I like Uncover 1(but am biased towards GY stuff, something to do with starting in Innistrad), Accord seems like it will play vary differently depending on the card type and could spawn several archetypes and Ascend could work well with an exploration/voyage flavor(but agree with Gusto, it should be sorcery-speed). I am now all for this set being library matters with land and legend subthemes. I will have to think about flavor for this.
I think that we need a way to incorporate the "Legendary Matters" theme in a way that ties into the other themes at least a little. To be honest though, I don't think Grandeur is a very good ability... it is completely unusable in limited formats, and it's 100% luck based, meaning most of the time it's going to be useless.
may i suggest combining the library/land matter theme
(Ability X)--reveal the top X cards of your library. For each land card revealed this way, do (this). Put all revealed cards on the bottom of our library, in any order.
call it "Conquest"
its a combat trigger that filters land from your library to fuel abilities
1G
Chaal Warrior
2/2
Uncommon
Insect Warrior
Whenever (THIS) attacks Conquest 1 (Reveal the top card of your library. For each land card revealed this way, exile it. Then put all other revealed cards on the bottom of your library, in any order)
whenever a land is exiled by Conquest, put a +1/+1 counter on Chaal warrior.
2R
Razing Boar
2/2
common
Elemental Boar
Whenever (THIS) becomes blocked, Conquest 1 (Reveal the top card of your library. For each land card revealed this way, exile it. Then put all other revealed cards on the bottom of your library, in any order)
whenever a land is exiled by Conquest, deal 1 damage to each creature blocking (This)
2R
Barbarian Fortress
Enchantment - Aura
uncommon
Enchant Mountain
At the beginning of combat on your turn, Conquest 2 (Reveal the top two cards of your library. For each land card revealed this way, exile it. Then put all other revealed cards on the bottom of your library, in any order)
Conquest has some potential but the way you implemented it, in which the "(this)" is "exile", is pretty feel bad. Getting lands back from your graveyard is more possible within precedent than dealing with exiled lands. The opposite of the way you're doing it would be something beneficial like putting the lands onto the battlefield tapped. Otherwise the mechanic is basically library cycling with exiling your own lands attached to it.
Hoping the top cards of the library are lands is similar to a coin toss deciding an effect.
But say if the land was put into the graveyard, instead of exiled, Conquest might be too strong?
It would be more like scrying that you can't put back on top of library but gives a 'bonus' of putting a land into the graveyard.
I really like the idea, and I think if we control the amount of graveyard interaction, it wouldn't be too powerful. Obviously with a mechanic like delve or delerium it would be very unbalanced, but it should be fine if we keep an eye on it. However, I'd like to suggest making the keyword "conquer," just because it makes the text sound smoother.
Also, while tying it to combat is neat, I think we open ourselves up to a lot more design space if we allow for other types of conquest cards. For example:
Conquering Counterspell 1U
Instant (C)
Conquer 4. Counter target spell unless its controller pays 1 for each land conquered this way.
Uncover N (Put the bottom N cards of your library into your graveyard, then you may put a card from your graveyard on top of your library)
Interesting, but could a mechanic like this be in all colours?
It could definitely be in green, and I think blue and/or black could probably get it. It doesn't need to go in all colours. I am concerned though that this is to much of a stretch anywhere outside green in any significant number.
Uncover N (alt) (Look at the bottom N cards of your library, then put any number of them on top of your library and the rest into your graveyard)
Bottom scry +mill? Sounds fun, although a graveyard filler mechanic probably needs a graveyard theme too to not make it too much "feel bad". Land recursion could be a thing in the set.
Graveyard interaction is very easy to put in set. Minor graveyard theme is an easy do.
Accord- Reveal the top card of your library. If it shares a card type with this, (effect).
That's kinship for all cards, could be nice if there is lots of scry in the set.
Or, you know, Uncover.
Revelation- If you have fifteen or more cards in your library less than your starting library total, (effect)
(would come with a reminder token you can put underneath the top fifteen to make it easier to track)
Rather not for me, of all the things to count, cards in your library are the worst since there is so much potential to cheat, especially if it's a low number.
Yes, there's a pretty big cost to it. But it's cool .
Ascend [cost] (You may pay [cost] and put this creature on top of your library.)
When (this creature) ascends, (effect)
Ui, that sounds like fun, should probably be sorcery speed to not be too easy to dodge every removal, but could have strong effects since you slow yourself down.
Sorcery speed is an easy go to, sure.
On another note, what is the "feeling" people should have when playing the set? Apart from Innistrad I never really got too much what the feel of a set should have been in Limited, but there should still be one direction for the set to go.
Personally I like the exploit flavour of the Land theme through sacrifice lands, since it could lead to interesting plays and can be used on any rarity. Also, it fits to Horizon Canopy.
What about Horizon Boughs though? That also gives us a direction for the whole plane, untap all permanents and ramp. Should we include this?
I don't think this world concept is good for an exploitation feel, it's too wondrous and surreal. It seems like it takes away from what makes the world interesting.
My suggestion is we go with a sort of imagination-gone-wild feel. I think it matches the world and it's got lots of ways to convey it (namely by interacting with things in new, weird ways and by having high explosive potential).
And the library theme idea fits right in .
may i suggest combining the library/land matter theme
(Ability X)--reveal the top X cards of your library. For each land card revealed this way, do (this). Put all revealed cards on the bottom of our library, in any order.
call it "Conquest"
its a combat trigger that filters land from your library to fuel abilities
'Conquest' doesn't feel like the right thematic direction for this world.
So the gameplay of this is you filter through your library and strip lands for benefits? Sounds like unfun mechanic in the waiting, that it's just going to have players mana screw themselves and regret it later.
You beat me to it, wanted to suggest Conquest as a simple "if it's a land card" mechanic. Fits the library theme, also fits the current 2 cards regarding the world, and is simple and easy to use, with an element of surprise. Exiling lands from your library as a general mechanic sounds like a bad idea, may be better on a legendary card.
Could also be
Discover X - Reveal the top X cards of your library. For each land card revealed this way, (effect). Put the revealed card on the bottom of your library in any order.
may i suggest combining the library/land matter theme
(Ability X)--reveal the top X cards of your library. For each land card revealed this way, do (this). Put all revealed cards on the bottom of our library, in any order.
call it "Conquest"
its a combat trigger that filters land from your library to fuel abilities
'Conquest' doesn't feel like the right thematic direction for this world.
So the gameplay of this is you filter through your library and strip lands for benefits? Sounds like unfun mechanic in the waiting, that it's just going to have players mana screw themselves and regret it later.
This was my primary concern. My first intuition was simply "this is a feel bad mechanic because it's basically mana screwing yourself for what looks like marginal benefits". The proposed alternatives of discover appeal to me more, and they fit the theme of exploration much better - something based on finding lands or using them to one's benefit. Not destroying them in exchange for something.
I am in agreement about Discover X. It seems like a good way to tie the land and library themes together.
So, does anyone have suggestions as to what we could do about the legendary subtheme? I am entirely against Grandeur (although I could be convinced otherwise), but am currently at a loss as to what other type of mechanic we could use. Maybe something similar to Rally, where it triggers whenever you cast a legendary spell?
I'm unsure about how to approach a "legendary matters" mechanic. It may be that the legendary subtheme doesn't get a mechanic at all, but just that the set has a higher than usual amount of legendary cards, and maybe some individual cards that affect legendary and/or non-legendary permanents. I'd also like there to be some legendary lands particularly, to fit the land theme.
You beat me to it, wanted to suggest Conquest as a simple "if it's a land card" mechanic. Fits the library theme, also fits the current 2 cards regarding the world, and is simple and easy to use, with an element of surprise. Exiling lands from your library as a general mechanic sounds like a bad idea, may be better on a legendary card.
Could also be
Discover X - Reveal the top X cards of your library. For each land card revealed this way, (effect). Put the revealed card on the bottom of your library in any order.
This seems to have less design space, is often going to have greater variance and not in a way I think will be good, and is more complex. I prefer my suggested version.
I don't think a named legendary matters mechanic is a good idea. It's easy enough for people to notice without it when it's not something that works as a major theme anyway and doing it without a named mechanic also gives more freedom with how to do it which is important for a restricted mechanic like this.
For discover, it doesn't have to be specifically "for each land revealed, blah." It could just read: Discover - reveal the top X cards of your library. If a land is revealed this way, do something, and others could do a scaling effect based on lands revealed. We could have some cards reveal one, some more, etc. I think that using discover more like an ability word such as morbid or rally (wow, using the same example twice in a row, that's new) would be better than having do a set thing.
For discover, it doesn't have to be specifically "for each land revealed, blah." It could just read: Discover - reveal the top X cards of your library. If a land is revealed this way, do something, and others could do a scaling effect based on lands revealed. We could have some cards reveal one, some more, etc. I think that using discover more like an ability word such as morbid or rally (wow, using the same example twice in a row, that's new) would be better than having do a set thing.
Revealing multiple cards and checking for a single land makes it quite consistent. That goes against the build around aspect of the mechanic encouraging you to use library manipulation. Having a card number variable as well as different effects were some are scaling and some are not is also probably too much variation for an ability word.
Another concern with the scaling effect version is it encourages you to fix your deck so only have lands for the next several draws for maximum effect, but this probably isn't something we want to encourage.
This seems to have less design space, is often going to have greater variance and not in a way I think will be good, and is more complex. I prefer my suggested version.
It doesn't have less, it has even more than single card reveal. Single top card reveal has the same problem as clash or kinship, way too much uncertainty without library manipulation, especially if it's counting lands, which gives you less than 50% chance to succeed in an average deck. Less than 50% is something the majority of players I dare say will think terrible odds.
Reveal X can include every number and possibility, "for each revealed" and "if a land was revealed" can be included in the set if we do it in a smart way, like making one of them "special" by having it only on a cycle of cards, maybe even a legendary cycle. Like, every lower rarity just cares if a land was revealed, while the legends care how many were revealed too.
Anyways, it definitely should be more than just "the top card", unless revealing the top card has next to no detriments, which would make it not a good mechanic. Just revealing the top card to check for something was already deemed a failure, for legitimate reasons.
This seems to have less design space, is often going to have greater variance and not in a way I think will be good, and is more complex. I prefer my suggested version.
It doesn't have less, it has even more than single card reveal. Single top card reveal has the same problem as clash or kinship, way too much uncertainty without library manipulation, especially if it's counting lands, which gives you less than 50% chance to succeed in an average deck. Less than 50% is something the majority of players I dare say will think terrible odds.
Reveal X can include every number and possibility, "for each revealed" and "if a land was revealed" can be included in the set if we do it in a smart way, like making one of them "special" by having it only on a cycle of cards, maybe even a legendary cycle. Like, every lower rarity just cares if a land was revealed, while the legends care how many were revealed too.
Anyways, it definitely should be more than just "the top card", unless revealing the top card has next to no detriments, which would make it not a good mechanic. Just revealing the top card to check for something was already deemed a failure, for legitimate reasons.
Reveal two and check for a land will succeed a lot of the time even without any library manipulation, and with only a little bit you can basically guarantee it. That's not good.
Compared to Clash and Kinship, Clash compared to opponent's cards so had the opponent matters problem same as intimidate and landwalk, Kinship looked for a creature of the same type, which is usually going to be significantly less of your deck than lands.
That this mechanic has a less than 50% chance without library manipulation is fine, because what makes the mechanic interesting is library manipulation. It's kind of the point that you don't have very good chances without supporting things, because that drives the mechanic- it's a library manipulation matters mechanic. Given then that the chances are reasonable even without library manipulation, I don't think this is a problem.
While we are on the subject, here's a brainstorming of ways to interact with either version:
Put a land you control on top of its owner's library (as a cost)
Search library for a land and put on top
Put a land from graveyard on top
Scry
Any other scry like effects
Put a card from your hand on the top of your library, then put the bottom card of your library into your hand (as a Tormenting Voice effect variant in red)
Also, out of set context, I think this mechanic should be primary in . Maybe secondary in and/or .
Reveal two, yes, reveal just one will not succeed as often as you want it too.
50% is already a terrible chance for success, less than even more so. People are in general more risk averse, anything below at least 60% is just feel bad. Reveal 2 increases the chance significantly, but I don't think we should have a fixed number. It would be easier to remember, yes, but X leaves open so much design space and tweaking. it would be a bad idea to cut it off. If you have to manipulate the library first to gain something for your Mana then that is not such a big advantage anyway since you need to set it up first. It all depends on the pricing of the cards and the ability. Are (most) of the cards subpar for their cost without the ability then gaining an advantage with it if you manipulated your library first is totally ok.
An almost filler creature that ETB's Discover with reveal 1 card is barely playable, gets ok with lib manipulation, and that is fine.
It should be a good mechanic in Limited too without too much forcing it with another mechanic, otherwise it will be "feel bad" most of the time.
Regarding manipulation,
Put an (untapped) land you control on top of its owner's library, and
Search your library for a (basic land) and put it on top
Seem to be the best to me, since they can easily fit most of the colours(the first one at least) and it would also fit current Pyrulea cards, which I think is kinda important.
The problem I'm seeing is with limited. In Standard, then yes, cards with discover 1 would be viable, because you can pack your deck with ways to manipulate the top of your library. However, in a draft or (heaven forbid) sealed environment, the library manipulation tools will likely be scarce, and if another player wants to pick up the archetype, the cards will likely dry up very quickly.
We have to look at the mechanic without assuming you have any support cards. For example, look at delerium. It is difficult to achieve delerium if you have no enablers, but definitely still possible (creature, instant, sorcery, land), and the payoff is often quite significant.
With discover 1, it is often going to be very luck-based, with you only getting the bonus about 40% of the time. Those odds are not appealing to any player. However, your chances get exponentially better the more cards you reveal - discover 2 gives you a 65% chance, discover 3 an 80% chance, etc.
I can see this going two ways. Either we make subpar cards with discover 1 that become very good with the upside. This will make games much more "swingy," and may lead to feel-bad situations. Our we can make decent cards with discover 2 that become slightly better with the bonus, which makes the mechanic feel less important.
So we need a way to make the mechanic viable, without making it too luck-dependant. Perhaps the answer is putting in lots of common enablers, I don't know. Just pointing out the problems I see right now.
Reveal two, yes, reveal just one will not succeed as often as you want it too.
50% is already a terrible chance for success, less than even more so. People are in general more risk averse, anything below at least 60% is just feel bad.
I'm not sure that people not wanting to play cards with 'Discover' before they have setup it up is a real problem. Obviously there's a potential for feel-bad moments, but I feel like if the chance of pulling it without manipulation is too high then the build around aspect won't be sufficiently compelling. I'm starting to get the sense you may be right though.
Reveal 2 increases the chance significantly, but I don't think we should have a fixed number. It would be easier to remember, yes, but X leaves open so much design space and tweaking. it would be a bad idea to cut it off.
It's more than just memory, there's also issue over whether you can people can actually tell what the mechanic does given that when it's an ability word you can't actually know from the card alone. Consistency is important.
Seem to be the best to me, since they can easily fit most of the colours(the first one at least) and it would also fit current Pyrulea cards, which I think is kinda important.
The chance of successful discovery should not be too high on its own, but still higher than 50%. It all depends on the cost for the ability. For repeatable effect for example, let's say it costs 1. That is ok if you can manipulate the library sufficiently often, but otherwise I personally would not risk it unless I really have nothing else to do with the mana and the effect doesn't care for which phase it is, like a lifegain effect or something.
The memory issue with a scale able ability is a problem, true that.
Anything with lands feels like it should be in G, possibly in R too. I think it depends on what the effect is.
Reveal a land, put it into your hand? Green.
Reveal a land, deal dmg? Red.
Reveal a land, gain life? White. etc.
For the library manipulation, I honestly don't know. Returning a land to the top of your library could be in any colour, search and ramp effects should stay green though.
I think if we set discover to 2, while it does reduce design space, it makes the mechanic a bit simpler, while keeping the probability at a good ~65%.
Also land search is black in addition to green, as long as it looks for exclusively swamps.
G then R being the primary colors for land based stuff makes perfect sense. I especially like potential for expanded land control in R.
While other colors and multi-color combinations with G or R could be possible, it would seem to me that any version of this we go with probably is not something that can be especially evenly distributed across the colors for the whole set.
To me that means we still might need at least one other mechanic that is roughly applicable to all the colors.
(Ability X)--reveal the top X cards of your library. For each land card revealed this way, do (this). Put all revealed cards on the bottom of our library, in any order.
call it "Conquest"
its a combat trigger that filters land from your library to fuel abilities
1G
Chaal Warrior
2/2
Uncommon
Insect Warrior
Whenever (THIS) attacks Conquest 1 (Reveal the top card of your library. For each land card revealed this way, exile it. Then put all other revealed cards on the bottom of your library, in any order)
whenever a land is exiled by Conquest, put a +1/+1 counter on Chaal warrior.
2R
Razing Boar
2/2
common
Elemental Boar
Whenever (THIS) becomes blocked, Conquest 1 (Reveal the top card of your library. For each land card revealed this way, exile it. Then put all other revealed cards on the bottom of your library, in any order)
whenever a land is exiled by Conquest, deal 1 damage to each creature blocking (This)
2R
Barbarian Fortress
Enchantment - Aura
uncommon
Enchant Mountain
At the beginning of combat on your turn, Conquest 2 (Reveal the top two cards of your library. For each land card revealed this way, exile it. Then put all other revealed cards on the bottom of your library, in any order)
any thoughts?
But say if the land was put into the graveyard, instead of exiled, Conquest might be too strong?
It would be more like scrying that you can't put back on top of library but gives a 'bonus' of putting a land into the graveyard.
Also, while tying it to combat is neat, I think we open ourselves up to a lot more design space if we allow for other types of conquest cards. For example:
Conquering Counterspell 1U
Instant (C)
Conquer 4. Counter target spell unless its controller pays 1 for each land conquered this way.
It could definitely be in green, and I think blue and/or black could probably get it. It doesn't need to go in all colours. I am concerned though that this is to much of a stretch anywhere outside green in any significant number.
Graveyard interaction is very easy to put in set. Minor graveyard theme is an easy do.
Or, you know, Uncover.
Yes, there's a pretty big cost to it. But it's cool .
Sorcery speed is an easy go to, sure.
I don't think this world concept is good for an exploitation feel, it's too wondrous and surreal. It seems like it takes away from what makes the world interesting.
My suggestion is we go with a sort of imagination-gone-wild feel. I think it matches the world and it's got lots of ways to convey it (namely by interacting with things in new, weird ways and by having high explosive potential).
And the library theme idea fits right in .
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
'Conquest' doesn't feel like the right thematic direction for this world.
So the gameplay of this is you filter through your library and strip lands for benefits? Sounds like unfun mechanic in the waiting, that it's just going to have players mana screw themselves and regret it later.
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
Discover(?) - Reveal the top card of your library. If it's a land card, (effect).
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
Could also be
Discover X - Reveal the top X cards of your library. For each land card revealed this way, (effect). Put the revealed card on the bottom of your library in any order.
This was my primary concern. My first intuition was simply "this is a feel bad mechanic because it's basically mana screwing yourself for what looks like marginal benefits". The proposed alternatives of discover appeal to me more, and they fit the theme of exploration much better - something based on finding lands or using them to one's benefit. Not destroying them in exchange for something.
So, does anyone have suggestions as to what we could do about the legendary subtheme? I am entirely against Grandeur (although I could be convinced otherwise), but am currently at a loss as to what other type of mechanic we could use. Maybe something similar to Rally, where it triggers whenever you cast a legendary spell?
This seems to have less design space, is often going to have greater variance and not in a way I think will be good, and is more complex. I prefer my suggested version.
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
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
Revealing multiple cards and checking for a single land makes it quite consistent. That goes against the build around aspect of the mechanic encouraging you to use library manipulation. Having a card number variable as well as different effects were some are scaling and some are not is also probably too much variation for an ability word.
Another concern with the scaling effect version is it encourages you to fix your deck so only have lands for the next several draws for maximum effect, but this probably isn't something we want to encourage.
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
It doesn't have less, it has even more than single card reveal. Single top card reveal has the same problem as clash or kinship, way too much uncertainty without library manipulation, especially if it's counting lands, which gives you less than 50% chance to succeed in an average deck. Less than 50% is something the majority of players I dare say will think terrible odds.
Reveal X can include every number and possibility, "for each revealed" and "if a land was revealed" can be included in the set if we do it in a smart way, like making one of them "special" by having it only on a cycle of cards, maybe even a legendary cycle. Like, every lower rarity just cares if a land was revealed, while the legends care how many were revealed too.
Anyways, it definitely should be more than just "the top card", unless revealing the top card has next to no detriments, which would make it not a good mechanic. Just revealing the top card to check for something was already deemed a failure, for legitimate reasons.
Reveal two and check for a land will succeed a lot of the time even without any library manipulation, and with only a little bit you can basically guarantee it. That's not good.
Compared to Clash and Kinship, Clash compared to opponent's cards so had the opponent matters problem same as intimidate and landwalk, Kinship looked for a creature of the same type, which is usually going to be significantly less of your deck than lands.
That this mechanic has a less than 50% chance without library manipulation is fine, because what makes the mechanic interesting is library manipulation. It's kind of the point that you don't have very good chances without supporting things, because that drives the mechanic- it's a library manipulation matters mechanic. Given then that the chances are reasonable even without library manipulation, I don't think this is a problem.
While we are on the subject, here's a brainstorming of ways to interact with either version:
Put a land you control on top of its owner's library (as a cost)
Search library for a land and put on top
Put a land from graveyard on top
Scry
Any other scry like effects
Put a card from your hand on the top of your library, then put the bottom card of your library into your hand (as a Tormenting Voice effect variant in red)
Also, out of set context, I think this mechanic should be primary in . Maybe secondary in and/or .
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
50% is already a terrible chance for success, less than even more so. People are in general more risk averse, anything below at least 60% is just feel bad. Reveal 2 increases the chance significantly, but I don't think we should have a fixed number. It would be easier to remember, yes, but X leaves open so much design space and tweaking. it would be a bad idea to cut it off. If you have to manipulate the library first to gain something for your Mana then that is not such a big advantage anyway since you need to set it up first. It all depends on the pricing of the cards and the ability. Are (most) of the cards subpar for their cost without the ability then gaining an advantage with it if you manipulated your library first is totally ok.
An almost filler creature that ETB's Discover with reveal 1 card is barely playable, gets ok with lib manipulation, and that is fine.
It should be a good mechanic in Limited too without too much forcing it with another mechanic, otherwise it will be "feel bad" most of the time.
Regarding manipulation,
Put an (untapped) land you control on top of its owner's library, and
Search your library for a (basic land) and put it on top
Seem to be the best to me, since they can easily fit most of the colours(the first one at least) and it would also fit current Pyrulea cards, which I think is kinda important.
We have to look at the mechanic without assuming you have any support cards. For example, look at delerium. It is difficult to achieve delerium if you have no enablers, but definitely still possible (creature, instant, sorcery, land), and the payoff is often quite significant.
With discover 1, it is often going to be very luck-based, with you only getting the bonus about 40% of the time. Those odds are not appealing to any player. However, your chances get exponentially better the more cards you reveal - discover 2 gives you a 65% chance, discover 3 an 80% chance, etc.
I can see this going two ways. Either we make subpar cards with discover 1 that become very good with the upside. This will make games much more "swingy," and may lead to feel-bad situations. Our we can make decent cards with discover 2 that become slightly better with the bonus, which makes the mechanic feel less important.
So we need a way to make the mechanic viable, without making it too luck-dependant. Perhaps the answer is putting in lots of common enablers, I don't know. Just pointing out the problems I see right now.
I'm not sure that people not wanting to play cards with 'Discover' before they have setup it up is a real problem. Obviously there's a potential for feel-bad moments, but I feel like if the chance of pulling it without manipulation is too high then the build around aspect won't be sufficiently compelling. I'm starting to get the sense you may be right though.
It's more than just memory, there's also issue over whether you can people can actually tell what the mechanic does given that when it's an ability word you can't actually know from the card alone. Consistency is important.
What are your thoughts on the colours for this? ?
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
The memory issue with a scale able ability is a problem, true that.
Anything with lands feels like it should be in G, possibly in R too. I think it depends on what the effect is.
Reveal a land, put it into your hand? Green.
Reveal a land, deal dmg? Red.
Reveal a land, gain life? White. etc.
For the library manipulation, I honestly don't know. Returning a land to the top of your library could be in any colour, search and ramp effects should stay green though.
Also land search is black in addition to green, as long as it looks for exclusively swamps.
While other colors and multi-color combinations with G or R could be possible, it would seem to me that any version of this we go with probably is not something that can be especially evenly distributed across the colors for the whole set.
To me that means we still might need at least one other mechanic that is roughly applicable to all the colors.