Some thoughts on the mechanics of Armulun - The Core:
Conqueror (As this enters the battlefield, put a conquer counter on an opponent land, it becomes captured by you.)
This feels like a state based binary mode to me. Similar to how a creature is either monstrous, or not monstrous. If the game play of Armulun wants to have control battles, conquering lands in terms of game play flow, should incorporate some sort of tit-for-tat to create some tension of having lands being conquered back and forth.
Personally I don’t like using counters to track binary states. Separating those cards on the battlefield is typically sufficient for memory tracking purposes. Much like how when a card is banished people tend to put it to a corner on their board, until it returns. Another alternative could be to have a tracker players are using, like with poison counters, and the board state could care about conquered thresholds like Ixalan did with the ‘City’s Blessing”.
Consider:
Border Patrol W
Creature - Dwarf Soldier C
Conquer (As this enters the battlefield, you may conquer target land an opponent controls. If you have conquered five or more lands an opponent controls you Reign Supreme over that player.)
For each player you reign supreme over, Border Patrol gets +1/+1 for each tapped land that player controls.
1/1
Obviously it plays very different from your initial design, but it does help with memory issues by establishing thresholds so that once hit threshold, you no long have to keep track of.
Inter (X: Exile this face down with X deep counters on it. You can cast it paying X less to cast it.)
This is exploring some space somewhere between suspend, delve, and the pact spells. Mechanically from your example this is a stable looking mechanic. I think it would need to be costed in a balanced way to ensure given that with the blue counterspell example it could be abusive for the blue player if they start ahead of an opponent who is behind. Cleaning up the template, I would consider recosting the spell for a common, and make sure it does some good things for the cost. Consider:
Serpents Invulnerability 2UU
Instant C
Counter target spell.
Scry 2.
Inter (Pay X and exile this card from your hand face down with X deep counters on it. You may cast this card from exile. It costs X less to where X is equal to the number of deep counters on it.)
Reshape
Making my creatures weaker to make an opponent discard cards is full of feel bads unless I know I’m going to get great value on returns through some kind of graveyard shenanigans. Unless I know my opponent has a big bomb card in hand that I need to hit, I would probably never activate this ability, unless the damage was somehow completely negated, I.E. Pacifism effect. For me I think this ability needs some restructuring to make it at least fun in some way. Mechanically speaking, instant speed, repeatable discard is also very degenerate. Mana costs are typical for this type of ability, at the very least this card should look similar to:
Internalized Dark 1BB
Creature - Shade C
Reshape – B,T, Put a -1/-1 counter on Internalized Dark: Target opponent discards a card. Activate this ability only as a sorcery.
3/2
Lost Counters
I’m looking at this ability, and wondering how to mechanically make that work. Consider cumulative upkeep. It uses age counters to track the cost of the ability trigger. But putting age counters on a permanent without the cumulative upkeep ability doesn’t create one for that permanent. From the comprehensive rules:
121.1. A counter is a marker placed on an object or player that modifies its characteristics and/or interacts with a rule, ability, or effect. Counters are not objects and have no characteristics.
So in other words there has to be additional rules creation to allow a creature that has a lost counter placed on it, to act in the way you expect, because the counter itself does not create an effect.
Like Conquer, Lost would need to become a state based action, that changes the expected state of the permanent in question. Either the creature is lost, or not lost. But having lost counters on a creature doesn’t necessarily mean it’s in a lost state.
702.16. Lost –
700.16.a - A creature that becomes lost gains “This creature can’t attack, block, or activate abilities unless its controller pay X, where X is equal to the number of lost counters on it.”
700.16.b - A lost creature can have any number of lost counters placed on it.
700.16.c – Multiple instances of lost on the same object are redundant.
Cleaning up the templates, to make these creatures work as you intended they would need to read along the lines of:
Tunnel Illutions U
Sorcery U
Up to three target creatures become lost. Distrubute three lost counters among those creatures. (Those creatures can’t attack, block, or activate abilities unless their controller pays X, where X is equal to the number of lost counters on that creature.)
Lost Survivior 1W
Creature - Human Soldier U
Whenever Lost Survivior dies, return it to the battlefield under its owner's control with two lost counters on it. It becomes lost. (Lost creatures can’t attack, block, or activate abilities unless their controller pays X, where X is equal to the number of lost counters on that creature.)
2/2
In summary:
I think there’s some good opportunity here to make a solid top down set design around this underground world. What I would pay attention to, is how your mechanics synergize. Conquering lands, and being lost based on the mechanics you have created don’t seem to want to play around in the same game space very much. Inter is very by itself as well. I think this set could benefit from some tinkering to bring together some cohesion. I mentioned tit-for-tat, maybe having cards that care about the conquered state that then cause opponents creatures to become lost would alleviate some the synergy concerns, and creature a game flow where both players are vying to establish board control could make for a great game play environment. Most players aren’t going to want to instinctively play downside cards unless they can convert those downsides into an upside. There’s a reason why Mercadian Masques block is quite reviled. That’s not to say that board state control fights are all bad, they just need to be managed so that each player feels like they are in control of the fight, and not just suffering from it. I would consider some of the ideas I’ve put out there. I see a lot of potential for Armulun - The Core, but no set can achieve that potential without refinement.
Also, As you’ve been posting cards, I recommend grouping them: Rarity/Color/CMC. Something along those lines. When evaluating a set as a whole, it’s easier to see the forest for the trees when the design skeleton is well lined out. You’re doing great, so keep plugging along, I’d be happy to provide additional feedback on individual designs once the whole set is complete.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Easy Dude. You're being very un-Dude.
____________________________________________
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Conqueror (As this enters the battlefield, put a conquer counter on an opponent land, it becomes captured by you.)
This feels like a state based binary mode to me. Similar to how a creature is either monstrous, or not monstrous. If the game play of Armulun wants to have control battles, conquering lands in terms of game play flow, should incorporate some sort of tit-for-tat to create some tension of having lands being conquered back and forth.
Personally I don’t like using counters to track binary states. Separating those cards on the battlefield is typically sufficient for memory tracking purposes. Much like how when a card is banished people tend to put it to a corner on their board, until it returns. Another alternative could be to have a tracker players are using, like with poison counters, and the board state could care about conquered thresholds like Ixalan did with the ‘City’s Blessing”.
Consider:
Border Patrol W
Creature - Dwarf Soldier C
Conquer (As this enters the battlefield, you may conquer target land an opponent controls. If you have conquered five or more lands an opponent controls you Reign Supreme over that player.)
For each player you reign supreme over, Border Patrol gets +1/+1 for each tapped land that player controls.
1/1
Obviously it plays very different from your initial design, but it does help with memory issues by establishing thresholds so that once hit threshold, you no long have to keep track of.
Inter (X: Exile this face down with X deep counters on it. You can cast it paying X less to cast it.)
This is exploring some space somewhere between suspend, delve, and the pact spells. Mechanically from your example this is a stable looking mechanic. I think it would need to be costed in a balanced way to ensure given that with the blue counterspell example it could be abusive for the blue player if they start ahead of an opponent who is behind. Cleaning up the template, I would consider recosting the spell for a common, and make sure it does some good things for the cost. Consider:
Serpents Invulnerability 2UU
Instant C
Counter target spell.
Scry 2.
Inter (Pay X and exile this card from your hand face down with X deep counters on it. You may cast this card from exile. It costs X less to where X is equal to the number of deep counters on it.)
Reshape
Making my creatures weaker to make an opponent discard cards is full of feel bads unless I know I’m going to get great value on returns through some kind of graveyard shenanigans. Unless I know my opponent has a big bomb card in hand that I need to hit, I would probably never activate this ability, unless the damage was somehow completely negated, I.E. Pacifism effect. For me I think this ability needs some restructuring to make it at least fun in some way. Mechanically speaking, instant speed, repeatable discard is also very degenerate. Mana costs are typical for this type of ability, at the very least this card should look similar to:
Internalized Dark 1BB
Creature - Shade C
Reshape – B,T, Put a -1/-1 counter on Internalized Dark: Target opponent discards a card. Activate this ability only as a sorcery.
3/2
Lost Counters
I’m looking at this ability, and wondering how to mechanically make that work. Consider cumulative upkeep. It uses age counters to track the cost of the ability trigger. But putting age counters on a permanent without the cumulative upkeep ability doesn’t create one for that permanent. From the comprehensive rules:
So in other words there has to be additional rules creation to allow a creature that has a lost counter placed on it, to act in the way you expect, because the counter itself does not create an effect.
Like Conquer, Lost would need to become a state based action, that changes the expected state of the permanent in question. Either the creature is lost, or not lost. But having lost counters on a creature doesn’t necessarily mean it’s in a lost state.
702.16. Lost –
700.16.a - A creature that becomes lost gains “This creature can’t attack, block, or activate abilities unless its controller pay X, where X is equal to the number of lost counters on it.”
700.16.b - A lost creature can have any number of lost counters placed on it.
700.16.c – Multiple instances of lost on the same object are redundant.
Cleaning up the templates, to make these creatures work as you intended they would need to read along the lines of:
Tunnel Illutions U
Sorcery U
Up to three target creatures become lost. Distrubute three lost counters among those creatures. (Those creatures can’t attack, block, or activate abilities unless their controller pays X, where X is equal to the number of lost counters on that creature.)
Lost Survivior 1W
Creature - Human Soldier U
Whenever Lost Survivior dies, return it to the battlefield under its owner's control with two lost counters on it. It becomes lost. (Lost creatures can’t attack, block, or activate abilities unless their controller pays X, where X is equal to the number of lost counters on that creature.)
2/2
In summary:
I think there’s some good opportunity here to make a solid top down set design around this underground world. What I would pay attention to, is how your mechanics synergize. Conquering lands, and being lost based on the mechanics you have created don’t seem to want to play around in the same game space very much. Inter is very by itself as well. I think this set could benefit from some tinkering to bring together some cohesion. I mentioned tit-for-tat, maybe having cards that care about the conquered state that then cause opponents creatures to become lost would alleviate some the synergy concerns, and creature a game flow where both players are vying to establish board control could make for a great game play environment. Most players aren’t going to want to instinctively play downside cards unless they can convert those downsides into an upside. There’s a reason why Mercadian Masques block is quite reviled. That’s not to say that board state control fights are all bad, they just need to be managed so that each player feels like they are in control of the fight, and not just suffering from it. I would consider some of the ideas I’ve put out there. I see a lot of potential for Armulun - The Core, but no set can achieve that potential without refinement.
Also, As you’ve been posting cards, I recommend grouping them: Rarity/Color/CMC. Something along those lines. When evaluating a set as a whole, it’s easier to see the forest for the trees when the design skeleton is well lined out. You’re doing great, so keep plugging along, I’d be happy to provide additional feedback on individual designs once the whole set is complete.
____________________________________________