Inspired by Mirrodin Besieged, I had an idea for cards that literally turned a game of multiplayer into a two-sided conflict.
Invasion of Dominaria 2WB
Legendary Enchantment
Starting with you and your team, each team chooses Dominarian or Phyrexian. Each mode needs to be chosen at least once. (A player without team mates is considered a team.)
Dominarian - Whenever a Phyrexian creature dies, each Dominarian player gains 2 life and draws a card.
Phyrexian - Whenever a Dominarian non-token creature dies, each Phyrexian player creates a 2/2 black Zombie creature token.
Still undecided whether they should be monocolour or multicolour. MC is easier and thematically interesting (especially with enemy pairs), but more restrictive.
As always with my designs, I don't care too much about power level, it's all about the design itself. (Unless of course the mechanic itself is inherently overpowered.)
Really like the idea but the wording seems really off. Using Archangel of Strife wording:
Invasion of Dominaria2WB
Legendary Enchantment
When Invasion of Dominaria enters the battlefield, each player chooses Dominaria or Phyrexia*.
Whenever a non-token creature controlled by a player who chose Phyrexia dies, each player who chose Dominaria gain 2 life and draws a card.
Whenever a creature controlled by a player who chose Dominaria dies, each player who chose Phyrexia creates a 2/2 black zombie token.
* The rules already states that the player who plays the card will choose first and then the other players choose in turn order, so there's no need to hardcode this in card text.
The card itself is pretty cool but it I think effects are not balanced. Dominaria is way better here as it transforms each spell in mass cantrip. This is just crazy - one dominaria player nukes the board and everybody draws a bunch of cards. Then the next dominaria player just have to nuke the board again and it's over for Phyrexia.
So the Dominarians benefit even if their creatures die, because more token Zombies for their enemies means more chances to draw cards of them? I suggest using nontoken on both abilities.
There are some team formats that are weird with this card since not every format has a clear cut decision maker for each team, but the rules of those formats could be cleared up.
If this is a cycle, or even just multiple copies of this are played in a normal 4-player free-for-all, you still intent each player (except maybe the last one if everyone else is on the same team) to make either choice for each copy, right? So I could choose Dominaria for the Invasion of Dominaria, but Phyrexian for Nine Titan Offensive? Due to this, the terminology "Phyrexian player" seems misleading. I suggest to go with a more standard wording as provided by italofoca.
This plays wildly different in a two-team match than a more-team match. I also wonder whether the "all upside" version where the caster chooses how to distribute allegiances has a benefit.
I really would like it if the design emphasize the two sides actually having a theme of cooperation/survival vs. proliferation/punishment. Would it be cool to have a card where you still could all choose the same side e. g.
Whenever a creature dies, each player on a team that has chosen Dominaria gains 1 life for each player on a team that has chosen Dominaria.
At the beginning of each players turn, if that player's team has chosen Phyrexia, they create a 0/0 black Horror artifact creature with a +1/+1 counter on it plus one counter for each player on a team that hasn't chosen Phyrexia.
So Dominaria players are playing group-hug and Phyrexia players want to be loners. Would that make for more interesting decisions?
Now I wonder how this would play in Archenemy.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Planar Chaos was not a mistake neither was it random. You might want to look at it again.
[thread=239793][Game] Level Up - Creature[/thread]
I suppose having the bullet points doesn't make a lot of sense, if they apply to all players and the wording could use some rework. I just wanted to make clear that you choose as a team, not as a player.
Also your criticism about the effects not balanced made me realize that the effects could probably reflect the characteristics of the faction more closely. The Dominarians' theme isn't drawing cards and gaining life, it's about multicolour.
New version: Invasion of Dominaria
Legendary Enchantment
As ~ enters the battlefield, each team chooses Dominaria or Phyrexia. Each faction needs to be chosen at least once.
The first spell a Dominarian player casts curing his or her turn costs less for each basic land type among lands Dominarian players control.
Whenever a creature a Dominarian player controls dies, each Phyrexian player creates a 2/2 black Zombie creature token.
How's this? Not entirely sure about the cost reduction, but I want the abilities to make the players of a faction to work together. Maybe buff a creature based on basic land types? (Would also fit green better, I suppose.)
Furthermore I decided to switch Invasion to Dominaria to Black-Green, because I intend this to be a cycle:
Siege of Mirrodin
Revolt on Kaladesh
Invasion of Dominaria
War on Kamigawa
Battle for Zendikar
So the Dominarians benefit even if their creatures die, because more token Zombies for their enemies means more chances to draw cards of them? I suggest using nontoken on both abilities.
Oh yeah, that would make sense. I've already changed the effect, but it's something to keep in mind.
There are some team formats that are weird with this card since not every format has a clear cut decision maker for each team, but the rules of those formats could be cleared up.
I'm not sure, isn't this an issue with everything in a team? Like, in 2HG you need to agree to do stuff too. What happens when a single player doesn't reach a decision? I'd argue you could apply the same logic or penalty to the situation.
If this is a cycle, or even just multiple copies of this are played in a normal 4-player free-for-all, you still intent each player (except maybe the last one if everyone else is on the same team) to make either choice for each copy, right? So I could choose Dominaria for the Invasion of Dominaria, but Phyrexian for Nine Titan Offensive? Due to this, the terminology "Phyrexian player" seems misleading. I suggest to go with a more standard wording as provided by italofoca.
The idea was to give every mode in the cycle its own name (Invasion of Dominaria would have Phyrexians, while Siege of Mirrodin would have New Phyrexians for example) but I see your point. Technically I would think it's already covered by the card itself? Like, if I have two archangels of strife out and I choose war for one and peace for the other, do my creatures get +6/+6? At any rate, I prefer "Dominarian player" over "player who has chosen Dominaria" for brevity's sake (the cards are wordy enough as is) and because it just feels right. I operate on the assumption that as a card creator I have the same tools at my disposal as WotC, so if this should not be supported by the current rules or terminology, it should be a minor tweak to allow it.
This plays wildly different in a two-team match than a more-team match. I also wonder whether the "all upside" version where the caster chooses how to distribute allegiances has a benefit.
I mean, the cards work perfectly fine in a 2-team environment, except that the opposing team can't choose their faction. The cards were made primarily with multi-team (or rather, free-for-all) environments in mind though, so that's where they probably shine the most in terms of fun value.
I really would like it if the design emphasize the two sides actually having a theme of cooperation/survival vs. proliferation/punishment. Would it be cool to have a card where you still could all choose the same side e. g.
Whenever a creature dies, each player on a team that has chosen Dominaria gains 1 life for each player on a team that has chosen Dominaria.
At the beginning of each players turn, if that player's team has chosen Phyrexia, they create a 0/0 black Horror artifact creature with a +1/+1 counter on it plus one counter for each player on a team that hasn't chosen Phyrexia.
So Dominaria players are playing group-hug and Phyrexia players want to be loners. Would that make for more interesting decisions?
The idea was to make abilities that incentivise the players of one faction to work together, if temporarily. In my latest design, Dominarian players "pool" together their basic land types to get a bonus, while Phyrexian players prioritize attacking Dominarian players to get more creatures. I'm not sure how far I should go with the incentive, because I want to avoid one player being ganged up on in a 5 player F4A because the first four players chose the same faction.
I DO like the idea of a "loner" faction, but I feel like that's even harder to get right, because it can get frustrating quick. Mmh...
Aren't the players opposing the archenemy a team? Like, team is defiend by a shared victory condition, so all the players fighting the archenemy would be part of a team. At least the way I understand it.
Legendary Enchantment
Starting with you and your team, each team chooses Dominarian or Phyrexian. Each mode needs to be chosen at least once. (A player without team mates is considered a team.)
Dominarian - Whenever a Phyrexian creature dies, each Dominarian player gains 2 life and draws a card.
Phyrexian - Whenever a Dominarian non-token creature dies, each Phyrexian player creates a 2/2 black Zombie creature token.
Still undecided whether they should be monocolour or multicolour. MC is easier and thematically interesting (especially with enemy pairs), but more restrictive.
As always with my designs, I don't care too much about power level, it's all about the design itself. (Unless of course the mechanic itself is inherently overpowered.)
Invasion of Dominaria 2WB
Legendary Enchantment
When Invasion of Dominaria enters the battlefield, each player chooses Dominaria or Phyrexia*.
Whenever a non-token creature controlled by a player who chose Phyrexia dies, each player who chose Dominaria gain 2 life and draws a card.
Whenever a creature controlled by a player who chose Dominaria dies, each player who chose Phyrexia creates a 2/2 black zombie token.
* The rules already states that the player who plays the card will choose first and then the other players choose in turn order, so there's no need to hardcode this in card text.
The card itself is pretty cool but it I think effects are not balanced. Dominaria is way better here as it transforms each spell in mass cantrip. This is just crazy - one dominaria player nukes the board and everybody draws a bunch of cards. Then the next dominaria player just have to nuke the board again and it's over for Phyrexia.
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras
There are some team formats that are weird with this card since not every format has a clear cut decision maker for each team, but the rules of those formats could be cleared up.
If this is a cycle, or even just multiple copies of this are played in a normal 4-player free-for-all, you still intent each player (except maybe the last one if everyone else is on the same team) to make either choice for each copy, right? So I could choose Dominaria for the Invasion of Dominaria, but Phyrexian for Nine Titan Offensive? Due to this, the terminology "Phyrexian player" seems misleading. I suggest to go with a more standard wording as provided by italofoca.
This plays wildly different in a two-team match than a more-team match. I also wonder whether the "all upside" version where the caster chooses how to distribute allegiances has a benefit.
I really would like it if the design emphasize the two sides actually having a theme of cooperation/survival vs. proliferation/punishment. Would it be cool to have a card where you still could all choose the same side e. g.
So Dominaria players are playing group-hug and Phyrexia players want to be loners. Would that make for more interesting decisions?
Now I wonder how this would play in Archenemy.
Finally a good white villain quote: "So, do I ever re-evaluate my life choices? Never, because I know what I'm doing is a righteous cause."
Factions: Sleeping
Remnants: Valheim
Legendary Journey: Heroes & Planeswalkers
Saga: Shards of Rabiah
Legends: The Elder Dragons
Read up on Red Flags & NWO
I suppose having the bullet points doesn't make a lot of sense, if they apply to all players and the wording could use some rework. I just wanted to make clear that you choose as a team, not as a player.
Also your criticism about the effects not balanced made me realize that the effects could probably reflect the characteristics of the faction more closely. The Dominarians' theme isn't drawing cards and gaining life, it's about multicolour.
New version:
Invasion of Dominaria
Legendary Enchantment
As ~ enters the battlefield, each team chooses Dominaria or Phyrexia. Each faction needs to be chosen at least once.
The first spell a Dominarian player casts curing his or her turn costs less for each basic land type among lands Dominarian players control.
Whenever a creature a Dominarian player controls dies, each Phyrexian player creates a 2/2 black Zombie creature token.
How's this? Not entirely sure about the cost reduction, but I want the abilities to make the players of a faction to work together. Maybe buff a creature based on basic land types? (Would also fit green better, I suppose.)
Furthermore I decided to switch Invasion to Dominaria to Black-Green, because I intend this to be a cycle:
Siege of Mirrodin
Revolt on Kaladesh
Invasion of Dominaria
War on Kamigawa
Battle for Zendikar
Oh yeah, that would make sense. I've already changed the effect, but it's something to keep in mind.
I'm not sure, isn't this an issue with everything in a team? Like, in 2HG you need to agree to do stuff too. What happens when a single player doesn't reach a decision? I'd argue you could apply the same logic or penalty to the situation.
The idea was to give every mode in the cycle its own name (Invasion of Dominaria would have Phyrexians, while Siege of Mirrodin would have New Phyrexians for example) but I see your point. Technically I would think it's already covered by the card itself? Like, if I have two archangels of strife out and I choose war for one and peace for the other, do my creatures get +6/+6? At any rate, I prefer "Dominarian player" over "player who has chosen Dominaria" for brevity's sake (the cards are wordy enough as is) and because it just feels right. I operate on the assumption that as a card creator I have the same tools at my disposal as WotC, so if this should not be supported by the current rules or terminology, it should be a minor tweak to allow it.
I mean, the cards work perfectly fine in a 2-team environment, except that the opposing team can't choose their faction. The cards were made primarily with multi-team (or rather, free-for-all) environments in mind though, so that's where they probably shine the most in terms of fun value.
The idea was to make abilities that incentivise the players of one faction to work together, if temporarily. In my latest design, Dominarian players "pool" together their basic land types to get a bonus, while Phyrexian players prioritize attacking Dominarian players to get more creatures. I'm not sure how far I should go with the incentive, because I want to avoid one player being ganged up on in a 5 player F4A because the first four players chose the same faction.
I DO like the idea of a "loner" faction, but I feel like that's even harder to get right, because it can get frustrating quick. Mmh...
Aren't the players opposing the archenemy a team? Like, team is defiend by a shared victory condition, so all the players fighting the archenemy would be part of a team. At least the way I understand it.
Thanks for your input by the way!