Heaven Bound1W Enchantment
Whenever an ability of a permanent is activated or triggers, or whenever a creature attacks, you may sacrifice Heaven Bound. If you do, put a binding counter on that permanent. As long as that permanent has a binding counter on it, it's a Wastes. The heavens have but one means greater than all others to answer its own prayers: Do it yourself. As so should we.
Evades hexproof, indestructible. Pseudo-Path to Exile. Pseudo-mana ramp.
Pray in Blood1B Instant
As an additional cost to cast Pray in Blood, pay 2 life.
Counter target noncreature, nonplaneswalker spell, activated ability, or triggered ability. How far are you willing to go young wizard? I'm willing to bet that you won't be able to match the prices that I'm willing to pay.
Compare to discard. Answer in black for enchantments.
Originally wanted it to destroy selective permanents, starting with enchantments. I felt it mine as well take this form to tackle activated and triggered abilities. It adds awesome flavor to the design.
Heaven Bound doesn't work because Wastes isn't a thing. It's a card name but that doesn't help any when turning things into things. Fortunately, it's easy to spell out the effect. "As long as that permanent has a binding counter on it, it is a colorless land with "T: add C" and loses all other abilities."
Pray in blood just isn't black. Counterspells are already in two colors and neither of them are black.
To build on what he said, you'll notice that Ruin in their Wake and Walker of the Wastes both specify "a card named Wastes". Card could even name the transformed permanent "Wastes" but it does have to describe what that does, unlike with a basic land type.
To Pray in Blood, Dash Hopes is the last time a counter spell has been printed in Black and, since that was Planar Chaos, its automatically not a reliable precedent. The last time prior to that was Withering Boon (very similar to your card BTW), which was Mirage and the color pie was not as stringently defined.
This doesn't make sense since Wastes was designated as a basic land.
It certainly should have the same effect as Blood Moon has. Their own bad templating and formatting is their own mistake.
Certainly, the fact that Pay in Blood has great power and potential doesn't invalidate it as an authentic design. The flavor is incredible, and the splashability certainly adds to that merit as this is sides more from the dark/evil aspect of black to the neutral dark arts of black. Something like this has to compete with discard, which isn't an easy feat. Discard is still arguably better. And that's where the added potential adds incentive to this design for a player to restructure their strategy (or begin to develop entirely new strategies given the new opportunity with this utility).
In development schematics, this opens up for a meta that weens away from the discard.
In development schematics, this opens up for a meta that weans away from the discard.
This is something that WotC doesn't want to do though. Like Rowan said a strength of the game is that the different colors do different things well. Black can efficently answer any card type preemptively with discard and can reactively answer most card types inefficiently with removal. Providing it with another axis of interaction gives it too many avenues relative to other colors.
As for Heaven Bound I have a few problems. First I don't see the flavor of the mechanics matching the card name. Binding a creature to the battlefield and turning them into a "wasteland" is a pretty odd idea of heaven. Second desiging single target removal that ignores hexproof is a bad idea in my book. We already have answers to hexproof in terms of "all creature" spells or "sacrifice a creature" spells. Making a traditional removal spell that ignores the ability that avoids single target removal is just bad design imo. Invalidating rules text on your opponents cards is generally an unfun design and should be used sparingly and on narrow cards like Stony Silence, Pithing Needle, Torpor Orb, and rest in peace. Cards that don't do anything on their own so you're not invalidating your opponents deck and advancing your strategy at the same time.
The flavor on Heaven Bound was much darker originally, and simply used a 'land' counter, which represented a tombstone. But I 4Kids it to some flavor that was more contouring to the concept.
I honestly don't believe in 'effect separation' for identity and individuality as many idealize. I believe in something more fundamental to the game and its physics/dynamics. It's called 'domain influence'. I've explained this a few times over now. I honestly think that greater potential exists in the concept that every color can/should be able to almost everything, but the means in which is accomplishes this creates its greater identity/uniqueness. This is the aspect of fantasy that drives the game, and opening up all colors to this is what creates balance among the fundamental physics/dynamics of the game and its given interactions.
Okay then let me run you through a hypothetical scenario then. Let's say we go with your ideas and every color can do everything just at various efficiencies. So you say that everyone can counter spells but blue does it best, everyone can discard but black does it best, everyone can deal direct damage but red does it best, etc. Now you are only going into multiple colors because you want a particular set of efficient cards rather than any type of particular ability that your first color didn't have access to.
Which so far is fine that's basically how competitive play already works because you already are only playing the most efficient cards.
Where you run into problems with your style of design is if you miss on making a colors answers less efficient then you can end up with a parade of single color control decks that don't have the usual draw back of inefficient mana making them inconsistent. Similarly with midrange decks. Usuauly they want to have efficient answers around a few powerful threats. If you miss in this style of design it's really easy to end up with consistent single color decks that can do everything they need to do in a format.
And if that happens it can become very monotonous. If you have a solved meta game it's already bad. If it's solved and doesn't have the game to game variety from mana inconsistency due to multiple colors you have a 5 alarm fire.
Second having all colors do everything doesn't create any sort of balance. It just destroys it. You go from a world where you play red for direct damage, green for ramp, blue for counters, black for discard, and white for catch all answers like Oblivion Ring. Now you can just play whichever color has your win condition of choice and answers in your same color. If it turns out the best win condition and answers are in the same color then you have a problem like I described above. I think that is a much worse system then choosing your win conditions and then choosing secondary colors to round out your initial colors weaknesses that impact your gameplan.
You won't likely run into that issue, because multicolors don't simply do thing 'more efficiently', they do things with bonus to them (utility or power).
It's not the efficiency but the bonus that preserves interest in multicolor.
Note that in development schematic, you're always going to be adding unique bits to certain colors, which once again provides interest to each individual color, where the bonus for multicolor becomes a centerpiece.
I think the concept you're suggest, mind you, involves using various monocolor cards to creature a pseudo-multicolor deck.
With that said, nothing is lost but everything gained in the science I understand and have explained.
You won't likely run into that issue, because multicolors don't simply do thing 'more efficiently', they do things with bonus to them (utility or power)
It's not the efficiency but the bonus that preserves interest in multicolor. Undermine >> Absorb
NOte that in development schematic, you're always going to be adding unique bits to certain colors, which once again provides interest to each individual color, where the bonus for multicolor becomes a centerpiece.
I think the concept you're suggest, mind you, involves using various monocolor cards to creature a pseudo-multicolor deck. With that said, nothing is lost but everything gained in the science I understand and have explained.
On point 1 I think you misunderstood me. I was referring to multicolor decks not multicolor cards. My point was that if Black can do everything to various degrees of efficency then what is the draw to play multiple colors. And that is for efficient/powerful cards.
On number 2 if every color can do everything then what bonuses can being multicolor provide other than efficiency? Yes Undermine and Absorb give bonuses specific to their colors but in your world where every color can do everything they aren't abilities that could never be on a card together without being multicolored. Your vision of color pie bleed invalidates that sort of classically cool design.
I'm not really sure I understand point 3. You said you don't believe in effect separation but are talking about giving unique effects to the colors to provide interest. So I'm obviously missing something here. You want new mechanics to be able to be unique to colors but not the existing ones?
And do you have an explanation for your philosophy you can link because I'm not talking about creating a pseudo multicolored deck. I'm saying that if a color can impact every part of the game you will just play one color because it makes your mana base incredibly reliable and efficient. Never needing to worry about missing a color and being able to play utility lands like Karakas, Castle Vantress, or Hive of the Eye Tyrant is very valuable. Mono color decks are cool and exciting and should exist but it's good for the game that they have glaring weakness by only being in one color and not having access to every tool in magic. The trade off for perfect mana needs to be significant in my opinion. I'd be curious if you can also provide a real world example of a game you think has "good domain influence" because it seems to me that games are really based on forcing you to make choices and being unable to do everything without significant sacrifices.
Okay so you just are insisting that you know best then. You want to create new things to be unique to colors but you don't want to conform to the established color pie. I mean that's just kind of silly but um you do you I guess. Still interesed in a link to your explanation of domain influence or an example of a game you think balances it across colors/factions/races or whatever well.
Edit: that came off as super harsh but I just don't know what to do with you saying it's healthy for me to design things unique to colors but not to follow the established precedent of what is unique to each color. If you believed that they shouldn't have unique identities beyond flavor and whatever abilities suited the flavor of a card I could accept that as a philosphy but I'm at a loss with what I am understanding as your theory.
Okay so you just are insisting that you know best then. You want to create new things to be unique to colors but you don't want to conform to the established color pie. I mean that's just kind of silly but um you do you I guess. Still interesed in a link to your explanation of domain influence or an example of a game you think balances it across colors/factions/races or whatever well.
Edit: that came off as super harsh but I just don't know what to do with you saying it's healthy for me to design things unique to colors but not to follow the established precedent of what is unique to each color. If you believed that they shouldn't have unique identities beyond flavor and whatever abilities suited the flavor of a card I could accept that as a philosphy but I'm at a loss with what I am understanding as your theory.
Yeah, that's sorta Reap's MO. He wants to come off as an auteur game designer but he misses the core pillars of game design like a storm trooper standing three feet from Han Solo. He was actually improving for a while, but this particular chain of discussion is a backslide into his old bad habits.
I'm not an amateur designer—I have been doing this since 2007.
My experience with MTG go back to Odyssey/7th Edition.
My learning curve was incredibly quick.
It would help if the suggest things weren't biased and conditional, and failing to recognize the overhead and responsibility of the developer regarding the schematics demanded.
I'm not an amateur designer—I have been doing this since 2007.
My experience with MTG go back to Odyssey/7th Edition.
My learning curve was incredibly quick.
It would help if the suggest things weren't biased and conditional, and failing to recognize the overhead and responsibility of the developer regarding the schematics demanded.
Unless I'm misunderstanding your jargon this answers none of my questions. I asked for a link to your domain influence idea because I don't understand it at all from what you've said here and you seem unwilling to explain it again. I asked for an example of a game that you felt allowed each different color/faction/whatever to impact all phases of the game and you haven't provided one. I mentioned that I was intrigued by the idea of all colors having abilities available as flavor of characters dictated and having the characters sorted into colors by flavor and you ignored that.
I don't see how asking you to either stick to the existing color pie or justify the theory behind your breaks of it is biased or conditional. I do respect it's hard to have novel ideas in a decades old game and your ingenuity is really interesting (@RowanAlpha this is why I'm interested in engaging despite all the jargon that is hard to understand and history) but when you post things publicly for feedback negative feedback is to be expected when you push boundaries. Especially since this doesn't allow black to deal with anything it couldn't before it's "printing" so the only boundary it's pushing is the color pie.
My main issue comes down to this you say giving Black counterspells can wean it off discard. I think that intent is misguided and makes the game worse and I don't know why you think weaning off discard is a good thing. To me having black preemptively attack the hand and belatedly attack the board makes for an interesting contrast with blue with attacks as spells are cast or bounces them later. Makes for at least 3 different cool play patterns depending on if you are U, UB, or B.
P.S. Rowan didn't call you an amateur, rowan called you an auteur.
An auteur is an artist, usually a film director, who applies a highly centralized and subjective control to many aspects of a collaborative creative work; in other words, a person equivalent to an author of a novel or a play.
Have you ever heard of Yu-Gi-Oh! or Pokemon? Even despite the fact that some Special Conditions are thought to be specific to certain card types, the game doesn't really flourish until you put Burned onto a Fighting-Type design, does it?
Exactly my point.
The difference between medicine and poison is in the dose.
We don't have to be talking about something that changes the face of the macrocosm entirely, it only changes the meta really. But then it opens up new things for the macrocosm.
You can read one of my explanations of Domain Influence here.
Have you ever heard of Yu-Gi-Oh! or Pokemon? Even despite the fact that some Special Conditions are thought to be specific to certain card types, the game doesn't really flourish until you put Burned onto a Fighting-Type design, does it?
Exactly my point.
The difference between medicine and poison is in the dose.
We don't have to be talking about something that changes the face of the macrocosm entirely, it only changes the meta really. But then it opens up new things for the macrocosm.
You can read one of my explanations of Domain Influence here.
Hmmm thanks for the link. I read it but I still don't fully get what you're saying. I think using domain to define the term really makes it unclear. I thought it was about impacting the board state but I don't really understand how a removal spell can have unlimited domain influence in that case but a permanent only ever has a limited about. I know you said not to worry about the points but I can't grasp the rest of it so I'm trying to glean how you're thinking from the point values you describe.
As for your comparisons to Pokemon and Yu Gi Oh I played both games when I was younger but not seriously so I can't comment on them. The examples I was thinking of were Hearthstone which I used to play more recently being very magic like in giving different classes different abilities and being pretty consistent that Warlock didn't get damage to players or Priest didn't get great offensive weapons.
For another example Eternal when I stopped playing it also stuck to color pie pretty rigourously. Only certain colors got silence. Only certain colors got direct damage. Only certain colors had offensive weapons. But these games may be minorities and I just might not have played games that gave every color access to everything at least in small doses. But I'd agrue that kind of makes my point. To my understanding those are games that don't have flagship non rotating formats the way magic (EDH and Modern are arguably the two most important non draft formats of the last five years even moreso than standard) does so they can weather color pie breaks for flavor more easily because they will rotate out of the competitive format and not have a lasting impact beyond that. Magic can't afford those sort of color pie breaks because EDH is the main way people play, 1 minor break and it's a card people will play forever (see green decks running dismember for years as an example). But feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on the importance of non rotating formats to those games.
I definitely was just wrong about Pokemon and Yu Gi Oh by the sound of it but the biggest digital card games as far as I can tell all follow magics pattern.
And how many of them are made by the same guy, who just keeps making the same mistakes over and over.
None? Hearthstone, Eternal, and Storybook Brawl as examples all have different creative teams behind them. As far as I can tell the newly released and quite popular Legends of Runeterra also has factions with wildly different abilities and a different creative team. Going into different style of games Starcraft is famously balanced but the three factions play entirely differently and have access to quite different abilities. In mainline Pokemon video games restricted access to moves and abilties is a huge balancing factor. In MoBA's different roles are balanced by their access to different parts of toolkits. ADC's don't have AoE hard CC and supports (usually) lack consistent dps. I'm just drawing blanks on games I've played where every faction has access to every mode of attack and it's balanced/interesting. RTS games are the closest but in Age Of Empires 2 for example the factions basically feel identical to a layperson.
A famous example of a game where every color/faction gets everything is Yu-Gi-Oh and its a train wreck of powercreep of niche cards so that every deck isn't the same. There are some very specific abilities that very specific factions get such as the lightsworn deck being selfmill but its not that others don't get it they just don't/haven't get the critical mass. I don't know anyone who plays ygo that would describe it as balanced but they do describe it as fun. Though it appears to be the exception that proves the rule.
Going to be frank I didn't realize Yu-Gi-Oh even had factions/colors. I thought it was just entirely factionless and deckbuilding was entirely unrestricted in any formal way. That is kind of cool even if I've never heard it held up as a paragon of good design before.
Going to be frank I didn't realize Yu-Gi-Oh even had factions/colors. I thought it was just entirely factionless and deckbuilding was entirely unrestricted in any formal way. That is kind of cool even if I've never heard it held up as a paragon of good design before.
It was only really noticeable back when they banned all the generically powerful cards and then started printing the super-niche powerful cards. It was kind of as if Magic had Black Lotus legal for years then banned it while also printing blackest lotus whose mana could only be used on black creature spells. Then later printed whitest lotus whose mana could only be spent to cast white enchantment spells. Of course, now even those cards are banned and other cards have taken their place.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Enchantment
Whenever an ability of a permanent is activated or triggers, or whenever a creature attacks, you may sacrifice Heaven Bound. If you do, put a binding counter on that permanent. As long as that permanent has a binding counter on it, it's a Wastes.
The heavens have but one means greater than all others to answer its own prayers: Do it yourself. As so should we.
Evades hexproof, indestructible. Pseudo-Path to Exile. Pseudo-mana ramp.
Pray in Blood 1B
Instant
As an additional cost to cast Pray in Blood, pay 2 life.
Counter target noncreature, nonplaneswalker spell, activated ability, or triggered ability.
How far are you willing to go young wizard? I'm willing to bet that you won't be able to match the prices that I'm willing to pay.
Compare to discard. Answer in black for enchantments.
Originally wanted it to destroy selective permanents, starting with enchantments. I felt it mine as well take this form to tackle activated and triggered abilities. It adds awesome flavor to the design.
Pray in blood just isn't black. Counterspells are already in two colors and neither of them are black.
To build on what he said, you'll notice that Ruin in their Wake and Walker of the Wastes both specify "a card named Wastes". Card could even name the transformed permanent "Wastes" but it does have to describe what that does, unlike with a basic land type.
To Pray in Blood, Dash Hopes is the last time a counter spell has been printed in Black and, since that was Planar Chaos, its automatically not a reliable precedent. The last time prior to that was Withering Boon (very similar to your card BTW), which was Mirage and the color pie was not as stringently defined.
Black also already has answers to enchantments: Feed the Swarm, Mire in Misery, Pharika's Libation. Black can interact with enchantments, but not as efficiently as white or green.
The game's strength is that no one color can do everything well. If one color becomes able to do all the things, it homogenizes the experience.
It certainly should have the same effect as Blood Moon has. Their own bad templating and formatting is their own mistake.
Certainly, the fact that Pay in Blood has great power and potential doesn't invalidate it as an authentic design. The flavor is incredible, and the splashability certainly adds to that merit as this is sides more from the dark/evil aspect of black to the neutral dark arts of black. Something like this has to compete with discard, which isn't an easy feat. Discard is still arguably better. And that's where the added potential adds incentive to this design for a player to restructure their strategy (or begin to develop entirely new strategies given the new opportunity with this utility).
In development schematics, this opens up for a meta that weens away from the discard.
This is something that WotC doesn't want to do though. Like Rowan said a strength of the game is that the different colors do different things well. Black can efficently answer any card type preemptively with discard and can reactively answer most card types inefficiently with removal. Providing it with another axis of interaction gives it too many avenues relative to other colors.
As for Heaven Bound I have a few problems. First I don't see the flavor of the mechanics matching the card name. Binding a creature to the battlefield and turning them into a "wasteland" is a pretty odd idea of heaven. Second desiging single target removal that ignores hexproof is a bad idea in my book. We already have answers to hexproof in terms of "all creature" spells or "sacrifice a creature" spells. Making a traditional removal spell that ignores the ability that avoids single target removal is just bad design imo. Invalidating rules text on your opponents cards is generally an unfun design and should be used sparingly and on narrow cards like Stony Silence, Pithing Needle, Torpor Orb, and rest in peace. Cards that don't do anything on their own so you're not invalidating your opponents deck and advancing your strategy at the same time.
I honestly don't believe in 'effect separation' for identity and individuality as many idealize. I believe in something more fundamental to the game and its physics/dynamics. It's called 'domain influence'. I've explained this a few times over now. I honestly think that greater potential exists in the concept that every color can/should be able to almost everything, but the means in which is accomplishes this creates its greater identity/uniqueness. This is the aspect of fantasy that drives the game, and opening up all colors to this is what creates balance among the fundamental physics/dynamics of the game and its given interactions.
Which so far is fine that's basically how competitive play already works because you already are only playing the most efficient cards.
Where you run into problems with your style of design is if you miss on making a colors answers less efficient then you can end up with a parade of single color control decks that don't have the usual draw back of inefficient mana making them inconsistent. Similarly with midrange decks. Usuauly they want to have efficient answers around a few powerful threats. If you miss in this style of design it's really easy to end up with consistent single color decks that can do everything they need to do in a format.
And if that happens it can become very monotonous. If you have a solved meta game it's already bad. If it's solved and doesn't have the game to game variety from mana inconsistency due to multiple colors you have a 5 alarm fire.
Second having all colors do everything doesn't create any sort of balance. It just destroys it. You go from a world where you play red for direct damage, green for ramp, blue for counters, black for discard, and white for catch all answers like Oblivion Ring. Now you can just play whichever color has your win condition of choice and answers in your same color. If it turns out the best win condition and answers are in the same color then you have a problem like I described above. I think that is a much worse system then choosing your win conditions and then choosing secondary colors to round out your initial colors weaknesses that impact your gameplan.
It's not the efficiency but the bonus that preserves interest in multicolor.
Undermine >> Absorb
Note that in development schematic, you're always going to be adding unique bits to certain colors, which once again provides interest to each individual color, where the bonus for multicolor becomes a centerpiece.
I think the concept you're suggest, mind you, involves using various monocolor cards to creature a pseudo-multicolor deck.
With that said, nothing is lost but everything gained in the science I understand and have explained.
On point 1 I think you misunderstood me. I was referring to multicolor decks not multicolor cards. My point was that if Black can do everything to various degrees of efficency then what is the draw to play multiple colors. And that is for efficient/powerful cards.
On number 2 if every color can do everything then what bonuses can being multicolor provide other than efficiency? Yes Undermine and Absorb give bonuses specific to their colors but in your world where every color can do everything they aren't abilities that could never be on a card together without being multicolored. Your vision of color pie bleed invalidates that sort of classically cool design.
I'm not really sure I understand point 3. You said you don't believe in effect separation but are talking about giving unique effects to the colors to provide interest. So I'm obviously missing something here. You want new mechanics to be able to be unique to colors but not the existing ones?
And do you have an explanation for your philosophy you can link because I'm not talking about creating a pseudo multicolored deck. I'm saying that if a color can impact every part of the game you will just play one color because it makes your mana base incredibly reliable and efficient. Never needing to worry about missing a color and being able to play utility lands like Karakas, Castle Vantress, or Hive of the Eye Tyrant is very valuable. Mono color decks are cool and exciting and should exist but it's good for the game that they have glaring weakness by only being in one color and not having access to every tool in magic. The trade off for perfect mana needs to be significant in my opinion. I'd be curious if you can also provide a real world example of a game you think has "good domain influence" because it seems to me that games are really based on forcing you to make choices and being unable to do everything without significant sacrifices.
The manner in which certain colors do things can be more intuitive to that color—but also to multicolor combinations.
Thus, it's in your best interests to cross between colors.
The difference between medicine and poison is in the dose.
Edit: that came off as super harsh but I just don't know what to do with you saying it's healthy for me to design things unique to colors but not to follow the established precedent of what is unique to each color. If you believed that they shouldn't have unique identities beyond flavor and whatever abilities suited the flavor of a card I could accept that as a philosphy but I'm at a loss with what I am understanding as your theory.
Yeah, that's sorta Reap's MO. He wants to come off as an auteur game designer but he misses the core pillars of game design like a storm trooper standing three feet from Han Solo. He was actually improving for a while, but this particular chain of discussion is a backslide into his old bad habits.
My experience with MTG go back to Odyssey/7th Edition.
My learning curve was incredibly quick.
It would help if the suggest things weren't biased and conditional, and failing to recognize the overhead and responsibility of the developer regarding the schematics demanded.
Unless I'm misunderstanding your jargon this answers none of my questions. I asked for a link to your domain influence idea because I don't understand it at all from what you've said here and you seem unwilling to explain it again. I asked for an example of a game that you felt allowed each different color/faction/whatever to impact all phases of the game and you haven't provided one. I mentioned that I was intrigued by the idea of all colors having abilities available as flavor of characters dictated and having the characters sorted into colors by flavor and you ignored that.
I don't see how asking you to either stick to the existing color pie or justify the theory behind your breaks of it is biased or conditional. I do respect it's hard to have novel ideas in a decades old game and your ingenuity is really interesting (@RowanAlpha this is why I'm interested in engaging despite all the jargon that is hard to understand and history) but when you post things publicly for feedback negative feedback is to be expected when you push boundaries. Especially since this doesn't allow black to deal with anything it couldn't before it's "printing" so the only boundary it's pushing is the color pie.
My main issue comes down to this you say giving Black counterspells can wean it off discard. I think that intent is misguided and makes the game worse and I don't know why you think weaning off discard is a good thing. To me having black preemptively attack the hand and belatedly attack the board makes for an interesting contrast with blue with attacks as spells are cast or bounces them later. Makes for at least 3 different cool play patterns depending on if you are U, UB, or B.
P.S. Rowan didn't call you an amateur, rowan called you an auteur.
Have you ever heard of Yu-Gi-Oh! or Pokemon? Even despite the fact that some Special Conditions are thought to be specific to certain card types, the game doesn't really flourish until you put Burned onto a Fighting-Type design, does it?
Exactly my point.
The difference between medicine and poison is in the dose.
We don't have to be talking about something that changes the face of the macrocosm entirely, it only changes the meta really. But then it opens up new things for the macrocosm.
You can read one of my explanations of Domain Influence here.
Hmmm thanks for the link. I read it but I still don't fully get what you're saying. I think using domain to define the term really makes it unclear. I thought it was about impacting the board state but I don't really understand how a removal spell can have unlimited domain influence in that case but a permanent only ever has a limited about. I know you said not to worry about the points but I can't grasp the rest of it so I'm trying to glean how you're thinking from the point values you describe.
As for your comparisons to Pokemon and Yu Gi Oh I played both games when I was younger but not seriously so I can't comment on them. The examples I was thinking of were Hearthstone which I used to play more recently being very magic like in giving different classes different abilities and being pretty consistent that Warlock didn't get damage to players or Priest didn't get great offensive weapons.
For another example Eternal when I stopped playing it also stuck to color pie pretty rigourously. Only certain colors got silence. Only certain colors got direct damage. Only certain colors had offensive weapons. But these games may be minorities and I just might not have played games that gave every color access to everything at least in small doses. But I'd agrue that kind of makes my point. To my understanding those are games that don't have flagship non rotating formats the way magic (EDH and Modern are arguably the two most important non draft formats of the last five years even moreso than standard) does so they can weather color pie breaks for flavor more easily because they will rotate out of the competitive format and not have a lasting impact beyond that. Magic can't afford those sort of color pie breaks because EDH is the main way people play, 1 minor break and it's a card people will play forever (see green decks running dismember for years as an example). But feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on the importance of non rotating formats to those games.
I definitely was just wrong about Pokemon and Yu Gi Oh by the sound of it but the biggest digital card games as far as I can tell all follow magics pattern.
None? Hearthstone, Eternal, and Storybook Brawl as examples all have different creative teams behind them. As far as I can tell the newly released and quite popular Legends of Runeterra also has factions with wildly different abilities and a different creative team. Going into different style of games Starcraft is famously balanced but the three factions play entirely differently and have access to quite different abilities. In mainline Pokemon video games restricted access to moves and abilties is a huge balancing factor. In MoBA's different roles are balanced by their access to different parts of toolkits. ADC's don't have AoE hard CC and supports (usually) lack consistent dps. I'm just drawing blanks on games I've played where every faction has access to every mode of attack and it's balanced/interesting. RTS games are the closest but in Age Of Empires 2 for example the factions basically feel identical to a layperson.