This is an idea that I've been working on for a while. It's a group of DFCs that all have the same front face. Each back face is different.
When you cast a Skrull you choose which side to cast. Casting the backside gives you a Skrull. Casting the front side gives your opponent a 1/2 creature.
Each Skrull front is identical and each skrull back is very different. It's owner can pay the skrulls exfiltration cost to transform your skrull and take it back. When you do, your opponent might be hurt based on how they used your spy.
For example, some skrull punish their previous controller for attacking, some punish their previous controller for not attacking, etc
Opponents should feel like they are are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
ATTACHMENTS
Potential Ally - Charging Skrull
Potential Ally-Bombardier
Potential Ally - Spying Skrull
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Originally posted by Necrogenesis
If a White Knight and a Black Knight agreed to a joust, would they just keep riding past one another?
GENERATION 10: The first time you see this, copy and paste it into your signature and add 1 to the generation number. It's a social experiment.
rowanalpha asked: Three related questions about dual faced cards. 1) Could 2 DFCs have the same front and different backs? 2) Could 2 DFCs have different fronts and the same back? 3) Could the back of a DFC have the same name as an existing magic card?
1) Not under the current rules.
2) I believe so, but not 100% sure.
3) I don’t believe we can.
You'd be better served with a morph variant that put the creature under an opponents control. There would still be a issues like a player can look at facedown cards they control, but it solves the main problem of having multiple cards with the same name on front.
If you had them be a "Opponent morph" for 2 that came in as a 2/2 under your opponent's control but you controlled the face up activation, that might work.
The real question is why your opponent in this environment doesn't just play sac effects and sac these for value as soon as they get one?
I try not to design within the current rules. After all, most interesting mechanics aren't possible within the rules before they come out. TDFC, MDFCs, mutate, morph just to name a few.
Opponent morph is how they originally worked until MDFs were spoiled. The issue with that was that I needed to indicate that only the cards owner could look at the face down side.
Putting all that reminder text meant that there wasn't going to be a lot of room for rules text.
With regards to the sacrifice question, if you look at the bottom ability on the Potential Ally side, you'll see that all the skrulls automatically exfiltrate when they die. So your opponent is incentizied to not sac them. Also, one of the first designs was a skrull that expressly punished your opponents for saccing him.
ATTACHMENTS
Potential Ally - Contingency Skrull
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Originally posted by Necrogenesis
If a White Knight and a Black Knight agreed to a joust, would they just keep riding past one another?
GENERATION 10: The first time you see this, copy and paste it into your signature and add 1 to the generation number. It's a social experiment.
With regards to the sacrifice question, if you look at the bottom ability on the Potential Ally side, you'll see that all the skrulls automatically exfiltrate when they die. So your opponent is incentizied to not sac them. Also, one of the first designs was a skrull that expressly punished your opponents for saccing him.
The problem with doing this is that you have to cut back on the powerlevel of your cards. For instance both of your red cards deal 5 damage if their effect goes off. However because they auto trigger if they die you can't balance that damage against a mana cost so the most it could reasonably deal is 2.
As to the topic of doing morph vs double face. Designing outside the current rules is fine but you still have to consider how they would actually work. The first problem is "potential ally" needs "you may have any number in your deck." Then you need to consider if they should somehow limit based off the backside name. If you don't then that further limits their potential power.
The last ability on Contingency Skrull cannot trigger. Like, there is absolutely no way for that condition to ever be true since the controller of the trigger is the controller of the permanent and they can't be their own opponent. You would need to word it as something like:
"When ~ dies, if it was sacrificed by a player other than the owner, <do something>".
This is an idea that I've been working on for a while. It's a group of DFCs that all have the same front face. Each back face is different.
When you cast a Skrull you choose which side to cast. Casting the backside gives you a Skrull. Casting the front side gives your opponent a 1/2 creature.
Each Skrull front is identical and each skrull back is very different. It's owner can pay the skrulls exfiltration cost to transform your skrull and take it back. When you do, your opponent might be hurt based on how they used your spy.
For example, some skrull punish their previous controller for attacking, some punish their previous controller for not attacking, etc
Opponents should feel like they are are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
GENERATION 10: The first time you see this, copy and paste it into your signature and add 1 to the generation number. It's a social experiment.
You'd be better served with a morph variant that put the creature under an opponents control. There would still be a issues like a player can look at facedown cards they control, but it solves the main problem of having multiple cards with the same name on front.
If you had them be a "Opponent morph" for 2 that came in as a 2/2 under your opponent's control but you controlled the face up activation, that might work.
The real question is why your opponent in this environment doesn't just play sac effects and sac these for value as soon as they get one?
I try not to design within the current rules. After all, most interesting mechanics aren't possible within the rules before they come out. TDFC, MDFCs, mutate, morph just to name a few.
Opponent morph is how they originally worked until MDFs were spoiled. The issue with that was that I needed to indicate that only the cards owner could look at the face down side.
Putting all that reminder text meant that there wasn't going to be a lot of room for rules text.
With regards to the sacrifice question, if you look at the bottom ability on the Potential Ally side, you'll see that all the skrulls automatically exfiltrate when they die. So your opponent is incentizied to not sac them. Also, one of the first designs was a skrull that expressly punished your opponents for saccing him.
GENERATION 10: The first time you see this, copy and paste it into your signature and add 1 to the generation number. It's a social experiment.
As to the topic of doing morph vs double face. Designing outside the current rules is fine but you still have to consider how they would actually work. The first problem is "potential ally" needs "you may have any number in your deck." Then you need to consider if they should somehow limit based off the backside name. If you don't then that further limits their potential power.
"When ~ dies, if it was sacrificed by a player other than the owner, <do something>".