There is a general lack of cohesiveness with this mechanic. The choice between draw and copy, or in later suggestions, kicker or draw, is artificial and doesn't provide any real reason why it exists. With kicker, you pay more and get more, with flashback, you cast it twice, etc. With this, you may pay more and get more, except sometimes you get a card and sometimes you get something else. Why? It's trying to do multiple things at once at it ends up not making any sense. In addition, it's treading worn ground with kicker, replicate, cycling, strive, buyback, storm, entwine, conspire, fuse and rebound all bearing considerable similarity to it, and it doesn't really offer anything new.
Poof- OP in most standards (compare to Dissipate, but in the right environment it could fit.
Wit, Dark Decay, Suffocate- seems good
Kristen- quite wordy but likely worth it
Marcus- no starting loyalty. +1 is to conditional. -2 and -8 seem good.
Hmm... Might be fun to do a design challenge for listeners to make mechanics for BFZ. After we pick the winner(s), the next challenge could be to make cards for the chosen mechanic... Interesting thoughts.
About what it means to be a returning set, the comparison between Scars and RTR I think is quite important. Scars represents a block that lent more towards new ideas rather than old, whereas RTR was the opposite (and it suffered from it).
Innistrad still has werewolves, the wolfir were a select population of werewolves that sought Avacyn's blessing.
I agree with landfall, allies and eldrazi being a thing, and traps, totem armour and level-up being likely excludes. I do think, however, that defenders might be quite good as it fits beautifully into the epic battle theme and helps keep the format slow enough for Eldrazi to be playable.
Interlacing more aggro zendikar vs slow ramp eldrazi is absolutely what I would do as well. The duel deck for this year also confirms that there is a clear eldrazi vs zendikar theme and almost certainty not any other factions. Using faction watermarks would fit as well.
-
I approve of one or two more of these, and definitely many into the future in the same style, exploring a block idea and discussing macro-level design concepts.
@mondu_the_fat
Yeah, the lack of any real intragame interactivity with this mechanic is rather bad.
Halfway inn is supposed to work with having multiple homelands at once, thereby producing multiple mana of different colours.
The condition feels a little bit to easy to activate. Maybe remove the "tied for"? This way you can also only ever have one, so it doesn't reward you for getting perfect balance which simplifies things a bit.
What sort of context do you have in mind for these cards? Anything in particular?
For Ovewhelm, I agree that the effects are too different. Perhaps this would be better:
Overwhelm- If you've cast another spell this turn, (target change)
I would suggest putting this in all colours to maximise design space, red could easily be the primary though. Some example cards for other colours:
CARDNAME ( )
Sorcery (R)
Destroy target creature, it can't be regenerated. Overwhelm- If you've cast another spell this turn, CARDNAME can target a planeswalker instead of a creature.
CARDNAME ( )
Instant (U)
Exile target artifact. Overwhelm- If you've cast another spell this turn, CARDNAME can target an enchantment instead of an artifact.
CARDNAME ( )
Sorcery (U)
Put target creature on top of it's owner's library. Overwhelm- If you've cast another spell this turn, CARDNAME can target any nonland permanent instead of a creature.
CARDNAME ( )
Instant (U)
Destroy target equipped creature. Overwhelm- If you've cast another spell this turn, CARDNAME can target an artifact instead of a creature.
Bolts of Sorrow- probably too many effects, I'd stick to four.
Gleaming Knowledge- perfect as-is
Majestic Fluorescence- has too many effects, same as Bolts of Sorrow.
@Haramis.
Your taking issue with a select few cards and asking for a solution that subtracts from the purpose of many, many cards. Yes a card that shuffles back exiled wouldn't be that bad, but it's just as much about the spirit of it. The identity of the zone is about not being able to recur things from it, breaking that identity, even if it's not a very powerful effect, is still harmful. Even if nobody plays exile-breaking cards, their existence sets an unwanted precedent. And just because it's not yet a problem, doesn't mean it won't be if it continues to occur.
And this is getting seriously off-topic, so I am done.
If exile itself was used sparingly, sure. But it's not. And it's certainly not fun to play against cards like Oona, which exiles mass amounts of cards before I even get the chance to draw them, let alone play them.
Wizards has already turned Exile into a second graveyard. Look how often they print cards that permanently exile things.
Holding zone exile cards like Banishing Light, nope not like the graveyard. Straight up exile like Utter End, still not like the graveyard. As long as there are as about few cards that can pull things out of exile as there are now, exile is inherently different from the graveyard with a proliferance of return cards. The point is to prevent this.
I'm not sure about you guys, but when I put cards in a deck I generally want to play them, not stare longingly at them as they sit on the table in a little pile that Wizards has designated cannot be interacted with ever again.
Not being able to play the game is the same reason they stopped printing good land removal. Whether I can't play the card because you blew up my lands or I can't play the card because your Oona just milled me for 10 doesn't matter; I still can't play the card. Though at least I can potentially recover from one of those two things.
It doesn't even have to be that good. If I had an Archangel's Light for exiled cards, I would be the happiest of all the chipmunks.
Generally, when I play the game, I like things to work in the way they are supposed to. What you are doing is effectively asking for the removal of exile. Once there is a certain level of interactivity, the entire reason for it's existence is pretty much moot. Exile is never the same as LD. Exile will hit permanents that can easily be removed otherwise or cards from the top which doesn't represent an absolute advantage anyway (it may even benefit you when you are exile-milled), the fact that they can't be gotten back is not a problem, it's a function. The point of removal is to stop the opponent doing things, if having things you are trying to do be stopped is a problem, the whole game is flawed because it is a fundamental part of the interactivity. Yes, with exile you can't get things back, but that's not the way the game is intended to work, you are not supposed to be always recurring cards. It may be a little unfun for you, but it can be unfun for the opponent in the same way when they use normal removal and you recur it.
I won't use exile like that. I do not disallow all interactions with exile, but there are restrictions. Regrowth from exile does not pass.
So stop debating it, you aren't saying anything about what he should be doing, only what you would do. His position is perfectly justified. You gave feedback, and it was heard.
How is scry random? It's not weird that players think "oh, if I had played something else I would be in a different situation", that's rational not to think that, as there are always things you could have played but didn't. Scry interacts with a random element, but it doesn't introduce randomness, same as removal against an opponent. With your other points:
1) you are over thinking it. Everything internally within the game is deterministic, as even shuffling is predictable, just very chaotic. It's relative and based on effective difference with "randomness" in design. If it doesn't involve selective value based on the library, dice, coins or simply the words "random", it's not random for all intents and purposes. And if it does, it is. Drawing a card is close to being considered random, as there is variation in actual effect, but it's based on a singular item of value, so it's indirect variation- interactivity.
2) Again, not random. There is variance, but that's not random.
3) Narset is the same as your suggested mechanic, it just justifies it better as it is a more organic part of the design.
Your later suggestion has the same problems. It does nothing to address the artificial addition of text to an ability.
I don't think replacing the lack of interactivity of hexproof with randomness is the way to go. It's rather awkward, seeing as the condition and the effect seem unlinked other than by loose flavour.
Wit, Dark Decay, Suffocate- seems good
Kristen- quite wordy but likely worth it
Marcus- no starting loyalty. +1 is to conditional. -2 and -8 seem good.
YES.
DO.
IT.
NOW.
About what it means to be a returning set, the comparison between Scars and RTR I think is quite important. Scars represents a block that lent more towards new ideas rather than old, whereas RTR was the opposite (and it suffered from it).
Innistrad still has werewolves, the wolfir were a select population of werewolves that sought Avacyn's blessing.
I agree with landfall, allies and eldrazi being a thing, and traps, totem armour and level-up being likely excludes. I do think, however, that defenders might be quite good as it fits beautifully into the epic battle theme and helps keep the format slow enough for Eldrazi to be playable.
Interlacing more aggro zendikar vs slow ramp eldrazi is absolutely what I would do as well. The duel deck for this year also confirms that there is a clear eldrazi vs zendikar theme and almost certainty not any other factions. Using faction watermarks would fit as well.
-
I approve of one or two more of these, and definitely many into the future in the same style, exploring a block idea and discussing macro-level design concepts.
Yeah, the lack of any real intragame interactivity with this mechanic is rather bad.
Halfway inn is supposed to work with having multiple homelands at once, thereby producing multiple mana of different colours.
For Ovewhelm, I agree that the effects are too different. Perhaps this would be better:
Overwhelm- If you've cast another spell this turn, (target change)
I would suggest putting this in all colours to maximise design space, red could easily be the primary though. Some example cards for other colours:
CARDNAME (
Sorcery (R)
Destroy target creature, it can't be regenerated.
Overwhelm- If you've cast another spell this turn, CARDNAME can target a planeswalker instead of a creature.
CARDNAME (
Instant (U)
Exile target artifact.
Overwhelm- If you've cast another spell this turn, CARDNAME can target an enchantment instead of an artifact.
CARDNAME (
Sorcery (U)
Put target creature on top of it's owner's library.
Overwhelm- If you've cast another spell this turn, CARDNAME can target any nonland permanent instead of a creature.
CARDNAME (
Instant (U)
Destroy target equipped creature.
Overwhelm- If you've cast another spell this turn, CARDNAME can target an artifact instead of a creature.
Bolts of Sorrow- probably too many effects, I'd stick to four.
Gleaming Knowledge- perfect as-is
Majestic Fluorescence- has too many effects, same as Bolts of Sorrow.
Your taking issue with a select few cards and asking for a solution that subtracts from the purpose of many, many cards. Yes a card that shuffles back exiled wouldn't be that bad, but it's just as much about the spirit of it. The identity of the zone is about not being able to recur things from it, breaking that identity, even if it's not a very powerful effect, is still harmful. Even if nobody plays exile-breaking cards, their existence sets an unwanted precedent. And just because it's not yet a problem, doesn't mean it won't be if it continues to occur.
And this is getting seriously off-topic, so I am done.
Holding zone exile cards like Banishing Light, nope not like the graveyard. Straight up exile like Utter End, still not like the graveyard. As long as there are as about few cards that can pull things out of exile as there are now, exile is inherently different from the graveyard with a proliferance of return cards. The point is to prevent this.
Generally, when I play the game, I like things to work in the way they are supposed to. What you are doing is effectively asking for the removal of exile. Once there is a certain level of interactivity, the entire reason for it's existence is pretty much moot. Exile is never the same as LD. Exile will hit permanents that can easily be removed otherwise or cards from the top which doesn't represent an absolute advantage anyway (it may even benefit you when you are exile-milled), the fact that they can't be gotten back is not a problem, it's a function. The point of removal is to stop the opponent doing things, if having things you are trying to do be stopped is a problem, the whole game is flawed because it is a fundamental part of the interactivity. Yes, with exile you can't get things back, but that's not the way the game is intended to work, you are not supposed to be always recurring cards. It may be a little unfun for you, but it can be unfun for the opponent in the same way when they use normal removal and you recur it.
I can join a thread to say whatever I want, it's an open internet forum of mostly unimportant things. If you have a problem, that's not my fault.
-
Some actual feedback on the cards:
Rakdos Battlemage seems overpowered, compared to Brain Maggot and Elvish Visionary.
And SI also already said
So stop debating it, you aren't saying anything about what he should be doing, only what you would do. His position is perfectly justified. You gave feedback, and it was heard.
1) you are over thinking it. Everything internally within the game is deterministic, as even shuffling is predictable, just very chaotic. It's relative and based on effective difference with "randomness" in design. If it doesn't involve selective value based on the library, dice, coins or simply the words "random", it's not random for all intents and purposes. And if it does, it is. Drawing a card is close to being considered random, as there is variation in actual effect, but it's based on a singular item of value, so it's indirect variation- interactivity.
2) Again, not random. There is variance, but that's not random.
3) Narset is the same as your suggested mechanic, it just justifies it better as it is a more organic part of the design.
Your later suggestion has the same problems. It does nothing to address the artificial addition of text to an ability.