you get an experience counter"
and
"2U, Remove an experience counter from yourself (awkward wording): Draw a card."
This feels like an unneeded work around to just using +1/+1 counters and balancing around that.
I went ahead a created a thread to talk about two of our potential mechanics so far, Seperate Type DFC/Splits and Aspects. Those had pretty easy design space to work with and had the most realized concept, so I wanted to see what folks thought about those. The thread is here.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I also like the design space of online-only. Not about to make an intentionally overpowered set, though.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
No and no.
I'll review more things in detail later, as ill be out for the next several hours. Worst case I'll address everyone's thoughts tomorrow.
I'm not sure how many PW Seige of Rav is slated to include, but I would find an asfan of planeswalkers equivalent to that of cards with Devoid extremely shocking if not innovative. Heck, it would have to be innovative just to develop it!
How about a creatureless set?
Having more plaenswalkers in one set than four is not doable. It's a big development issue and it screw the uniqueness identity of the planeswalkers. A creatureless set is not only undevelopable but is a pure gimmick (by which I mean the only reason to even consider it is really just for novelty, there's no real incentive otherwise).
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
How about Hocus: The Shard Block and Pocus: The Wedge Block? EDIT: Oooh, and they can literally be the clashing of two planes - Alara and Tarkir.
Doing a set with no creatures or all cantrips are both shocking, but they're not innovative, they're gimmicky. There's nothing really interesting about having a set with no creatures or all cantrips, it's just going to cause problems. For it to be innovative, you have to be able to answer: why are you doing this? Without saying, in order to do something shocking.
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
Having rival planes duke it out in a 2 part block could be fun, although I'm more inclined to create a new plane. One of the things that I've been thinking about (that flatline mentioned) was the though of having the two sets mirror each other in some way. Lowyrn and Innistrad have this to a degree with dark/light and day/night, and I feel Tarkir hits past/future, but there are plenty of other opposites to consider:
* Hot/Cold
* Dry/Humid
* Sane/Insane
* Artistic/Scientific
* For the many/For the one
* Civilized/Barbaric
* Destiny/Free Will
* Wealthy/Poor
* Living/Dead
* Devout/Heretical
* Positive/Negative
Those are some big ones anyway. I'm sure you all can think of more too.
I think this is wise.
A binary flavored block sounds cool, but if we start with Clean/Dirty, Light/Dark, etc. flavor, then it immediately becomes a set with top down origins, which in this forum is historically a bad idea.
Edit: I'm certainly not the most learned MTG designer, but wouldn't taking an idea like "let's have cards that can basically be one of two different cards depending on which of two opposing board states is 'on'", then building off of that idea be considered "bottom up"?
CARDNAME 1W
Instant
Creatures you control get +1/+1 until end of turn.
///
CARDNAME2 1WW
Enchantment
Creatures you control get +1/+1.
Auras that enchant a graveyard, a library, an exile, or a planeswalker.
Equipment that attach to permanents you don't control.
NonPWs that create emblems.
A mechanic whereby each color gains something from things it's bad at. "If you can't beat 'ems" Like red permanents that count enchantments opponents control for instance. Since red can't destroy the enchantments.
Some things like auras, equipment, or fortification that only interact with planeswalkers. Some objects they clearly brought from off world that natives don't understand but work well with PWs.
Perhaps a "spark" spell type like the "splice onto arcane" or awaken mechanics which do an epic thing and adds "btw target creature is a PW and has this +0:ability"
Or something that just adds abilities to planeswalkers. Or the next creature you play enters as a PW.
Or PWs with a negative loyalty that you have to rescue from some sort of torpor or something. Perhaps they enter under your opponents control.
Combine the
Bottom of the library matters idea and the everything cantrips idea into some sort of cards replace themselves with the bottom card or pay this cost: swap this in your hand with whatever the bottom card is.
Not really transmute, transfigure, cycling, or drawing cards but somehow random not random.
You could maybe do it to your opponents too. Like this set's hypnotic specter might make them discard cards at random but they get their bottom card back or something.
For the split card creatures both halves could represent the exact same creature but in two different states like super tiny or huge and you mark it with a counter. Or a DFC instead. With lots of opportunities for when "little guy gets big smash a random artifact" or "when big guy shrinks if he was equipped he's smushed to death"
Tiny guy is hexproof, big guy is a flag bearer
Tiny guy is unblockable, big guy tramples
Lots of space of there
This could lead to some other what's big what's small mechanics. Like limited resources rewards for having very little but also sometimes having fatties without traditional ramp.
Split card creatures could also represent creatures currently in an alternate dimension of somekind. Possibly dementia space or bizarro world.
Idk, but there's my brainstorming session. Disregard, dismantle and reassemble as you see fit, or not, at your discretion.
Planeswalk (Turn this card face down, then turn all other face-down planes face-up)
To flip a Plane would require you to either pay a cost (NOT a mana cost, but something like sacrificing permanents or discarding multiple cards so you can't keep flipping it every turn) or meet a condition to trigger an ability.
For example:
Esper, Haven of Artifice WUB
Enchantment - Plane R
Sacrifice two artifacts: Planeswalk
////////
Esper
Whenever an artifact is put into a graveyard from play, it's controller draws a card, then discards a card.
The block itself would have little enchantment removal, as you can use your own plane cards to answer your opponent's. Outside of the block they'd still be easy enough to interact with that it would be fair.
Another idea I came up with when speculating on what BFZ would contain is cards that care about colorless mana. For example:
Voidstone Golem
Artifact Creature - Golem C
Voidstone Golem enters the battlefield with a +1/+1 counter on it for each colorless mana spent to cast it.
0/1
And of course, we'd need this:
Wastes
Basic Land
: Add 1 to your mana pool.
If you want to do a pseudo "6th-color" this probably works better than Snow mana.
Potentially interesting, though I'd be curious what those might be. Do you mean something akin to charge counters what are just a named counter, or something that grants a different kind of modifier?
This is something I see toyed with a lot, and its really more up to what those counters might be and how they contribute to the game.
I'm not a fan of snow mana personally, and an alternate sixth color concept wouldn't be my first choice, as trying to create and diferentiate a new color identity would be quiet a challenge even as a team and I dont see the gameplay rewards being high.
No
I love enchantments but no.
no
I don;t know what you're referring to with this
Could be a neat concept to weave into the set, but that's something I plan to focus on moreso later.
That's sorta what planeswalkers are in a sense I feel. Hwoever, I do like encouraging more ways permanents can interacto.
This has potential depending how it's implemented. So long as it isn't too parasitic it could be quite fun. Maybe have a creature subtype the merges with another, or groups of creatures that reach some specific goal. I;d be interested in hearing suggestions/seeing examples.
Perhaps.
Not quite shocking really.
Interesting idea, but it would highly depend on how it mechanically plays out. Explore that.
[/quote]
Not that every top down block on here has been bad,but I do agree that bottom up will be the focus. I'm still entertaining thoughts on both flavorful/mechanical directions ti make a two set block distinct.
Yes, we have covered this as a potential idea and Im not against it. It depends on implementation (DFC/Splits/Whatever), what tools it gives us as designers, and is it fresh/fun?
There was the future sight card that enchanted a card in your grave, and it could be an fair extension from "enchant player" to enchant library or graveyard. But the question then becomes, how would this be different then enchanting a player and having the effect target said library/graveyard?
Nah. There is already the work around with things that could take your opponents stuff first. Doesn't real push the shock factor either.
Im personally not a fan of this as it takes something that is distinct to one card type and disseminates it.
That could be a good underline sub theme or a solid cycle of cards if done correctly, but counting on your opponent's permanents wouldn't be the way to do it.
I don't see a planeswalker set/PW support set working well or being that innovative.
See above. The spark idea sounds interesting at first, but then again how is it different from an aura granting activated abilities. Putting loyalty on creatures seems weird too, as suddenly the state based effect of having no loyalty on something loses meaning.
Some cards the dig/shift off the bottom of the library could be fun, but not as the main set theme. The bottom of the library is just a slightly less manipulatable top. The result would jsut be creating card that manipulate the bottom of the library the same way we do that top now.
This sounds like transform. I certainly dont want to emphasis duel sided creatures that turn into the other side. If you mean keep them distinct/seperate, then yes that is something we are dancing around too.
True.
True. One of my suggestiong dualities was Sane/Insane as opposites which would represent a good use of DFC/Splits I feel.
I did mention toying with planes and this idea has some potential. The Colorless one, not so much. Not shocking.
Aspect of Everfrost 1UU
Aspect - Ice (R)
Creatures can't tap or untap unless their controller pays 1. (Tapping is a cost of attacking)
{5}
Each color is assigned two aspects - one for each set; despite staying in the same color, they are opposite(water/ice, wind/stone, fire/lightning).
I don't quite get the flavor of this. Creatures can attack your aspect?
Then it shouldn't work like a planeswalker. If its an aspect/transformation of me, you shouldn't be attacking an abstract....nothing. What the {5} could represent would be counters that you remove as you took damage.
Neither of these ideas are shocking. Mobilize would probably work best so long as the number was the same across permanents that used it.
Because the command zone has been used exclusively for commanders (which you dont have in traditional magic) and eblems (non interactive.) Making it iteractive would destroy what the command zone is. Further, it would turn it into just another zone with a different name but the same properties as exile.
You're not listening. This "all or none" ideas are pretty much always a gimmick, and don't offer interesting or fun. They create challenges for designers but mean next to nothing for players.
Please stick to serious suggestions.
"Whenever ~ deals combat damage to a player, you get an experience counter"
and
"2U, Remove an experience counter from yourself (awkward wording): Draw a card."
This feels like an unneeded work around to just using +1/+1 counters and balancing around that.
I went ahead a created a thread to talk about two of our potential mechanics so far, Seperate Type DFC/Splits and Aspects. Those had pretty easy design space to work with and had the most realized concept, so I wanted to see what folks thought about those. The thread is here.