A long time ago, I started a set based on economics (there are 5 levels of economic positions, so I figured they'd make a good basis for 5 factions). For the tertiary faction, since tertiary economics are the retail sector, I had them focused on merchants. This is the mechanic I came up with:
Donation — You may have this creature enter the battlefield under an opponent’s control. As long as you don’t own it, it has [insert detriment here].
Basically, the idea is you can keep it, or you can give it away to the detriment of an opponent (but they'd be getting a creature out of it). Two examples from the set:
Masochistic Medic1RW Creature - Human Donation — You may have Masochistic Medic enter the battlefield under target opponent’s control. As long as you don’t own it, it has “At the beginning of your upkeep, Masochistic Medic deals 2 damage to you.”
Prevent the first 1 damage that would be dealt to you each turn. 1/1 Their lips say I’m mad, but their blood screams “spill me!”
Stonecrack Minion3BB Creature - Gargoyle
Stonecrack Minion is indestructible.
Donation — You may have Stonecrack Minion enter the battlefield under target opponent’s control. As long as you don’t own it, it has defender and “Whenever a source deals damage to Stonecrack Minion, sacrifice another creature”. 1/2 It waits, watches, and studies its prey—then it strikes and carries it away.
My question is: what do you think of the mechanic? And also, how the heck do you balance this cost-wise, since it creates two very different situations depending on whether you donate it or not? (For example, should there be a separate Donation cost, or some other balancing, or is it fine as-is?)
IT would be fun if it had advantage to owning it and donating it.
However, the black one is absolutely useless if you own it (5cc for 1/3? Not worth it even with indestructible), and as such it has no reason the be played without the donation.
Also, this runs into the problem control cards run into. After the game, there is a very realistic chance that you'll lose the card, permanently, because either/both you and your opponent forget to return the card.
This is fine as a one or two of (like sleeper agent). As a mechanic and appearing in several cards, the risk of loss due to the number of cards accidentally changing hands is too high.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
Ignoring logistical issues, this should probably be worded as something like the following, to prevent confusion between what the two instances of "you" mean:
Donation (You may have this enter the battlefield under an opponent's control.)
As long as ~'s owner doesn't control it, [foo].
Donation - ~'s owner may have it enter the battlefield under the control of one of his or her opponents. If ~'s owner doesn't control it, [bar].
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
IT would be fun if it had advantage to owning it and donating it.
However, the black one is absolutely useless if you own it (5cc for 1/3? Not worth it even with indestructible), and as such it has no reason the be played without the donation.
Also, this runs into the problem control cards run into. After the game, there is a very realistic chance that you'll lose the card, permanently, because either/both you and your opponent forget to return the card.
This is fine as a one or two of (like sleeper agent). As a mechanic and appearing in several cards, the risk of loss due to the number of cards accidentally changing hands is too high.
Would Stonecrack Minion be better if the donation cost was different from the normal casting cost? So it could cost less, like 1BB or 2BB, but then the donation cost would be 3BB?
As for the risk of card loss...what's the likelihood of two players using the same sleeves, not killing a donated card by game's end, *and* both forgetting the card was donated? Each individually, maybe, but one of those would get you your card back in most cases, I'd think.
I think the logistical issues mentioned aren't that serious, or rather, it's relative to players simply being sure to get their cards back in much the same way as one might ensure that someone doesn't accidentally steal your lighter. I'd think in most cases it's a non-issue. Someone playing a donate style deck surely intends to get their cards back. It's not like playing for ante or something.
Anyways, I have messed with this kind of theme under a slightly different mechanic (Infiltrate, which basically gave the card an alternate mana cost to donate it instead, and then I used the Infiltrate as a trigger/enabler for a bad effect for the controller). While there are some interesting possibilities, I found it very odd/rough to try to balance between the route of playing a card normally and playing it donated - you don't want to be giving your opponent too much of an advantage or perk by accident, or for the normal route to be weak, essentially a "bad card". The closest I got to balancing it, making the normal route more viable, was by making the normal route an undercosted creature, like a 2/1 flyer for 1 mana, maybe with a minor drawback.
The one possible advantage my Infiltrate mechanic has is that since donating can have its own independent mana cost, there its perhaps a touch more wiggle room for trying to balance the normal route with the donation route.
One might just be better off simplifying it to a mechanic or cycle for cards inherently (or for a cost?) entering the battlefield under an opponents control, sort of more like an elaboration on the concept behind old cards like Jinxed Idol, maybe a spy/infiltrater theme. Perplexing Chimera also opens some interesting possibilities.
Donation — You may have this creature enter the battlefield under an opponent’s control. As long as you don’t own it, it has [insert detriment here].
Basically, the idea is you can keep it, or you can give it away to the detriment of an opponent (but they'd be getting a creature out of it). Two examples from the set:
Masochistic Medic 1RW
Creature - Human
Donation — You may have Masochistic Medic enter the battlefield under target opponent’s control. As long as you don’t own it, it has “At the beginning of your upkeep, Masochistic Medic deals 2 damage to you.”
Prevent the first 1 damage that would be dealt to you each turn.
1/1
Their lips say I’m mad, but their blood screams “spill me!”
Stonecrack Minion 3BB
Creature - Gargoyle
Stonecrack Minion is indestructible.
Donation — You may have Stonecrack Minion enter the battlefield under target opponent’s control. As long as you don’t own it, it has defender and “Whenever a source deals damage to Stonecrack Minion, sacrifice another creature”.
1/2
It waits, watches, and studies its prey—then it strikes and carries it away.
My question is: what do you think of the mechanic? And also, how the heck do you balance this cost-wise, since it creates two very different situations depending on whether you donate it or not? (For example, should there be a separate Donation cost, or some other balancing, or is it fine as-is?)
However, the black one is absolutely useless if you own it (5cc for 1/3? Not worth it even with indestructible), and as such it has no reason the be played without the donation.
Also, this runs into the problem control cards run into. After the game, there is a very realistic chance that you'll lose the card, permanently, because either/both you and your opponent forget to return the card.
This is fine as a one or two of (like sleeper agent). As a mechanic and appearing in several cards, the risk of loss due to the number of cards accidentally changing hands is too high.
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
Donation (You may have this enter the battlefield under an opponent's control.)
As long as ~'s owner doesn't control it, [foo].
Donation - ~'s owner may have it enter the battlefield under the control of one of his or her opponents. If ~'s owner doesn't control it, [bar].
[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
Would Stonecrack Minion be better if the donation cost was different from the normal casting cost? So it could cost less, like 1BB or 2BB, but then the donation cost would be 3BB?
As for the risk of card loss...what's the likelihood of two players using the same sleeves, not killing a donated card by game's end, *and* both forgetting the card was donated? Each individually, maybe, but one of those would get you your card back in most cases, I'd think.
Anyways, I have messed with this kind of theme under a slightly different mechanic (Infiltrate, which basically gave the card an alternate mana cost to donate it instead, and then I used the Infiltrate as a trigger/enabler for a bad effect for the controller). While there are some interesting possibilities, I found it very odd/rough to try to balance between the route of playing a card normally and playing it donated - you don't want to be giving your opponent too much of an advantage or perk by accident, or for the normal route to be weak, essentially a "bad card". The closest I got to balancing it, making the normal route more viable, was by making the normal route an undercosted creature, like a 2/1 flyer for 1 mana, maybe with a minor drawback.
The one possible advantage my Infiltrate mechanic has is that since donating can have its own independent mana cost, there its perhaps a touch more wiggle room for trying to balance the normal route with the donation route.
One might just be better off simplifying it to a mechanic or cycle for cards inherently (or for a cost?) entering the battlefield under an opponents control, sort of more like an elaboration on the concept behind old cards like Jinxed Idol, maybe a spy/infiltrater theme. Perplexing Chimera also opens some interesting possibilities.