Quick note for my tenure: At least while I'm hosting I'd prefer if everyone wrote out the full usernames of the contestants they're voting for. This makes scoring much easier for me.
I'll really miss your designs, flatline. You always were super creative and positive. I hope to see you again at some point!
Thanks for the kind words scrad, but don't fret, I'll still be around. I just want to take a break from the DCC for a while, which isn't possible if I need to host it. Perhaps with my free time we could revisit Ormos?
Edit: I'm sure I'll even return to the DCC at some point if the stars align correctly. After all, it has always been my favorite of the three main competitions.
(22 Total) - October 2014; December 2014; January 2015; April 2015; June 2015; August 2015; September 2015; November 2015; December 2015(T); January 2016; March 2016(T); April 2016; June 2016; October 2016; December 2016(T); February 2017; April 2017; December 2017; November 2018(T); January 2019; April 2019; June 2019
(8 Total) - May 2015; May 2016; June 2016; August 2016; October 2016; December 2016; October 2017; May 2019
(7 Total) - September 2015; October 2015; January 2016; March 2016; April 2016; July 2016(T); March 2019(T)
Dumb question. If I post a card today does it count towards July or August?
August July. Under the current system, the first through the final day of the month count towards a month's scores so the previous month's winner is calculated on the 2nd.
BlackWaltz3: I mistyped my answer at first; if you want to use the card you posted for the coming month you may want to take it off the current thread.
Vivid is really similar to a mechanic I created a while back called Enrich. Enrich cared if at least half of the mana spent to cast the card produced mana matching the colors of the card and if so Enrich was triggered. I developed the mechanic with cube in mind since double-colored costs are largely shunned in the format. Enrich allowed you to cast a card for a splashable cost, but get a stronger card if you committed more heavily to its colors. So anyway....great minds think alike!
Vivid is really similar to a mechanic I created a while back called Enrich. Enrich cared if at least half of the mana spent to cast the card produced mana matching the colors of the card and if so Enrich was triggered. I developed the mechanic with cube in mind since double-colored costs are largely shunned in the format. Enrich allowed you to cast a card for a splashable cost, but get a stronger card if you committed more heavily to its colors. So anyway....great minds think alike!
It is also a mechanic that an occasional DCC competitor named RukiMotomiya used to use. He called it monochromatic. Vivid is a solid mechanic, and it fits perfectly in the set kjsharp is designing.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
(22 Total) - October 2014; December 2014; January 2015; April 2015; June 2015; August 2015; September 2015; November 2015; December 2015(T); January 2016; March 2016(T); April 2016; June 2016; October 2016; December 2016(T); February 2017; April 2017; December 2017; November 2018(T); January 2019; April 2019; June 2019
(8 Total) - May 2015; May 2016; June 2016; August 2016; October 2016; December 2016; October 2017; May 2019
(7 Total) - September 2015; October 2015; January 2016; March 2016; April 2016; July 2016(T); March 2019(T)
It was a long, meandering road to arriving at this final version. You intuitively sense when you've found something really good, and I finally feel that way about Vivid. First it was a check to make sure that a card had 3 mana symbols in its casting cost (an idea borne out of wanting it to work with Mystic Snake, a shoe-in reprint here). Then it was like Chroma, kind of haphazard and different for different things (e.g. a check if another spell was cast for meeting Vivid conditions and a bonus for a spell on cast). I was comfortable with that level of inelegance though since I really liked the idea. But then designing Rhymnir Shade made me realize that the design space was both (i) extremely limited and (ii) format-warping. To see what I mean, look at Rhymnir Shade. Right now, Rhymnir Shade is a card that, when cast on turn 3 in a normal environment, is a mediocre but playable 2/2 menace for 3. And when cast in the late-game is a really solid efficient 3/3 menace for 3. If "Vivid" were to be more than "late-game flood insurance" though, I would need to up the power level on the card. BBB for a 3/3 Menace is simply not good enough. It would need to be a 4/4 Menace to make it worth the triple black cost, but if you're gonna commit to making the card at that (appropriate) power level, then that becomes the only thing a player should be doing in that limited format, because that's insanely powerful. The limited format would necessarily become an exclusively mono-color format, and one less interesting to draft and with less replay value than the only other mostly mono-color limited format in Magic's history. So you either make it a fine but forgettable flood-insurance mechanic (as on Rhymnir Shade), or you make it a hallmark format-warping mechanic. After designing Rhymnir Shade, I knew I needed to change it.
The present version solves every problem. You can make a 3UG card have a vivid cost of UUUGG. You can make a 3RR card have a 1RRRR vivid cost. There's a greater amount of flexibility here, and a flexibility that doesn't water down the significance of the flavor. This Vivid can contribute to the world of Rhymnir instead of dominate it. Vivid isn't exactly what I had in mind when I launched Rhymnir a month ago, but I see a lot of promise in the gameplay and immersive experience it offers. I felt really good today after I made Groundswell Behemoth. I'll keep designing vivid cards for the DCC this month to continue playing around with the mechanic, but I think I've arrived at a winner. Designing mechanics is really difficult.
@Black_Waltz: Thanks for the perspective. I see how Enrich could be helpful for creating a unique Cube experience. Interestingly, you can template every Enrich card as a Vivid card.
I hear you. Designing good mechanics is much harder than the final result would lead others to believe. I'd like to add some thoughts in hopes it improves your mechanic and also to further expand upon mine. Both monochromatic and vivid are different from my mechanic, enrich, in 2 significant ways and while some enrich cards could be templated just like vivid, others would not.
1) Vivid is an all or nothing mechanic. You either pay entirely in one color or you pay the normal casting cost. In examples such as your behemoth a player is forced to choose between a very difficult cost GGGGGG and a very mediocre creature 5G. The reward for being able to pay such a difficult cost is substantial, as well it should be, but enrich has a narrower gap between modes making both modes reasonably attainable.
With the enriched mode being easier to obtain, the bonus is also reined in a bit more.
If the behemoth were done as an enrich card your choice is between a 5G mode and a 3GGG mode. Forcing a player to be able to produce mana of only one color to get the maximum value from a card will often restrict that card’s playability to monocolor decks. Enrich clears that hurdle by rewarding heavy concentration in its color, but not requiring just that color.
I’d also note that with lower converted mana costs Enrich will take a 2B creature and merely require 1BB in order to make it enriched. Vivid would require BBB which is incredibly difficult to hit reliably outside of monocolor decks and this is particularly a problem in limited which encourages two sometimes even three color mana bases, and with lower rarities. How do you make the reward substantial enough to justify a BBB casting cost on a common? How about a RRRRR casting cost? Clearing a hurdle like this should offer a huge benefit, but at lower rarities you can’t easily deliver.
2) Multicolor. You state that you can make a Vivid card with a cost of 3UG have a cost of UUGGG. Why that exact combination? Why not UUUGG or UGGGG? Before you stated this, my intuition was that a multicolor vivid card would have a hybrid vivid cost. Having set combinations of colored costs for multicolored cards is cumbersome. Going with hybrid presents its own problems in that hybrid has its own design limitations in terms of the color pie but it makes more sense given that Vivid/Monochromatic are about color purity when casting spells. If 2G becomes GGG then 1UG would become or at least .
On the other hand, being able to go with UUG or UGG has its own advantages in that it allows you to keep a card multicolor in nature without using hybrid and can help stress the degree to which a card is green or blue in nature. For instance, a 1UG counterspell/pump effect that has a UUG mode may result in an enhanced counterspell, where a UGG mode instead would enhance the pump. There may even be an interesting application where a player can choose one or the other depending on what effect they want--only at rare or mythic given the complexity that entails.
Ultimately, I find that these mechanics wants to be applied to monocolored cards only as neither of the routes for multicolor mentioned above are particularly desirable. This is a mechanic that cares about color purity when casting spells, applying it to multicolor spells seems to run afoul of that goal. Thanks for listening to my rant here...lol. Best of luck on your custom set.
@BlackWaltz I designed the Behemoth as a vivid that required all forests, but it could have been Vivid-2GGGG. Its power level is too low for a GGGGGG card anyway, but I wanted to showcase the extent to what could be imagined by the vivid mechanic. Vivid doesn't have to require all mana symbols. Now it's just an alternate casting cost, one that will always have the same CMC but a more stringent colored mana requirement. How stringent will vary from card to card, hence why it is more flexible than the previous version.
Regarding you 2nd point, a 3UG card could have several sorts of vivid costs, as you noted. It could be UGGGG, UUGGG, UUUGG, UUUUG, or 1UUGG, for example.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Follow me on Twitch if you're interested in watching competitive league drafts.
Play MTGO? Check out my latest MTGO finance articles on Quiet Speculation.
If the vivid casting costs are just assigned in so many different ways then what is the point of the keyword? I mean of course these alternate costs balance out the added abilities, but if they don't follow any clearly defined structure across the set then it doesn't feel cohesive. If in one case Vivid means RRR in place of 2R but in another it means 2UUGG in place of 4UG it doesn't seem to follow an easily recognizable pattern that one can associate with the mechanic. Even with the costs for vivid spelled out on the card, I'd like to see the mechanic doing more than just assigning whatever alternate cost works with a given ability.
That said, I'm not going to pick any more. If you're happy with it then great. If something I've brought up helps fine-tune the mechanic, then also great. Cheers.
@BlackWaltz. I really like the way you worded your Enrich ability. It was unclear to me before how you were wording it, but your rendition is easily understandable. Now the only difference between Vivid and Enrich lies in the "devotion" of casting costs, should that ever be a thing. Also, I hear your criticism of Vivid. Some mechanics rely on the good faith of the card designer, and Vivid is one of them. I'll try not to betray the expectations of the audience!
I like this version of Brim. Only took me 3 weeks to figure out one I liked (*sigh*). At the same time I discerned another version I would like as well - putting the time counters on it first and the brim ability triggering when you remove the last time counter and return it to your hand. The ability I put on the card in today's submission is more in keeping with traditional R&D design. The alternative I just mentioned might be better for TV because it sets up clear, visible points of anticipation toward which excitement can build, a consideration whose relevance I don't quite know how to weigh.
At 5 mana, X=2. Therefore, you get four 3/3s at CMC 5. This is because the first mode would read "Create two 3/3 beast tokens" and then you can choose that mode an additional time.
When X=3, you get 9 3/3s. At X=4, you get 16 3/3s. Just because there's an XX in the casting cost doesn't mean that "X" is halved throughout the rules text. If X=2, then X=2 throughout the card. To get the effect I think you want to have, you need to change "X 3/3 beast tokens" to "a 3/3 beast token".
Feedback on the Brainstorm mechanic would be very welcome. To make it more viable in paper, it might be worth making it "search your sideboard for ~ and put it on top of your library" instead of "search your library for ~ and put it on top of your library." As written, at least, there is a way for the player to cheat in paper if he wants to reshuffle his library for some reason. Online this would be easily blocked.
Is there some way to block this sort of thing in paper? Could the mechanic be rewritten? Perhaps there could be check cards in booster packs like in Shadows over Innistrad block where you mark the cards with Brainstorm that you have in your deck. I would prefer to keep the library functionality if possible.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Follow me on Twitch if you're interested in watching competitive league drafts.
Play MTGO? Check out my latest MTGO finance articles on Quiet Speculation.
Which of the below versions of the "Nightmare" mechanic do y'all find the best? And by best I mean some mixture of smooth, intuitive, functional, and aesthetically pleasing? Feel free to suggest alternate versions.
Idealon of a Pierced Heart3RR
Creature - Elemental Hellion (U)
Whenever Idealon of a Pierced Heart becomes blocked, it deals 2 damage to target player. Nightmare - When Idealon of a Pierced Heart enters the graveyard, you may flip it and return it to your hand.
5/4
// Nightmare of a Pierced Heart1R
Enchantment - Aura Curse Nightmare (U)
Enchant Player.
At the beginning of enchanted player's upkeep, Nightmare of a Pierced Heart deals 1 damage to that player.
Idealon of a Pierced Heart3RR
Creature - Elemental Hellion (U)
Whenever Idealon of a Pierced Heart becomes blocked, it deals 2 damage to target player. Nightmare - When Idealon of a Pierced Heart enters the graveyard, flip it.
5/4
// Nightmare of a Pierced Heart
Enchantment - Aura Curse Nightmare (U)
Enchant Player.
At the beginning of enchanted player's upkeep, Nightmare of a Pierced Heart deals 1 damage to that player. Nightmare1R(You may cast this spell from your graveyard for its Nightmare cost)
Idealon of a Pierced Heart3RR
Creature - Elemental Hellion (U)
Whenever Idealon of a Pierced Heart becomes blocked, it deals 2 damage to target player. Nightmare1R - Flip this card and return it to the battlefield. Activate this ability only any time you could cast a sorcery.
5/4
// Nightmare of a Pierced Heart
Enchantment - Aura Curse Nightmare (U)
Enchant Player.
At the beginning of enchanted player's upkeep, Nightmare of a Pierced Heart deals 1 damage to that player.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Follow me on Twitch if you're interested in watching competitive league drafts.
Play MTGO? Check out my latest MTGO finance articles on Quiet Speculation.
I wasn't perfectly clear with the language on each, but each is doing roughly the same thing. When the card goes to the graveyard, you can pay 1R to put the back side of the card (the nightmare curse) into play. I don't think C has been done before. It's a transform for a cost that can only be activated from your graveyard.
I think B & C are better than A. The difference between B & C, practically speaking, is that C is more flexible because you are in control over which side you want the card to be in the graveyard. B is a simpler mechanic because you *have* to flip the card when it hits the graveyard. B is also better for newer players or for players who don't know the set because you don't have to remember what the back side of the card is. I suspect that you're right that B is the way to go. I'll wait for others to chime in before making a final decision. It means a lot that you found B flavorful - I think B presents the clearest flavor, and it's super important to me that that carry through.
As with Vivid, thank you for providing feedback. It really means a lot to me
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Follow me on Twitch if you're interested in watching competitive league drafts.
Play MTGO? Check out my latest MTGO finance articles on Quiet Speculation.
Do you want it to flip only if it entered the graveyard from the battlefield? Or if it entered for any reason? And I think the Nightmare mechanic would be better off if it was "always" on, and didn't give you the option of choosing which side was best.
SweatB
Instant (Rare)
Until end of turn, permanents your opponents controls enters the battlefield tapped.
//////////////////// TearsBB
Instant (Rare)
Fuse (You may cast both halves of this card.)
Destroy target tapped creature.
Does Fuse work here as it seems it's intended? Seems like the timing would be off. Or am I just completely misunderstanding?
Do you want it to flip only if it entered the graveyard from the battlefield? Or if it entered for any reason? And I think the Nightmare mechanic would be better off if it was "always" on, and didn't give you the option of choosing which side was best.
Hey LnGrrrR, I'm undecided on that question. I have this same dilemma with another mechanic - "Impress" -, although I may try to combine the two mechanics into one somehow. The benefit of "enter from anywhere" is that you can use it with non-permanent cards (like Startled Awake). However, they become more complex.
You and Blackwaltz both seem to have a preference for B. That lack of choice and modality leads to an appealing simplicity, so I think I'll probably go with that one. Although that version does go against Startled Awake.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
Edit: I'm sure I'll even return to the DCC at some point if the stars align correctly. After all, it has always been my favorite of the three main competitions.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
AugustJuly. Under the current system, the first through the final day of the month count towards a month's scores so the previous month's winner is calculated on the 2nd.I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
The present version solves every problem. You can make a 3UG card have a vivid cost of UUUGG. You can make a 3RR card have a 1RRRR vivid cost. There's a greater amount of flexibility here, and a flexibility that doesn't water down the significance of the flavor. This Vivid can contribute to the world of Rhymnir instead of dominate it. Vivid isn't exactly what I had in mind when I launched Rhymnir a month ago, but I see a lot of promise in the gameplay and immersive experience it offers. I felt really good today after I made Groundswell Behemoth. I'll keep designing vivid cards for the DCC this month to continue playing around with the mechanic, but I think I've arrived at a winner. Designing mechanics is really difficult.
@Black_Waltz: Thanks for the perspective. I see how Enrich could be helpful for creating a unique Cube experience. Interestingly, you can template every Enrich card as a Vivid card.
1) Vivid is an all or nothing mechanic. You either pay entirely in one color or you pay the normal casting cost. In examples such as your behemoth a player is forced to choose between a very difficult cost GGGGGG and a very mediocre creature 5G. The reward for being able to pay such a difficult cost is substantial, as well it should be, but enrich has a narrower gap between modes making both modes reasonably attainable.
With the enriched mode being easier to obtain, the bonus is also reined in a bit more.
If the behemoth were done as an enrich card your choice is between a 5G mode and a 3GGG mode. Forcing a player to be able to produce mana of only one color to get the maximum value from a card will often restrict that card’s playability to monocolor decks. Enrich clears that hurdle by rewarding heavy concentration in its color, but not requiring just that color.
I’d also note that with lower converted mana costs Enrich will take a 2B creature and merely require 1BB in order to make it enriched. Vivid would require BBB which is incredibly difficult to hit reliably outside of monocolor decks and this is particularly a problem in limited which encourages two sometimes even three color mana bases, and with lower rarities. How do you make the reward substantial enough to justify a BBB casting cost on a common? How about a RRRRR casting cost? Clearing a hurdle like this should offer a huge benefit, but at lower rarities you can’t easily deliver.
2) Multicolor. You state that you can make a Vivid card with a cost of 3UG have a cost of UUGGG. Why that exact combination? Why not UUUGG or UGGGG? Before you stated this, my intuition was that a multicolor vivid card would have a hybrid vivid cost. Having set combinations of colored costs for multicolored cards is cumbersome. Going with hybrid presents its own problems in that hybrid has its own design limitations in terms of the color pie but it makes more sense given that Vivid/Monochromatic are about color purity when casting spells. If 2G becomes GGG then 1UG would become or at least .
On the other hand, being able to go with UUG or UGG has its own advantages in that it allows you to keep a card multicolor in nature without using hybrid and can help stress the degree to which a card is green or blue in nature. For instance, a 1UG counterspell/pump effect that has a UUG mode may result in an enhanced counterspell, where a UGG mode instead would enhance the pump. There may even be an interesting application where a player can choose one or the other depending on what effect they want--only at rare or mythic given the complexity that entails.
Ultimately, I find that these mechanics wants to be applied to monocolored cards only as neither of the routes for multicolor mentioned above are particularly desirable. This is a mechanic that cares about color purity when casting spells, applying it to multicolor spells seems to run afoul of that goal. Thanks for listening to my rant here...lol. Best of luck on your custom set.
Regarding you 2nd point, a 3UG card could have several sorts of vivid costs, as you noted. It could be UGGGG, UUGGG, UUUGG, UUUUG, or 1UUGG, for example.
That said, I'm not going to pick any more. If you're happy with it then great. If something I've brought up helps fine-tune the mechanic, then also great. Cheers.
I like this version of Brim. Only took me 3 weeks to figure out one I liked (*sigh*). At the same time I discerned another version I would like as well - putting the time counters on it first and the brim ability triggering when you remove the last time counter and return it to your hand. The ability I put on the card in today's submission is more in keeping with traditional R&D design. The alternative I just mentioned might be better for TV because it sets up clear, visible points of anticipation toward which excitement can build, a consideration whose relevance I don't quite know how to weigh.
When X=3, you get 9 3/3s. At X=4, you get 16 3/3s. Just because there's an XX in the casting cost doesn't mean that "X" is halved throughout the rules text. If X=2, then X=2 throughout the card. To get the effect I think you want to have, you need to change "X 3/3 beast tokens" to "a 3/3 beast token".
Still not as good as Ancestral Recall
Is there some way to block this sort of thing in paper? Could the mechanic be rewritten? Perhaps there could be check cards in booster packs like in Shadows over Innistrad block where you mark the cards with Brainstorm that you have in your deck. I would prefer to keep the library functionality if possible.
Idealon of a Pierced Heart 3RR
Creature - Elemental Hellion (U)
Whenever Idealon of a Pierced Heart becomes blocked, it deals 2 damage to target player.
Nightmare - When Idealon of a Pierced Heart enters the graveyard, you may flip it and return it to your hand.
5/4
//
Nightmare of a Pierced Heart 1R
Enchantment - Aura Curse Nightmare (U)
Enchant Player.
At the beginning of enchanted player's upkeep, Nightmare of a Pierced Heart deals 1 damage to that player.
Idealon of a Pierced Heart 3RR
Creature - Elemental Hellion (U)
Whenever Idealon of a Pierced Heart becomes blocked, it deals 2 damage to target player.
Nightmare - When Idealon of a Pierced Heart enters the graveyard, flip it.
5/4
//
Nightmare of a Pierced Heart
Enchantment - Aura Curse Nightmare (U)
Enchant Player.
At the beginning of enchanted player's upkeep, Nightmare of a Pierced Heart deals 1 damage to that player.
Nightmare 1R (You may cast this spell from your graveyard for its Nightmare cost)
Idealon of a Pierced Heart 3RR
Creature - Elemental Hellion (U)
Whenever Idealon of a Pierced Heart becomes blocked, it deals 2 damage to target player.
Nightmare 1R - Flip this card and return it to the battlefield. Activate this ability only any time you could cast a sorcery.
5/4
//
Nightmare of a Pierced Heart
Enchantment - Aura Curse Nightmare (U)
Enchant Player.
At the beginning of enchanted player's upkeep, Nightmare of a Pierced Heart deals 1 damage to that player.
B is my favorite. Making it so the B side is only accessible from the grave feels flavorful for a mechanic with this name.
C is just transform for a cost. We've already seen this implementation of transform so there is no reason to call it something new.
I think B & C are better than A. The difference between B & C, practically speaking, is that C is more flexible because you are in control over which side you want the card to be in the graveyard. B is a simpler mechanic because you *have* to flip the card when it hits the graveyard. B is also better for newer players or for players who don't know the set because you don't have to remember what the back side of the card is. I suspect that you're right that B is the way to go. I'll wait for others to chime in before making a final decision. It means a lot that you found B flavorful - I think B presents the clearest flavor, and it's super important to me that that carry through.
As with Vivid, thank you for providing feedback. It really means a lot to me
Club Flamingo Wins: 1!
Does Fuse work here as it seems it's intended? Seems like the timing would be off. Or am I just completely misunderstanding?
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
Hey LnGrrrR, I'm undecided on that question. I have this same dilemma with another mechanic - "Impress" -, although I may try to combine the two mechanics into one somehow. The benefit of "enter from anywhere" is that you can use it with non-permanent cards (like Startled Awake). However, they become more complex.
You and Blackwaltz both seem to have a preference for B. That lack of choice and modality leads to an appealing simplicity, so I think I'll probably go with that one. Although that version does go against Startled Awake.
remember to vote
I have to admit, I'm a little bummed that I lost by 1 point to a card that's been done 473568 times. 😭