Got an idea for an enchantment based mechanic for a non-Theros set with an enchantment theme (in the same way Mirrodin and Kaladesh both have an artifact theme). It was inspired by Bestow, Morph and the Theros Gods. But I had a few different ideas for how you might do it.
The mechanic goes on enchantment creatures.
Dreaming v1 [cost] (If you cast this spell for it's dreaming cost, it's not a creature.)
And then this is often, or maybe always, accompanied by an activated or triggered ability that says 'If ~ isn't a creature, it becomes a creature'.
e.g.
Figment of Ferocity
Enchantment Creature- Wolf Incarnation (C)
Dreaming
: If ~ isn't a creature, it becomes a creature.
6/6
Herald of Dark Dreams
Enchantment Creature- Demon (R)
Dreaming
Flying
At the beginning of your drawstep, you draw an additional card and you lose 2 life.
: If ~ isn't a creature, it becomes a creature.
5/5
Dreaming v2 [cost] (If you cast this spell for it's dreaming cost, it's not a creature until it's realized.)
+
(some effect that realizes it, most likely activated ability)
Figment of Ferocity
Enchantment Creature- Wolf Incarnation (C)
Dreaming
: Realize ~.
6/6
Herald of Dark Dreams
Enchantment Creature- Demon (R)
Dreaming
Flying
At the beginning of your drawstep, you draw an additional card and you lose 2 life.
: Realize ~.
5/5
Realize v3 [cost] (This enchantment doesn't enter the battlefield as a creature. It becomes a creature when you pay its realize cost.)
Figment of Ferocity
Enchantment Creature- Wolf Incarnation (C)
Realize:
6/6
Herald of Dark Dreams
Enchantment Creature- Demon (R)
Realize
Flying
At the beginning of your drawstep, you draw an additional card and you lose 2 life.
5/5
Some thoughts on these different versions.
-V1 has the most flexibility in design and play.
-V2 packages the creature transformation into the mechanic which might make a lot of the cards easier to understand and slightly cuts down on text while preserving most of the flexibility of V1.
-V3 makes the mechanic a little simpler in the form a more vehicle like effect, but removes some of the flexibility.
Effects like this can't afford to be so disproportionate with the mana curve. This is why Morph majorly failed, and only thrived on cards that were high-powered. Costs like this need to quick and resolute. You can't go taxing the game like this without holding the game pace back dramatically.
It wants to cost a single mana, or it wants to be a free play somehow (if you're really savvy).
Regardless of version, the main question here is how attached you are to the idea of playing taksie-backsies with your modular creature/enchantment mechanic. Is the norm here that most creatures with the mechanic will be non-creatures as long as they've been cast for their alternative cost (V1), or is their non-creature status always meant to be temporary (V2)? V2 arguably has more design space for vanilla creatures with the mechanic, but there is a certain elegance to the idea of a demon that can be a Phyrexian Arena without the added baggage of turning back to a creature. V2 makes it a little harder to do creatures that are better as non-creatures, such as a 1/1 creature that draws you a card every turn. V2's wording makes it feel like you're obligated to put a realize ability on it, but your draw engine would be much safer as a non-creature enchantment.
I really do not like your execution of V3. The fact that you kept the creature type on them and made Realize into a static ability that makes them not a creature and also an activated ability that turns them back to a creature is plain ugly to me. It overcomplicates a very simple mechanic, which should just be non-creature enchantments with a keyworded animation ability. If you want creature subtypes, make them the tribal card type or incorporate it into the ability with something like "Realize Wolf".
Regardless of version, the main question here is how attached you are to the idea of playing taksie-backsies with your modular creature/enchantment mechanic. Is the norm here that most creatures with the mechanic will be non-creatures as long as they've been cast for their alternative cost (V1), or is their non-creature status always meant to be temporary (V2)?
V2 arguably has more design space for vanilla creatures with the mechanic, but there is a certain elegance to the idea of a demon that can be a Phyrexian Arena without the added baggage of turning back to a creature. V2 makes it a little harder to do creatures that are better as non-creatures, such as a 1/1 creature that draws you a card every turn. V2's wording makes it feel like you're obligated to put a realize ability on it, but your draw engine would be much safer as a non-creature enchantment.
That's the question. As far as I see it, the option of designing cards that are actually significantly better as noncreatures, and might not even want to be able to turn into creatures, is the main advantage of V1. The thing with that is I think the cards that *do* turn into creatures are going to play better overall, as they'll be more interactive and less grindy. Passive enchantments aren't very NWO friendly, so obviously a significant amount of cards with the mechanic NEED the creature part into for the mechanic to exist at usual set mechanic frequencies. For the higher rarity cards where we want to tap into the space of more powerful passive effects, it is arguably more interesting strategically if you have cards where you are weighing up the choice of whether it's more important to get a powerful creature on board or to protect your passive effect. Which is to say, I definitely think *most* cards are going to want to turn into creatures. But is it worth leaving open space for some that don't? My inclination right now is not so much. The option to turn into a creature on a card that may want to stay a noncreature more often than not can still probably make sense and not be dead weight and/or a trap, as long as you still want that option a decent amount of the time.
I really do not like your execution of V3. The fact that you kept the creature type on them and made Realize into a static ability that makes them not a creature and also an activated ability that turns them back to a creature is plain ugly to me. It overcomplicates a very simple mechanic, which should just be non-creature enchantments with a keyworded animation ability. If you want creature subtypes, make them the tribal card type or incorporate it into the ability with something like "Realize Wolf".
I'd compare the Theros Gods and Vehicles, which both have creature properties that require activation. I do have to say, V3 is probably my least favourite though.
The mechanic goes on enchantment creatures.
Dreaming v1 [cost] (If you cast this spell for it's dreaming cost, it's not a creature.)
And then this is often, or maybe always, accompanied by an activated or triggered ability that says 'If ~ isn't a creature, it becomes a creature'.
e.g.
Figment of Ferocity
Enchantment Creature- Wolf Incarnation (C)
Dreaming
: If ~ isn't a creature, it becomes a creature.
6/6
Herald of Dark Dreams
Enchantment Creature- Demon (R)
Dreaming
Flying
At the beginning of your drawstep, you draw an additional card and you lose 2 life.
: If ~ isn't a creature, it becomes a creature.
5/5
Dreaming v2 [cost] (If you cast this spell for it's dreaming cost, it's not a creature until it's realized.)
+
(some effect that realizes it, most likely activated ability)
Figment of Ferocity
Enchantment Creature- Wolf Incarnation (C)
Dreaming
: Realize ~.
6/6
Herald of Dark Dreams
Enchantment Creature- Demon (R)
Dreaming
Flying
At the beginning of your drawstep, you draw an additional card and you lose 2 life.
: Realize ~.
5/5
Realize v3 [cost] (This enchantment doesn't enter the battlefield as a creature. It becomes a creature when you pay its realize cost.)
Figment of Ferocity
Enchantment Creature- Wolf Incarnation (C)
Realize:
6/6
Herald of Dark Dreams
Enchantment Creature- Demon (R)
Realize
Flying
At the beginning of your drawstep, you draw an additional card and you lose 2 life.
5/5
Some thoughts on these different versions.
-V1 has the most flexibility in design and play.
-V2 packages the creature transformation into the mechanic which might make a lot of the cards easier to understand and slightly cuts down on text while preserving most of the flexibility of V1.
-V3 makes the mechanic a little simpler in the form a more vehicle like effect, but removes some of the flexibility.
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
It wants to cost a single mana, or it wants to be a free play somehow (if you're really savvy).
I really do not like your execution of V3. The fact that you kept the creature type on them and made Realize into a static ability that makes them not a creature and also an activated ability that turns them back to a creature is plain ugly to me. It overcomplicates a very simple mechanic, which should just be non-creature enchantments with a keyworded animation ability. If you want creature subtypes, make them the tribal card type or incorporate it into the ability with something like "Realize Wolf".
That's the question. As far as I see it, the option of designing cards that are actually significantly better as noncreatures, and might not even want to be able to turn into creatures, is the main advantage of V1. The thing with that is I think the cards that *do* turn into creatures are going to play better overall, as they'll be more interactive and less grindy. Passive enchantments aren't very NWO friendly, so obviously a significant amount of cards with the mechanic NEED the creature part into for the mechanic to exist at usual set mechanic frequencies. For the higher rarity cards where we want to tap into the space of more powerful passive effects, it is arguably more interesting strategically if you have cards where you are weighing up the choice of whether it's more important to get a powerful creature on board or to protect your passive effect. Which is to say, I definitely think *most* cards are going to want to turn into creatures. But is it worth leaving open space for some that don't? My inclination right now is not so much. The option to turn into a creature on a card that may want to stay a noncreature more often than not can still probably make sense and not be dead weight and/or a trap, as long as you still want that option a decent amount of the time.
I'd compare the Theros Gods and Vehicles, which both have creature properties that require activation. I do have to say, V3 is probably my least favourite though.
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