Scrystrike(Whenever this creature deals combat damage, look at that many cards from the top of your library. You may put any number of them on the bottom of your library, then put the rest back on top in any order.)
So I was brainstorming for blue combat mechanics the other day and thought of this. This is sort of Blue's version of lifelink, using combat damage as a way to gain an non-combat advantage (in this case it's card selection instead of life). It's simple and uses concepts already familiar to players. The only real issue here is how powerful the ability is, it'd have to be costed even more prohibitively than lifelink.
Why not just say "Scry X"? WotC doesn't like nested keywords, plus you'd probably just have to write out the scry text anyway. The only thing you lose is interactions with scry triggers (which maybe is relevant enough?)
Why not "Scry 1" N times instead of "Scry N"? That would help curb the power level. This could be the way to go, but it seems harder to parse as reminder text (you'd have to use "repeat this process N times" or something) and more confusing to an inexperienced player.
Why not have it trigger only on combat damage to players? That could also curb the power level. This could also be the way to go, especially since it makes it more aggressive and plays into Blue's evasion. What you lose is a lot of design space for defensive creatures and creatures that are bad attackers. A 1/4 with an ability that only cares about hitting players is lot less useful. Who knows, this might be an acceptable loss.
Why not just make it a flat number instead of having it scale with the damage done? Mostly because having it scale makes is way more interesting. You get a ton of extra design space for different sized creatures, you make ability granting cards (auras, equipment, combat tricks, etc.) a lot more exciting, and you line up better next to most other evergreen keywords.
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.
Reasonable, if seen in small numbers; too much of this would slow down the game considerably. Also, the million dollar question is: Could you conceivably put this in black?
Reasonable, if seen in small numbers; too much of this would slow down the game considerably.
I mean it might push even higher than lifelink to doublestrike territory (uncommons and rares, costed highly, etc.)
Also, the million dollar question is: Could you conceivably put this in black?
Honestly I think yes, but I'm not going to argue against those who disagree. Personally I think black and blue need to share space and "Scry beyond 1" I think is space they could share, but I also know some people (including some WotC members) don't want to change either of their pie slices to find overlap (which seems unrealistic to me).
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.
I don't think this is quite as much of a "premium" mechanic as double strike, indestructible, or even hexproof is. It just doesn't have the immediate impact or pizzazz. As a matter of fact, I'd be perfectly comfortable seeing this at common, although, of course, just as infrequently as in other rarities.
I've been considering a similar mechanic that I've been calling cunning as an evergreen keyword for (G/U). I feel that it could make sense in green because it's been getting effects like Vessel of Nascency and Oath of Nissa lately. I'm glad to see someone else had a similar idea.
You make a good argument for the scry scaling this way, but I agree that multiple instances of this would slow the game down.
What I've been wanting to do with cunning (which uses a flat number) is somehow compile all the triggers for it into one instance of scrying, in order to prevent memory issues ("How many times have I scryed?") and to let you take full advantage of having multiple creatures with the mechanic. However, I don't think this can be done with reminder text that's simple enough for an evergreen. For example:
Cunning (Whenever this creature deals combat damage, scry X, where is X is the number of creatures you control with cunning that dealt combat damage this turn. Scry this way only once each turn.)
I like the idea of the gameplay here, but it has to be nested to work and it's a bit convoluted to initially figure out.
I really don't like smashing them together, mostly because of how bad it looks in text, but multiple triggers is definitely something I hadn't considered. FWIW this does make the "Scry 1 N times" more appealing.
I agree that green would be another good choice for this ability, and in my own world I'd make this primary in blue and secondary in black and green. Green is second best at card selection but it often selects specific things like creatures/lands/permanents. (Again, I would extend black to have more scrying in this universe.)
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.
This is on combat damage, so it can happen repeatedly until the creature leaves play. The complexity of planning and ordering multiple draws will drag out games. It'd make it more of a "Look at top X. Put up to one on top. Put the rest on the bottom."
Also why not just have it be something not tied to power, like Scry 2 or even just Scry 1?
On an unrelated note, I would like "Scry." to also mean "Scry 1."
This is on combat damage, so it can happen repeatedly until the creature leaves play. The complexity of planning and ordering multiple draws will drag out games.
Another reason this is more suited to one or two cards usually at higher rarities. FWIW, limiting this to Scry 1 N times shortens it a lot as well (once you decide to keep, the rest are meaningless).
Also why not just have it be something not tied to power, like Scry 2 or even just Scry 1?
It's in the OP.
On an unrelated note, I would like "Scry." to also mean "Scry 1."
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.
I loved Scry in Mirrodin. It was a fun, nice, simple keyword to place on spells for added effect. But now Scry is everywhere; it's not a keyword, but a keyword action... and that's just rules baggage that hinders new players for esoteric card quality advantage.
Contrast this with Clash, which was more or less "each player scrys" that was also fun and immediately affected the game.
Putting this mechanic on a creature feels really bad - if it only triggers on player damage, you scry too early. If it triggers on any damage, it's incentive for your opponents not to attack you. Neither of which really do what makes players want to scry.
Try a blue mill or loot mechanic.
Looter (When ~ deals damage, draw that many cards, then discard that many cards)
Miller (When ~ deals damage, you may have a player put that many cards from their library into their graveyar.d)
Either of these could be evergreen, with Looter probably needing to cost a lot, and Miller probably not costing anything - a blue trample - since it rarely affects the game, yet can fuel graveyard or mill strategies.
Also, you could try:
Drawer (When ~ deals damage, draw a card.) (or draw that many cards?)
Bouncer (When ~ deals damage to a creature, you may return that creature to its owner's hand).
There's another thread about UB mechanics on the front page where you can suggest your own ideas. Looting has been covered pretty extensively over there. I'm going to keep the discussion focused here.
I loved Scry in Mirrodin. It was a fun, nice, simple keyword to place on spells for added effect. But now Scry is everywhere; it's not a keyword, but a keyword action... and that's just rules baggage that hinders new players for esoteric card quality advantage.
I pretty much fully disagree here. IMO, Scry is a great smoothing mechanic that's added very little rules baggage. Scry 1, which is the most common usage, is very easy for even new players to understand and play with. Scry 2+ is almost always kept to Blue cards, and simply replaces the "not-scry scry" abilities that would usually have to be written out anyway.
Putting this mechanic on a creature feels really bad - if it only triggers on player damage, you scry too early.
I don't quite understand your meaning here. I suppose the absolute "best" time to scry is on your opponent's end step, but this logic just means that any sorcery speed scry effect is "too early."
If it triggers on any damage, it's incentive for your opponents not to attack you.
Similar to how lifelink, deathtouch, and first/double strike do the same thing. Mechanics that are only defensive are undesirable, but that doesn't mean having defensive utility makes a mechanic worse.
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.
I really think it's best to use the nested keyword approach here. I know Wizards likes to avoid it, but it's very silly to be doing this much scrying and miss out on scry triggers.
MOON-E - Re: Scry; I think it's a question of cost VS benefit. Mirrodin's design team clearly thought they were producing a block mechanic that was an alternative to cyling, cantripping, etc - AKA, "simple card effect that needs to be printed in every block" + "twist." Someone else decided "hey, that's a good idea" and retroactively made it a keyword action (note that these were, and still are, few and far between).
This is not unlike how the Kamigawa block were trying to make their uber spirits "unkillable" and decided not to "reinvent the wheel" and just cribbed indestructibility (although now with counters for exponentially added text and largely unplayable creatures. It's worth noting that Kodama of the North Tree saw far more play than any of those cards did; so "unkillable" need not be indestructible.
WOTC got on for over a decade without needing keyword action scry to describe doing stuff with the library, and Clash was even "Kinda scry" for both players.
Make no mistake; I LIKE scry - but I don't like that WOTC has watered it down (Scry 1, not Scry 2) and place it almost everywhere. Imagine if cycling had never want away, and then if you mulligan, each land card in your hand gained "Cycling: 0" - that'd be a barrier to new players that wasn't worth it. This, I think, is like Scry is now.
In any case, onto Scrystrike as a mechanic:
* I agree that "nested" Scry seems right, since Scry seems like an ideal candidate for astral slide-like triggering... especially if done as a Mirrodin-block like mechanic.
* My point regarding attacking is that the optimum time to scry is at the end of turn, so all of your attacking scrystrikers might let you scry something to the bottom of the library you wouldn't have wanted to, given what your opponent does next. Mirrodin's scry, if you recall, was resigned to instants largely for this kind of reason Scrystrike leads to lots of "feel bads" when attacking.
* Similarly, Scrystrike seems like an odd rationale for your opponent not to attack. "If i attack, my attacker will die" is something they think about regarding deathtouch, first strike, etc. Scrystrike is more like lifelink in this manner - and if you like that dynamic, it's a plus. I don't like that dynamic about lifelink.
Keep in mind, I might be biased due to my dislike of how WOTC has overused Scry, and generally messed up regarding new mechanics of late.
It seems like our disagreements are mostly based on larger opinions, namely that I like the current iteration of Scry and you do not. Thanks for your feedback though, you bring up good points.
Nested Scry seems like the way to go. It also makes "Scry 1 that many times" seem like the most appealing version of the mechanic.
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.
Even with this version, I can't see them keywording it for developmental reasons. We haven't seen anything on the power level of Merfolk Looter in ages and even when we got Sigiled Starfish, it was a common in a third set, so it only showed up in 1/3 the packs. Then was reprinted at uncommon in a core set. What is the design space for a creature with this ability? Anything with 2 or more power is bonkers strong if you can back it up with any kind of combat trick or if it can't be blocked for any reason.
A 3/3 with the version of the ability you're suggesting would have to cost around 6 mana based on the amount of filtering it provides. A 2/1 would probably cost 3.
The only bodies that start to look good while still being balanced are things like a 1/3 for 2 or a 1/1 with flying for 2.
I think limiting it only to combat damage to players is the first thing development would do at minimum. But I can't see the design space being large enough to make it to keyword status (at least not immediately) but I can see it on a single flashy rare in a set where it makes sense with a possible similar uncommon thrown in for draftaround purpose.
I think with knobs at "only player combat damage" and "scry 1 regardless of power" it could feasibly make it to evergreen status, but I think it would be like with Menace where they just print a card with it each set for a few years before deciding whether or not to keyword it. It would be at the right power level for limited and could go on bodies that aren't as anemic as looters tend to be based on the value they spew out.
Additionally, it would take over the Scroll Thief slot in limited. Since it's less oppressive than drawing an extra card every turn, it would be able to show up more and wouldn't have to have such restrictive, evasion-hungry designs.
We haven't seen anything on the power level of Merfolk Looter in ages and even when we got Sigiled Starfish, it was a common in a third set, so it only showed up in 1/3 the packs. Then was reprinted at uncommon in a core set.
So the big difference between cards like Looter and Scryfish and a card with Scrystrike is that Scrystrike requires interaction. Looter is strong in part because it never has to enter combat. It generates value just be existing, and if my opponent wants to get rid of it they have to invest a card. This isn't true of Scrystrike. On both offense and defense I'm required to put my creature into harms way if I want to get my value.
Compare a 1/3 with Scrystrike to Sigiled Starfish. The Scrystriker doesn't get to scry unless it attacks into harms way, or I leave it back to block and my opponent attacks. If I really want to scry, I can attack and leave myself open to the crack back. If I want to play it safe, then my opponent could forego attacking and I don't get my value that turn. The cards are comparable, but the Scrystriker doesn't get to both play defense and generate value the way Scryfish does.
What is the design space for a creature with this ability? Anything with 2 or more power is bonkers strong if you can back it up with any kind of combat trick or if it can't be blocked for any reason.
A 3/3 with the version of the ability you're suggesting would have to cost around 6 mana based on the amount of filtering it provides. A 2/1 would probably cost 3.
The only bodies that start to look good while still being balanced are things like a 1/3 for 2 or a 1/1 with flying for 2.
I think you've got a lack of imagination here, I'd say this ability has about as much design space as lifelink. Yes it would probably have to cost 1 or 2 mana more (at common especially), but that leaves quite a lot of room. Examples from standard alone:
- Vampire Cutthroat: Small, evasive creatures that generate repeated value
- Contraband Kingpin: Low power, high toughness creatures good for either attacking safely or a rattlesnake blocker
- Nearheath Chaplain: High power, low toughness creatures that generate a single instance of burst scry
- Faithbearer Paladin: Expensive, beefy creatures
- Indulgent Aristocrat: Any creature that can grow in size
- Rush of Vitality: Combat tricks that grant Scrystrike at instant speed. Much like lifelink granting combat tricks, they can be played on larger creatures to generate huge value once, without risk of repeated abuse. Plus, the scry helps combat the inherent card disadvantage potential often found in combat tricks.
As I mentioned I think Scrystrike would show up in numbers somewhere between lifelink and double strike, but that still leaves plenty of space open. It plays interestingly on creatures of all shapes and sizes, as well as non-creatures. I'd say design space is far from the biggest problem here.
Don't get me wrong, repeatable scry is powerful and it would be difficult to develop, but I think if used sparingly this would hardly be an insurmountable development task. I mean right now in Standard we've only got a single instance of a common lifelinker with power 3. If you just keep the higher numbers out of the lower rarities it seems fine to me. (FWIW, I do think getting huge 5 or 6 card scrys at higher rarities is a positive aspect of this. Like a 5/5 flying Sphinx with Scrystrike feels appropriately awesome the same way a huge lifelinker like Griselbrand does. Comparatively, scrying once only per hit would feel like Grave Titan's deathtouch)
I think limiting it only to combat damage to players is the first thing development would do at minimum. But I can't see the design space being large enough to make it to keyword status (at least not immediately) but I can see it on a single flashy rare in a set where it makes sense with a possible similar uncommon thrown in for draftaround purpose.
I think with knobs at "only player combat damage" and "scry 1 regardless of power" it could feasibly make it to evergreen status, but I think it would be like with Menace where they just print a card with it each set for a few years before deciding whether or not to keyword it. It would be at the right power level for limited and could go on bodies that aren't as anemic as looters tend to be based on the value they spew out.
Well I definitely agree that removing the power interactions cuts out most of the interesting design space.
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.
I could see a big problem with Scrystrike and combat boosts.
Simplest of which would be [Thing with Scrystrike], Giant Growth, scry for more boost spells.
Or maybe the sorcery stuff that also gives trample.
What I'm saying is it might be a bit unstable to tie it to power given the number of cheap boost spells there are.
I still see this as a huge boon, not a downside. I feel like the same thing would be said about double strike if it were suggested today. If I giant growth my scrystrike creature then I'm choosing to spend a card in order to gain card selection. Deciding when and where to make that trade, and my opponent playing around the threat of that decision, adds a lot of gameplay to the mechanic. Of course, this is based on the watered down version suggested (where you "Scry 1 that many times"). It still lets me dig pretty deep, but it doesn't let me set up my draws the same way Scry N would.
It seems like this really just needs to be tested, since the main concern everyone has is power level.
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.
Dealing extra damage with double strike and gaining life with lifelink are not on the same power level as the amount of repeatable cardflow you're proposing. And note: they didn't push double strike for years. Look how long it took after Onslaught to get Fencing Ace. Yes, a 0/3 starfish is not put at risk when you use it, but it's also not capable of killing your opponent on its own. The tool you're producing is one that gives an attacking deck the means to churn through its deck for combat tricks, removal, and key threats while also killing the opponent / blockers.
I think you're underestimating the power of repeatable cardflow you're proposing. As an ability on ~4 cards in a draft environment at various rarities, maybe? But evergreen status or even as a block mechanic seems far more dubious.
Development would be the final arbiter with respect to power level, but I just don't see this meriting keyword status beyond that.
As an ability on ~4 cards in a draft environment at various rarities, maybe? But evergreen status or even as a block mechanic seems far more dubious.
As I'll repeat, I see this appearing at a low rate somewhere between lifelink and double strike. Being evergreen doesn't mean it's going to have levels of exposure like flying or menace. Prowess appears on one to two cards per set, and only ever once at common unless there's a specific deck for it to support. Double strike almost never appears at common outside of combat tricks, and even then it's usually on uncommons and rares.
Basically I'm just saying that evergreen doesn't mean it has to show up at a high volume whatsoever. In fact, I think evergreen might be the only place this mechanic would work to begin with. In an environment where you had tons of scrystrikers they'd be too efficient together. Being evergreen would allow the mechanic to shine in heavy moderation, not unlike most other evergreen mechanics (imagine how miserable limited would be if you could get a deck of all first strikes, or all deathtouchers, etc.)
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.
What if you went for "Indexstrike" instead of Scrystrike? Rather than scrying the top N cards, you look at them, then put them back in any order. Granted, I've often thought that would be an interesting overlap for WU (because white is the organization color, you see), but since UB is the ruling color pair of library manipulation, maybe Indexstrike could fit there instead? Then, when your Indexstriking Sphinx smashes into the opponent, you get to rearrange the top 4-5 cards of your library.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MTGS Wikia Article about "New World Order"
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
PSA to everyone who keeps forgetting about the Reserved List:
You're on a website dedicated to talking about MtG. You're only a few keystrokes away from finding out what cards are on the Reserved List. You're also only a few keystrokes away from finding out why some cards on the Reserved List got foil printings in FtV, as Judge promos, or whatnot, as well as why that won't happen again. Stop doing this.
Another what if- What if you got to look for X cards with this, but put only put one back on top?
Scrystrike (Whenever this creature deals combat damage, look at that many cards from the top of your library. Put one of those cards on the top of your library and the rest on the bottom of your library in a random order.)
I feel like this would give you the benefit of getting to dig deep and it would also speed up the decision making process. (You just need to choose the card you want to draw the most, rather than decide how you want to arrange the top/bottom N cards of your library.)
Those are both interesting suggestions. I've put a few Scrystrikers into my latest playtest to see how they run, but these two ideas are also worth trying out.
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.
So I was brainstorming for blue combat mechanics the other day and thought of this. This is sort of Blue's version of lifelink, using combat damage as a way to gain an non-combat advantage (in this case it's card selection instead of life). It's simple and uses concepts already familiar to players. The only real issue here is how powerful the ability is, it'd have to be costed even more prohibitively than lifelink.
Why not just say "Scry X"? WotC doesn't like nested keywords, plus you'd probably just have to write out the scry text anyway. The only thing you lose is interactions with scry triggers (which maybe is relevant enough?)
Why not "Scry 1" N times instead of "Scry N"? That would help curb the power level. This could be the way to go, but it seems harder to parse as reminder text (you'd have to use "repeat this process N times" or something) and more confusing to an inexperienced player.
Why not have it trigger only on combat damage to players? That could also curb the power level. This could also be the way to go, especially since it makes it more aggressive and plays into Blue's evasion. What you lose is a lot of design space for defensive creatures and creatures that are bad attackers. A 1/4 with an ability that only cares about hitting players is lot less useful. Who knows, this might be an acceptable loss.
Why not just make it a flat number instead of having it scale with the damage done? Mostly because having it scale makes is way more interesting. You get a ton of extra design space for different sized creatures, you make ability granting cards (auras, equipment, combat tricks, etc.) a lot more exciting, and you line up better next to most other evergreen keywords.
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
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
Honestly I think yes, but I'm not going to argue against those who disagree. Personally I think black and blue need to share space and "Scry beyond 1" I think is space they could share, but I also know some people (including some WotC members) don't want to change either of their pie slices to find overlap (which seems unrealistic to me).
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
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
You make a good argument for the scry scaling this way, but I agree that multiple instances of this would slow the game down.
What I've been wanting to do with cunning (which uses a flat number) is somehow compile all the triggers for it into one instance of scrying, in order to prevent memory issues ("How many times have I scryed?") and to let you take full advantage of having multiple creatures with the mechanic. However, I don't think this can be done with reminder text that's simple enough for an evergreen. For example:
Cunning (Whenever this creature deals combat damage, scry X, where is X is the number of creatures you control with cunning that dealt combat damage this turn. Scry this way only once each turn.)
I like the idea of the gameplay here, but it has to be nested to work and it's a bit convoluted to initially figure out.
I agree that green would be another good choice for this ability, and in my own world I'd make this primary in blue and secondary in black and green. Green is second best at card selection but it often selects specific things like creatures/lands/permanents. (Again, I would extend black to have more scrying in this universe.)
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
Also why not just have it be something not tied to power, like Scry 2 or even just Scry 1?
On an unrelated note, I would like "Scry." to also mean "Scry 1."
Older Magic as a Board Game: Panglacial Wurm , Mill
It's in the OP.
I agree.
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
Contrast this with Clash, which was more or less "each player scrys" that was also fun and immediately affected the game.
Putting this mechanic on a creature feels really bad - if it only triggers on player damage, you scry too early. If it triggers on any damage, it's incentive for your opponents not to attack you. Neither of which really do what makes players want to scry.
Try a blue mill or loot mechanic.
Looter (When ~ deals damage, draw that many cards, then discard that many cards)
Miller (When ~ deals damage, you may have a player put that many cards from their library into their graveyar.d)
Either of these could be evergreen, with Looter probably needing to cost a lot, and Miller probably not costing anything - a blue trample - since it rarely affects the game, yet can fuel graveyard or mill strategies.
Also, you could try:
Drawer (When ~ deals damage, draw a card.) (or draw that many cards?)
Bouncer (When ~ deals damage to a creature, you may return that creature to its owner's hand).
I pretty much fully disagree here. IMO, Scry is a great smoothing mechanic that's added very little rules baggage. Scry 1, which is the most common usage, is very easy for even new players to understand and play with. Scry 2+ is almost always kept to Blue cards, and simply replaces the "not-scry scry" abilities that would usually have to be written out anyway.
I don't quite understand your meaning here. I suppose the absolute "best" time to scry is on your opponent's end step, but this logic just means that any sorcery speed scry effect is "too early."
Similar to how lifelink, deathtouch, and first/double strike do the same thing. Mechanics that are only defensive are undesirable, but that doesn't mean having defensive utility makes a mechanic worse.
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
This is not unlike how the Kamigawa block were trying to make their uber spirits "unkillable" and decided not to "reinvent the wheel" and just cribbed indestructibility (although now with counters for exponentially added text and largely unplayable creatures. It's worth noting that Kodama of the North Tree saw far more play than any of those cards did; so "unkillable" need not be indestructible.
WOTC got on for over a decade without needing keyword action scry to describe doing stuff with the library, and Clash was even "Kinda scry" for both players.
Make no mistake; I LIKE scry - but I don't like that WOTC has watered it down (Scry 1, not Scry 2) and place it almost everywhere. Imagine if cycling had never want away, and then if you mulligan, each land card in your hand gained "Cycling: 0" - that'd be a barrier to new players that wasn't worth it. This, I think, is like Scry is now.
In any case, onto Scrystrike as a mechanic:
* I agree that "nested" Scry seems right, since Scry seems like an ideal candidate for astral slide-like triggering... especially if done as a Mirrodin-block like mechanic.
* My point regarding attacking is that the optimum time to scry is at the end of turn, so all of your attacking scrystrikers might let you scry something to the bottom of the library you wouldn't have wanted to, given what your opponent does next. Mirrodin's scry, if you recall, was resigned to instants largely for this kind of reason Scrystrike leads to lots of "feel bads" when attacking.
* Similarly, Scrystrike seems like an odd rationale for your opponent not to attack. "If i attack, my attacker will die" is something they think about regarding deathtouch, first strike, etc. Scrystrike is more like lifelink in this manner - and if you like that dynamic, it's a plus. I don't like that dynamic about lifelink.
Keep in mind, I might be biased due to my dislike of how WOTC has overused Scry, and generally messed up regarding new mechanics of late.
Nested Scry seems like the way to go. It also makes "Scry 1 that many times" seem like the most appealing version of the mechanic.
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
A 3/3 with the version of the ability you're suggesting would have to cost around 6 mana based on the amount of filtering it provides. A 2/1 would probably cost 3.
The only bodies that start to look good while still being balanced are things like a 1/3 for 2 or a 1/1 with flying for 2.
I think limiting it only to combat damage to players is the first thing development would do at minimum. But I can't see the design space being large enough to make it to keyword status (at least not immediately) but I can see it on a single flashy rare in a set where it makes sense with a possible similar uncommon thrown in for draftaround purpose.
I think with knobs at "only player combat damage" and "scry 1 regardless of power" it could feasibly make it to evergreen status, but I think it would be like with Menace where they just print a card with it each set for a few years before deciding whether or not to keyword it. It would be at the right power level for limited and could go on bodies that aren't as anemic as looters tend to be based on the value they spew out.
Additionally, it would take over the Scroll Thief slot in limited. Since it's less oppressive than drawing an extra card every turn, it would be able to show up more and wouldn't have to have such restrictive, evasion-hungry designs.
Older Magic as a Board Game: Panglacial Wurm , Mill
Compare a 1/3 with Scrystrike to Sigiled Starfish. The Scrystriker doesn't get to scry unless it attacks into harms way, or I leave it back to block and my opponent attacks. If I really want to scry, I can attack and leave myself open to the crack back. If I want to play it safe, then my opponent could forego attacking and I don't get my value that turn. The cards are comparable, but the Scrystriker doesn't get to both play defense and generate value the way Scryfish does.
I think you've got a lack of imagination here, I'd say this ability has about as much design space as lifelink. Yes it would probably have to cost 1 or 2 mana more (at common especially), but that leaves quite a lot of room. Examples from standard alone:
- Vampire Cutthroat: Small, evasive creatures that generate repeated value
- Contraband Kingpin: Low power, high toughness creatures good for either attacking safely or a rattlesnake blocker
- Nearheath Chaplain: High power, low toughness creatures that generate a single instance of burst scry
- Faithbearer Paladin: Expensive, beefy creatures
- Indulgent Aristocrat: Any creature that can grow in size
- Rush of Vitality: Combat tricks that grant Scrystrike at instant speed. Much like lifelink granting combat tricks, they can be played on larger creatures to generate huge value once, without risk of repeated abuse. Plus, the scry helps combat the inherent card disadvantage potential often found in combat tricks.
As I mentioned I think Scrystrike would show up in numbers somewhere between lifelink and double strike, but that still leaves plenty of space open. It plays interestingly on creatures of all shapes and sizes, as well as non-creatures. I'd say design space is far from the biggest problem here.
Don't get me wrong, repeatable scry is powerful and it would be difficult to develop, but I think if used sparingly this would hardly be an insurmountable development task. I mean right now in Standard we've only got a single instance of a common lifelinker with power 3. If you just keep the higher numbers out of the lower rarities it seems fine to me. (FWIW, I do think getting huge 5 or 6 card scrys at higher rarities is a positive aspect of this. Like a 5/5 flying Sphinx with Scrystrike feels appropriately awesome the same way a huge lifelinker like Griselbrand does. Comparatively, scrying once only per hit would feel like Grave Titan's deathtouch)
Well I definitely agree that removing the power interactions cuts out most of the interesting design space.
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
It seems like this really just needs to be tested, since the main concern everyone has is power level.
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 think you're underestimating the power of repeatable cardflow you're proposing. As an ability on ~4 cards in a draft environment at various rarities, maybe? But evergreen status or even as a block mechanic seems far more dubious.
Development would be the final arbiter with respect to power level, but I just don't see this meriting keyword status beyond that.
Older Magic as a Board Game: Panglacial Wurm , Mill
Basically I'm just saying that evergreen doesn't mean it has to show up at a high volume whatsoever. In fact, I think evergreen might be the only place this mechanic would work to begin with. In an environment where you had tons of scrystrikers they'd be too efficient together. Being evergreen would allow the mechanic to shine in heavy moderation, not unlike most other evergreen mechanics (imagine how miserable limited would be if you could get a deck of all first strikes, or all deathtouchers, etc.)
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
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
Scrystrike (Whenever this creature deals combat damage, look at that many cards from the top of your library. Put one of those cards on the top of your library and the rest on the bottom of your library in a random order.)
I feel like this would give you the benefit of getting to dig deep and it would also speed up the decision making process. (You just need to choose the card you want to draw the most, rather than decide how you want to arrange the top/bottom N cards of your library.)
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