So do you think the interactions that could produce are acceptable?
Yes, as Riftsweeper is the only card which can interact with your own exiled cards. All the other cards interact with your opponents exiled cards.
And since those are with the exception of Warden of the Beyond and Oblivion Sower all the Eldrazi processors, they would actually help you cast those cards.
So not that much interaction is produced directly.
The other interactions e.g. exiling already played forbidden spells just makes you jung trough the hoops of getting them back again.
Yes, but the question is is that last part acceptable? Obviously, it's not egregious, because of how narrow and limited of a workaround it is. But nevertheless, it's about more than gameplay, but the identity of the exile zone. And I'm not sure how close this would be playing it.
Seems to me just using the command zone with a limited number of forbidden cards per deck is by far the most preferable, with working from outside the game (sideboard in organized events) a distant second. Using the command zone with a limit makes them work the same in casual and organized play and (as opposed to starting in exile) limits it to shuffling into the library once. Using outside-the-game allows wishes to grab them, but has limit problems for casual play.
If the only problem is the name "Command Zone", then get over it. That is hardly a problem. Using the command zone isolates the cards nicely from other interactions. We do not need a new zone that would function exactly like just using the command zone would.
Have them exist "outside of the game" or as it should be called "your sideboard". That limits you to 15, and each inclusion is at the cost of some flexibility. It also then synergizes with anything else that works with cards ootg.
The idea would be they exist outside the game but not in your sideboard. That all cards in a tournament 'outside the game' are in sideboards in a function of the tournament rules, not the game rules.
It seems like you are trying to argue different points, but I think they actually lead to the same end result. If forbiden cards can not start in your deck and are outside the game, then in constucted tournaments that use sideboards, like with choices for wishes, forbiden cards would by default need to be in your sideboard.
Seems to me just using the command zone with a limited number of forbidden cards per deck is by far the most preferable, with working from outside the game (sideboard in organized events) a distant second. Using the command zone with a limit makes them work the same in casual and organized play and (as opposed to starting in exile) limits it to shuffling into the library once. Using outside-the-game allows wishes to grab them, but has limit problems for casual play.
If the only problem is the name "Command Zone", then get over it. That is hardly a problem.
It goes entirely against the flavor of the mechanic. I don't think it's 'hardly a problem'. It's a pretty serious problem.
It'd almost be like using Bushido in Theros to represent the hero part of that world.
Using a new zone also allows me to avoid any interactions with commanders, conspiracies and emblems that I don't want without extra textspace used to specify forbidden cards.
Using the command zone isolates the cards nicely from other interactions. We do not need a new zone that would function exactly like just using the command zone would.
You say, immediately after talking about the exact reason why.
Why does everyone seem so averse to making a new zone?
Let's turn this problem around- what's the actual problem with making a new one?
I only see a minimal amount more complexity than just using the command zone.
Have them exist "outside of the game" or as it should be called "your sideboard". That limits you to 15, and each inclusion is at the cost of some flexibility. It also then synergizes with anything else that works with cards ootg.
The idea would be they exist outside the game but not in your sideboard. That all cards in a tournament 'outside the game' are in sideboards in a function of the tournament rules, not the game rules.
It seems like you are trying to argue different points, but I think they actually lead to the same end result. If forbiden cards can not start in your deck and are outside the game, then in constucted tournaments that use sideboards, like with choices for wishes, forbiden cards would by default need to be in your sideboard.
I'll just repeat that 'that all in cards in a tournament 'outside the game' are in sideboards in a function of the tournament rules, not the game rules' and add that BOTH can be, and ARE, changed.
It goes entirely against the flavor of the mechanic. I don't think it's 'hardly a problem'. It's a pretty serious problem.
It'd almost be like using Bushido in Theros to represent the hero part of that world.
Using a new zone also allows me to avoid any interactions with commanders, conspiracies and emblems that I don't want without extra textspace used to specify forbidden cards.
Bushido only wouldn't work in Theros because the very name "bushido" wouldn't fit the linguistic space occupied by Theros. A "less Japanese" term, for lack of better phrasing, would be used instead, but the mechanical space would be identical to bushido. This doesn't even consider the prior existence of bushido as a mechanic in Kamigawa block.
What "extra text space" are you worried about with forbidden cards?
You say, immediately after talking about the exact reason why.
Why does everyone seem so averse to making a new zone?
Let's turn this problem around- what's the actual problem with making a new one?
I only see a minimal amount more complexity than just using the command zone.
There's no inherent problem with creating a new zone. But it's bad design to create a new zone just to facilitate a mechanic.
The creation of the command zone a couple of years back is questionable, but there is an abundance of mechanics that now rely on the command zone in the same way that you want your forbidden cards to rely on your new zone. The command zone consists of cards that start the game already there without needing to be drawn from the deck. Your new zone would also consist of cards that start the game already there without needing to be drawn from the deck. The only difference would be the differing type line on your cards compared to all other cards that currently start in the command zone.
Why isn't there a "conspiracy zone" for conspiracy cards, a "plane zone" for plane cards, or a "scheme zone" for scheme cards? Using the command zone for all three imposes a huge flavor fail on all three; there isn't anything to do with "commanding" with conspiracies, planes, or schemes. The answer is that all three fill the same mechanical space of starting the game already occupying the command zone.
Similarly, why wasn't there a "temporary-leave zone" for cards that get put into exile briefly and then come back (Oblivion Ring, Banishing Light) and a separate "permanent-leave zone" for cards that get put into exile indefinitely (ingest, Path to Exile)? The exile zone doesn't make sense for things that eventually come back; they're banished forever and aren't ever welcomed again.
If conspiracies, planes, and schemes can exist in the command zone despite the flavor disconnect, so too can forbidden cards. There's no mechanical advantage of creating a new zone, so you shouldn't do it. Just stick with either exile or the command zone.
I'll just repeat that 'that all in cards in a tournament 'outside the game' are in sideboards in a function of the tournament rules, not the game rules' and add that BOTH can be, and ARE, changed.
Changing the tournament rules this way fundamentally changes what it means for any particular object to be in the game or outside the game, thus changing the basic framework of how the game works with regards to objects under its scope.
"I can make whatever cards I want, and the rules will just have to follow suit" is what you're doing here. You're not using the existing rules to confine what you can do. You're using the rules as a consequence of how the cards in the game are made, when the rules actually act to impose limitations on what cards can do.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How to use card tags (please use them for everybody's sanity)
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format Minimum deck size: 60 Maximum number of identical cards: 4 Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
It goes entirely against the flavor of the mechanic. I don't think it's 'hardly a problem'. It's a pretty serious problem.
It'd almost be like using Bushido in Theros to represent the hero part of that world.
Using a new zone also allows me to avoid any interactions with commanders, conspiracies and emblems that I don't want without extra textspace used to specify forbidden cards.
Bushido only wouldn't work in Theros because the very name "bushido" wouldn't fit the linguistic space occupied by Theros.
Yes, the flavor is wrong. In the same way the flavor of the command zone is wrong for Forbidden.
What "extra text space" are you worried about with forbidden cards?
I'm not 'worried'. It's just that using the command zone means adding text calling out Forbidden on enabler cards to prevent any potential undesired interactions with commanders, conspiracies and emblems etc.
Y
ou say, immediately after talking about the exact reason why.
Why does everyone seem so averse to making a new zone?
Let's turn this problem around- what's the actual problem with making a new one?
I only see a minimal amount more complexity than just using the command zone.
There's no inherent problem with creating a new zone. But it's bad design to create a new zone just to facilitate a mechanic.
That's not really providing a problem, that's a statement saying it is a problem.
What is the problem?
If there is advantages, but yet you still think I shouldn't do it, there must be some downsides- so what are they?
Why isn't there a "conspiracy zone" for conspiracy cards
Because the command zone was suitable for them flavorfully. Conspiracies are associated with some kind of planning and leadership.
a "plane zone" for plane cards
Plane cards never reference the command zone
or a "scheme zone" for scheme cards?
Schemes also fit the command zone, really quite well actually. They don't reference it anyway.
Similarly, why wasn't there a "temporary-leave zone" for cards that get put into exile briefly and then come back (Oblivion Ring, Banishing Light) and a separate "permanent-leave zone" for cards that get put into exile indefinitely (ingest, Path to Exile)? The exile zone doesn't make sense for things that eventually come back; they're banished forever and aren't ever welcomed again.
'Roundabout and somewhat confusing flavor' is an entirely different matter from 'completely unrelated concepts being strung together, distracting from the flavor which is trying to be expressed'. Not every use of exile is perfect, but they all at least make some sense when the word 'exile' isn't taken literally.
I'll just repeat that 'that all in cards in a tournament 'outside the game' are in sideboards in a function of the tournament rules, not the game rules' and add that BOTH can be, and ARE, changed.
Changing the tournament rules this way fundamentally changes what it means for any particular object to be in the game or outside the game
In what possible way does extending what cards you can have outside the game in tournaments to be more like what is already true for causal games 'fundamentally change' anything other than the rules and gameplay of tournaments?
What "extra text space" are you worried about with forbidden cards?
I'm not 'worried'. It's just that using the command zone means adding text calling out Forbidden on enabler cards to prevent any potential undesired interactions with commanders, conspiracies and emblems etc.
What interactions are these? I'm not really following.
There's no inherent problem with creating a new zone. But it's bad design to create a new zone just to facilitate a mechanic.
That's not really providing a problem, that's a statement saying it is a problem.
What is the problem?
If there is advantages, but yet you still think I shouldn't do it, there must be some downsides- so what are they?
As is, you're just really making a zone for the sake of making a zone to put some stuff in. That would be fine if no such zone already existed, but the command zone already exists for the exact same purpose as you seek your new zone to have.
Putting it another way, there's no actual disadvantage to creating a new zone. But the degree of advantage in using the command zone is pretty high in comparison.
a "plane zone" for plane cards
Plane cards never reference the command zone
or a "scheme zone" for scheme cards?
Schemes also fit the command zone, really quite well actually. They don't reference it anyway.
So? They exist in the command zone, and that's what matters. Whether or not they reference the command zone doesn't have any impact on the fact that plane cards and scheme cards belong there and use that zone for the mechanical purpose as the command zone was designed to have.
Similarly, why wasn't there a "temporary-leave zone" for cards that get put into exile briefly and then come back (Oblivion Ring, Banishing Light) and a separate "permanent-leave zone" for cards that get put into exile indefinitely (ingest, Path to Exile)? The exile zone doesn't make sense for things that eventually come back; they're banished forever and aren't ever welcomed again.
'Roundabout and somewhat confusing flavor' is an entirely different matter from 'completely unrelated concepts being strung together, distracting from the flavor which is trying to be expressed'. Not every use of exile is perfect, but they all at least make some sense when the word 'exile' isn't taken literally.[/quote]
So too does the word "command" make sense when the definition of the word isn't taken literally with regards to forbidden cards.
I'll just repeat that 'that all in cards in a tournament 'outside the game' are in sideboards in a function of the tournament rules, not the game rules' and add that BOTH can be, and ARE, changed.
Changing the tournament rules this way fundamentally changes what it means for any particular object to be in the game or outside the game
In what possible way does extending what cards you can have outside the game in tournaments to be more like what is already true for causal games 'fundamentally change' anything other than the rules and gameplay of tournaments?[/quote]
That's exactly what's being changed -- the rules and gameplay of tournaments. Instead of being able to identify any given Magic card in a player's pool of cards as being either "in the current game" and "outside the current game", this mechanic would require a differentiation between being "in the current game", "outside the current game but in the sideboard", and "outside the current game but not in the sideboard".
There's no need for the two "outside the game" categories to even exist. The differentiation is easily realized when forbidden cards just start in the game.
---
Overall, there is way too much emphasis being put on flavor here. There is so much focus on flavor that you're not seeing that what you want to accomplish with the mechanic can already be done within the constraints of the game, without having to alter any rules whatsoever other than those that acknowledge the existence of forbidden cards and their function. But for some reason, you're proposing the alteration of the MTR just to make your mechanic work, a more-than-unneeded approach.
Abandon flavor for a moment and focus on the mechanical aspects of what you're trying to do. Notice how having forbidden cards starting in exile or the command zone constitutes almost 100% functional overlap with having them start in a new zone. By having these cards start in a new zone, you admit that the current zones of the game aren't mechanically sufficient, which as even you demonstrate is not the case.
There is no mechanical advantage to using a new zone over either exile or the command zone. There is no fear in directly referencing the command zone on forbidden cards, since all conspiracy cards also reference that same zone directly, and players understand well enough that the command zone is essentially a "store until further use" zone.
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
What "extra text space" are you worried about with forbidden cards?
I'm not 'worried'. It's just that using the command zone means adding text calling out Forbidden on enabler cards to prevent any potential undesired interactions with commanders, conspiracies and emblems etc.
What interactions are these? I'm not really following.
There's no inherent problem with creating a new zone. But it's bad design to create a new zone just to facilitate a mechanic.
That's not really providing a problem, that's a statement saying it is a problem.
What is the problem?
If there is advantages, but yet you still think I shouldn't do it, there must be some downsides- so what are they?
As is, you're just really making a zone for the sake of making a zone to put some stuff in. That would be fine if no such zone already existed, but the command zone already exists for the exact same purpose as you seek your new zone to have.
Putting it another way, there's no actual disadvantage to creating a new zone. But the degree of advantage in using the command zone is pretty high in comparison.
[/quote]
What is that advantage then?
'It already exists' is not an advantage. That is merely something that may be associated with advantage.
A bit less complexity is all I see. And you’re not really giving me anything else.
Meanwhile using a new zone (i.e. probably 'the void') gives better flavor and is a little bit less wordy. That seems pretty worth it to me.
So? They exist in the command zone, and that's what matters. Whether or not they reference the command zone doesn't have any impact on the fact that plane cards and scheme cards belong there and use that zone for the mechanical purpose as the command zone was designed to have.
Referencing the command zone is the problem for Forbidden. Being put there isn't really a problem if it's not something everybody even knows and are not constantly reminded of. If there is a sensible way to do this mechanic without referencing the command zone on either cards with it or enabler cards that pull them out, then I'll do the command zone. I don't see how that's possible though.
So too does the word "command" make sense when the definition of the word isn't taken literally with regards to forbidden cards.
Not really. It's too much of a stretch, it's beyond the point of meaningful connection. Exile is styled to be an outside largely uninvovled even untouchable place, and is consistent with that flavor.
Mysterious ancient power sort of thing does not match under the style of the command zone as representing some kind of HQ like place. Commanders make sense being there, Conspiracies make sense being there, 'Forbidden' cards don't. I could try to style the mechanic toward that- using a different name for one, but I don't think the really resonant flavor of the mechanic itself lies there. I don't want to compensate majorly on flavor just to save a little complexity.
That's exactly what's being changed -- the rules and gameplay of tournaments. Instead of being able to identify any given Magic card in a player's pool of cards as being either "in the current game" and "outside the current game", this mechanic would require a differentiation between being "in the current game", "outside the current game but in the sideboard", and "outside the current game but not in the sideboard".
There's no need for the two "outside the game" categories to even exist. The differentiation is easily realized when forbidden cards just start in the game.
Or the differentiation is already realised by the fact that the two outside the game categories are very functionally different.
There are diversity of in the game zones, so why can't there be a diversity of out of the game states? There's complexity in the change, but there's complexity to doing any new mechanic.
Overall, there is way too much emphasis being put on flavor here. There is so much focus on flavor that you're not seeing that what you want to accomplish with the mechanic can already be done within the constraints of the game, without having to alter any rules whatsoever other than those that acknowledge the existence of forbidden cards and their function.
I am perfectly aware that the command zone and exile could both fulfill the general role for this mechanic. I am rejecting the command zone because filling the mechanical function is not everything.
But for some reason, you're proposing the alteration of the MTR just to make your mechanic work, a more-than-unneeded approach.
'For some reason'? You know the reasons.
Abandon flavor for a moment and focus on the mechanical aspects of what you're trying to do. Notice how having forbidden cards starting in exile or the command zone constitutes almost 100% functional overlap with having them start in a new zone. By having these cards start in a new zone, you admit that the current zones of the game aren't mechanically sufficient, which as even you demonstrate is not the case.
No, no, no. It doesn't need to be about mechanics, it's not about mechanics. 'Ignore the massive area of design consideration that you are specifically citing as reason for your position and you'll see your position is wrong' is an absurd argument. You can't just dismiss the importance of flavor out of hand.
There is no mechanical advantage to using a new zone over either exile or the command zone. There is no fear in directly referencing the command zone on forbidden cards, since all conspiracy cards also reference that same zone directly, and players understand well enough that the command zone is essentially a "store until further use" zone.
For one, as I have already said, I think conspiracies make sense in the command zone.
Secondly, I don't think the majority actually really do know what the command zone is. Definitely not the vast majority. There is complexity in it's use too, just as in creating a new zone.
As far the name "Void" goes that has always meant exile to me; Planar Void, Void Maw, Leyline of the Void, or any such card with "Oblivion" or "Abyss" in its name.
I would wager "Void" was one of the candidates as the name for "removed-from-the-game" zone before it was named exile.
Now this article is from 2008 but I don't think anything about the subject has really changed: The Flavor of Zones
Quote from Doug Beyer »
In flavor terms, the removed-from-the-game zone is oblivion.
Well yes, the flavor behind this and exile are very similar. Hence why using exile itself is one of the possibilities I am considering.
Aside that, isn't there an issue that every legacy (or any such format really) deck would now have to include an arbitrary forbidden card list, even if they have no real intent to use them, just because there might be a minuscule change where getting cards shuffled into your deck might stop you from decking for a while?
I could make the self sufficient ones mandatory to decrease the advantage of playing them that way. That is an interesting question when I think about the broader question of opportunity cost with these cards.
Might be a reason to go down the deep end of parasitism and not do self sufficient cards.
EDIT: After thinking about this for a bit, I think mandatory clauses for the self sufficient cards should be sufficient to stop things getting out of hand.
think exile could be the best zone for these, but they need the special rules that say they start there and that they don't count toward your maximum deck size
I think you mean minimum deck size, but yes. I am not sure how much stuff to put into the reminder text though. My thinking so far has been the text used on the example card in the OP kind of implies this, but obviously that might not be how people read it. Maybe if it said 'deck' instead of 'library' it would be better.
Here is my two cents on the topic whether warranted or not.
From a flavor perspective, forbidden cards should be just that. They were massively powerful or battle changing events in the mtg universe and as such were forbidden to be used, thus being cast into exile. The exile zone makes perfect sense for them, but they should be unable to be touched in any way. Here is an example I have thought up after reading these posts:
Forgotten Flower (0)
Forbidden Artifact
(This card starts the game in exile. It may only leave exile due to this cards ability)
If you control one of each basic land type during your end step, shuffle this into your deck.
Exile Forgotten Flower: add 3 mana of any one color to your mana pool.
It's not very elegant, but you get the idea. Regardless of how the speed or permanent or anything would happen, once played the spell would again return to exile. The triggers for each card would obviously be different, and the cards themselves could use the lower left corner of the card with a number designating how many you are allowed to even have in exile.
To me this is the only elegant solution to the problem. I agree with the command zone ideas, even new zones, they just don't fit the feel or flavor or current interactions of current design.
With all that said, I would love to see the design of forbidden to be implemented as I think it's a huge creative loophole. They could do things like they did with suspend bringing back powerful spells at much lower power levels than their first iterations. I'm excited for this and for how we as a community think a solid way to flesh it out would develop
I have no idea what does that mean. Okay, "self sufficient" is a card that works on its own, but "mandatory clause"..?
> Law. permitting no option; not to be disregarded or modified:
> a mandatory clause.
For instance, Gnarltree's Prophecy has the ability that shuffles itself into your library. That's what I mean by 'self-sufficient'.
Notice it says 'may'. By mandatory clause, I mean getting rid of that 'may' part so when it triggers you have to shuffle it in.
I think you mean minimum deck size, but yes
Indeed I did (I slept very badly last night).
I am not sure how much stuff to put into the reminder text though. My thinking so far has been the text used on the example card in the OP kind of implies this, but obviously that might not be how people read it. Maybe if it said 'deck' instead of 'library' it would be better.
It might. I think this is more implied with Conspiracies since they are of entirely new type. With instants and whatnot, even with forbidden super type, you can't quite be sure IMO.
I like reminder texts a lot so that might have an influence in my opinion of this.
This relates to my whole 'making them feel like a different kind of card' thing.
I just thought of this, but WHAT IF...
Have you heard of this "fragmented" mechanic or whatever (in MSE forums)?
I don't think I have actually.
The basic premise is that all of these cards share a name with an already existing card. I'm not certain how exactly it would work, but I think it could be interesting if to get a forbidden card you would have to work with cards with the same name. It also (kinda) makes sense since you can't start with forbidden cards in your deck. Although it's quite parasitic... or is it? I'm not sure Weird
If you're interested I can dig up that thread - I know I have it saved at the home computer.
It would be funny if you would be able to combine two absurd mechanics into working/playable/plausible one. Maybe two negatives do indeed make a positive?
So, please correct me if I'm wrong, fractured would work something like having g the card remand, and then having a card with the same name but a new function.
Remand
Instant
Return target nonland permanent to its owner's hand, that permanenant may not be put it play and spells sharing a name with the returned card may not be cast until your next turn.
So let's theorize here. It would provide us with new options for viable cards already, and to have them in the same view with forbidden maybe have it set up in the type line. So :
Remand
Instant- Fracture
Combining this with forbidden seems like a good idea as it would allow you to work the game in two ways, both limiting the number of cards as only 4 with the same name is a thing, and applying the flavor of fracturing the fabric of reality to reach for these long banned and highly taboo spells and artifacts.
I'm not sure how it would word precisely, again I'm no genius with rules text for a card, but here is another thought on that take:
Manipulated Future 2U
Forbidden Sorcery
(This card must start the game in the exile zone and is not included in the library.)
Each player shuffles their hand and graveyard into their library and draws seven cards.
Accumulated Knowledge 1U
Instant-Fractured
Your opponent draws a card, then you both draw cards equal to the number of Accumulated Knowledge cards in your graveyard.
If your opponent drew more than 4 cards this turn you may shuffle Manipulated Future into your library from exile.
Probably not the best wording but you get the idea. It was just what I took away from possibly joining the 2 mechanics, and I'd love to see someone more versed take a crack at it!
I have a quick question. Should Forbidden cards be self contained, they have their own means of getting into you deck. Or should they require enablers, as in specific cards that shuffle in either any forbidden card or specific forbidden cards. I don't belive the two executions should be done together because you don't want a mechanic functioning differently between cards. This question could be key to determining how you want limits on them to work, both total number of forbidden and number of individual forbidden cards.
Aside that, isn't there an issue that every legacy (or any such format really) deck would now have to include an arbitrary forbidden card list, even if they have no real intent to use them, just because there might be a minuscule change where getting cards shuffled into your deck might stop you from decking for a while?
That is the primary reason for wanting to make them function from outside the game, which in organized events is from your sideboard like wish choices. Working from outside the game would be fine for maindeck cards that wish for forbidden cards, but would be too good in casual for forbidden cards that can suddenly and unexpectedly wish themselves into any game without previous planning.
Basically one word since You made it a new supertype the only difference in here is "Put a card from (Zone name) ..." to "Put a forbidden card from (zone name)"
Yes, plus 'the command zone' is longer than 'the void'.
It already exists is a advantage over rules complexity as I said before it can be done to increase complexity with adding a new zone and people still enjoy that but it is still more complex. For comparison look at the "Pendulum Zone" in Yugioh. There they added the zone because it was needed and Renamed the "Fusion deck" the extra Deck since no new zone for all the other stuff was needed as it would just fill another space for doing basically the same.
Yes there is a bit more complexity to using a new zone than an existing one.
Another disadvantage is exactly that extra space as in when somethings get exiled you have to be sure not to put them in your new zone. But when you have a forbidden spell exiled already it might get confusing which of the piles is the exile zone and which is the forbidden zone
Disagree. It's really not hard to use memory for such things when you can look at them to remind yourself and when placrment is up to you, and the void could be further distinguished by being occupied by a bunch of forbidden cards versus whatever misc cards in exile. I don't think this is a real issue. People can always get confused by all sorts of things, I don't think this is going be a major one in that regard. And as you say, using the command zone has this 'issue' as well, so it's not really an advantage of using the command zone is it?
A bit less complexity is all I see. // flavor and is a little bit less wordy
A bit less complexity is always better than a bit less wordy since you want it to be as specific as possible anyway.
The flavor is the important point regardless.
Referencing the command zone is the problem for Forbidden.
That is only a Flavor problem he specifically asked you to toss out flavor for a bit :grin:
Yes, and saying that was an absurd argument when it's my most important, nigh only, point and when almost no discussion of actual disadvantages was done by it.
There are diversity of in the game zones, so why can't there be a diversity of out of the game states?
Because "game" rules only apply to stuff in the game by creating multiple out of game states rules will get fuzzy.
Not when you have clear rules and functions that separate them. You act as if being 'outside the game' means the rules about something are somehow less, when an outside of the game category can be just as clear and expansive as an in the game zone.
There's complexity in the change, but there's complexity to doing any new mechanic.
Yes there is and will always be complexity in adding a new mechanic, but there is the difference in Needed Complexity and unneeded Complexity.
One of the Design Principles behind most things is simplicity after all.
Which would be why I am not arguing it should be done without significant advantages, as you would expect me to be doing anyway. It's not very constructive to tell me some complexity is unjustified, why is this complexity unjustified?
because filling the mechanical function is not everything
no its not everything but since Magic is a mechanical system it has imho a higher Priority. You want to integrate something in an already existing system afterall. Of course having flavor is awesome and a reason Magic is enjoyed so widely, but without a solid system even all the flavor could not save a game.
So what? That's just not addressing the argument. What does it have to do with the question of Forbidden? We are talking specific mechanical and flavor aspects, not the general notions.
You have both acknowledged the advantage to the others view and have decided that your own side weighs more. There is nothing more to discuss. There is more complexity in creating a new zone and there is better flavor in creating a new zone. At the end of the day a group of people would have to get together and decide which option is better for the game if this mechanic is ever implemented but we aren't here to come to this consensus.
Much larger and more important questions to be asked are do you want to be able to Wish for these? How should they be limited? Just the normal 4, so your 'Forbidden Deck' can be 4 times how ever many forbidden cards their are? Or a limit on the Total number of Forbidden cards? Limit to one copy of each as in restricted? Should they be a self contained thing, each forbidden card pulls itself from 'wherever they start'? Should they require enabler cards? Should they return to 'wherever they start' after being cast? Should they be exiled after cast? Are they face-up or face-down when they are 'wherever they start'? Do you have to declare to your opponent the size/contents of your 'Forbidden Deck' at all times? Do you need an actual way of using your 'Forbidden deck' or can you just have one to psyche out your opponent? These are all questions that have to be answered to move on with the mechanic
I personally think having them start is exile is the worst option available due to the fact that there are already ways of interacting with exile.
You have both acknowledged the advantage to the others view and have decided that your own side weighs more. There is nothing more to discuss. There is more complexity in creating a new zone and there is better flavor in creating a new zone. At the end of the day a group of people would have to get together and decide which option is better for the game if this mechanic is ever implemented but we aren't here to come to this consensus.
Well actually, that kind of is the point here.
Much larger and more important questions to be asked are do you want to be able to Wish for these?
My current preferred implementation is the new zone, so that obviously means no. For the outside the game version though I have no issue with allowing it.
How should they be limited?
Current plan is you can have any number of forbidden cards in the void, only forbidden cards though. Seeing as there won't be all that many of them and they'll sorted across different colors and designed for different strategies, I figure there's not much point to a limit.
forbidden card pulls itself from 'wherever they start'? Should they require enabler cards?
Current plan is some cards are self sufficient and others aren't and the self sufficient ones will be designed so that enablers are still useful.
Should they return to 'wherever they start' after being cast? Should they be exiled after cast?
I don't see any compelling reasons to do either of these.
Are they face-up or face-down when they are 'wherever they start'? Do you have to declare to your opponent the size/contents of your 'Forbidden Deck' at all times?
Current plan is for them to be fully visible while in the void so your opponent can pick them up and look at them at any time.
Do you need an actual way of using your 'Forbidden deck' or can you just have one to psyche out your opponent?
I don't see any convient way of stopping that, nor any compelling reasons why it's a serious concern.
I find serious issues when implementing it as a separate "deck". We already have serious confusion to new players and the intricacies involved in learning the game.
Along with this, the new zone with only these unique new cards creates tournament issues and current formatting issues.
We also take into account that magic on its own has a unique "feel". Introducing the extra deck model is already done in other TCG systems and isn't very effective for limiting power creep and such.
While I am not against a new zone, implementing it shouldn't be as an extra deck of any kind and should be a part of sideboard construction to limit the changes to tournament structure
Obvious problems arise with many of these zones, in that "outside the game", is referred to as sideboard except in casual play. The command zone for example is strictly for a players commander in EDH, a Planeswalker emblem ( the flavor perspective being they have decreed their strongest command to you as a fellow mage to help win your battle ), and in very narrow cases the conspiracies, planar deck and arch enemy decks. Again in any way only one of these uses applies to competitive magic, a Planeswalker ultimate ability.
Exile is unique design space and changed how a lot of wish cards and the like worked. Previous wishes read to retrieve a card from outside the game and you could get back cards previously removed from the game with such. Exile allowed things to, in most cases outside if narrow exceptions, to be removed indefinitely and remain untouched by card effects such as wishes.
A new zone IS and always WILL be viable. I'm not saying the "void" is not usable, merely confusing as to the constraints of the card design. If I start with cards in void what happens during my deck construction and how do they fit into my allowable deck size?
What are the upsides to utilizing current design space compared to creating new space? Does it hold viable to our player base as well as our tournament and support structure? Let's as a community weigh the pros and cons. I personally wouldn't want an extra deck as I think it would hurt the game but I am only a single player and if a consensus arises where this sounds like a solid option of course it would be ran with. I'd rather still try to flesh this idea and concept out utilizing current design space or previously thought of design space to avoid the "what if" of newer and currently non existant pieces.
A larger part of this also involves people's views on the comprehensive rules. Any serious change effects the rest of the rules in small but impactful ways. Cards need to be carefully looked at when rules changes occur and it takes time. Wizards will not and never will flippantly change the rules held now to fit a community driven or even R and D driven design without serious information as to the mechanics viability and impact in current game structure.
With all the above said I have a feeling a big part of forbidden as a mechanic ended up being what forged expeditions and now the "masterpiece" series.
Actually I think legend has an incredible idea. Phasing utilized essentially unknown space. Instead of a zone why not just a place? As in a player may have some undecided number of cards outside of the game that these enablers get, and for tournament purposes the sideboard would be that place. It's simplistic enough to make it functional and complex enough to make tournament players pause at utilizing them.
As in a player may have some undecided number of cards outside of the game that these enablers get, and for tournament purposes the sideboard would be that place. It's simplistic enough to make it functional and complex enough to make tournament players pause at utilizing them.
That would be the third suggestion in the OP. What does this have to do with phasing?
Why do you think the use of exile here is acceptable?
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
They aren't outside the game, so they don't.
Simple. Because they have special rules.
So do you think the interactions that could produce are acceptable?
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
Yes, but the question is is that last part acceptable? Obviously, it's not egregious, because of how narrow and limited of a workaround it is. But nevertheless, it's about more than gameplay, but the identity of the exile zone. And I'm not sure how close this would be playing it.
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
If the only problem is the name "Command Zone", then get over it. That is hardly a problem. Using the command zone isolates the cards nicely from other interactions. We do not need a new zone that would function exactly like just using the command zone would.
It seems like you are trying to argue different points, but I think they actually lead to the same end result. If forbiden cards can not start in your deck and are outside the game, then in constucted tournaments that use sideboards, like with choices for wishes, forbiden cards would by default need to be in your sideboard.
It goes entirely against the flavor of the mechanic. I don't think it's 'hardly a problem'. It's a pretty serious problem.
It'd almost be like using Bushido in Theros to represent the hero part of that world.
Using a new zone also allows me to avoid any interactions with commanders, conspiracies and emblems that I don't want without extra textspace used to specify forbidden cards.
You say, immediately after talking about the exact reason why.
Why does everyone seem so averse to making a new zone?
Let's turn this problem around- what's the actual problem with making a new one?
I only see a minimal amount more complexity than just using the command zone.
I'll just repeat that 'that all in cards in a tournament 'outside the game' are in sideboards in a function of the tournament rules, not the game rules' and add that BOTH can be, and ARE, changed.
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
Bushido only wouldn't work in Theros because the very name "bushido" wouldn't fit the linguistic space occupied by Theros. A "less Japanese" term, for lack of better phrasing, would be used instead, but the mechanical space would be identical to bushido. This doesn't even consider the prior existence of bushido as a mechanic in Kamigawa block.
What "extra text space" are you worried about with forbidden cards?
There's no inherent problem with creating a new zone. But it's bad design to create a new zone just to facilitate a mechanic.
The creation of the command zone a couple of years back is questionable, but there is an abundance of mechanics that now rely on the command zone in the same way that you want your forbidden cards to rely on your new zone. The command zone consists of cards that start the game already there without needing to be drawn from the deck. Your new zone would also consist of cards that start the game already there without needing to be drawn from the deck. The only difference would be the differing type line on your cards compared to all other cards that currently start in the command zone.
Why isn't there a "conspiracy zone" for conspiracy cards, a "plane zone" for plane cards, or a "scheme zone" for scheme cards? Using the command zone for all three imposes a huge flavor fail on all three; there isn't anything to do with "commanding" with conspiracies, planes, or schemes. The answer is that all three fill the same mechanical space of starting the game already occupying the command zone.
Similarly, why wasn't there a "temporary-leave zone" for cards that get put into exile briefly and then come back (Oblivion Ring, Banishing Light) and a separate "permanent-leave zone" for cards that get put into exile indefinitely (ingest, Path to Exile)? The exile zone doesn't make sense for things that eventually come back; they're banished forever and aren't ever welcomed again.
If conspiracies, planes, and schemes can exist in the command zone despite the flavor disconnect, so too can forbidden cards. There's no mechanical advantage of creating a new zone, so you shouldn't do it. Just stick with either exile or the command zone.
Changing the tournament rules this way fundamentally changes what it means for any particular object to be in the game or outside the game, thus changing the basic framework of how the game works with regards to objects under its scope.
"I can make whatever cards I want, and the rules will just have to follow suit" is what you're doing here. You're not using the existing rules to confine what you can do. You're using the rules as a consequence of how the cards in the game are made, when the rules actually act to impose limitations on what cards can do.
[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
Yes, the flavor is wrong. In the same way the flavor of the command zone is wrong for Forbidden.
I'm not 'worried'. It's just that using the command zone means adding text calling out Forbidden on enabler cards to prevent any potential undesired interactions with commanders, conspiracies and emblems etc.
That's not really providing a problem, that's a statement saying it is a problem.
What is the problem?
If there is advantages, but yet you still think I shouldn't do it, there must be some downsides- so what are they?
Because the command zone was suitable for them flavorfully. Conspiracies are associated with some kind of planning and leadership.
Plane cards never reference the command zone
Schemes also fit the command zone, really quite well actually. They don't reference it anyway.
'Roundabout and somewhat confusing flavor' is an entirely different matter from 'completely unrelated concepts being strung together, distracting from the flavor which is trying to be expressed'. Not every use of exile is perfect, but they all at least make some sense when the word 'exile' isn't taken literally.
In what possible way does extending what cards you can have outside the game in tournaments to be more like what is already true for causal games 'fundamentally change' anything other than the rules and gameplay of tournaments?
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 interactions are these? I'm not really following.
As is, you're just really making a zone for the sake of making a zone to put some stuff in. That would be fine if no such zone already existed, but the command zone already exists for the exact same purpose as you seek your new zone to have.
Putting it another way, there's no actual disadvantage to creating a new zone. But the degree of advantage in using the command zone is pretty high in comparison.
So? They exist in the command zone, and that's what matters. Whether or not they reference the command zone doesn't have any impact on the fact that plane cards and scheme cards belong there and use that zone for the mechanical purpose as the command zone was designed to have.
'Roundabout and somewhat confusing flavor' is an entirely different matter from 'completely unrelated concepts being strung together, distracting from the flavor which is trying to be expressed'. Not every use of exile is perfect, but they all at least make some sense when the word 'exile' isn't taken literally.[/quote]
So too does the word "command" make sense when the definition of the word isn't taken literally with regards to forbidden cards.
In what possible way does extending what cards you can have outside the game in tournaments to be more like what is already true for causal games 'fundamentally change' anything other than the rules and gameplay of tournaments?[/quote]
That's exactly what's being changed -- the rules and gameplay of tournaments. Instead of being able to identify any given Magic card in a player's pool of cards as being either "in the current game" and "outside the current game", this mechanic would require a differentiation between being "in the current game", "outside the current game but in the sideboard", and "outside the current game but not in the sideboard".
There's no need for the two "outside the game" categories to even exist. The differentiation is easily realized when forbidden cards just start in the game.
---
Overall, there is way too much emphasis being put on flavor here. There is so much focus on flavor that you're not seeing that what you want to accomplish with the mechanic can already be done within the constraints of the game, without having to alter any rules whatsoever other than those that acknowledge the existence of forbidden cards and their function. But for some reason, you're proposing the alteration of the MTR just to make your mechanic work, a more-than-unneeded approach.
Abandon flavor for a moment and focus on the mechanical aspects of what you're trying to do. Notice how having forbidden cards starting in exile or the command zone constitutes almost 100% functional overlap with having them start in a new zone. By having these cards start in a new zone, you admit that the current zones of the game aren't mechanically sufficient, which as even you demonstrate is not the case.
There is no mechanical advantage to using a new zone over either exile or the command zone. There is no fear in directly referencing the command zone on forbidden cards, since all conspiracy cards also reference that same zone directly, and players understand well enough that the command zone is essentially a "store until further use" zone.
[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
By the enabler cards that pull them out.
As is, you're just really making a zone for the sake of making a zone to put some stuff in. That would be fine if no such zone already existed, but the command zone already exists for the exact same purpose as you seek your new zone to have.
Putting it another way, there's no actual disadvantage to creating a new zone. But the degree of advantage in using the command zone is pretty high in comparison.
[/quote]
What is that advantage then?
'It already exists' is not an advantage. That is merely something that may be associated with advantage.
A bit less complexity is all I see. And you’re not really giving me anything else.
Meanwhile using a new zone (i.e. probably 'the void') gives better flavor and is a little bit less wordy. That seems pretty worth it to me.
Referencing the command zone is the problem for Forbidden. Being put there isn't really a problem if it's not something everybody even knows and are not constantly reminded of. If there is a sensible way to do this mechanic without referencing the command zone on either cards with it or enabler cards that pull them out, then I'll do the command zone. I don't see how that's possible though.
Not really. It's too much of a stretch, it's beyond the point of meaningful connection. Exile is styled to be an outside largely uninvovled even untouchable place, and is consistent with that flavor.
Mysterious ancient power sort of thing does not match under the style of the command zone as representing some kind of HQ like place. Commanders make sense being there, Conspiracies make sense being there, 'Forbidden' cards don't. I could try to style the mechanic toward that- using a different name for one, but I don't think the really resonant flavor of the mechanic itself lies there. I don't want to compensate majorly on flavor just to save a little complexity.
Or the differentiation is already realised by the fact that the two outside the game categories are very functionally different.
There are diversity of in the game zones, so why can't there be a diversity of out of the game states? There's complexity in the change, but there's complexity to doing any new mechanic.
I am perfectly aware that the command zone and exile could both fulfill the general role for this mechanic. I am rejecting the command zone because filling the mechanical function is not everything.
'For some reason'? You know the reasons.
No, no, no. It doesn't need to be about mechanics, it's not about mechanics. 'Ignore the massive area of design consideration that you are specifically citing as reason for your position and you'll see your position is wrong' is an absurd argument. You can't just dismiss the importance of flavor out of hand.
For one, as I have already said, I think conspiracies make sense in the command zone.
Secondly, I don't think the majority actually really do know what the command zone is. Definitely not the vast majority. There is complexity in it's use too, just as in creating a new zone.
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
Well yes, the flavor behind this and exile are very similar. Hence why using exile itself is one of the possibilities I am considering.
I could make the self sufficient ones mandatory to decrease the advantage of playing them that way. That is an interesting question when I think about the broader question of opportunity cost with these cards.
Might be a reason to go down the deep end of parasitism and not do self sufficient cards.
EDIT: After thinking about this for a bit, I think mandatory clauses for the self sufficient cards should be sufficient to stop things getting out of hand.
I think you mean minimum deck size, but yes. I am not sure how much stuff to put into the reminder text though. My thinking so far has been the text used on the example card in the OP kind of implies this, but obviously that might not be how people read it. Maybe if it said 'deck' instead of 'library' it would be better.
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
From a flavor perspective, forbidden cards should be just that. They were massively powerful or battle changing events in the mtg universe and as such were forbidden to be used, thus being cast into exile. The exile zone makes perfect sense for them, but they should be unable to be touched in any way. Here is an example I have thought up after reading these posts:
Forgotten Flower (0)
Forbidden Artifact
(This card starts the game in exile. It may only leave exile due to this cards ability)
If you control one of each basic land type during your end step, shuffle this into your deck.
Exile Forgotten Flower: add 3 mana of any one color to your mana pool.
It's not very elegant, but you get the idea. Regardless of how the speed or permanent or anything would happen, once played the spell would again return to exile. The triggers for each card would obviously be different, and the cards themselves could use the lower left corner of the card with a number designating how many you are allowed to even have in exile.
To me this is the only elegant solution to the problem. I agree with the command zone ideas, even new zones, they just don't fit the feel or flavor or current interactions of current design.
With all that said, I would love to see the design of forbidden to be implemented as I think it's a huge creative loophole. They could do things like they did with suspend bringing back powerful spells at much lower power levels than their first iterations. I'm excited for this and for how we as a community think a solid way to flesh it out would develop
For instance, Gnarltree's Prophecy has the ability that shuffles itself into your library. That's what I mean by 'self-sufficient'.
Notice it says 'may'. By mandatory clause, I mean getting rid of that 'may' part so when it triggers you have to shuffle it in.
This relates to my whole 'making them feel like a different kind of card' thing.
I don't think I have actually.
It's an interesting idea.
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
Remand
Instant
Return target nonland permanent to its owner's hand, that permanenant may not be put it play and spells sharing a name with the returned card may not be cast until your next turn.
So let's theorize here. It would provide us with new options for viable cards already, and to have them in the same view with forbidden maybe have it set up in the type line. So :
Remand
Instant- Fracture
Combining this with forbidden seems like a good idea as it would allow you to work the game in two ways, both limiting the number of cards as only 4 with the same name is a thing, and applying the flavor of fracturing the fabric of reality to reach for these long banned and highly taboo spells and artifacts.
I'm not sure how it would word precisely, again I'm no genius with rules text for a card, but here is another thought on that take:
Manipulated Future 2U
Forbidden Sorcery
(This card must start the game in the exile zone and is not included in the library.)
Each player shuffles their hand and graveyard into their library and draws seven cards.
Accumulated Knowledge 1U
Instant-Fractured
Your opponent draws a card, then you both draw cards equal to the number of Accumulated Knowledge cards in your graveyard.
If your opponent drew more than 4 cards this turn you may shuffle Manipulated Future into your library from exile.
Probably not the best wording but you get the idea. It was just what I took away from possibly joining the 2 mechanics, and I'd love to see someone more versed take a crack at it!
start the game with this card in the exile zone
forbidden X - when there are X exiled cards you own from the game, you can shuffle this card in your library
URW PillowFort Stasis (costruction)
modern:
U Taking Turns combo
pauper:
UB Servitor Control
xenob8 : you know you are going to have a bad time when opponent starts with snow covered island
Yes, plus 'the command zone' is longer than 'the void'.
Yes there is a bit more complexity to using a new zone than an existing one.
Disagree. It's really not hard to use memory for such things when you can look at them to remind yourself and when placrment is up to you, and the void could be further distinguished by being occupied by a bunch of forbidden cards versus whatever misc cards in exile. I don't think this is a real issue. People can always get confused by all sorts of things, I don't think this is going be a major one in that regard. And as you say, using the command zone has this 'issue' as well, so it's not really an advantage of using the command zone is it?
The flavor is the important point regardless.
Yes, and saying that was an absurd argument when it's my most important, nigh only, point and when almost no discussion of actual disadvantages was done by it.
Not when you have clear rules and functions that separate them. You act as if being 'outside the game' means the rules about something are somehow less, when an outside of the game category can be just as clear and expansive as an in the game zone.
Which would be why I am not arguing it should be done without significant advantages, as you would expect me to be doing anyway. It's not very constructive to tell me some complexity is unjustified, why is this complexity unjustified?
So what? That's just not addressing the argument. What does it have to do with the question of Forbidden? We are talking specific mechanical and flavor aspects, not the general notions.
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
Much larger and more important questions to be asked are do you want to be able to Wish for these? How should they be limited? Just the normal 4, so your 'Forbidden Deck' can be 4 times how ever many forbidden cards their are? Or a limit on the Total number of Forbidden cards? Limit to one copy of each as in restricted? Should they be a self contained thing, each forbidden card pulls itself from 'wherever they start'? Should they require enabler cards? Should they return to 'wherever they start' after being cast? Should they be exiled after cast? Are they face-up or face-down when they are 'wherever they start'? Do you have to declare to your opponent the size/contents of your 'Forbidden Deck' at all times? Do you need an actual way of using your 'Forbidden deck' or can you just have one to psyche out your opponent? These are all questions that have to be answered to move on with the mechanic
I personally think having them start is exile is the worst option available due to the fact that there are already ways of interacting with exile.
Well actually, that kind of is the point here.
My current preferred implementation is the new zone, so that obviously means no. For the outside the game version though I have no issue with allowing it.
Current plan is you can have any number of forbidden cards in the void, only forbidden cards though. Seeing as there won't be all that many of them and they'll sorted across different colors and designed for different strategies, I figure there's not much point to a limit.
Current plan is some cards are self sufficient and others aren't and the self sufficient ones will be designed so that enablers are still useful.
I don't see any compelling reasons to do either of these.
Current plan is for them to be fully visible while in the void so your opponent can pick them up and look at them at any time.
I don't see any convient way of stopping that, nor any compelling reasons why it's a serious concern.
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
Along with this, the new zone with only these unique new cards creates tournament issues and current formatting issues.
We also take into account that magic on its own has a unique "feel". Introducing the extra deck model is already done in other TCG systems and isn't very effective for limiting power creep and such.
While I am not against a new zone, implementing it shouldn't be as an extra deck of any kind and should be a part of sideboard construction to limit the changes to tournament structure
Exile is unique design space and changed how a lot of wish cards and the like worked. Previous wishes read to retrieve a card from outside the game and you could get back cards previously removed from the game with such. Exile allowed things to, in most cases outside if narrow exceptions, to be removed indefinitely and remain untouched by card effects such as wishes.
A new zone IS and always WILL be viable. I'm not saying the "void" is not usable, merely confusing as to the constraints of the card design. If I start with cards in void what happens during my deck construction and how do they fit into my allowable deck size?
What are the upsides to utilizing current design space compared to creating new space? Does it hold viable to our player base as well as our tournament and support structure? Let's as a community weigh the pros and cons. I personally wouldn't want an extra deck as I think it would hurt the game but I am only a single player and if a consensus arises where this sounds like a solid option of course it would be ran with. I'd rather still try to flesh this idea and concept out utilizing current design space or previously thought of design space to avoid the "what if" of newer and currently non existant pieces.
A larger part of this also involves people's views on the comprehensive rules. Any serious change effects the rest of the rules in small but impactful ways. Cards need to be carefully looked at when rules changes occur and it takes time. Wizards will not and never will flippantly change the rules held now to fit a community driven or even R and D driven design without serious information as to the mechanics viability and impact in current game structure.
With all the above said I have a feeling a big part of forbidden as a mechanic ended up being what forged expeditions and now the "masterpiece" series.
Because for one, how then will enabler cards interact with them?
That's going to be unneccesarily complex to execute.
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
Legend, I applaud you lol
That would be the third suggestion in the OP. What does this have to do with phasing?
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