I've been working on a series of custom sets for a long time now, and have put a lot of thought into each element of those sets. I've already shared some of these lines of thinking in mechanics-oriented posts here, but I eventually came to the conclusion that it was high time I start writing down my thoughts properly, in a more organized and timely manner. As such I have started a Custom Card focused blog series here on the forums. Like any good blog, it is a discussion so please comment. I want to hear what you guys think about my ideas, my set, my writing, anything! Currently I don't hjave a schedule to speak of, but I plan on posting at least 2-3 times per week, more at the start to get a bulk of work up and running.
Any post to this part of the forums would be incomplete without at least a few custom cards to critique, so here's some (theoretically) powerful cards using one of the core mechanics of my custom set Cazia (the evolution of which I discuss in my first blog post):
Ruin a/target land (Exile that land and its controller puts a Dune basic land card from outside the game onto the battlefield tapped under their control.)
DuneblastR
Instant (U)
As an additional cost to cast CARD, ruin a non-Desert land you control.
Ruin target land. (Exile that land and its controller puts a Dune basic land card from outside the game onto the battlefield tapped under their control.)
When ruining a land, such as for an additional cost, the card will almost always specify non-Desert to force the cost of losing a coloured source. Targeted ruin doesn't matter, as you will be targeting your opponent's mana sources or using it on your own to increase your Desert count (spoilers). This might be too pushed at just R, but I really want to make the card playable early when mana is at its tightest.
Grind to Sand2B
Instant (C)
Ruin target land. (Exile that land and its controller puts a Dune basic land card from outside the game onto the battlefield tapped under their control.)
The basic ruin card. I'm aiming for this to be a strong role-player in Limited, very useful as a set-up piece in some decks but not universally pickable.
Curse of Keb3BB
Enchantment - Curse (R)
Enchant player.
At the beginning of enchanted player's turn, they ruin a non-Desert land they control. If they control only Deserts, instead sacrifice CARD. (Exile that land and its controller puts a Dune basic land card from outside the game onto the battlefield tapped under their control.)
I honestly have no idea how powerful this card would be. Probably ridiculous in EDH, potentially bonkers if pushed out early in more mana-intensive formats (such as any Constructed format ever). Ideally I want ruin to punish players for going too wide with their colours, something which I think has become epidemic in many formats.
Dunewyrm6G
Creature - Dragon (U)
Trample
When CARD enters the battlefield or dies, ruin target land. (Exile that land and its controller puts a Dune basic land card from outside the game onto the battlefield tapped under their control.)
5/4
Black is the primary ruin colour, with green and red getting it at smaller amounts and in different forms. The sacrifice theme I discuss in my second blog post naturally enables death triggers, allowing for some very interesting situations with the double trigger.
Ruin is effectively a mana-screw mechanic, and is therefore basically unprintable if your intention is to produce a normal and realistic set or block with it. Otherwise, you could keep it, but be careful where you put it.
My thinking on Ruin is that it needs to be strong enough to be a threat, but not so much as to prevent players from playing the game (like normal land destruction does). The fact that ruin is inherently mana neutral and only cuts off colour is a big part of achieving that goal. Mana-screw is a natural part of Magic, and should exist (indeed its infliction should be enabled) to prevent greedy (or lazy) deck building. As I said in my first post I think there is an epidemic of multi-coloured monstrosities at the moment. A big part of the design philosophy behind Ruin is to restore the identity of each colour by punishing players and decks which would simply try to be good stuff. Even with Ruin good stuff will still exist, in fact I plan to encourage it in set two of Cazia, Cazia Restored (spoilers).
Ebb and flow of deck building is a natural part of the game. While currently there is a lot of multicolour going around, eventually that will die down. Intentionally adding a mechanic to fight against multicolour excess, while a valid tactic. Is more likely to do bad things than good. Ignoring constructed, there's other problems. Limited with this mechanic could be ungodly bad.
In constructed, meta game is almost impossible to predict and control effectively due to the sheer complexity involved. Adding a mechanic with the effect of discouraging multicolour could have anywhere from very little to gamebreaking impact. With any addition to the meta, an evaluation of risk vs reward is necessary and 'Ruin' has a lot of risk to overcome.
In limited, mana bases are significantly more fragile than in constructed (although less greedy). Considering that this mechanic would also show up at a considerable percentage in any given game, it is likely that it could singlehandly reduce games to unfun stalls. For example, Rishadan Port , a single card, proved to be incredibly oppressive for it's environment in limited AND constructed.
I'm aiming to create a feeling of desperation in the player. Putting all your resources into one last push for victory, with conservative deck construction and play as rewarded as aggressive construction and play.
Ruin creates a feeling of desperation, the loss of coloured mana feels a lot worse than it actually is (it was a lot worse with land tokens trust me). At the same time Ruin does something that Magic hasn't done for a long time, enable players to interact meaningfully with each other's mana bases. I don't there is anything fundamentally wrong with the thinking behind Rishadan Port, the power level was just too high and I think that's scared the community and jaded designers into being less risky with interacting with mana bases. In other words Ruin is doing what Magic has done in the past, just less inherently broken.
Like any ability targeted at your opponent the fun is going to be had by only one party at a time. I don't know about you, but being able to interact with my opponent in a way I couldn't previously is exciting. The fun of Magic comes from interaction, so any opportunity to expand the realm of interaction I will leap on with relish. I also intend to add several mechanics which make Ruining your own lands an attractive play. Ideally Ruin cards, in Limited especially, should be played for their ability to interact with BOTH players' manabases. This of course will take a lot of work to get right, but I think Ruin is in a good enough space now that this goal is achievable.
@ DJK3654: While it's difficult to predict the actual decks which define a given format, it's easy enough to identify what cards and archetypes will be playable. RTR block for example enabled a huge explosion of multicolour decks which never had a chance to disappear because Khans was also a multicoloured set. Given the existence of Ruin in the format, it would be much harder to play with such a diverse and greedy mana base as these past few years of Standard have enabled.
Your point about Limited is backward. Limited is a far less greedy format than Constructed due to the lack of access to multicoloured sources. Even in formats with common or basic rarity duels (such as RTR or Khans) the actual number of non-basics per deck is relatively low at 2-3 cards. While RTR got a bit silly at the end, it's obvious from my discussion of Cazia's design that I intend to go in a different direction. While Constructed mana bases have carefully balanced arrangements of Shocks, Duels, Temples, Fetches, you-name-it duels Limited decks typically are 9-10 basics of one colour, 7-8 of another.
You also seem to be assuming a high percentage of ruin at common (aka in Limited). Ruin IS a destructive mechanic and IS dangerous, which I recognized early (if you read my blog post) and accepted as a cost of doing business. I doubt there will be more than 3-4 common Ruin cards, which is exactly the same amount as normal land destruction in a typical set.
Doing something that has been demonstrably bad for the game in the past again and thinking that you can do it better when the actual designers of the game don't think it can be done is basically the definition of a bad idea.
Well if you think it's such a bad idea then stop commenting and let me prove it to you. What do you think about the specific power level of the cards I posted? Are any comparable to Rishadan Port in your view?
Well if you think it's such a bad idea then stop commenting and let me prove it to you. What do you think about the specific power level of the cards I posted? Are any comparable to Rishadan Port in your view?
Duneblast and Grind to Sand are reasonably comparable (not quite the same but not too far away)
Inevitably, at least one card would likely be very much the same as Rishadan Port in oppressiveness given that mechanics normally need 10+ cards.
Lets start with this: Just because it hasn't been done doesn't mean it should
I've explored this space with my Exodus of Zendikar set but quickly abandoned it as it isn't fun.
Ok lets delve down a bit into why ruin is a fairly terrible mechanic. If we successfully use ruin what do we achieve?
Color screwing our opponents. Is this fun?
For our opponents: NO
For us: Not really unless we are a griefer timmy. Also it has no feedback, aka we have no way of knowing if it is working.
Also even if we do temporarily color screw our opponent they could potentially draw another land off the top and all our work has gone to waste. Thus creating a feel bad moment. What does ruin do if I only use it once?
Nothing. This mechanic is useless unless used in bulk. Is this helping our design goal?
No. This isn't creating a sense of desperation for the user.
For the target it creates a sense of unfun. Desperation implies some sort of options are available. This is more like helplessness.
Not only is ruin able to prevent you from playing, but it also doesn't even win the opponent the game so you can play the next match.
Suddenly they are no longer playing a game.
They are not having fun.
Actually land destruction is the opposite of fun.
Thus you get stuck in this position in which you are actively making your player HATE PLAYING YOUR GAME.
This as a game designer is called failure.
Suggestions
Seriously rethink this mechanic.
The design goal is fine. Just look for better ways to implement it.
Lets start with this: Just because it hasn't been done doesn't mean it should
I've explored this space with my Exodus of Zendikar set but quickly abandoned it as it isn't fun.
Ok lets delve down a bit into why ruin is a fairly terrible mechanic. If we successfully use ruin what do we achieve?
Color screwing our opponents. Is this fun?
For our opponents: NO
For us: Not really unless we are a griefer timmy. Also it has no feedback, aka we have no way of knowing if it is working.
Also even if we do temporarily color screw our opponent they could potentially draw another land off the top and all our work has gone to waste. Thus creating a feel bad moment. What does ruin do if I only use it once?
Nothing. This mechanic is useless unless used in bulk. Is this helping our design goal?
No. This isn't creating a sense of desperation for the user.
For the target it creates a sense of unfun. Desperation implies some sort of options are available. This is more like helplessness.
Not only is ruin able to prevent you from playing, but it also doesn't even win the opponent the game so you can play the next match.
Suddenly they are no longer playing a game.
They are not having fun.
Actually land destruction is the opposite of fun.
Thus you get stuck in this position in which you are actively making your player HATE PLAYING YOUR GAME.
This as a game designer is called failure.
Suggestions
Seriously rethink this mechanic.
The design goal is fine. Just look for better ways to implement it.
A good analysis.
Just because it hasn't been done doesn't mean it should is a lot like my design motto in my signature .
@ RJK3654: If it's such a good analysis, why didn't you just write it yourself in the first post and save us all the bother?
@ Doombringer: I find we are at an impasse, because I disagree with your position Doombringer. I am optimistic that the problems with Ruin are ones of implementation, not design fundamentals. Land destruction handled well improves Magic.
I fundamentally disagree with the statement that "Just because it hasn't been done doesn't mean that it should be done". In fact everything I've learnt in life has taught me the opposite. Because it hasn't been done means that it SHOULD be done, in fact it's probably necessary that it be done. However like anything in life it comes with small print at the bottom with one word: "intelligently". ANYTHING can be done, SHOULD be done, if tempered with intelligence and reason. What kind of designer would I be if I didn't at least try to climb the peak that hasn't been climbed before?
@ RJK3654: If it's such a good analysis, why didn't you just write it yourself in the first post and save us all the bother?
First of all, maybe because I don't want to spend all my time explaining things on game forums. I have others things to do, you know. Secondly, because I don't necessarily need to go into that much detail straight away. Someone may agree with a point I make without me needing to elaborate further than a simple explanation. And finally, I did provide a reasonably similar level similar detail in some of my previous points.
@ Doombringer: I find we are at an impasse, because I disagree with your position Doombringer. I am optimistic that the problems with Ruin are ones of implementation, not design fundamentals. Land destruction handled well improves Magic.
I fundamentally disagree with the statement that "Just because it hasn't been done doesn't mean that it should be done". In fact everything I've learnt in life has taught me the opposite. Because it hasn't been done means that it SHOULD be done, in fact it's probably necessary that it be done. However like anything in life it comes with small print at the bottom with one word: "intelligently". ANYTHING can be done, SHOULD be done, if tempered with intelligence and reason. What kind of designer would I be if I didn't at least try to climb the peak that hasn't been climbed before?
Because it has been climbed, it has been done, not specifically (what Doombringer was probably talking about) but generally in the sense of land disruption. Not only in cards like Rishadan Port, but time and time again by R&D. When the creators and continuing maintainers of something, pretty much the only group that could be considered an authority on the issue, AND a large portion of the following community agree on something, you need a damn good reason to ignore that as a rule. You have none. Because there isn't really any reason to go down this path of design that justifies the incredible risk involved.
To be clear, the majority will agree, that this kind of mechanic should NEVER be done. At least, not in the actual game or in the vast majority of custom designs and I doubt many people would want that anyway.
EDIT: this is talking about LD as a set mechanicmechanic. LD can be done on the occasional card at higher mana costs.
We've decided to talk about Ruin in an upcoming episode of Remaking Magic, either the next one or the one after that. It's a great topic for discussion. I think there's a brilliant idea hidden inside the current design, though I agree with the other posters that the current implementation doesn't work.
You do have some other rules issues to work out though, unless I missed your explanations though. Like, for example, are you planning to require all limited games of this to have a pile of deserts set aside? Also, if they're a new 'basic' type then they mess with cards like Coalition Victory.
I played with similar space(sorry I don't have a better example, but you get the point) in the last set of my first custom block, and I loved it. I don't know that I'm a fan of exiling it and then bringing in a brand new card from outside the game - for one thing, it expects you to either have that card or have a token for it, and for many reasons token lands don't work well. That said, the general idea is a fun one and I think I agree with you, OP, more so than the others in this thread (all respect to them, of course, everyone is entitled to their own opinion).
A few developmental concerns that you'll have to consider:
There's no way that a mechanic like this can really work in a set that relies too much on multicolor interactions, as color hosing in limited can get nasty very, very quickly. This mechanic needs to go in a set where you can easily have mono-colored, or nearly mono-colored decks. You need to avoid a lot of cards with cc in the casting costs. That said, there's a very fine line with this between making it overpowered and so underpowered it's useless.
Don't get sold on cheap costs. You'll need to playtest the ***** out of this and very possibly up the costs for balance reasons.
A little goes a long way. Even if this is going to be a primary mechanic, I'd be very careful to use it sparingly, and probably only push one or two cards with the mechanic as constructed playable.
You need to do something more with this. There need to be cards that implicity get better when lands become ruined. Doombringer makes a good point that this mechanic tends to be useless in bulk, and often times you'll color screw your opponent for maybe one turn before they're back in business. You need cards that work well with ruin that make your ruin strategy more than just 'color screw an opponent for a little bit'. The trick here is doing this without it being ridiculously parasitic.
Stick with this. There's no reason to give it up just because conventional wisdom says no. Think about why the initial reaction to this is 'no' and develop it in such a way that removes or at least alleviates those concerns.
@ DJK3654: A) Ruin is not land destruction, as the total number of lands (and this available mana) remains constant and B) Wizards like any large body is going to follow roughly the path of least resistance. Look at how simple a theme Khans block has: combat and creature size matter. I'm simply trying to achieve the same but with Ruin rather than Morph.
@ Stairc: I'm totally fine with you guys doing a podcast on Ruin, provided I'm part of that discussion. I don't really see what rules problems you're talking about. You already need a supply of basics to run Limited, adding another basic type doesn't change that need. Of the 20 basics normally included I'm planning on listing 5 as Dune with 3 for each of the other types. And on Domain, I don't think it really matters. Most domain cards will get slightly better (Tribal Flames is the only important card for Constructed I can think of) while cards like Coalition Victory will get slightly worse. But is that enough to kill the mechanic? I think not.
@ Advent: Every single one of your development points I discovered when first designing the original dust token version of Ruin. I will address each of them, plus some more I discovered, when I do my post on Developing Ruin (spoilers).
I think it's worthwhile to ask where these Deserts from outside the game are coming from. At most events, "outside the game" means your sideboard, not your whole collection, and I don't think that should change for the sake of this mechanic.
Are you changing the rules so that people can have unlimited numbers of basic lands in sideboard? That could have unforeseen consequences. What happens if someone has no Deserts left in their board? Does Ruin just kill their land but not give them a new one?
Maybe this can actually work as a limiting factor, if
a) the controller of the ruin effect must provide the Desert card from their board
b) if you can't provide a Desert card, the original target is not exiled.
Then you can have the ruin mechanic without the risk of people going all-in because it hurts their deck's adaptability.
But then you have the problem of people scooping up Deserts that aren't theirs and going home with them. Problematic.
Messy board states aside, I think the dust token version of this mechanic might be better, implementation-wise. That's setting aside any issues of whether it might or might not be fun to play with or against.
Ruin target land. (To ruin place a ruin counter on target land. Lands with ruin counters lose all and types and have "T: Remove a ruin counter from this land and add 1 mana to your mana pool.)
This way Ruin doesn't endless suck a land out of colored mana.
it's much easier to balance (IMO)
doesn't involve cards from out of the game.
Allows you to make cards that care about ruin counters
If you actually read my blog post on the development of Ruin, you'd know that I tried both those implementations and neither was satisfactory. I think the sideboard problem is certainly valid, but there's no reason a rule can't be added along these lines:
"If the resolution of an evility would call for a basic land card from outside the game, that card does not need to be in your sideboard. At the end of the game any lands added this way must be removed from your deck and set aside."
In other words for Ruin you have access to a theoretically infinite supply of Dunes, without having stupid limiting interactions with the sideboard.
Which "both" implementations? I only listed one? And I read your blog - the problem you had with the counter version was the amount of counters - but with my version, since you can remove the counter you won't have the same problem.
NVM - you we're referring to someone else. My bad.
The current version of Ruin would be most palatable to me in a set either with a high amount of Artifacts, or Morph, or some other mechanic that lets your opponent keep casting some of their cards if all they have are Deserts.
Another direction is to make more cards that Ruin only your own lands and not your opponents. This would complement the Dune-matters cards you hinted at, and reduce how often Ruin is used to randomly color-screw an opponent.
That's the direction I'm leaning towards. Ruin should be as much about interacting with your lands as your opponent's. I'm considering increasing the overall number of artifacts slightly, but I don't want to prematurely design myself into a corner. I have some quite strong feelings on artifacts I will write about at some point (spoilers).
I'm still unconvinced that putting Dune/Desert basic land cards from outside the game onto the battlefield is better than just putting a land token onto the battlefield. One of your set/block's main focuses is the desert theme, and because it will be seen very often, there's no problem in putting land token-generating effects into your set. As confusing as the mechanic may be upon first glance to players, upon playing, players will begin to understand how the mechanic works, and thus the confusion will slowly fade away. Granted, there will still be some confusions, but those are inevitable, as every mechanic eventually ends up in the "most people get it, but some people will still occasionally get confused" group. Recent mechanics that fit this description are bestow and manifest.
As Nahiri, the Lithomancer has shown, putting Equipment artifact tokens onto the battlefield is okay as long as something flavor-wise justifies its presence. And you've done that extremely well with the background you've provided for the set/block. That Nahiri's Equipment token appears only once and your ruin mechanic appears multiple times only helps your case.
I'm usually all for changing the CR to be tailored to custom mechanics, but in this case, I really don't see the need for it.
As far as interactions with cards like Coalition Victory and with domain go, that depends on the wording of the mechanic.
- "... Its controller puts a basic land card named Dune from outside the game onto the battlefield" and "... Its controller puts a basic land token named Dune onto the battlefield. It has 'T: Add 1 to your mana pool'" do not interact with such cards.
- "... Its controller puts a basic Dune land card from outside the game onto the battlefield" and "... Its controller puts a basic Dune land token onto the battlefield" do interact with Coalition Victory. With Coalition Victory in particular, errata could be given so that it doesn't count the Dune basic land type, but domain is irreparable unless you want to start giving ability words non-referential rules meaning.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How to use card tags (please use them for everybody's sanity)
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format Minimum deck size: 60 Maximum number of identical cards: 4 Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Any post to this part of the forums would be incomplete without at least a few custom cards to critique, so here's some (theoretically) powerful cards using one of the core mechanics of my custom set Cazia (the evolution of which I discuss in my first blog post):
Ruin a/target land (Exile that land and its controller puts a Dune basic land card from outside the game onto the battlefield tapped under their control.)
Duneblast R
Instant (U)
As an additional cost to cast CARD, ruin a non-Desert land you control.
Ruin target land. (Exile that land and its controller puts a Dune basic land card from outside the game onto the battlefield tapped under their control.)
When ruining a land, such as for an additional cost, the card will almost always specify non-Desert to force the cost of losing a coloured source. Targeted ruin doesn't matter, as you will be targeting your opponent's mana sources or using it on your own to increase your Desert count (spoilers). This might be too pushed at just R, but I really want to make the card playable early when mana is at its tightest.
Grind to Sand 2B
Instant (C)
Ruin target land. (Exile that land and its controller puts a Dune basic land card from outside the game onto the battlefield tapped under their control.)
The basic ruin card. I'm aiming for this to be a strong role-player in Limited, very useful as a set-up piece in some decks but not universally pickable.
Curse of Keb 3BB
Enchantment - Curse (R)
Enchant player.
At the beginning of enchanted player's turn, they ruin a non-Desert land they control. If they control only Deserts, instead sacrifice CARD. (Exile that land and its controller puts a Dune basic land card from outside the game onto the battlefield tapped under their control.)
I honestly have no idea how powerful this card would be. Probably ridiculous in EDH, potentially bonkers if pushed out early in more mana-intensive formats (such as any Constructed format ever). Ideally I want ruin to punish players for going too wide with their colours, something which I think has become epidemic in many formats.
Dunewyrm 6G
Creature - Dragon (U)
Trample
When CARD enters the battlefield or dies, ruin target land. (Exile that land and its controller puts a Dune basic land card from outside the game onto the battlefield tapped under their control.)
5/4
Black is the primary ruin colour, with green and red getting it at smaller amounts and in different forms. The sacrifice theme I discuss in my second blog post naturally enables death triggers, allowing for some very interesting situations with the double trigger.
GWU Rafiq
RWB Zurgo
WBG Ghave
WUB Oloro
WBR Kaalia (Archived)
My Blog, currently working on series about my custom set Cazia.
Steam Trades - I play Dota 2, CS:GO, TF2, and trade cards heavily. Add me if you like.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
GWU Rafiq
RWB Zurgo
WBG Ghave
WUB Oloro
WBR Kaalia (Archived)
My Blog, currently working on series about my custom set Cazia.
Steam Trades - I play Dota 2, CS:GO, TF2, and trade cards heavily. Add me if you like.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
GWU Rafiq
RWB Zurgo
WBG Ghave
WUB Oloro
WBR Kaalia (Archived)
My Blog, currently working on series about my custom set Cazia.
Steam Trades - I play Dota 2, CS:GO, TF2, and trade cards heavily. Add me if you like.
In limited, mana bases are significantly more fragile than in constructed (although less greedy). Considering that this mechanic would also show up at a considerable percentage in any given game, it is likely that it could singlehandly reduce games to unfun stalls. For example, Rishadan Port , a single card, proved to be incredibly oppressive for it's environment in limited AND constructed.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
What is the design goal of the set?
What is ruin trying to accomplish?
Is it fun?
Are you designing commons? Check out my primer on NWO.
Interested in making a custom set? Check out my Set skeleton and archetype primer.
I also write articles about getting started with custom card creation.
Go and PLAYTEST your designs, you will learn more in a single playtests than a dozen discussions.
My custom sets:
Dreamscape
Coins of Mercalis [COMPLETE]
Exodus of Zendikar - ON HOLD
Ruin creates a feeling of desperation, the loss of coloured mana feels a lot worse than it actually is (it was a lot worse with land tokens trust me). At the same time Ruin does something that Magic hasn't done for a long time, enable players to interact meaningfully with each other's mana bases. I don't there is anything fundamentally wrong with the thinking behind Rishadan Port, the power level was just too high and I think that's scared the community and jaded designers into being less risky with interacting with mana bases. In other words Ruin is doing what Magic has done in the past, just less inherently broken.
Like any ability targeted at your opponent the fun is going to be had by only one party at a time. I don't know about you, but being able to interact with my opponent in a way I couldn't previously is exciting. The fun of Magic comes from interaction, so any opportunity to expand the realm of interaction I will leap on with relish. I also intend to add several mechanics which make Ruining your own lands an attractive play. Ideally Ruin cards, in Limited especially, should be played for their ability to interact with BOTH players' manabases. This of course will take a lot of work to get right, but I think Ruin is in a good enough space now that this goal is achievable.
@ DJK3654: While it's difficult to predict the actual decks which define a given format, it's easy enough to identify what cards and archetypes will be playable. RTR block for example enabled a huge explosion of multicolour decks which never had a chance to disappear because Khans was also a multicoloured set. Given the existence of Ruin in the format, it would be much harder to play with such a diverse and greedy mana base as these past few years of Standard have enabled.
Your point about Limited is backward. Limited is a far less greedy format than Constructed due to the lack of access to multicoloured sources. Even in formats with common or basic rarity duels (such as RTR or Khans) the actual number of non-basics per deck is relatively low at 2-3 cards. While RTR got a bit silly at the end, it's obvious from my discussion of Cazia's design that I intend to go in a different direction. While Constructed mana bases have carefully balanced arrangements of Shocks, Duels, Temples, Fetches, you-name-it duels Limited decks typically are 9-10 basics of one colour, 7-8 of another.
You also seem to be assuming a high percentage of ruin at common (aka in Limited). Ruin IS a destructive mechanic and IS dangerous, which I recognized early (if you read my blog post) and accepted as a cost of doing business. I doubt there will be more than 3-4 common Ruin cards, which is exactly the same amount as normal land destruction in a typical set.
GWU Rafiq
RWB Zurgo
WBG Ghave
WUB Oloro
WBR Kaalia (Archived)
My Blog, currently working on series about my custom set Cazia.
Steam Trades - I play Dota 2, CS:GO, TF2, and trade cards heavily. Add me if you like.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
GWU Rafiq
RWB Zurgo
WBG Ghave
WUB Oloro
WBR Kaalia (Archived)
My Blog, currently working on series about my custom set Cazia.
Steam Trades - I play Dota 2, CS:GO, TF2, and trade cards heavily. Add me if you like.
Duneblast and Grind to Sand are reasonably comparable (not quite the same but not too far away)
Inevitably, at least one card would likely be very much the same as Rishadan Port in oppressiveness given that mechanics normally need 10+ cards.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Just because it hasn't been done doesn't mean it should
I've explored this space with my Exodus of Zendikar set but quickly abandoned it as it isn't fun.
Ok lets delve down a bit into why ruin is a fairly terrible mechanic.
If we successfully use ruin what do we achieve?
Color screwing our opponents.
Is this fun?
For our opponents: NO
For us: Not really unless we are a griefer timmy. Also it has no feedback, aka we have no way of knowing if it is working.
Also even if we do temporarily color screw our opponent they could potentially draw another land off the top and all our work has gone to waste. Thus creating a feel bad moment.
What does ruin do if I only use it once?
Nothing. This mechanic is useless unless used in bulk.
Is this helping our design goal?
No. This isn't creating a sense of desperation for the user.
For the target it creates a sense of unfun. Desperation implies some sort of options are available. This is more like helplessness.
Not only is ruin able to prevent you from playing, but it also doesn't even win the opponent the game so you can play the next match.
Suddenly they are no longer playing a game.
They are not having fun.
Actually land destruction is the opposite of fun.
Thus you get stuck in this position in which you are actively making your player HATE PLAYING YOUR GAME.
This as a game designer is called failure.
Suggestions
Seriously rethink this mechanic.
The design goal is fine. Just look for better ways to implement it.
Are you designing commons? Check out my primer on NWO.
Interested in making a custom set? Check out my Set skeleton and archetype primer.
I also write articles about getting started with custom card creation.
Go and PLAYTEST your designs, you will learn more in a single playtests than a dozen discussions.
My custom sets:
Dreamscape
Coins of Mercalis [COMPLETE]
Exodus of Zendikar - ON HOLD
A good analysis.
Just because it hasn't been done doesn't mean it should is a lot like my design motto in my signature .
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
@ Doombringer: I find we are at an impasse, because I disagree with your position Doombringer. I am optimistic that the problems with Ruin are ones of implementation, not design fundamentals. Land destruction handled well improves Magic.
I fundamentally disagree with the statement that "Just because it hasn't been done doesn't mean that it should be done". In fact everything I've learnt in life has taught me the opposite. Because it hasn't been done means that it SHOULD be done, in fact it's probably necessary that it be done. However like anything in life it comes with small print at the bottom with one word: "intelligently". ANYTHING can be done, SHOULD be done, if tempered with intelligence and reason. What kind of designer would I be if I didn't at least try to climb the peak that hasn't been climbed before?
GWU Rafiq
RWB Zurgo
WBG Ghave
WUB Oloro
WBR Kaalia (Archived)
My Blog, currently working on series about my custom set Cazia.
Steam Trades - I play Dota 2, CS:GO, TF2, and trade cards heavily. Add me if you like.
First of all, maybe because I don't want to spend all my time explaining things on game forums. I have others things to do, you know. Secondly, because I don't necessarily need to go into that much detail straight away. Someone may agree with a point I make without me needing to elaborate further than a simple explanation. And finally, I did provide a reasonably similar level similar detail in some of my previous points.
Because it has been climbed, it has been done, not specifically (what Doombringer was probably talking about) but generally in the sense of land disruption. Not only in cards like Rishadan Port, but time and time again by R&D. When the creators and continuing maintainers of something, pretty much the only group that could be considered an authority on the issue, AND a large portion of the following community agree on something, you need a damn good reason to ignore that as a rule. You have none. Because there isn't really any reason to go down this path of design that justifies the incredible risk involved.
To be clear, the majority will agree, that this kind of mechanic should NEVER be done. At least, not in the actual game or in the vast majority of custom designs and I doubt many people would want that anyway.
EDIT: this is talking about LD as a set mechanicmechanic. LD can be done on the occasional card at higher mana costs.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
You do have some other rules issues to work out though, unless I missed your explanations though. Like, for example, are you planning to require all limited games of this to have a pile of deserts set aside? Also, if they're a new 'basic' type then they mess with cards like Coalition Victory.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
A few developmental concerns that you'll have to consider:
Stick with this. There's no reason to give it up just because conventional wisdom says no. Think about why the initial reaction to this is 'no' and develop it in such a way that removes or at least alleviates those concerns.
My custom sets:
Caeia Block (Released - Beta)
Generals of Dareth (In Design)
@ Stairc: I'm totally fine with you guys doing a podcast on Ruin, provided I'm part of that discussion. I don't really see what rules problems you're talking about. You already need a supply of basics to run Limited, adding another basic type doesn't change that need. Of the 20 basics normally included I'm planning on listing 5 as Dune with 3 for each of the other types. And on Domain, I don't think it really matters. Most domain cards will get slightly better (Tribal Flames is the only important card for Constructed I can think of) while cards like Coalition Victory will get slightly worse. But is that enough to kill the mechanic? I think not.
@ Advent: Every single one of your development points I discovered when first designing the original dust token version of Ruin. I will address each of them, plus some more I discovered, when I do my post on Developing Ruin (spoilers).
GWU Rafiq
RWB Zurgo
WBG Ghave
WUB Oloro
WBR Kaalia (Archived)
My Blog, currently working on series about my custom set Cazia.
Steam Trades - I play Dota 2, CS:GO, TF2, and trade cards heavily. Add me if you like.
Are you changing the rules so that people can have unlimited numbers of basic lands in sideboard? That could have unforeseen consequences. What happens if someone has no Deserts left in their board? Does Ruin just kill their land but not give them a new one?
Maybe this can actually work as a limiting factor, if
a) the controller of the ruin effect must provide the Desert card from their board
b) if you can't provide a Desert card, the original target is not exiled.
Then you can have the ruin mechanic without the risk of people going all-in because it hurts their deck's adaptability.
But then you have the problem of people scooping up Deserts that aren't theirs and going home with them. Problematic.
Messy board states aside, I think the dust token version of this mechanic might be better, implementation-wise. That's setting aside any issues of whether it might or might not be fun to play with or against.
Ruin target land. (To ruin place a ruin counter on target land. Lands with ruin counters lose all and types and have "T: Remove a ruin counter from this land and add 1 mana to your mana pool.)
"If the resolution of an evility would call for a basic land card from outside the game, that card does not need to be in your sideboard. At the end of the game any lands added this way must be removed from your deck and set aside."
In other words for Ruin you have access to a theoretically infinite supply of Dunes, without having stupid limiting interactions with the sideboard.
GWU Rafiq
RWB Zurgo
WBG Ghave
WUB Oloro
WBR Kaalia (Archived)
My Blog, currently working on series about my custom set Cazia.
Steam Trades - I play Dota 2, CS:GO, TF2, and trade cards heavily. Add me if you like.
NVM - you we're referring to someone else. My bad.
Another direction is to make more cards that Ruin only your own lands and not your opponents. This would complement the Dune-matters cards you hinted at, and reduce how often Ruin is used to randomly color-screw an opponent.
GWU Rafiq
RWB Zurgo
WBG Ghave
WUB Oloro
WBR Kaalia (Archived)
My Blog, currently working on series about my custom set Cazia.
Steam Trades - I play Dota 2, CS:GO, TF2, and trade cards heavily. Add me if you like.
As Nahiri, the Lithomancer has shown, putting Equipment artifact tokens onto the battlefield is okay as long as something flavor-wise justifies its presence. And you've done that extremely well with the background you've provided for the set/block. That Nahiri's Equipment token appears only once and your ruin mechanic appears multiple times only helps your case.
I'm usually all for changing the CR to be tailored to custom mechanics, but in this case, I really don't see the need for it.
As far as interactions with cards like Coalition Victory and with domain go, that depends on the wording of the mechanic.
- "... Its controller puts a basic land card named Dune from outside the game onto the battlefield" and "... Its controller puts a basic land token named Dune onto the battlefield. It has 'T: Add 1 to your mana pool'" do not interact with such cards.
- "... Its controller puts a basic Dune land card from outside the game onto the battlefield" and "... Its controller puts a basic Dune land token onto the battlefield" do interact with Coalition Victory. With Coalition Victory in particular, errata could be given so that it doesn't count the Dune basic land type, but domain is irreparable unless you want to start giving ability words non-referential rules meaning.
[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