In the new We Make the Set discussion I proposed a vehicle mechanic which is multi-equipment, so multiple creatures can jump on the same artifact ship. The flavor limitation here is that it only works for built vehicles, not living ones.
"Ride" is the term I would use if we wanted to expand this to vehicles, not just one-one mounts, and it would probably need a limit on the number of creatures that can ride. If people are concerned about baloths riding wolves or whatever, what do they think of these restrictions?
Creature A can only ride Creature B if:
A's power is less than B's power
A's toughness is less than B's power
A's power is less than B's toughness
A's toughness is less than B's toughness.
Stone Giant suggests that B can lift A if B's power is greater than A's toughness, but a bunch of high-power mounts is weird.
I think the simplest way to do this is to make Mount a version of Banding, with a dash of equipment thrown in. My version:
Mount <cost> (If ~this~ is unmounted, another unmounted creature you control mounts it. A mount and its rider attack and block as a group and deal damage as though they were a single source. A mount and its rider can only be blocked if the blocking creatures could block them both.)
This "joins" the two creatures together in a much simpler way than fancy card frames and yet still leaves them as distinct creatures that can be targeted on their own. Sample render:
If you want to go the other way and put the ability on the rider:
[optional creature type] Rider <cost> (Unmount ~this~, then it mounts an unmounted [type] creature you control. A mount and its rider attack and block as a group and deal damage as though they were a single source. A mount and its rider can only be blocked if the blocking creatures could block them both.)
Sample render:
The only problem is that the reminder text is a bit wordy, but I think it's offset by the elegance of the mechanic in practice.
Any comments on my variant? Anyone? I feel like I'm spitting into deep space here.
Failing gettingcomments, unless there are any objections, I believe we could have a competition and start going with popular choice & have a discussion thread about it in the contests section. Could be done whenever a popular ability with multiple variants occurs. I'm sure there are others beside mount (day/night for instance before innistradl).
I second the motion of doing a contest if only because I didn't get comments on my variant either
Stone Giant suggests that B can lift A if B's power is greater than A's toughness, but a bunch of high-power mounts is weird.
There's actually a good reason for that: thoughness is related to mass and density. The more dense a tissue/material is (I.e. the more resilient,) the heavier it will be barring advanced technology/majicks. However, offensive power can be greatly increased with very little increment in mass: a puny human with a good rifle is more powerful than an elephant; a goblin with an axe is more powerful than a huge oak.
I'm calling it right now- worst rare in the set. Even good limited players will find better bombs at common and uncommon no sweat. Worst. Episode. Ever.
I really do predict this to be our worst rare in set award winner. I'd be happier opening a jar of eyeballs, so I think anything worse is highly unlikely. This card wont just have zero constructed potential, but not be significantly better than a mass of ghouls in a draft.
Here's my take on some of the main issues, having read through the thread:
Ability on rider or mount: I am on the side of riding being an ability of the thing that is being ridden, for two reasons; in reality, it takes time to adjust a creature to being ridden, so creatures with mount or ride would represent trained ones, as opposed to wild ones, and this would theoretically allow us to expand the riding ability to non-living craft such as ships, which anyone could board.
Visual representation: I liked luminum's presentation the best because the double text box allows for the mount to have/give abilities to the rider(s). Piar's looked cool but there isn't enough space there.
Unity of rider and mount: I feel they should be separate as far as targeting and damage; you could blow the rider off the mount with a bolt, or if you bolt his mount during combat he'll fall off and be stuck on the battlefield, where something will probably block and kill him. This is a little rougher with flying mounts, but we can assume they crash and the rider rolls off or something.
Attacking/blocking: They should clearly attack/block as one unit. I'm not opposed to damage division a la banding, but maybe it could use the M10 blocking ordering system or whatever? I'd say the mount should generally come in order before the rider.
Limitations on riding: I don't think that any restriction will be worth the text space and rules it requires. Rafiq of the Many ought to be able to ride something, but on size alone, whatever he can ride can also be ridden by a Trained Armodon.
Maokun's mechanic: I didn't like that you had to have a rider in hand, people should be able to jump on and off later.
Tapping: I think the mount should tap (unless it has vigilance,) but the rider doesn't need to, but this is mostly because I want to have horseback archers that shoot things. That can be done another way.
If you can only group with one creature at a time, why call if "group"? That implies a larger, well, group. Having a name that isn't specifically related to being mounted, or riding, etc. pulls away from the concept as well (which I want to be the main focus of this exercise).
The frame is interesting but isn't shown well by your example, since part of the "grouped" side is cut off, defeating the purpose. You might as well just use normal text at that point.
Is it worth it to allow multiple riders? If there were multiple riders, should the mount add its p/t and/or abilities to all of them, or is it just one big mass, with the mount's p/t added once? The logistics are a lot easier with only one rider, but I'd be interested in seeing if we can push it to allow multiples so that we open up the space of big ships, where you might load up a bunch of guys to make a giant creature that smashes the opponent. Imagine being able to actually build a Weatherlight with crew, instead of having a bunch of legends and a random artifact.
Does anyone have opinions on how damage is divided among a riding group? Do you think one person blocking a rider and mount should be able to deal damage to the rider before the mount if they want? The default would be for the blocker to choose an order to apply damage in (509.3).
Do you think riders should tap? It probably makes the most sense, because you wouldn't want the riders to be able to ride and attack, and still be free to block. I guess we could just have attack triggers and what not to allow creatures to shoot and do stuff while they are riding.
@silvercut: I think the lower half text box that luminum had worked better for the exercise of one thing riding another, I appreciate the idea of allowing a stack of guys this way, but that takes away from the vehicle/mount concept to more of a banding thing, as luminum points out.
I'd rather just stick to the simpler method of one rider per mount. Technically, some creature cards represent multiple creatures, so you could fit an entire Drove of Elves onto a single horse, for example.
Here's my take on some of the main issues, having read through the thread:
Ability on rider or mount: I am on the side of riding being an ability of the thing that is being ridden, for two reasons; in reality, it takes time to adjust a creature to being ridden, so creatures with mount or ride would represent trained ones, as opposed to wild ones, and this would theoretically allow us to expand the riding ability to non-living craft such as ships, which anyone could board.
Visual representation: I liked luminum's presentation the best because the double text box allows for the mount to have/give abilities to the rider(s). Piar's looked cool but there isn't enough space there.
Unity of rider and mount: I feel they should be separate as far as targeting and damage; you could blow the rider off the mount with a bolt, or if you bolt his mount during combat he'll fall off and be stuck on the battlefield, where something will probably block and kill him. This is a little rougher with flying mounts, but we can assume they crash and the rider rolls off or something.
Attacking/blocking: They should clearly attack/block as one unit. I'm not opposed to damage division a la banding, but maybe it could use the M10 blocking ordering system or whatever? I'd say the mount should generally come in order before the rider.
Limitations on riding: I don't think that any restriction will be worth the text space and rules it requires. Rafiq of the Many ought to be able to ride something, but on size alone, whatever he can ride can also be ridden by a Trained Armodon.
Maokun's mechanic: I didn't like that you had to have a rider in hand, people should be able to jump on and off later.
Tapping: I think the mount should tap (unless it has vigilance,) but the rider doesn't need to, but this is mostly because I want to have horseback archers that shoot things. That can be done another way.
Liking that finally someone made a list though it reads awfully specific.
@silvercut's version:
I'd like it vertically like this:
Saddled Tarpan :2mana::symg:
Creatue - Horse Mount
C
Mount (This creature may joined attack with a single other creature.)
-
Group
Bonus
-
Vigilance
This creature can't be blocked by creatures without flying.
-
2/2
Mounted Archers will be a proficiency of white and green Mounts then.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Planar Chaos was not a mistake neither was it random. You might want to look at it again.
[thread=239793][Game] Level Up - Creature[/thread]
I thought that 'mount' should be something closer to 'enchant' as a keyword, limiting the rider to a single type (a knight with Mount Horse could ride any horse, but only horses). We can add reminder text to the effect of 'Attach this to a X you control. Creatures share abilities and attack as a unit. Creatures can be targetted seperately.'
That way seems best to me. Both creatures can be played seperately, it isn't too complicated and it's well within current rules.
The flavour of only tamed animals being able to be ridden, flavourful as it would be, has to fall by the wayside in favour of gameplay.
You're a wizard anyway. If you can stop a Vastwood Gorger chomping your Llanowar Elves mid-battle, I'm sure you can persuade it to give them a piggy-back ride as well.
A thought crossed my mind: Why are we trying to change the card face for this mechanic? Auras don't need to be different for us to use them, and neither do equipments. Since these will, in all effect, just be the creature equivalent of equipment and auras, it shouldn't get any sort of special "rearrange the card just because we can" treatment.
First, it just needs to work. Period. Any aesthetic qualms should be completely set aside until that happens. And I argue that unless you would also like to change auras and equipment to that same card face, just leave it on the regular face.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Death Vish | High on Crackblade | Ooze the Boss | Long Live the King | Fomori Face Fister
Brunal Legend | Hazezon First | Cirrhosis of the Sliver | Animar Planet | The Joy of Pain-ting
A thought crossed my mind: Why are we trying to change the card face for this mechanic? Auras don't need to be different for us to use them, and neither do equipments. Since these will, in all effect, just be the creature equivalent of equipment and auras, it shouldn't get any sort of special "rearrange the card just because we can" treatment.
It depends on the version. Creatures have the distinction of specifically being mentioned in the rules as a card type that cannot be attached to another permanent (as mentioned before).
Not every incarnation of a mechanic suggested that uses an altered card face needs it and some that don't might benefit from it. I agree though that some did it because they can.
Levelers, btw, would have worked without altered card face. FFT.
First, it just needs to work. Period. Any aesthetic qualms should be completely set aside until that happens. And I argue that unless you would also like to change auras and equipment to that same card face, just leave it on the regular face.
Auras and Equipments already have a specialized face for being equipped - the normal face. Auras and Equipments simply aren't supposed to be considered in any other way ~9/10 times. That makes the comparison... inadvisable.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Planar Chaos was not a mistake neither was it random. You might want to look at it again.
[thread=239793][Game] Level Up - Creature[/thread]
Auras and Equipments already have a specialized face for being equipped - the normal face. Auras and Equipments simply aren't supposed to be considered in any other way ~9/10 times. That makes the comparison... inadvisable.
But why does the rider need to be considered in any other way? If you set the rider to give specific abilities to his mount, you can change the rules to where it did work just like auras, equipment, and fortifications. This would mean you'd need to put the mechanic on the rider, and not the mount, and this in turn leads to a problem of parasitic design versus flavor (do I let the elf ride the giant, or specifiy what the elf can ride and, thus, have a fairly parasitic design), but I still think that if WotC were to do this, they would approach it in this way.
To some extent, I suppose I do want to use altered card faces "for the sake of it" because I like the ability to present information graphically and not just through text. Levelers could have functioned with just text but they lose a lot of what makes them appealing to me in doing so.
To some extent, I suppose I do want to use altered card faces "for the sake of it" because I like the ability to present information graphically and not just through text. Levelers could have functioned with just text but they lose a lot of what makes them appealing to me in doing so.
So you purposely want to find a way to make mounts work in an altered frame? Makes sense to me. Altered frames are neat.
The most problematic/complex elements seem to have to do with combat, I think, and communicating just how attacking/blocking and combat damage work. The mockup I posted earlier is good in one way because it communicates the "two creatures stuck together" concept pretty well (if that's the way we go with this) though it could use improvement in communicating just how combat functions for mounted creatures, which we still need to figure out.
First I wanted to address the inspiration for this thread, Transform cards. While these seem to be receiving visibly "questionable feedback" from the magic community at this point in time, they still flung Magic's Door's wide open to expand and innovate as a game. This would be analogous to the world running totally on solar; it promotes creative freedom as well as erases boundary lines. Were it not for their release, someone may have never felt 'within the context' of the game enough to open a thread such as this one promoting creative card templates, which in and of its self, if it catches on, would drastically improve design space for the members of MTGS alone. Perhaps the community would have felt more "wowed" by the revealing of these card templates if a more jaw dropping use of their mechanic were released other than Werewolves. Lets say, for example, opening up design space on the macroscale for "Planeswalkers Matters" set. Where Legendary creatures could easily 'flip' over and turn into planeswalkers! So for that I would just like to thank both Magic for being such a great and innovative game every year and secondly to thank this forum for opening this type of thread!
Next, I also wanted to make an input to the design of the matter at hand, the Mount mechanic.
I want to quote Mark Rosewater here first:
A common problem of less-experienced designers is that they allow too many different things to pull their focus. They make something they really like and squeeze it in even if it doesn't really fit in with what the rest of the set is doing. Remember, the right thing in the wrong place is actually the wrong thing. Part of shaping a world is figuring out what fits in with your vision. Things that don't fit, no matter how good they are in a vacuum, have to go.
So, this being said, I think that by following one of the greatest guiding lines in design: "Simple is good", we can really pull together and pump out a mount mechanic that both: A) Uses template to convey a message and B)Is simple in evoking flavor, yet elegant as a part of the game. (I don't actually know if that's a guiding line in design but it sounds plausible :p)
Piar had a great and Simple design in my opinion.
If you look in the spoiler, you can see how awesome at conveying information this imagery is. Simple, clean and gets the job done. It supports a major desired flavor of Mounting; Adding the two creature's power and toughness.
Next, I would like to propose a mechanic to support this card template.
Mount Horse :2mana::symw: (:2mana::symw:: Exile a Horse you control mounted by this creature. You may dismount anytime you could cast an instant for :2mana::symw:.)
Mirroring Imprint, which is where the inspiration for this card came from, you would exile the horse card by paying the mount cost. You would exile the card underneath this creature, tilted as shown in Piar's example, and receive the symbolic message that the power/toughness has been increased.
Next by exploiting another creative 'tweaking' engine for design that we saw with "dies" in the new core set, we can begin to simplify and build around the newly crossed borders. For example:
Dismount would simply mean to 'undo the activation cost of mounting.' Unexile the card and put it back onto the battlefield under your control.
Being able to cast this as an instant would represent flavor of being able to jump off. This opens up combat tricks and it also provides and upside in wanting to actually sacrifice board control and mana by putting your creatures in a two for one position for added abilities and power/toughness points.
An example card:
Knight
Creature
First strike
Mount
As long as CARDNAME is mounting, it gets +X/+Y and has vigilance. (+X/+Y are equal to the mounted creature’s power and toughness respectively.)
Here I exploit utilizing single words or phrases to convey meaning that would shorten the text space needed to be used on the cards. In parenthesis, you will see that the world respectively here is used to represent to the players that "X is equal to the mounted creature's power and Y is equal to its toughness." A big improvement and a great trade off at one word!
In addition, Piar's visual cue's will help a lot too to bring the whole thing together. Although, since the card itself is, in the rule's eyes, exiled, the card doesn't actually need to be underneath the creature, which would allow for the Knight in the example to mount other Horses from past sets as well.
I'd argue it'd be difficult to do levelers as just text...
They did a test run with just text using Figure of Destiny. That card worked out pretty well. Granted, it doesn't have room for added T abilities and such. But that's the design space that the altered frame opened up.
Also, I'll throw some support to Zylm's extension of the card frames I posted. It would work well with luminum's frames as well, since it exiles the card rather than tapping it.
I went with tapping because some people were wanting to target the horse as a flavorful tactic, but I can see some desire to use exile instead.
But why does the rider need to be considered in any other way? If you set the rider to give specific abilities to his mount, you can change the rules to where it did work just like auras, equipment, and fortifications. This would mean you'd need to put the mechanic on the rider, and not the mount, and this in turn leads to a problem of parasitic design versus flavor (do I let the elf ride the giant, or specifiy what the elf can ride and, thus, have a fairly parasitic design), but I still think that if WotC were to do this, they would approach it in this way.
I'm not sure what you want to say and why I am quoted in this context.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Planar Chaos was not a mistake neither was it random. You might want to look at it again.
[thread=239793][Game] Level Up - Creature[/thread]
But, then the horse can't be targeted in any way whatsoever. This sounds like some of the advanced designs for haunt, but feels thematically off. If you're riding the horse, it should go into battle with you. Bottom line.
Being able to target the creature as part of the Mounting mechanic would be desirable and flavorful. I just couldn't think of any so I presented a word frugal alternative that still gets the idea across without "squeeze it in" for the sake of the flavor over the gameplay.
... triggering enters the battlefield listeners, when in reality the horse never should have left the battlefield? Ok...
Again, communication breakdown between flavor and gameplay. The horse visually would be underneath the rider, but in words it would be in exile. I don't see this as any more of a threat to design of the mechanic than Birds and Swords was to equip.
But now you have to define a bunch of combat rules involving "jumping off" that aren't already determined. You also need to get some benefit for "jumping off" like unblockability or something, but that doesn't feel like a mount mechanic so much as a trojan horse mechanic (for which ninjitsu was amazing and probably doesn't need to be redone).
Here's an alternative version of "dismount":
Mount Dragon :2mana::symr::symr: (:2mana::symr::symr:: Exile a Dragon you control mounted by this. If mounting, you may pay :2mana::symr::symr: to exile this creature, then return it and its mount to the battlefield under your control.)
Since Mount doesn't indicate to only cast as sorcery, you can "fliker" your humanoid that is carrying the reins of said dragon, hence dodging an incoming Bolt by "jumping off". Or, if being attacked, before you declare blockers, you can dismount, and block individually with the Dragon or Rider. Or if you get doombladed without mana open to dismount, both the dragon and rider go down. No the opponent can't target individually, but it gives both the active player more versatility and the opponent an upside for opportunity to 2 for 1. A win win on both sides of the battlefield and a win win for players.
To some extent, I suppose I do want to use altered card faces "for the sake of it" because I like the ability to present information graphically and not just through text. Levelers could have functioned with just text but they lose a lot of what makes them appealing to me in doing so.
Okay. If what you really want to do is present some information graphically in a never-before-seen way, are you sure that the "mount" concept is the best one to do it with? In my mind, what this concept really, really wants is a way to attach creatures to other creatures somehow, and an incentive to do it. And attachment is well-explored territory in the rules. It would be really weird for the game to handle this concept in a strange new way so different from the conceptually similar, and mechanically extremely elegant, Equipment.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
To some extent, I suppose I do want to use altered card faces "for the sake of it" because I like the ability to present information graphically and not just through text. Levelers could have functioned with just text but they lose a lot of what makes them appealing to me in doing so.
I don't really see mounts as the best mechanic to use in this situation. To me, an attachment is something that already exists in magic. Auras and equipment function just fine without crazy frame changes. While I like the idea of the magic card frame being more maleable than it once was, it seems like in this scenario it's, as you say yourself, messing with something for the sake of messing with it.
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.
A Champion style-mechanic where one creature gets exiled is ok for some kind of creature fusion (Dragonball?) or Phyrexian Ingester, but I agree that it leaves a lot to be desired for functioning mounts.
I'm willing to leave aside things with multiple riders for the initial implementation, but it's something I'd like to keep in the back of our minds as a possible evolution of the mechanic over a block.
Position of the "mount" text box - I like underneath, just because it allows you to line up the p/t bonus close to the rider's p/t. You want it to extend from the rider's text box, not have to skip over most of the rider's card to get the whole picture.
One issue we haven't addressed - is there or should there be a way to prevent mounts from mounting other mounts? I'm worried about how much reminder text we can put in a half text box.
Mount 1W (1W: Target creature you control without Mount mounts this creature. They attack and block together and share the abilities below. Activate this ability only as a sorcery.)
This is five lines of text at MSE-appointed size, but it looks like it squeezes into the upper half at readable size. I don't think Mount is technically supposed to be capitalized there but it looks really weird without it. If you guys are ok with elves riding horses riding elephants, the first sentence could become "Another target creature mounts this creature."
I will think about writing a CR entry for it, any other things that need to be addressed? I was thinking the +2/+3 is a little counter to what we want if they actually remain two separate creatures but attack together. We could just keep the single normal p/t box, and have a lower half text box for abilities that are shared.
Messing with the card frame has been done at least since split cards and Unglued, it's not all that new. I think it's necessary here because attachment doesn't present the right set of rules conditions that we are looking for, but I could be wrong.
EDIT - Really, a lower text box would be really awesome for Auras and Equipment as well. Rancor could have the enchant and return to hand ability in the upper part, while the lower part just said Trample and +2/+0. You could even put a + sign or something next to it to make it clear that the abilities are being added. Argentum Armor would have +6/+6 in the text box and "Whenever this attacks, destroy target permanent." in the box. Equipment and auras that didn't add p/t would either leave the p/t box off or just have dashes or something.
"Ride" is the term I would use if we wanted to expand this to vehicles, not just one-one mounts, and it would probably need a limit on the number of creatures that can ride. If people are concerned about baloths riding wolves or whatever, what do they think of these restrictions?
Creature A can only ride Creature B if:
A's power is less than B's power
A's toughness is less than B's power
A's power is less than B's toughness
A's toughness is less than B's toughness.
Stone Giant suggests that B can lift A if B's power is greater than A's toughness, but a bunch of high-power mounts is weird.
Mount <cost> (If ~this~ is unmounted, another unmounted creature you control mounts it. A mount and its rider attack and block as a group and deal damage as though they were a single source. A mount and its rider can only be blocked if the blocking creatures could block them both.)
This "joins" the two creatures together in a much simpler way than fancy card frames and yet still leaves them as distinct creatures that can be targeted on their own. Sample render:
If you want to go the other way and put the ability on the rider:
[optional creature type] Rider <cost> (Unmount ~this~, then it mounts an unmounted [type] creature you control. A mount and its rider attack and block as a group and deal damage as though they were a single source. A mount and its rider can only be blocked if the blocking creatures could block them both.)
Sample render:
The only problem is that the reminder text is a bit wordy, but I think it's offset by the elegance of the mechanic in practice.
I second the motion of doing a contest if only because I didn't get comments on my variant either
There's actually a good reason for that: thoughness is related to mass and density. The more dense a tissue/material is (I.e. the more resilient,) the heavier it will be barring advanced technology/majicks. However, offensive power can be greatly increased with very little increment in mass: a puny human with a good rifle is more powerful than an elephant; a goblin with an axe is more powerful than a huge oak.
Sorry for not paying much attention to this thread today, been busy. I'll try to keep tabs and actually contribute myself as I find myself available.
R Citizen Cane (Feldon of the Third Path)
The frame is interesting but isn't shown well by your example, since part of the "grouped" side is cut off, defeating the purpose. You might as well just use normal text at that point.
R Citizen Cane (Feldon of the Third Path)
and also they should gain horsemenship
Wanna hear what I think about restaurants?
Check out my http://damancy.blogspot.com/
Trust me! IM FAT!!!!
Is it worth it to allow multiple riders? If there were multiple riders, should the mount add its p/t and/or abilities to all of them, or is it just one big mass, with the mount's p/t added once? The logistics are a lot easier with only one rider, but I'd be interested in seeing if we can push it to allow multiples so that we open up the space of big ships, where you might load up a bunch of guys to make a giant creature that smashes the opponent. Imagine being able to actually build a Weatherlight with crew, instead of having a bunch of legends and a random artifact.
Does anyone have opinions on how damage is divided among a riding group? Do you think one person blocking a rider and mount should be able to deal damage to the rider before the mount if they want? The default would be for the blocker to choose an order to apply damage in (509.3).
Do you think riders should tap? It probably makes the most sense, because you wouldn't want the riders to be able to ride and attack, and still be free to block. I guess we could just have attack triggers and what not to allow creatures to shoot and do stuff while they are riding.
@silvercut: I think the lower half text box that luminum had worked better for the exercise of one thing riding another, I appreciate the idea of allowing a stack of guys this way, but that takes away from the vehicle/mount concept to more of a banding thing, as luminum points out.
R Citizen Cane (Feldon of the Third Path)
Liking that finally someone made a list though it reads awfully specific.
@silvercut's version:
I'd like it vertically like this:
Creatue - Horse Mount
Group
Bonus
-
This creature can't be blocked by creatures without flying.
-
Finally a good white villain quote: "So, do I ever re-evaluate my life choices? Never, because I know what I'm doing is a righteous cause."
Factions: Sleeping
Remnants: Valheim
Legendary Journey: Heroes & Planeswalkers
Saga: Shards of Rabiah
Legends: The Elder Dragons
Read up on Red Flags & NWO
That way seems best to me. Both creatures can be played seperately, it isn't too complicated and it's well within current rules.
The flavour of only tamed animals being able to be ridden, flavourful as it would be, has to fall by the wayside in favour of gameplay.
You're a wizard anyway. If you can stop a Vastwood Gorger chomping your Llanowar Elves mid-battle, I'm sure you can persuade it to give them a piggy-back ride as well.
Decks:GU Evolver, W Modern Knights
Apprentice of Spell Manipulation
Archester: Frontier of Steam
First, it just needs to work. Period. Any aesthetic qualms should be completely set aside until that happens. And I argue that unless you would also like to change auras and equipment to that same card face, just leave it on the regular face.
It depends on the version. Creatures have the distinction of specifically being mentioned in the rules as a card type that cannot be attached to another permanent (as mentioned before).
Not every incarnation of a mechanic suggested that uses an altered card face needs it and some that don't might benefit from it. I agree though that some did it because they can.
Levelers, btw, would have worked without altered card face. FFT.
Auras and Equipments already have a specialized face for being equipped - the normal face. Auras and Equipments simply aren't supposed to be considered in any other way ~9/10 times. That makes the comparison... inadvisable.
Finally a good white villain quote: "So, do I ever re-evaluate my life choices? Never, because I know what I'm doing is a righteous cause."
Factions: Sleeping
Remnants: Valheim
Legendary Journey: Heroes & Planeswalkers
Saga: Shards of Rabiah
Legends: The Elder Dragons
Read up on Red Flags & NWO
But why does the rider need to be considered in any other way? If you set the rider to give specific abilities to his mount, you can change the rules to where it did work just like auras, equipment, and fortifications. This would mean you'd need to put the mechanic on the rider, and not the mount, and this in turn leads to a problem of parasitic design versus flavor (do I let the elf ride the giant, or specifiy what the elf can ride and, thus, have a fairly parasitic design), but I still think that if WotC were to do this, they would approach it in this way.
My custom sets:
Caeia Block (Released - Beta)
Generals of Dareth (In Design)
R Citizen Cane (Feldon of the Third Path)
So you purposely want to find a way to make mounts work in an altered frame? Makes sense to me. Altered frames are neat.
My custom sets:
Caeia Block (Released - Beta)
Generals of Dareth (In Design)
R Citizen Cane (Feldon of the Third Path)
Next, I also wanted to make an input to the design of the matter at hand, the Mount mechanic.
I want to quote Mark Rosewater here first:
So, this being said, I think that by following one of the greatest guiding lines in design: "Simple is good", we can really pull together and pump out a mount mechanic that both: A) Uses template to convey a message and B)Is simple in evoking flavor, yet elegant as a part of the game. (I don't actually know if that's a guiding line in design but it sounds plausible :p)
Piar had a great and Simple design in my opinion.
Next, I would like to propose a mechanic to support this card template.
Mount Horse :2mana::symw: (:2mana::symw:: Exile a Horse you control mounted by this creature. You may dismount anytime you could cast an instant for :2mana::symw:.)
An example card:
Knight
Creature
First strike
Mount
As long as CARDNAME is mounting, it gets +X/+Y and has vigilance. (+X/+Y are equal to the mounted creature’s power and toughness respectively.)
Standard: :symu::symb: Control
They did a test run with just text using Figure of Destiny. That card worked out pretty well. Granted, it doesn't have room for added T abilities and such. But that's the design space that the altered frame opened up.
Also, I'll throw some support to Zylm's extension of the card frames I posted. It would work well with luminum's frames as well, since it exiles the card rather than tapping it.
I went with tapping because some people were wanting to target the horse as a flavorful tactic, but I can see some desire to use exile instead.
I'm not sure what you want to say and why I am quoted in this context.
Finally a good white villain quote: "So, do I ever re-evaluate my life choices? Never, because I know what I'm doing is a righteous cause."
Factions: Sleeping
Remnants: Valheim
Legendary Journey: Heroes & Planeswalkers
Saga: Shards of Rabiah
Legends: The Elder Dragons
Read up on Red Flags & NWO
Lol, I agree, my ideas themselves weren't simple, but the theme was simplifying use of words and imagery.
Being able to target the creature as part of the Mounting mechanic would be desirable and flavorful. I just couldn't think of any so I presented a word frugal alternative that still gets the idea across without "squeeze it in" for the sake of the flavor over the gameplay.
Again, communication breakdown between flavor and gameplay. The horse visually would be underneath the rider, but in words it would be in exile. I don't see this as any more of a threat to design of the mechanic than Birds and Swords was to equip.
Here's an alternative version of "dismount":
Since Mount doesn't indicate to only cast as sorcery, you can "fliker" your humanoid that is carrying the reins of said dragon, hence dodging an incoming Bolt by "jumping off". Or, if being attacked, before you declare blockers, you can dismount, and block individually with the Dragon or Rider. Or if you get doombladed without mana open to dismount, both the dragon and rider go down. No the opponent can't target individually, but it gives both the active player more versatility and the opponent an upside for opportunity to 2 for 1. A win win on both sides of the battlefield and a win win for players.
Standard: :symu::symb: Control
Okay. If what you really want to do is present some information graphically in a never-before-seen way, are you sure that the "mount" concept is the best one to do it with? In my mind, what this concept really, really wants is a way to attach creatures to other creatures somehow, and an incentive to do it. And attachment is well-explored territory in the rules. It would be really weird for the game to handle this concept in a strange new way so different from the conceptually similar, and mechanically extremely elegant, Equipment.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I don't really see mounts as the best mechanic to use in this situation. To me, an attachment is something that already exists in magic. Auras and equipment function just fine without crazy frame changes. While I like the idea of the magic card frame being more maleable than it once was, it seems like in this scenario it's, as you say yourself, messing with something for the sake of messing with it.
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'm willing to leave aside things with multiple riders for the initial implementation, but it's something I'd like to keep in the back of our minds as a possible evolution of the mechanic over a block.
Position of the "mount" text box - I like underneath, just because it allows you to line up the p/t bonus close to the rider's p/t. You want it to extend from the rider's text box, not have to skip over most of the rider's card to get the whole picture.
One issue we haven't addressed - is there or should there be a way to prevent mounts from mounting other mounts? I'm worried about how much reminder text we can put in a half text box.
Mount 1W (1W: Target creature you control without Mount mounts this creature. They attack and block together and share the abilities below. Activate this ability only as a sorcery.)
This is five lines of text at MSE-appointed size, but it looks like it squeezes into the upper half at readable size. I don't think Mount is technically supposed to be capitalized there but it looks really weird without it. If you guys are ok with elves riding horses riding elephants, the first sentence could become "Another target creature mounts this creature."
I will think about writing a CR entry for it, any other things that need to be addressed? I was thinking the +2/+3 is a little counter to what we want if they actually remain two separate creatures but attack together. We could just keep the single normal p/t box, and have a lower half text box for abilities that are shared.
Messing with the card frame has been done at least since split cards and Unglued, it's not all that new. I think it's necessary here because attachment doesn't present the right set of rules conditions that we are looking for, but I could be wrong.
EDIT - Really, a lower text box would be really awesome for Auras and Equipment as well. Rancor could have the enchant and return to hand ability in the upper part, while the lower part just said Trample and +2/+0. You could even put a + sign or something next to it to make it clear that the abilities are being added. Argentum Armor would have +6/+6 in the text box and "Whenever this attacks, destroy target permanent." in the box. Equipment and auras that didn't add p/t would either leave the p/t box off or just have dashes or something.