Exploring mechanics to be used in my second custom cube (First one's in my sig. Check it out!). This mechanic is stolen from one of my favorite card games, Innovation.
Share Provisions (C) 1W
Sorcery
Share -- Any number of players may gain 4 life. You draw a card for each opponent you shared this effect with.
Share Knowledge (C) 3U
Sorcery
Share -- Any number of players may draw two cards. You draw a card for each opponent you shared this effect with.
Share Power (C) 2B
Sorcery
Share -- Any number of players may have another player sacrifice a creature. You draw a card for each opponent you shared this effect with.
Share Spoils (C) 2R
Sorcery
Share -- Any number of players may return an artifact card from their graveyard to their hand. You draw a card for each opponent you shared this effect with.
Share Animals (C) 2GG
Sorcery
Share -- Any number of players may spawn a 3/3 green Beast. You draw a card for each opponent you shared this effect with.
Joint Development Project (C)
Land
Share -- 2, T, Sacrifice ~: Any number of players may search their library for a basic land card and put it onto the battlefield tapped. Players who searched this way shuffle their libraries, and you draw a card for each opponent you shared this effect with.
I hate the wording (ending a sentence with a preposition, etc.) so any wording help will be appreciated.
Luckily, the rules don't define the term "to share an effect with [a player]," so using that in rules text is already not allowed. Fortunately, you do have some alternatives:
If it is mandatory for opponents to accept your offer:
"Share -- Choose any number of opponents. You and each opponent chosen this way gain 4 life. Then draw a card for each opponent who gained life this way."
If it's up to the opponent whether to accept your offer:
"Share -- Starting with you, each player may gain 4 life. Draw a card for each opponent who gained life this way."
From your provided cards, it's rather unclear which you intend. I am almost certain that the first version is extremely broken, since drawing a card for a 4-life advantage on your opponent's part is a pretty good tradeoff a lot of the time. As for the other cards, they don't seem quite as broken at first glance, but with clever deckbuilding, you could put what would seem like a neutral effect into your advantage very easily.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How to use card tags (please use them for everybody's sanity)
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format Minimum deck size: 60 Maximum number of identical cards: 4 Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
I think it's pretty obvious in the card's context. And "not allowed" is a huge jump, every new mechanic adds to the rules, and "wouldn't be allowed" without that change.
What you shouldn't do is make white multiplayer Inspiration (or worse in bigger games.) Maro would have a fit.
I would do it like this:
Share - Any number of target players gains 4 life. Gain 2 life for each legal targeted opponent.
Draw a card.
(I know I said using 'shared' is ok, but still, I feel this reads better and clarifies what happens when a player becomes an illegal target. Not that I expect flashed leylines, but with the recent rule change and all, I think it would need to be the standard wording in some particular future cards.)
And "not allowed" is a huge jump, every new mechanic adds to the rules, and "wouldn't be allowed" without that change.
Exactly my thoughts.
It's up to each player if they want to take up your offer. After a nap and thinking it through a bit I came up with some updated wording:
Share Provisions 2W
Sorcery Share -- Any player may gain 4 life. Draw a card for each opponent that does so.
The card would be a lot more 'fixed' if you only get to draw one card:
Share Provisions v2 2W
Sorcery Share -- Any player may gain 4 life. If at least one opponent does so, draw a card.
But I was trying to avoid scenarios like this.
A: *Casts Share Provisions v2.*
B: No thanks.
C: I'll pass.
D: Sure I'll gain 4 life. You can have the card.
B & C: Well, we'd like to have the life too.
Once someone agrees to share, there's no incentive for an opponent to not join in after that. If we play strictly by the rules, B and C technically aren't allowed to go back on their choices, and I was trying to keep the cube as fun and less rules-lawyery as possible. It seems like I forgot to mention that the cube featuring this mechanic will be a multiplayer cube (a la Conspiracy, draft then play in pods of four).
Also, I was wondering how to do targeted spells just now:
Share Ammunition 2R
Sorcery Share -- Any player may have Share Ammunition deal 2 damage to a target creature of his or her choice. Draw a card for each opponent that does so.
Basically everyone gets to pick a target when the spell is cast, and makes the choice if they want this spell to do damage upon resolution. Just like any other 'may' effect.
And another card:
Share Blueprints 2UU
Sorcery Share -- Any player may search their library for an artifact card with converted mana cost 2 or less and put it onto the battlefield, then shuffle their library. Draw a card for each opponent that does so.
It's not clear how players are chosen. Does the caster chooses the players, or does each player gets a choice? Hence either Thought Criminal's offerings are recommended.
So if I'm understanding you correctly, you want the sharing to undergo the same process as priority passing -- players may opt into the sharing, and once each player has had an opportunity to opt in but passes (due to either already having opted in or because they don't want to at all), then the effect occurs.
If that's the case, you could go as extravagantly as the will of the council or join forces ability words and do the following. You can replace "opt in" with any other similar verb of your choosing:
Share Provisions2W Sorcery Share - Starting with you, each player may opt in. Repeat this process until no one opts in. Each player who opted in gains 4 life, then you draw a card for each opponent that opted in this way.
Like with certain will of the council cards, once a player opts in, they can't opt in again. If you want them to be able to opt out afterward, then you can use something like:
Share Provisions2W Sorcery Share - Starting with you, each player may accept or reject your offer. Repeat this process until no one accepts or rejects. Each accepting player gains 4 life, then you draw a card for each accepting player.
If you desire targets, that becomes a little bit more difficult. I'm going to assume that only opting in is allowed, but you can change that to include opting out also:
Share Ammunition2R Sorcery Share - As you cast ~, each player may opt in. Repeat this process until no one opts in. Each player who opted in chooses target creature of his or her choice.
~ deals 2 damage to each of the chosen creatures. Draw a card for each opponent that opted in.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How to use card tags (please use them for everybody's sanity)
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format Minimum deck size: 60 Maximum number of identical cards: 4 Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
So if I'm understanding you correctly, you want the sharing to undergo the same process as priority passing -- players may opt into the sharing, and once each player has had an opportunity to opt in but passes (due to either already having opted in or because they don't want to at all), then the effect occurs.
It's actually more of how MtG rules work (CR 101.4) that players make their choices in turn order. The issue I'm concerned with Share is that each player's choice is independent from each other, so it doesn't make too much sense that one player has to wait for another to make the choice. Similar scenarios would be, for example, "Each player sacrifices a creature.". You don't see Innocent Blood saying "Starting with you, each player chooses a creature. Then each player sacrifices the chosen creatures." That's how it's technically supposed to be played, but it's alright to take a few shortcuts.
Will of the council is worded more precisely probably because they wanted to emphasize on the voting order, that the last one or two players have "the final say" in the outcome. The only Share card that potentially cares about turn order is Share Ammunition (Post #4), and if that's the case it's just a matter of designing effects that can be independent. The "Accept/Reject" wording looks fine though I'm a little wary of having to read three lines of the same boilerplate text before reaching the effect.
It's actually more of how MtG rules work (CR 101.4) that players make their choices in turn order. The issue I'm concerned with Share is that each player's choice is independent from each other, so it doesn't make too much sense that one player has to wait for another to make the choice. Similar scenarios would be, for example, "Each player sacrifices a creature.". You don't see Innocent Blood saying "Starting with you, each player chooses a creature. Then each player sacrifices the chosen creatures." That's how it's technically supposed to be played, but it's alright to take a few shortcuts.
Will of the council is worded more precisely probably because they wanted to emphasize on the voting order, that the last one or two players have "the final say" in the outcome. The only Share card that potentially cares about turn order is Share Ammunition (Post #4), and if that's the case it's just a matter of designing effects that can be independent. The "Accept/Reject" wording looks fine though I'm a little wary of having to read three lines of the same boilerplate text before reaching the effect.
My wording was made with the intention of explicitly stating that the choice of opting in and opting out would continue until nobody in an entire turn cycle changed their stance. It follows the wording from Plague of Vermin, which would otherwise not have the added two-or-so lines if it didn't follow priority passing's order. In other words, the added "starting with you, .... Repeat this process until no one opts in" text is required to maintain your desired functionality. This does unfortunately mean that the "accept/reject" wording will always have that clunk in front of it, but because that's based on your desired functionality, I don't think anything can really be done about it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How to use card tags (please use them for everybody's sanity)
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format Minimum deck size: 60 Maximum number of identical cards: 4 Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Share Provisions (C)
1W
Sorcery
Share -- Any number of players may gain 4 life. You draw a card for each opponent you shared this effect with.
Share Knowledge (C)
3U
Sorcery
Share -- Any number of players may draw two cards. You draw a card for each opponent you shared this effect with.
Share Power (C)
2B
Sorcery
Share -- Any number of players may have another player sacrifice a creature. You draw a card for each opponent you shared this effect with.
Share Spoils (C)
2R
Sorcery
Share -- Any number of players may return an artifact card from their graveyard to their hand. You draw a card for each opponent you shared this effect with.
Share Animals (C)
2GG
Sorcery
Share -- Any number of players may spawn a 3/3 green Beast. You draw a card for each opponent you shared this effect with.
Joint Development Project (C)
Land
Share -- 2, T, Sacrifice ~: Any number of players may search their library for a basic land card and put it onto the battlefield tapped. Players who searched this way shuffle their libraries, and you draw a card for each opponent you shared this effect with.
I hate the wording (ending a sentence with a preposition, etc.) so any wording help will be appreciated.
Level 2 Judge
Token and Playmat Store
Beyond the Guildpact
If it is mandatory for opponents to accept your offer:
"Share -- Choose any number of opponents. You and each opponent chosen this way gain 4 life. Then draw a card for each opponent who gained life this way."
If it's up to the opponent whether to accept your offer:
"Share -- Starting with you, each player may gain 4 life. Draw a card for each opponent who gained life this way."
From your provided cards, it's rather unclear which you intend. I am almost certain that the first version is extremely broken, since drawing a card for a 4-life advantage on your opponent's part is a pretty good tradeoff a lot of the time. As for the other cards, they don't seem quite as broken at first glance, but with clever deckbuilding, you could put what would seem like a neutral effect into your advantage very easily.
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format
Minimum deck size: 60
Maximum number of identical cards: 4
Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
What you shouldn't do is make white multiplayer Inspiration (or worse in bigger games.) Maro would have a fit.
I would do it like this:
Share - Any number of target players gains 4 life. Gain 2 life for each legal targeted opponent.
Draw a card.
(I know I said using 'shared' is ok, but still, I feel this reads better and clarifies what happens when a player becomes an illegal target. Not that I expect flashed leylines, but with the recent rule change and all, I think it would need to be the standard wording in some particular future cards.)
Exactly my thoughts.
It's up to each player if they want to take up your offer. After a nap and thinking it through a bit I came up with some updated wording:
Share Provisions
2W
Sorcery
Share -- Any player may gain 4 life. Draw a card for each opponent that does so.
The card would be a lot more 'fixed' if you only get to draw one card:
Share Provisions v2
2W
Sorcery
Share -- Any player may gain 4 life. If at least one opponent does so, draw a card.
But I was trying to avoid scenarios like this.
A: *Casts Share Provisions v2.*
B: No thanks.
C: I'll pass.
D: Sure I'll gain 4 life. You can have the card.
B & C: Well, we'd like to have the life too.
Once someone agrees to share, there's no incentive for an opponent to not join in after that. If we play strictly by the rules, B and C technically aren't allowed to go back on their choices, and I was trying to keep the cube as fun and less rules-lawyery as possible. It seems like I forgot to mention that the cube featuring this mechanic will be a multiplayer cube (a la Conspiracy, draft then play in pods of four).
Also, I was wondering how to do targeted spells just now:
Share Ammunition
2R
Sorcery
Share -- Any player may have Share Ammunition deal 2 damage to a target creature of his or her choice. Draw a card for each opponent that does so.
Basically everyone gets to pick a target when the spell is cast, and makes the choice if they want this spell to do damage upon resolution. Just like any other 'may' effect.
And another card:
Share Blueprints
2UU
Sorcery
Share -- Any player may search their library for an artifact card with converted mana cost 2 or less and put it onto the battlefield, then shuffle their library. Draw a card for each opponent that does so.
Level 2 Judge
Token and Playmat Store
Beyond the Guildpact
........................
Level 2 Judge
Token and Playmat Store
Beyond the Guildpact
If that's the case, you could go as extravagantly as the will of the council or join forces ability words and do the following. You can replace "opt in" with any other similar verb of your choosing:
Share Provisions 2W
Sorcery
Share - Starting with you, each player may opt in. Repeat this process until no one opts in. Each player who opted in gains 4 life, then you draw a card for each opponent that opted in this way.
Like with certain will of the council cards, once a player opts in, they can't opt in again. If you want them to be able to opt out afterward, then you can use something like:
Share Provisions 2W
Sorcery
Share - Starting with you, each player may accept or reject your offer. Repeat this process until no one accepts or rejects. Each accepting player gains 4 life, then you draw a card for each accepting player.
If you desire targets, that becomes a little bit more difficult. I'm going to assume that only opting in is allowed, but you can change that to include opting out also:
Share Ammunition 2R
Sorcery
Share - As you cast ~, each player may opt in. Repeat this process until no one opts in. Each player who opted in chooses target creature of his or her choice.
~ deals 2 damage to each of the chosen creatures. Draw a card for each opponent that opted in.
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format
Minimum deck size: 60
Maximum number of identical cards: 4
Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
........................
It's actually more of how MtG rules work (CR 101.4) that players make their choices in turn order. The issue I'm concerned with Share is that each player's choice is independent from each other, so it doesn't make too much sense that one player has to wait for another to make the choice. Similar scenarios would be, for example, "Each player sacrifices a creature.". You don't see Innocent Blood saying "Starting with you, each player chooses a creature. Then each player sacrifices the chosen creatures." That's how it's technically supposed to be played, but it's alright to take a few shortcuts.
Will of the council is worded more precisely probably because they wanted to emphasize on the voting order, that the last one or two players have "the final say" in the outcome. The only Share card that potentially cares about turn order is Share Ammunition (Post #4), and if that's the case it's just a matter of designing effects that can be independent. The "Accept/Reject" wording looks fine though I'm a little wary of having to read three lines of the same boilerplate text before reaching the effect.
Level 2 Judge
Token and Playmat Store
Beyond the Guildpact
My wording was made with the intention of explicitly stating that the choice of opting in and opting out would continue until nobody in an entire turn cycle changed their stance. It follows the wording from Plague of Vermin, which would otherwise not have the added two-or-so lines if it didn't follow priority passing's order. In other words, the added "starting with you, .... Repeat this process until no one opts in" text is required to maintain your desired functionality. This does unfortunately mean that the "accept/reject" wording will always have that clunk in front of it, but because that's based on your desired functionality, I don't think anything can really be done about it.
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format
Minimum deck size: 60
Maximum number of identical cards: 4
Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall