I could see it being sacrifice instead of exile, but spellmorph might be a thing perhaps.
You'd have to sacrifice it while it was a creature, then cast the spell from the graveyard without paying its mana cost. The alternative is a face-up sorcery or instant on the battlefield and the rules work very hard to keep that from happening.
I'm not really sure what the difference is between casting it from exile versus sacrificing the creature and casting the card it becomes from the graveyard. Obviously, some corner cases like Grafdigger's Cage, but I'm sure if there's a big functional difference. Honest question.
You'd have to create a copy of the card, then separately cast the copy of the card without paying its mana cost. No need to choose new targets. Isochron Scepter is a good example.
Alternatively, you could exile the physical physical card and cast it from exile without paying its mana cost. It would function like Rebound, but without the delayed trigger (Consuming Vapors). That would make it end up in your graveyard just like any other instant or sorcery.
The question is whether, rules-wise, WoTC is less uncomfortable having two "cast face down for 3 in order to do 'x'" abilities or turning a permanent into a sorcery while it's on the battlefield (assuming they want to do that at all). A card like Break Open requires that the "exile and cast" ability would be linked to turning the card face up and not its own "turn face up" ability.
"If 'CARDNAME' would be turned face up while on the battlefield, exile it face up and cast it from exile without paying its mana cost instead." If I'm not mistaken, you can ignore timing restrictions (IIRC, Cascade worked this way (Bloodbraid Elf)), but you can't still can't cast it if there are no legal targets (it would remain in exile that way). It might need to read "and you may cast it from exile," but that might be confusing with folks misreading the replacement effect as optional and it seems a bit inconsistent with regular morph.
I don't think Morph on instants and sorceries can work. Morph is an action that changes the characteristics of the permanent that is the 2/2 colorless facedown creature. It would have to involve an additional effect that says that you then have to get rid of that permanent, and it becomes a spell. I could see some creature that is sacrificed upon being turned face up for a spell effect, but thats not really worth more than one card in terms of design space.
Face down permanents are well-defined. Because there are fewer memory issues with the stack it might be possible to have two face-down colorless templates, one creature and one non-permanent. "Spellmorph COST-You may pay 3 to cast this spell face down as a colorless sorcery. You may pay COST as this spell resolves and turn it face up. If you do not, draw a card."
Targeting is a big issue. The colorless spell has to have targets whenever it goes on the stack. It would have to have no targets, a set target ("target permanent or player"), or flexible targets (it can target any number of anything, the player can ignore targets during resolution, and it still checks for legality on resolution. This would be the worst implementation). The alternative is that the spell's controller can select new, legal targets out of the blue on resolution. Defaulting to no target or "target creature or player" would probably work best.
The default effect that replaces getting a 2/2 colorless creature is drawing a card. It could just as easily be another neutral effect, such as putting a 1/1 colorless token creature or a gold artifact token onto the battlefield. The card draw option plays a lot like good old cycling, as The_FPS mentioned, giving you the reliability, balance, and simplicity of a tested mechanic.
Given Ugin's history (Ghostfire & Eye of Ugin) and KoT's morph and Spellfire Blade, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume a colorless theme in the future. A spellmorph ability would support a colorless-focused environment while sidestepping some of the development problems associated with colorless cards (Eldrazi and Phyrexian mana). On the other hand, any deck can interact with morph creatures, but morph spells run the risk of being fancy cycling cards and narrow colorless theme enablers for things like: Ugin's Block Party - Enchantment - Deal 1 damage to target creature of player whenever you cast a colorless spell.
I never thought about it in a tournament environment. Sorting winners by round according to their attrition points makes a certain amount of sense. It also means that a player who barely won their last game is at a disadvantage against a player who handily won theirs. Using three decks would make for a long tournament, but probably no longer than a campaign.
Removing the points tosses up a few potential problems. If you allow a few duel losses without being eliminated, red decks can kamikaze. By emptying a hand full of burn before conceding, they can inflict disproportionate attrition on an opponent. Similarly, white decks can get a serious case of Homersimpsonitis later in the campaign/tournament. They can heal up to remove attrition, concede, and leave their opponent with their starting attrition and a victory while they're fresh for their next fight. I don't know a lot about dredge decks, but theoretically they could get a lot of help by using attrition to dump cards into their graveyards. These are all tactical decisions, but crafting an environment that makes a smart player weigh their costs is the trick.
The Pitch
In standard Magic games, players take the role of planeswalkers who encounter one another and duel. Each participant arrives fresh to the fight, fights for nothing, and fights to the death (0 life). What if they show up bloodied from their last encounter, fight for important sites across The Multiverse, and rather than be destroyed, flee to fight another day?
Overview
Linked Campaigns use two teams of three decks (whether that's three decks with three players or three decks with one player on each team is up to you). Each round, both teams put up one deck to duel while the other two decks recover from their previous battles by removing attrition points (they may choose to use the activated ability of a location instead).
Duels are fought for control of a location in the Blind Eternities, which is revealed from a location deck before the dueling players mulligan. After the mulligan, both dueling players lose 2 life or mill 6 cards for each attrition point they started the duel with. At the end of the duel, each player totals up the attrition for their deck (Every 2 life before their starting total and every 6 cards milled and/or exiled gains one attrition point). The winning team takes control of the location card and places it in their Team Command Zone. Location cards have points and the first team to 20+ points wins the campaign.
The persistent damage ensures that even whenever a fight is close, the winner is that much weaker for their next game. The location cards add value to each duel without having an in-game effect that creates a 'win more' environment. Both systems give a player a way to reconcile the value of staying in a game for the possible victory (winning the location) against the value of conceding (to prevent unnecessary attrition).
The Blind Eternities and other zones
The Blind Eternities is the name of the deck of cards representing locations from across the Multiverse. Each location card has a point value, from 1 to 9. Many of the low-point locations have a special ability which allows you to destroy locations, replace locations, or help your team recover when they're behind. Locations' abilities can target other locations, which means that they are capable of targeting and affecting locations in another team's command zone. Whenever locations are sacrificed or destroyed, they're put into a common zone called The Graveyard of Eternities instead of into a player's graveyard. You may only use a location's ability once per round.
Current Locations
The Linked Campaign system is currently only concerned with its own balance and functionality, so having locations that affect duels is not a priority. It's important to remember that teams take turns activating location abilities; you cannot use one location ability in response to another.
Standard Removal - 3 points - Sacrifice [CARDNAME]: Destroy target location.
Replacement Removal - 2 points - Sacrifice [CARDNAME]: Destroy target location. Its controller reveals the top card of The Blind Eternities and puts it into their command zone.
Renewal Location - 2 point - Sacrifice [CARDNAME]: Put a location from The Graveyard of Eternities on top of The Blind Eternities.
Victory into Recovery - 1 points - Your team loses this round's game: All decks on your team (even the deck playing) remove two attrition points (this is in addition to any recovery by decks that aren't playing). A game of Magic is not played this round and the opposing team reveals and gains control of the top card of The Blind Eternities.
Swing Location - 6 points
Low End Points 01 - 7 points
Low End Points 02 - 7 points
Medium Points 01 - 8 points
Medium Points 02 - 8 points
High End Points 01 - 9 points
High End Points 02 - 9 points
Manipulating Acceleration - 2 points - Sacrifice [CARDNAME]: Look at the top three cards of The Blind Eternities. Put two of those cards into The Graveyard of Eternities and the remaining card on top.
Recovery into Acceleration - 1 points - 0: Look at the top card of The Blind Eternities. You may put it on the bottom of The Blind Eternities.
Playtesting indicates these thirteen locations give the campaign forward inertia without running too quickly or having the removal eliminate the ways to win. Play with the current set of cards takes attrition points into account, but all victories so far have won by collecting points.
I didn't even know what this guy was for just by reading him. Maybe if it read "if ~ can't attack" instead of "if ~ isn't attacking." That might make it easier for players to realize its intended function.
I guess that wouldn't work for blocking because then you could just declare it's blocking a creature with flying or shadow. Then again, the current template already allows that.
I think the source of damage has to be stipulated differently. Something more like "...if 5 or more damage was dealt to an opponent by sources you control..." or maybe "...if sources you control dealt 5 or more damage to your opponents..."
This entire thing is over 2,000 words, so instead of just copy/pasting a mammoth wall of text, I'm putting it up in parts over a couple of days, beginning with an overview.
The Pitch
In standard Magic games, players take the role of planeswalkers who encounter one another and duel. The assumptions are that each competitor arrives fresh to the fight, fights for nothing, and fights to the death. That's fine for a tournament environment that has to be equivocal, but I'd rather have someone show up bloody to a fight, victory mean more than just winning, and close matches carry more weight than a one-sided beating.
Overview
Linked Campaigns use two teams of three decks (whether that's three decks with three players or three decks with one player on each team is up to you). Each round, both teams put up a deck that will be playing while its other two decks recover from their previous beatings. The players for each dueling deck prepare for the game, but lose life or mill cards according to their previous beatings before they mulligan. At the end of the duel, each player totals up the beatings for their deck and the winner takes a Location card for their team. Location cards have points (some have abilities) and the first team to 20 or more points wins the campaign.
The persistent damage (explained further in "Beatings," below) ensures that even whenever a fight is close, the winner is that much weaker for their next game. The Location cards (explained further in "The Blind Eternities and other zones," below) add value to each duel without having an in-game effect that creates a 'win more' environment. Both systems give a player a way to reconcile the value of staying in a game for the possible victory (winning the Llocation) against the value of conceding (to prevent unnecessary beating).
It seems that with this type of game, you'd want to make sure that everyone can play each time you get together. That means an even number of players (more or less. You, as the organizer may by able to step in and even the odds.)
I like the ideas you've got for rewarding players with packs. Rewarding players for "X games played" means that they have a reason to show up. Your alternative of letting victory alter the draft order is another balanced approach.
Having a great land rush to take unconquered lands seems like needless filler. How many weeks are you going to spend having players take over spaces, just to get to the point where they can fight the other players? It seems better to have a system where players can get right to challenging one another, but can still expand into the territories that give them an edge.
If they do explore, then will there be a trade-off? Will they be able to explore two unclaimed territories instead of attacking (which I don't recommend)? Will they have to choose between some other campaign-level action and exploring? Or will they simply get to explore one or two territories a turn for free?
As far as bonuses go, I'd suggest something simple and tiered, with a few special areas. By tiered, I mean an ability that can be adjusted up and down. For example, an ability lets each player pay UUU to get UUUU once per turn could be adjusted to turn UUUU into UUUUU, UU into UUU, etc. That means that you could describe most territories by a color and the minimum mana needed to use its ability. Again, not that specific ability, just something that can roll like it.
You could also try some equivocal effects like Rule of Law or Pandemonium. While they'll often benefit one deck, they're not strictly one-sided. In fact, if you give one side a specific advantage, in order to remove that character from that territory, you'll need one of three things: a player who swap out his deck to benefit from that territory's ability, another player with a deck that can benefit from the territory's ability, or two players who can attack that territory (which is problematic in terms of balancing games per week and number of players) simultaneously.
You could also try meta-level effects; abilities that affect the rules for how the campaign is played. For example, changing how many unoccupied territories a player can take in a turn, canceling out another territory's bonus ability for a turn, "gating" to allow attacks to non-adjacent territories, etc..
I wish I had something more concrete (or timely) to offer.
I do like swinging in with creatures. I like this idea. Even some of the more problematic creatures in terms of balanced could be met and countered with other creature abilities. "Too many things could go wrong" is a good argument against it, but it's also a good argument against any new format, or even playing older formats in general.
The only real obstacle I see to this kind of game is color balance. It seems like green would have an edge because of its heavy creature focus.
You'd have to sacrifice it while it was a creature, then cast the spell from the graveyard without paying its mana cost. The alternative is a face-up sorcery or instant on the battlefield and the rules work very hard to keep that from happening.
I'm not really sure what the difference is between casting it from exile versus sacrificing the creature and casting the card it becomes from the graveyard. Obviously, some corner cases like Grafdigger's Cage, but I'm sure if there's a big functional difference. Honest question.
Alternatively, you could exile the physical physical card and cast it from exile without paying its mana cost. It would function like Rebound, but without the delayed trigger (Consuming Vapors). That would make it end up in your graveyard just like any other instant or sorcery.
The question is whether, rules-wise, WoTC is less uncomfortable having two "cast face down for 3 in order to do 'x'" abilities or turning a permanent into a sorcery while it's on the battlefield (assuming they want to do that at all). A card like Break Open requires that the "exile and cast" ability would be linked to turning the card face up and not its own "turn face up" ability.
"If 'CARDNAME' would be turned face up while on the battlefield, exile it face up and cast it from exile without paying its mana cost instead." If I'm not mistaken, you can ignore timing restrictions (IIRC, Cascade worked this way (Bloodbraid Elf)), but you can't still can't cast it if there are no legal targets (it would remain in exile that way). It might need to read "and you may cast it from exile," but that might be confusing with folks misreading the replacement effect as optional and it seems a bit inconsistent with regular morph.
Face down permanents are well-defined. Because there are fewer memory issues with the stack it might be possible to have two face-down colorless templates, one creature and one non-permanent. "Spellmorph COST-You may pay 3 to cast this spell face down as a colorless sorcery. You may pay COST as this spell resolves and turn it face up. If you do not, draw a card."
Targeting is a big issue. The colorless spell has to have targets whenever it goes on the stack. It would have to have no targets, a set target ("target permanent or player"), or flexible targets (it can target any number of anything, the player can ignore targets during resolution, and it still checks for legality on resolution. This would be the worst implementation). The alternative is that the spell's controller can select new, legal targets out of the blue on resolution. Defaulting to no target or "target creature or player" would probably work best.
The default effect that replaces getting a 2/2 colorless creature is drawing a card. It could just as easily be another neutral effect, such as putting a 1/1 colorless token creature or a gold artifact token onto the battlefield. The card draw option plays a lot like good old cycling, as The_FPS mentioned, giving you the reliability, balance, and simplicity of a tested mechanic.
Given Ugin's history (Ghostfire & Eye of Ugin) and KoT's morph and Spellfire Blade, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume a colorless theme in the future. A spellmorph ability would support a colorless-focused environment while sidestepping some of the development problems associated with colorless cards (Eldrazi and Phyrexian mana). On the other hand, any deck can interact with morph creatures, but morph spells run the risk of being fancy cycling cards and narrow colorless theme enablers for things like: Ugin's Block Party - Enchantment - Deal 1 damage to target creature of player whenever you cast a colorless spell.
Something like Exhaust is far more likely.
Removing the points tosses up a few potential problems. If you allow a few duel losses without being eliminated, red decks can kamikaze. By emptying a hand full of burn before conceding, they can inflict disproportionate attrition on an opponent. Similarly, white decks can get a serious case of Homersimpsonitis later in the campaign/tournament. They can heal up to remove attrition, concede, and leave their opponent with their starting attrition and a victory while they're fresh for their next fight. I don't know a lot about dredge decks, but theoretically they could get a lot of help by using attrition to dump cards into their graveyards. These are all tactical decisions, but crafting an environment that makes a smart player weigh their costs is the trick.
In standard Magic games, players take the role of planeswalkers who encounter one another and duel. Each participant arrives fresh to the fight, fights for nothing, and fights to the death (0 life). What if they show up bloodied from their last encounter, fight for important sites across The Multiverse, and rather than be destroyed, flee to fight another day?
Overview
Linked Campaigns use two teams of three decks (whether that's three decks with three players or three decks with one player on each team is up to you). Each round, both teams put up one deck to duel while the other two decks recover from their previous battles by removing attrition points (they may choose to use the activated ability of a location instead).
Duels are fought for control of a location in the Blind Eternities, which is revealed from a location deck before the dueling players mulligan. After the mulligan, both dueling players lose 2 life or mill 6 cards for each attrition point they started the duel with. At the end of the duel, each player totals up the attrition for their deck (Every 2 life before their starting total and every 6 cards milled and/or exiled gains one attrition point). The winning team takes control of the location card and places it in their Team Command Zone. Location cards have points and the first team to 20+ points wins the campaign.
The persistent damage ensures that even whenever a fight is close, the winner is that much weaker for their next game. The location cards add value to each duel without having an in-game effect that creates a 'win more' environment. Both systems give a player a way to reconcile the value of staying in a game for the possible victory (winning the location) against the value of conceding (to prevent unnecessary attrition).
The Blind Eternities and other zones
The Blind Eternities is the name of the deck of cards representing locations from across the Multiverse. Each location card has a point value, from 1 to 9. Many of the low-point locations have a special ability which allows you to destroy locations, replace locations, or help your team recover when they're behind. Locations' abilities can target other locations, which means that they are capable of targeting and affecting locations in another team's command zone. Whenever locations are sacrificed or destroyed, they're put into a common zone called The Graveyard of Eternities instead of into a player's graveyard. You may only use a location's ability once per round.
Current Locations
The Linked Campaign system is currently only concerned with its own balance and functionality, so having locations that affect duels is not a priority. It's important to remember that teams take turns activating location abilities; you cannot use one location ability in response to another.
Standard Removal - 3 points - Sacrifice [CARDNAME]: Destroy target location.
Replacement Removal - 2 points - Sacrifice [CARDNAME]: Destroy target location. Its controller reveals the top card of The Blind Eternities and puts it into their command zone.
Renewal Location - 2 point - Sacrifice [CARDNAME]: Put a location from The Graveyard of Eternities on top of The Blind Eternities.
Victory into Recovery - 1 points - Your team loses this round's game: All decks on your team (even the deck playing) remove two attrition points (this is in addition to any recovery by decks that aren't playing). A game of Magic is not played this round and the opposing team reveals and gains control of the top card of The Blind Eternities.
Swing Location - 6 points
Low End Points 01 - 7 points
Low End Points 02 - 7 points
Medium Points 01 - 8 points
Medium Points 02 - 8 points
High End Points 01 - 9 points
High End Points 02 - 9 points
Manipulating Acceleration - 2 points - Sacrifice [CARDNAME]: Look at the top three cards of The Blind Eternities. Put two of those cards into The Graveyard of Eternities and the remaining card on top.
Recovery into Acceleration - 1 points - 0: Look at the top card of The Blind Eternities. You may put it on the bottom of The Blind Eternities.
Playtesting indicates these thirteen locations give the campaign forward inertia without running too quickly or having the removal eliminate the ways to win. Play with the current set of cards takes attrition points into account, but all victories so far have won by collecting points.
I guess that wouldn't work for blocking because then you could just declare it's blocking a creature with flying or shadow. Then again, the current template already allows that.
Bleak Horizon seems like it'd be good in a duel. You can hit an opponent for two and make them top deck a dead card.
The Pitch
In standard Magic games, players take the role of planeswalkers who encounter one another and duel. The assumptions are that each competitor arrives fresh to the fight, fights for nothing, and fights to the death. That's fine for a tournament environment that has to be equivocal, but I'd rather have someone show up bloody to a fight, victory mean more than just winning, and close matches carry more weight than a one-sided beating.
Overview
Linked Campaigns use two teams of three decks (whether that's three decks with three players or three decks with one player on each team is up to you). Each round, both teams put up a deck that will be playing while its other two decks recover from their previous beatings. The players for each dueling deck prepare for the game, but lose life or mill cards according to their previous beatings before they mulligan. At the end of the duel, each player totals up the beatings for their deck and the winner takes a Location card for their team. Location cards have points (some have abilities) and the first team to 20 or more points wins the campaign.
The persistent damage (explained further in "Beatings," below) ensures that even whenever a fight is close, the winner is that much weaker for their next game. The Location cards (explained further in "The Blind Eternities and other zones," below) add value to each duel without having an in-game effect that creates a 'win more' environment. Both systems give a player a way to reconcile the value of staying in a game for the possible victory (winning the Llocation) against the value of conceding (to prevent unnecessary beating).
I like the ideas you've got for rewarding players with packs. Rewarding players for "X games played" means that they have a reason to show up. Your alternative of letting victory alter the draft order is another balanced approach.
Having a great land rush to take unconquered lands seems like needless filler. How many weeks are you going to spend having players take over spaces, just to get to the point where they can fight the other players? It seems better to have a system where players can get right to challenging one another, but can still expand into the territories that give them an edge.
If they do explore, then will there be a trade-off? Will they be able to explore two unclaimed territories instead of attacking (which I don't recommend)? Will they have to choose between some other campaign-level action and exploring? Or will they simply get to explore one or two territories a turn for free?
As far as bonuses go, I'd suggest something simple and tiered, with a few special areas. By tiered, I mean an ability that can be adjusted up and down. For example, an ability lets each player pay UUU to get UUUU once per turn could be adjusted to turn UUUU into UUUUU, UU into UUU, etc. That means that you could describe most territories by a color and the minimum mana needed to use its ability. Again, not that specific ability, just something that can roll like it.
You could also try some equivocal effects like Rule of Law or Pandemonium. While they'll often benefit one deck, they're not strictly one-sided. In fact, if you give one side a specific advantage, in order to remove that character from that territory, you'll need one of three things: a player who swap out his deck to benefit from that territory's ability, another player with a deck that can benefit from the territory's ability, or two players who can attack that territory (which is problematic in terms of balancing games per week and number of players) simultaneously.
You could also try meta-level effects; abilities that affect the rules for how the campaign is played. For example, changing how many unoccupied territories a player can take in a turn, canceling out another territory's bonus ability for a turn, "gating" to allow attacks to non-adjacent territories, etc..
I wish I had something more concrete (or timely) to offer.
The only real obstacle I see to this kind of game is color balance. It seems like green would have an edge because of its heavy creature focus.