Quote from Realmrunner »Restore a card?
A creature it's hunting?
Please provide reminder text for these so we know what is happening here.
Quote from rowanalpha »On one hand, feign is interesting design space, and I especially like how it makes multiple copies of legendary cards in a deck relevant. On the other the previous posters are right that it is problematic in Commander and Limited, which are probably the two most common ways magic is played.
An alternative to Feign finding a copy of the creature would be to search for another card with Feign. This makes feign usable in the aformentioned formats, and it becomes more like a tribal mechanic. I'd suggest removing the indestructible buff, as being able to dodge getting destroyed multiple times in a turn should cost more than one card out of your deck. It can be worded like regenerate instead.
Feign (If this creature would be destroyed, you may instead search your library for a card with Feign and put it into your graveyard. If you do, shuffle your library and remove all damage from this creature.)
Note on the wording: The "may" is so that you can ignore the trigger for something like -X/-X effects, where the creature would die no matter how many times you feigned. It also specifies "destroyed" so that the abuses the previous posters mentioned with Sac outlets won't happen. The "remove all damage" keeps the creature from dying again after the trigger for the same reason.
Lastly, for balance in the set you will want Feign on small and low toughness creatures. The cost to keep them from dying is minimal, if they are too hard to kill before feign triggers then it will be very overpowered. It also depends what the other mechanics in the set do.
Quote from Realmrunner »Okay, you covered feign and received feedback. What about the others?
I understand that you personally like to tease things, but it doesn't help anyone to do so. You want to let us know what you are having happen with the mechanics so we can give the feedback that will help you. Teasing doesn't do this.
Now, please (and simply without a wall of text) explain what restore and hunt are. You have to let people know what you are doing or else we can't help you make them better.
Also, using the phrase 'feigns dying' isn't what you want. "Whenever a feign ability triggers," would probably be better, imo.
Quote from rowanalpha »To your first point, you're not trying to market a set for sale. If you want to get critiqued on a specific mechanic, post in the main card creation forum and get feedback on that one item. This is subforum is for set creation and feedback, and getting feedback on a single mechanic without seeing how it interacts with the rest of the set makes the feedback less valuable.
On indomitable itself, you have to be careful with defensive combat keywords, since they can lead the game to becoming staring contests where no one wants to attack. That's not to say "defensive exhalted" can't work (its been proposed enough times in different threads) but without the understanding of how the rest of the set interact with it, it is hard to evaluate.
But that said, I can bend. What would you suggest?
Quote from rowanalpha »
For instance, earlier you said that each color has its own mechanic, but now there's Vanishing as well?
You are right about indomitable as it has less potential to lead to stalemate, but consider that a player is disincentivised to attack if they are going to lose their biggest/best creature, and having one huge blocker is going to make that scenario very common. Remember that combat naturally favors the defending player, so your design will need strategies to compensate for a single big blocker.
Quote from rowanalpha »I think you're overloading your set by adding vanishing. Morph was only kept in Khans after they came up with the Clan model because it worked well as pseudo-color fixing in a set that needed it. Vanishing is only adding complexity to the set here.
Restore needs to be reworded at the very least, because current wording lets you restore when you have no cards in hand. Also, it will trigger for each restore card in your graveyard regardless of how it is worded, but it currently lets you return your most valuable restore card for the lowest restore value among cards in your graveyard.
Finally, your wording will put the restored card on top, and then the cards from hand on top of that, meaning you don't get the card you restored for multiple draws.
Restore 2 (At the beginning of your upkeep, you may put exactly two cards from your hand on top of your library in any order. If you do, put [CARDNAME] on top of you library.)
This is better wording/order and it creates the dependency that you must have card in hand to restore. However, this mechanic is (a) will potentially create repetitive game states (like Buyback does) and (b) cost more than the effect is worth due to the loss of card advantage. Putting the restored card in hand instead of the top of the deck would solve the second problem, but not the first.
Manaburst is an interesting idea. It might make the effect more interesting if you found a way to make the ability scale with the amount of mana in the pool, rather than being two or more. This would encourage actually tapping out rather than tapping just enough to get the bonus.
I don't think hunt will play as well as you want it too, so you'd need top playtest this a lot. The opposite ability (Thorn Elemental) is good because it breaks stalemates, but in hunt's case it will rarely be better to deal damage to a create in place of just reducing the opponent's life total.
Having the hunter deal damage to the marked creature in addition to the player would create some more interesting choice, but mostly would just force the player to block with the marked creature. Having each creature hunting a different creature and changing those targets each turn will also create memory issues.
Here's an out of the box idea, based on the monarch:
When this creature enters the battlefield, target creature or planeswalker becomes the hunted. (Whenever that permanent's controller is dealt combat damage, that much damage is dealt to the hunted)
The hunted becomes a marker that only one creature at a time can have, and means that whatever damage the player doesn't block also gets dealt to that creature. There might be a way to make it only relevant to creatures with the Hunt ability, but I'd need to think harder on the wording.
There's not really cross mechanic synergy (think Surveil/Jumpstart in GRN or Outlast/Ferocious in Khans), so you'll need to find ways to make archetypes between colors that are relevant for draft.
Quote from DJK3654 »Feign (latest version) seems like a lot of searching and shuffling for what you're getting out of it. The cost there is also pretty small in practice, as your opponent will lose a lot of value repeatedly trying to kill creatures to bleed you off feign cards and may therefore often not bother, so these cards are going to be quite powerful. And that may make it a little hard to balance, and may be frustrating to play against.
I would suggest changing the cost from searching for feign cards to mill to discarding any creature card. This makes them more flexible and less parasitic, removes the fiddle time of searching and shuffling, and means you get more out of trying to kill a feign creature so you're encouraged to do it more often and feel less bad about it when you have to do it.
The problem with defensive mechanics like Indomitable is not just whether they encouraged stalled board states, it's that they are not proactive and don't encourage interaction in the game. When you are encouraged to attack, you and your opponent who's on the defence are both forced into making interactive decisions. Things happen. When you are encouraged to hold up blockers, your opponent is often going to be forced to hold back more as well and may not attack at all. Even if the overall board states with a mechanic don't become less interactive and more stalled, the mechanic itself wants to be at the center of the interaction in the game because that's the fun part. Mechanics that live in the less fun parts of the game, well, they're less fun.
Indomitable is often going to serve to intimidate the opponent into making different attacks, maybe attacking with more creatures to force you to block with multiple or not attacking at all, in such a way that it isn't always going to actually trigger and often won't actually make any big trades. Especially with newer players who can often be intimidated by the prospect of losing their creatures when they attack. Exalted, on the other hand, is often going to trigger every turn, and actually directly affect the game with a big swing of damage going somewhere.
Restore gives me terrible flashbacks to dredge. That is not a good comparison for a mechanic to have. That said, the mechanic is actually too weak right now, in line with what Rowanalpha said. Not only are you losing card advantage, you're not even getting the card you wanted for multiple turns.
Manaburst is interesting, but I think it has two issues. One is that the mana pool is on the high end of complexity for something you're going to want at low rarities in some number (it's a large part of why they removed reference to the mana pool from mana generation effects). This is especially so given the unconventional way this effect wants you to play with mana. The second is that this effect is almost always going to function exactly like Kicker when you just let the mana expire or like Surge when you play it with another effect.
Hunt suffers from similar reactive problems to Indomitable. Set mechanics usually want to do something good for you, not hurt your opponent's things, because players don't like having their stuff hurt as much as they like getting good stuff, and because it's dependant on what your opponent is doing as to how useful it is.
If your opponent is playing weenies, then hunt isn't going to be as rewarding when you're just hitting 1/1s and 2/2s, or if your opponent is playing a creature-light (or creatureless) control deck then hunt might do nothing much of the time.