So it sounds like Seance 2 is probably the best bet, then. The main reason I liked v1 over v2 is because I figured with more triggers, the power level has to drop. But I realized afterwards that it's not necessarily a drop; the power level just becomes more driven by the cost/rarity of the card it's on rather than an intrinsic level. That'll probably be what I end up doing, then.
So a quick rundown of the different combo ability ideas I have. Keep in mind I do NOT plan on trying to implement ALL of them in the same set These are just all my ideas, the pool from which I will narrow down to just a few. I figure I may as well post them here for feedback, maybe.
WU = Light manipulation and mental manipulation = Image (Whenever this blocks a creature, reveal the top card of your library. If it’s a creature card, this creature’s power and toughness become those of the revealed card until end of turn.)
UB = Mediumship and mental manipulation = Seance--Whenever this card is put into a graveyard from anywhere, you may pay [COST]. If you do, [EFFECT]
BR = Mediumship and chaotic pyrokinesis = Cremate [COST] ([COST], exile this creature card from your graveyard: it deals damage to target creature or player equal to its power.)
RG = Chaotic pyrokinesis and interconnectedness/altruism, neither of which care about planning ahead = Brash (If you would draw your first card each turn, you may instead have this get +N/+N until end of turn.)
GW = Interconnectedness and color manipulation = Sunburst on creatures (This ETB with a +1/+1 counter on it for each color of mana spent to cast it.) Note: the second set in the block, where all these alliances are formed, will be focused on 2-color alliances (think Ravnica but not). So while players CAN make a 3 or 4 color deck, they'll get most value out of a 2-color deck, so Sunburst will stick to around 2 most often.
WB = The light and the dark...these guys are opposite ends of the war, I don't see them coming together often = N/A?
UR = Chaos and mental manipulation = Action keyword: Mindwash? (To mindwash, discard your hand, then draw cards equal to the number of cards discarded this way.) Note: Basically Super Looting, or like a discard version of Whirlpool Warrior.
BG = Mediumship and Connection with Nature = Leech [COST] (When this creature dies, you may pay [COST]. If you do, exile this card. Return it to your graveyard at the beginning of your next main phase and add its casting cost to your mana pool.)
RW = Combative and Governmental = Coordinate N (At the beginning of your end step, if you attacked with a creature this turn, put N 1/1 white Soldier creature tokens onto the battlefield tapped.)
GU = Altruistic buffs and Mental manipulation = Daunting (This can only be blocked by creatures with greater toughness than it.)
I don't know of any game stores within accessible range from where I am now, unfortunately. I also don't have much experience with cockatrice, but I can certainly try it out and see if I can get something...workable. Thanks for the tips!
Hm. Well, if I want to stick with possession flavor, your version is definitely MUCH better than mine! It's more elegant, more playable, and still fits all the flavor, so thank you for that! My problem is that now... I kind of like both Ancestral and the first Seance. (I'd probably have to rename Ancestral, though, because neither the black faction nor the blue in my plane would give a crap about their ancestors ) In fact, I absolutely love seance, except that there isn't much milling planned, so triggering it would be difficult... I'm actually starting to wonder if I should think about more mill in U/B to allow for Seance enablers... only thinking of U/B mill makes me a little wary of copying Dimir... ugh, such back-and-forth in my mind
Speaking of milling, I also thought of another possibility while reading your suggestions, so maybe I could get feedback on that before I decide? I was thinking how milling fits U/B because the library is sometimes representative of the mind, so it brings cards from the mind to the grave, blue to black. But what about the other way around? Like this action word, which is essentially Reito Lantern's ability, only keyworded and specific to just creatures:
Exhume (To exhume, put target creature card from your graveyard onto the bottom of your library.)
Is that a thing that could be? Because then you might have a spell that says something like "Exhume, then shuffle your library." Or, "Exhume. Then, if you have fewer than N creature cards in your graveyard, [effect]." Or even, "Exhume, then search your library for a creature card, reveal it, and put it into your hand. You lose 3 life." Or even more cards that care specifically about bottom of library--Grenzo, Dungeon Warden shows there's some interesting design space left to play with there.
Or maybe switching to mill and using Seance is better. Or maybe it's best to stick with your elegant Possess variant. I don't know. I need guidance
So it seems we have a path. Separate quest decks, with the sorcery-speed ability of "pay [constant number A] mana. Sacrifice all quests you control, then look at the top [constant number B] cards of your quest library, cast one, and put the rest on the bottom of your library in a random order".
And now we come to the biggest problem... I can't playtest anything >_< . I recently moved back home, and none of my friends here play Magic. And I can't play this online, because no application supports a custom format like this (especially with two decks). So, yeah... I'm limited to theory and design, without the possibility of playtesting. If anyone else would like to playtest it, be my guest; I've got 7 quests designed already, and can make plenty more for you to use, and of course anyone can design new quests as well. But I'm stuck in the design department.
I am still interested in seeing new quest designs, though, now that we've (essentially) gotten the format narrowed down, so if anyone makes new ones, please post them here for us to see!
I see where you're coming from, and I'm starting to agree more and more about keeping the quests separate from the main deck. I'll now respond to your 5 ideas...it will sound like a lot of "I don't like this...", but only one idea can win
I don't like ideas 3 through 5 because of the communal aspect they have in common. Magic is a CCG--a collectible card game. Part of the fun is collecting your own cards and using them to build up your decks. You really lose that feeling of, "Oooh, I just got this new quest card that I love, and it's mine!" when everyone's cards are thrown together each game. And speaking of bad feelings, what about those who build their decks around meeting the conditions for the quests they have, but then the other players all get YOUR quests and you're stuck with theirs, which your deck is not built to do? The idea of having to sit through a game with a deck built for, say, graveyard quests, and having your opponent get yours and you get instant/sorcery quests instead.... it just doesn't sit well with me in terms of fun.
#2 I don't like for a simple reason: it limits the length of a game's "funness" (I know, that's not a word). Some games can go on very long (consider a 3 or 4 player Commander game... it can last many HOURS), and only being able to try for a small number of quests can get old fast. To keep it fresh, it needs some variety, so there should be a (relatively) large source of new quests to pull out when you're done trying for the ones you have.
So now we're left with #1. I do think that having a separate quest deck is probably looking like the best option. The devil is in the details: what's the best way to get those quests out? If you're forced to play whatever's on top when you decide for a new quest, that adds variation, but it removes strategy. I think you're definitely onto something with your idea of "look at the top N, play one, put the rest on the bottom". Here are the questions about that which need to be answered/balanced:
When do you look at the top N? I'm assuming whatever starts the process will be at sorcery speed, but what triggers it? Do you pay mana? If so, how much mana, since it needs to be a constant? Is it always, for example, 3 mana to see the top 3? Or maybe it could be that for 2 mana you can look at the top 2 cards, but for every 2 mana you spend after that you can look one card deeper? (Example: I pay 2 mana to look at the top 2 cards; 4 mana to look at the top 3; 6 mana to look at the top 4; etc.) Or maybe it's not even mana payments. Perhaps it could be similar to Planechase's planar die, only you roll a normal D6 (up to once each turn) and if it lands on X, then you look at the top X quests, play one, and bottom-tuck the rest?
Oooorrrrrrr, here's a thought: what if, instead of mana, you pay by giving up victory points? So you start the game with the top card of your quest deck in play, and you use that quest to earn victory points (if it's a Delegate quest, you bottom-deck it and take the first card again until it's one that stays on the field). Then you can pay 2*N victory points to look at the top N cards of your quest deck, play one, and tuck the rest. This way, changing quests costs you the thing that helps you win, but it gives you the chance of earning much more back if you get a quest you're more able to complete. If we go this route, perhaps Singletons implicitly let you flip the top card of the quest deck when they're sacced to their own condition (no looking, just the top card directly into play). Just so if you end up with no quests because you've COMPLETED the last Singleton, you're not penalized victory points for getting a new one.
I'm liking the ideas so far! And yeah, I know my ideas aren't perfect... especially the enemy colors (I'm pretty sure I said brown is against purple and also purple... the color wheel is confusing me >_< ). So as I said, any and all ideas are welcome!
The idea of orange being the recursion color because of memory is brilliant! I will definitely be editing that into the original post! Thanks, GG Crono
If anyone has any idea how to fix the enemy colors thing so that they...you know, work... that would be a great help. I went through three iterations and apparently still screwed it up
And, @Figurative, next to each icon I put the URL to the image, so just put it in [*img] tags (without the * of course) to get the symbol.
Digestive Rat Creature - Rat
When Digestive Rat enters the battlefield, destroy target creature with toughness 2 or less, then put a +1/+1 counter on Digestive Rat. Some call it a crunch, others a squish. Those who know it best just call it an omnomnom.
1/1
*EDIT* So, given the BOPIY color wheel (in that order), I think it ends up with the following enmities:
*Purple vs Brown/Yellow
*Pink vs Brown/Orange
Yellow vs Orange/Purple
Brown vs Pink/Purple
*Orange vs Yellow/Pink
The ones with *'s are ones that I got right in the OP and so they at least have tentative explanations (that could definitely use work). But I don't know how to explain the other two at all. Why would sight be against both smell and touch? And why would hearing be against both taste and touch?
Wow. That's a lot of feedback...which is good, but also bad, because I can't respond to it all now >_< I'll try to hit as many points as I can, though.
Re: always having access like Commander or Conspiracy cards. There's a major difference: knowledge. You always know what your commander is. You always know what your own conspiracies are. And you rarely have more than a few of them (never more than one commander, of course ). Quests, on the other hand, are unknown. You know what 15 or so quests you have in your deck, but you don't know wheat the next quest you'll draw is. Since it's unknown to begin with, I figured that putting it in your library would give you the same basic experience. As for the size constraints, they're all minima. So you can't remove cards to slot in quests, or you'd have too few non-quest cards. I know I listed it as "X-Y cards", but that maximum can be relaxed (or removed) if it makes more sense. But there should definitely be a minimum number of quests for a quest-based format, and definitely a minimum number of non-quest cards to keep players from just running half of their library as quests (which removes the conventional Magic aspect very much).
That said, if it were a separate deck, that leads to the question: how do you get quests? If you just draw one every turn, then it's no different from being in your maindeck (except that it's guaranteed one per turn, I suppose), but then you have twice as many cards in hand, which mucks things up. If you flip it over and replace the old one each turn, then you have no strategy in deciding which quests you want to work on. It becomes simply "Do whatever I flip, no decisions allowed", which is a bit...randomized. There should be variance in when you GET the quests, but you should also be able to decide which quests you want to fulfill when once you have them. The other option suggested is have a cost to draw from the quest deck. That might be fine... actually, I can't see what would be a problem with that, so maybe that's the path that should be developed? So, you'd have a quest deck, shuffled and separate from your main deck, and at sorcery speed you can pay some constant X to draw from it?
Moving, on regarding the color rules... a new frame would be a great idea. The thing is that I'm using Magic Set Editor to produce the cards, and I don't know how to make new templates for it, so all of my ideas are constrained to the various existing Magic frames. So with that restriction in mind, the always-gold idea helps differentiate them, especially with no costs. Which brings me to my next point about costs... they're assumed to have 0 casting cost if there's no printed costs because really, they were originally designed NEVER to have casting costs. Kind of like lands, except you can play as many per turn, at sorcery speed, as you want. I only put the rules in for quests with casting costs as a "just in case, for the future" clause...but maybe they should just be limited to never having casting costs anyway? So then like lands, they're treated as CMC0 for cards that care about those things, but it's never printed. And they should be colorless, I think, because color indicates the alignment of mana used to summon/cast it, and quests are not summoned nor cast (well, they're mechanically cast for rules reasons, but flavorfully, they're just "accepted").
The idea behind Store was to add strategy to the quests. They're not all just about getting the triggers off--they're also about knowing when to save your resources and when to use a little bit to save victory points for later. As for the quest counters, there's an important reason for them: interactivity. Let's compare and contrast the difference between my original Taste for Blood and the only-points, no-counters version.
My version: I play a Doubling Season, then play Taste for Blood, then swing for 6 damage with some creature. That puts 2 quest counters on my quest thanks to Doubling Season. Then, in my second main phase, I can play Aggressive Behavior to sac Taste for Blood, giving me TWO victory points instead of the 1 that would happen without counters. But wait! Just as I cast Aggressive Behavior, my opponent sacs his Vampire Hexmage in response, removing all the counters from Taste for Blood. Things resolve, I still have to sac Taste for Blood, but I get no points because my opponent was smarter than me.
Your version: Everything happens as above, except without counters, my Doubling Season does nothing. In addition, my opponent can't stop me from gaining the one victory point when I play Aggressive Behavior, because I've already gotten the point, no going back. Without counters, the number of interactions with quests becomes very...limited, both on the side of the player and the opponent.
I don't really want to use the new legend rule for these, though maybe I can be convinced with a good reason besides "it's what players expect"--they don't expect anything, quests are new . I much prefer the "keep the last one you gained control of" version. Why? For two reasons. The first is flavor. It doesn't make sense to accept a quest, then immediately go back to an old quest. The other is mechanical use. It doesn't really make sense to play a quest only to immediately sac it, except maybe to trigger "permanents ETB" effects, I guess. But that's fairly narrow, since it's a new type not referenced by any other cards specifically. Then there's the issue of getting quests donated to you. The flavor there is "here, I'm magically making you go on this quest." If the player can just sac the one that was donated, it gives no chance to do things like replacing your opponent's filled-up quest with a new one that's almost impossible for him to trigger anyway! More interaction is generally my goal here.
Here's what I'm hoping from this format: it will mostly feel like regular Magic. You're still trying to win. But in addition, you're also trying to trigger different conditions so that even if you lose, you might still win. If that makes sense. Let's consider a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 is "totally conventionally focused" and 10 is "totally quest focused". I want the format to rank a 6 or 7. I don't want quests to be the ENTIRE point of playing, I just want it to be a fun supplement to the game that helps with alternate wincons. Speaking of which, even if the quests are free, you're not getting wincons for free--the quests mean nothing unless you put in the resources and strategy to trigger them!
Also, while quests are focused on the "trigger it, gain points" aspect, they won't all be inactive rocks. Some will do things similar to enchantments, often related to the number of quest counters on them (another reason to keep the counters!). For example, I designed this card last night:
Non-Rock Quest
Note that it continues to hurt you until you're dead unless you can sac it for points earlier. Keep in mind this is probably going to be a multiplayer-encouraged format, so losing doesn't mean the game ends. The longer you're in the game, the more points you can rack up, and the more likely you'll win for the winner's prize points. And even if it's 2-player, if you lose, your opponent gets the 15 points for winning (or 20...like I said, the number needs calibration).
There might also be Ongoing quests with maxima (i.e. "sac this when it has X or more quest counters on it") or ones that do something in addition to gaining counters when they trigger. Basically like enchantments, but ones that give you points towards a win.
I don't know about that... your version would give players guaranteed access to quests at all times, which I know is what you were going for, but that just doesn't sit well with me. Part of the fun of Magic, for me, is the luck of the draw (and the skill of manipulating your draws and tutors to fix that luck). Just like you can't always be guaranteed to get your bombs out, I don't think you should be guaranteed to get your quests out unless you take as much care to do so as you would with any other important spells. And as for your "drawing too few or too many"... getting mana screwed and mana flooded is part of Magic, and it doesn't call for having a separate land deck. Same goes here: if you get Quest screwed or Quest flooded, then your Quest distribution is off, you got unlucky, or you need to focus on ways to get Quests out a little more. Just like with mana.
I'm thinking the quests wouldn't count towards deck size limits. So in Standard, the deck size would be 60 cards + quests. This way, existing decks don't necessarily need to be modified besides shuffling in some quests and you're ready to go. But then, as you said, if players WANT to build around their quests, they can start modifying the other cards as well. Maybe, to prevent issues, there could be a limit to the number of quests in each deck? Something like this:
Standard Magic Quest: 60 non-quest card minimum, plus between 5 and 15 quests; non-quests can have up to 4-of, quests can have up to 2-of.
Commander Magic Quest: 100 non-quest cards (including your Commander), plus between 10 and 30 quests; all cards, including quests, are singleton
...etc...
I still think that not having guaranteed quests is the way to go. In a format focused on quests, you should need to focus on getting them out just as much as you focus on getting anything else out in Magic.
*EDIT* Sorry for not waiting for responses as I continue development on this. I will take all suggestions into consideration, I'm just excited enough to continue developing it >_< .
So I've come up with a concept for an ability on certain quest cards called Delegate. If a quest says "Delegate to a Goblin," for instance, then when that quest enters the battlefield, it's attached to a Goblin you control. The quest's trigger is specific to the delegated Goblin. Flavorfully, it's you tasking one of your creatures to go on the quest for you, and mechanically, it allows for quest triggers specific to one creature's actions rather than global to everything you do. I figure it'll usually be on Ongoing or Singleton quests, though some normal quests might have it as well. Here's a sample:
Delegate Example
And here are the updates to the CR that I think would be needed to support Magic Quest variants:
CR Update for Magic Quest Variants
314. Quests
314.1 Quest cards are used only in Magic Quest variants. They are illegal in all other formats.
314.2 Quest cards are always gold-bordered and are always considered colorless, regardless of any mana symbols on them, unless a card specifically says otherwise.
314.3 Quest cards with no printed casting cost are considered to have a casting cost of 0 at all times.
314.4 Quests cards are played like any other permanents. When casting a quest card, it is put onto the stack, then enters the battlefield, like any permanent would.
314.5 Whenever you control more than one quest, sacrifice all but the one you gained control of most recently. This is a state-based action (see rule 704).
314.6 There are several subtypes of quests.
314.7 Ongoing quests
314.7a An Ongoing quest usually puts quest counters on itself when certain trigger conditions are met. These are triggered abilities (see rule 603).
314.7b Whenever an Ongoing quest leaves the battlefield for any reason, or its controller loses the game, or the game ends, remove all quest counters from it, and its controller gains that many victory points.
314.8 Singleton quests
314.8a A Singleton quest usually does not use quest counters. Instead, it has a triggered ability which sacrifices itself and gains its controller victory points.
314.9 Normal quests
314.9a Quests without any subtypes are considered normal quests.
314.9b Normal quests have triggered abilities which put quest counters on them, like Ongoing quests. However, you do not automatically redeem those counters for victory points when they leave the battlefield.
314.9c Normal quests usually have the activated ability Store N--COST
314.9d Store is an activated abiliity. Store N--COST means "COST, remove exctly N quest counters from this quest: You gain N victory points."
314.9e If you cannot pay the cost, you cannot activate a Store ability.
314.9f You must remove exactly the specified number of quest counters to activate a Store ability. If you cannot, you cannot activate the ability.
---------
702.106 Delegate
702.106a Delegate is a triggered ability found on quests, written "Delegate to a(n) [permanent]". It means, "When this quest enters the battlefield, attach it to target [permanent] you control".
702.106b You can cast a quest spell with delegate even if it has no legal targets for the ability. If you do, it enters the battlefield unattached from anything.
702.106c If a quest with delegate is on the battlefield but not attached to anything, it is put into its owner's graveyard as a state-based action (see rule 704).
702.106d An ability of a permanent that refers to the "delegated [object]" refers to whatever object that permanent is attached to, even if the permanent with the ability isn't a quest.
-----------
906. Magic Quest
906.1 The Magic Quest variant is a casual variant that builds on top of other variants.
906.2 A Magic Quest deck is subject to the construction rules of its underlying format, with the following additions.
906.2a In Standard Magic Quest, each deck must contain 5 to 15 quest cards IN ADDITION TO the usual 60 card minimum, with no more than two of any quest card with a particular English name.
906.2b In Commander Magic Quest, each deck must contain 10 to 25 quest cards IN ADDITION TO the usual 100 cards. Each quest card in a Commander Magic Quest deck must have a different English name.
906.3 Quest cards allow players to gain victory points (see rule 314).
906.4 If a player would win a Magic Quest game, instead he or she gains 15 victory points and the game ends.
906.5 When a Magic Quest game ends, each player totals up their victory points, and the player with the most victory points wins the game.
Looking through my old card creations listed under the "Random Set", I found a group of 4 cards that I made a long time ago for some forum topic somewhere, but they really intrigued me! So I want to re-invigorate the idea by posting it here and getting C&C from you all!
The cards were for a new format of Magic where the winner was decided not necessarily by the last man standing, but by victory points. A new type of card, Quests, would allow you to gather victory points while you played an otherwise normal game of Magic in any format of your choice. Winning the game conventionally (being the last person alive) would also give you a large number of victory points (I guessed about 15 or 20, though the number needs to be calibrated). When the game ends, everyone totals their victory points, and the person with the most wins.
So, how do you earn victory points? What are these "Quests"? Well, here's the run-down.
Quests are cards which almost never have any casting cost, but always have a gold frame. (Even Quests which do have monocolor casting costs still have gold frames.) Quests are always considered colorless by default, regardless of any mana symbols on them.
You can cast quests from your hand at sorcery speed. Those with no mana costs may be cast for free (if no casting cost is printed, they're treated as though they have a casting cost of ). They go onto the stack and act like any sorcery-speed permanent being cast. However, whenever a Quest enters the battlefield under your control or whenever you gain control of a Quest, you must sacrifice all other Quests you control. You may only ever have up to one Quest on the battlefield under your control at a time. Once on the field, they are permanents of type Quest, so anything that deals with "permanents" can deal with them as well. (So, for example, they can be Confiscated just fine.)
Quests generally have certain trigger conditions on them formatted like triggered abilities. There are three main subtypes of Quests, and how you gain victory points from their triggered abilities depends on the type.
Ongoing Quests
An Ongoing Quest may have its condition triggered over and over as long as it's on the field. Each time its condition is triggered, you put a quest counter on it. Whenever an Ongoing Quest leaves the battlefield (or you win or lose the game), you remove all quest counters from it and gain that many victory points.
Ongoing Quest Example
Taste for Blood Quest -- Ongoing (When an Ongoing Quest leaves the battlefield or you win or lose the game, remove all quest counters from it and you gain that many victory points.)
Whenever a creature you control deals 6 or more damage to an opponent, put a quest counter on Taste for Blood.
Singleton Quests
A Singleton Quest can only earn you a set number of victory points one time. Generally, when you trigger a Singleton's condition, you gain victory points and then must sac the Quest. Some Singletons may give you the option not to sac it, but if you don't, you don't get the victory points yet.
Mandatory Singleton Quest Example
Necromancy Practice Quest -- Singleton
Whenever a creature enters the battlefield under your control from a graveyard, sacrifice Necromancy Practice. If you do, you gain 5 victory points.
Optional Singleton Quest Example
Treasure Hunter Quest -- Singleton
Whenever an artifact enters the battlefield under your control, you may sacrifice Treasure Hunter. If you do, you gain victory points equal to the number of artifacts you control.
Normal Quests
Normal Quests are similar to Ongoing Quests in that you can trigger their conditions repeatedly to add quest counters to them. However, you don't automatically get victory points when they leave the battlefield. Instead, normal Quests all have an activated ability called Store, which is of the format Store N--[COST]. At instant speed, you may pay [COST] and remove exactly N quest counters from the Quest to gain that many victory points. Keep in mind that you MUST pay the cost, and you MUST remove exacly N counters--so if you don't have enough counters on it, you can't convert them to victory points! Also remember that if a normal Quest leaves the battlefield, any counters on it disappear and you do NOT get victory points for those, either. So you need to be strategic in deciding when to store your accumulated points!
Normal Quest Example
Aggressive Behavior Quest
Whenever all creatures you control able to do so attack together, if you control three or more creatures, put a quest counter on Aggressive Behavior.
Store 3--4(4, remove 3 quest counters from this Quest: You gain 3 victory points.)
So, what do you all think about it? Is it an interesting format to you, too, the way it is to me? Is it worth designing Quests for and playtesting? Would anyone want to help me design new Quests, or other cards which interact with Quests and/or victory points? And what should the victory point prize be for winning a game (i.e. 15, 20, more, less)?
Gift of the Naiad2UU Tribal Instant - Nymph
Target creature is unblockable until end of turn. Return it to its owner's hand at the beginning of the next end step. He felt the power...the speed...the agility...and then he felt nothing but cold and darkness.
Next: A human (or humanoid) wizard has his hands on either side of a large demon's head. Both of them have their eyes closed, and an aura surrounds them, seeming to travel between the two minds.
Xaosll, thanks for the link. I added a term to remove "protection" from the search and found they're mostly white anyway. So what I'm hearing is "it's not used often, but when it is, white certainly has it." Which is very good news for me! My light-bending Astrals can remain as they are! Yay!
From time to time, everyone talks about new colors beyond WUBRG. The usually say, "Let's throw in purple" or "how about yellow", and then try to design an identity for it. The problem is that inserting something new into the color pie shifts identities, alliances, and oppositions around with the existing 5 colors, and makes things...confusing.
But what if there's an alternate reality where the original 5 colors had a totally different basis for their identities? Imagine a world where blue doesn't represent intelligence; red doesn't represent passion; green doesn't represent nature; white doesn't represent order; and black doesn't represent ambition. Imagine a world where the colors are each instead based upon the Five Senses.
Now, although I'm suggesting the original colors would have different identities, for the sake of clarity, this thread will not be using WUBRG, but instead will be using BOIPY:
(Ignore the symbols on them. These images were "borrowed" from the Magic Set Editor forums' smileys and had their own identities in mind.)
So I'll describe each of their identities, and then this thread will be everyone making cards in this bizarro color pie
BOIPY Color Pie
Yellow is based on sight. Thematically, it trusts what it sees and manipulates what others see; but that leads to problems when there's internal struggle, as they begin to trust things that are not what they seem. Mechanically, this might perhaps be represented by, for example, clones, color-changing/color-matters, type-changing/type-matters, transform cards, illusions, etc. Or something else--be creative!
Brown is based on hearing. Thematically, it trusts what it hears more than what it sees. This allows it to know certain things are happening even when it's not looking at them, but it also means when things are quiet, it's vulnerable. Mechanically, brown may do things like ignore buffs (they can hear what's under the visual tricks), flash in blockers (they can hear the enemy coming and prepare for ambush), etc.
Purple is based on touch/feeling. Thematically, it doesn't trust anything until it's got it in its hands. Similar to the existing red, purple is aggressive. It hits first and doesn't ask questions, because once it's made contact, it doesn't have any more questions. Mechanically, it's all about combat: asymmetrically high power and toughness (so 1/5 or 5/1 might both be common purple stats), attack triggers, block triggers, the whole nine yards of combat love.
Pink is based on taste. Thematically, it's big on eating. It'll eat just about anything, living or dead, safe or dangerous. Mechanically, it's very removal-focused: exile and destruction, often for buffs, and from just about any zone imaginable. It's like the removal of white and black had a child together. It also sometimes digests its victims and returns them broken, i.e. replaces a removed creature with a weaker or detrimental version in token form.
Orange is based on smell. It relishes in odors that would make others vomit, and often it relishes in the stench of their vomit as well. Mechanically, orange is big on withery things: -1/-1 counters, -X/-X effects, etc. It sometimes also scares away others with its stenches, leading to temporary removal (i.e. bouncing or straight-up flickering). And as the sense most tied to memory, orange is also the color of recursion, bringing spells back from the graveyard and even, when powerful enough, creatures. (Thanks to GG Crono for the memory suggestion!)
Enemies (Ignore until they're more developed and less..broken)
Purple vs Brown/Yellow (because purple needs to be hands-on, while brown and yellow can sense things in the distance)
Yellow vs Pink/Orange (because taste and smell are chemical senses, while yellow's sight doesn't rely on material things)
Orange vs Pink/Yellow (against yellow because it doesn't get close enough to smell anything, and against pink because once it eats something, it destroys the smell)
Brown vs Purple/Purple (because sight and touch are too "narrow" compared to brown's hearing)
Pink vs Orange/Brown (because smell and sound can only enjoy things vicariously, they can't absorb the things they enjoy)
(Note that clockwise in this new pie, the acronym is actually BOPIY...that's just less pronounceable.)
Some of that...needs work. I know. If you'd like to develop the identities more here, please do so! It'll be fun! You can even help decide which tribes belong to which color, including potentially new tribes! But now that the basics are laid down...
Here's the main point of this game/thread: design cards for this weird color pie (possible using the symbol images I provided, or else just using their letters from BOIPY). Make sure they fit the sense-based identities, but otherwise, feel free to be creative! New mechanics, new game dynamics, anything is possible in this bizarro world! Just as long as the overall framework is clearly MTG, anything goes
I'll start:
Sharpear Scout Creature - Elf
Listen (Whenever this blocks or is blocked by another creature, treat that creature as though it had only its printed power and toughness.) In the forests of Landinar, the Sharpears stand on the borders, listening for threats... and intruders aren't loud for long once they've been heard.
2/2
It's of course designed to ignore buffs. Two rulings: "In the case of variable printed power or toughness, treat all unknowns as 0s." Also, "If a creature would have a printed toughness of 0 after Listen is considered, it instead has a toughness of 1 for the purposes of the Listening creature."
So I was just wondering... is there one specific color in Magic that cares about the colors of other permanents or cards more than the rest? I ask because in the custom set I'm working on, the white faction does this very much (for flavor reasons), and I've started to wonder if it's actually in white's color pie or not. I tried to Google it, but found nothing; I searched gatherer for "color", but things like "one mana of any color" and Intimidate interfered and made it hard to determine. I then tried "colors", but "in addition to its other colors" and "add mana in any combination of colors" got me there.
Does anyone know if there's a certain piece of the color pie that cares more about card color than the others? And...is it white, by chance?
@Thought Criminal: So for Leech, would this be the better way to word it, then? (On cheaper creatures or more expensive rares and mythics):
Leech [COST] (When this creature dies, you may pay [COST]. If you do, exile this card. Return it to your graveyard at the beginning of your next main phase and add its casting cost to your mana pool.)
It's getting a little wordy, but does that work better and prevent memory issues, since all your leeched cards will be exiled until they're "used"?
As for Possess... I guess that works a little better, though it's still very wordy... as a replacement effect, I figured the cost of casting it would already be paid before the possess kicked in, but if it can't do that, then I'd make it Possess N--COST instead. Which adds more words to the reminder text...
@Willows: Well...yes, and also it has the CMC limitation on the target. But you might be right that it's a little derivative...
@Everyone: So, let's say for argument's sake I scrap Possess. I had a hard time coming up with that mechanic, so maybe you guys can help me find a replacement? Mechanically, it needs to fit in the Blue/Black color pies. Flavorfully, it needs to fit the mind-manipulation of my blue faction and the spirit-communication and dead-raising of the black faction. What's a decent way to make this combo work in a not-broken and not-derivative way?
So a quick rundown of the different combo ability ideas I have. Keep in mind I do NOT plan on trying to implement ALL of them in the same set
So there they are.
Speaking of milling, I also thought of another possibility while reading your suggestions, so maybe I could get feedback on that before I decide? I was thinking how milling fits U/B because the library is sometimes representative of the mind, so it brings cards from the mind to the grave, blue to black. But what about the other way around? Like this action word, which is essentially Reito Lantern's ability, only keyworded and specific to just creatures:
Exhume (To exhume, put target creature card from your graveyard onto the bottom of your library.)
Is that a thing that could be? Because then you might have a spell that says something like "Exhume, then shuffle your library." Or, "Exhume. Then, if you have fewer than N creature cards in your graveyard, [effect]." Or even, "Exhume, then search your library for a creature card, reveal it, and put it into your hand. You lose 3 life." Or even more cards that care specifically about bottom of library--Grenzo, Dungeon Warden shows there's some interesting design space left to play with there.
Or maybe switching to mill and using Seance is better. Or maybe it's best to stick with your elegant Possess variant. I don't know. I need guidance
And now we come to the biggest problem... I can't playtest anything >_< . I recently moved back home, and none of my friends here play Magic. And I can't play this online, because no application supports a custom format like this (especially with two decks). So, yeah... I'm limited to theory and design, without the possibility of playtesting. If anyone else would like to playtest it, be my guest; I've got 7 quests designed already, and can make plenty more for you to use, and of course anyone can design new quests as well. But I'm stuck in the design department.
I am still interested in seeing new quest designs, though, now that we've (essentially) gotten the format narrowed down, so if anyone makes new ones, please post them here for us to see!
I don't like ideas 3 through 5 because of the communal aspect they have in common. Magic is a CCG--a collectible card game. Part of the fun is collecting your own cards and using them to build up your decks. You really lose that feeling of, "Oooh, I just got this new quest card that I love, and it's mine!" when everyone's cards are thrown together each game. And speaking of bad feelings, what about those who build their decks around meeting the conditions for the quests they have, but then the other players all get YOUR quests and you're stuck with theirs, which your deck is not built to do? The idea of having to sit through a game with a deck built for, say, graveyard quests, and having your opponent get yours and you get instant/sorcery quests instead.... it just doesn't sit well with me in terms of fun.
#2 I don't like for a simple reason: it limits the length of a game's "funness" (I know, that's not a word). Some games can go on very long (consider a 3 or 4 player Commander game... it can last many HOURS), and only being able to try for a small number of quests can get old fast. To keep it fresh, it needs some variety, so there should be a (relatively) large source of new quests to pull out when you're done trying for the ones you have.
So now we're left with #1. I do think that having a separate quest deck is probably looking like the best option. The devil is in the details: what's the best way to get those quests out? If you're forced to play whatever's on top when you decide for a new quest, that adds variation, but it removes strategy. I think you're definitely onto something with your idea of "look at the top N, play one, put the rest on the bottom". Here are the questions about that which need to be answered/balanced:
When do you look at the top N? I'm assuming whatever starts the process will be at sorcery speed, but what triggers it? Do you pay mana? If so, how much mana, since it needs to be a constant? Is it always, for example, 3 mana to see the top 3? Or maybe it could be that for 2 mana you can look at the top 2 cards, but for every 2 mana you spend after that you can look one card deeper? (Example: I pay 2 mana to look at the top 2 cards; 4 mana to look at the top 3; 6 mana to look at the top 4; etc.) Or maybe it's not even mana payments. Perhaps it could be similar to Planechase's planar die, only you roll a normal D6 (up to once each turn) and if it lands on X, then you look at the top X quests, play one, and bottom-tuck the rest?
Oooorrrrrrr, here's a thought: what if, instead of mana, you pay by giving up victory points? So you start the game with the top card of your quest deck in play, and you use that quest to earn victory points (if it's a Delegate quest, you bottom-deck it and take the first card again until it's one that stays on the field). Then you can pay 2*N victory points to look at the top N cards of your quest deck, play one, and tuck the rest. This way, changing quests costs you the thing that helps you win, but it gives you the chance of earning much more back if you get a quest you're more able to complete. If we go this route, perhaps Singletons implicitly let you flip the top card of the quest deck when they're sacced to their own condition (no looking, just the top card directly into play). Just so if you end up with no quests because you've COMPLETED the last Singleton, you're not penalized victory points for getting a new one.
There are so many ways this could go...
The idea of orange being the recursion color because of memory is brilliant! I will definitely be editing that into the original post! Thanks, GG Crono
If anyone has any idea how to fix the enemy colors thing so that they...you know, work... that would be a great help. I went through three iterations and apparently still screwed it up
And, @Figurative, next to each icon I put the URL to the image, so just put it in [*img] tags (without the * of course) to get the symbol.
Digestive Rat
Creature - Rat
When Digestive Rat enters the battlefield, destroy target creature with toughness 2 or less, then put a +1/+1 counter on Digestive Rat.
Some call it a crunch, others a squish. Those who know it best just call it an omnomnom.
1/1
*EDIT* So, given the BOPIY color wheel (in that order), I think it ends up with the following enmities:
The ones with *'s are ones that I got right in the OP and so they at least have tentative explanations (that could definitely use work). But I don't know how to explain the other two at all. Why would sight be against both smell and touch? And why would hearing be against both taste and touch?
Re: always having access like Commander or Conspiracy cards. There's a major difference: knowledge. You always know what your commander is. You always know what your own conspiracies are. And you rarely have more than a few of them (never more than one commander, of course
That said, if it were a separate deck, that leads to the question: how do you get quests? If you just draw one every turn, then it's no different from being in your maindeck (except that it's guaranteed one per turn, I suppose), but then you have twice as many cards in hand, which mucks things up. If you flip it over and replace the old one each turn, then you have no strategy in deciding which quests you want to work on. It becomes simply "Do whatever I flip, no decisions allowed", which is a bit...randomized. There should be variance in when you GET the quests, but you should also be able to decide which quests you want to fulfill when once you have them. The other option suggested is have a cost to draw from the quest deck. That might be fine... actually, I can't see what would be a problem with that, so maybe that's the path that should be developed? So, you'd have a quest deck, shuffled and separate from your main deck, and at sorcery speed you can pay some constant X to draw from it?
Moving, on regarding the color rules... a new frame would be a great idea. The thing is that I'm using Magic Set Editor to produce the cards, and I don't know how to make new templates for it, so all of my ideas are constrained to the various existing Magic frames. So with that restriction in mind, the always-gold idea helps differentiate them, especially with no costs. Which brings me to my next point about costs... they're assumed to have 0 casting cost if there's no printed costs because really, they were originally designed NEVER to have casting costs. Kind of like lands, except you can play as many per turn, at sorcery speed, as you want. I only put the rules in for quests with casting costs as a "just in case, for the future" clause...but maybe they should just be limited to never having casting costs anyway? So then like lands, they're treated as CMC0 for cards that care about those things, but it's never printed. And they should be colorless, I think, because color indicates the alignment of mana used to summon/cast it, and quests are not summoned nor cast (well, they're mechanically cast for rules reasons, but flavorfully, they're just "accepted").
The idea behind Store was to add strategy to the quests. They're not all just about getting the triggers off--they're also about knowing when to save your resources and when to use a little bit to save victory points for later. As for the quest counters, there's an important reason for them: interactivity. Let's compare and contrast the difference between my original Taste for Blood and the only-points, no-counters version.
My version: I play a Doubling Season, then play Taste for Blood, then swing for 6 damage with some creature. That puts 2 quest counters on my quest thanks to Doubling Season. Then, in my second main phase, I can play Aggressive Behavior to sac Taste for Blood, giving me TWO victory points instead of the 1 that would happen without counters. But wait! Just as I cast Aggressive Behavior, my opponent sacs his Vampire Hexmage in response, removing all the counters from Taste for Blood. Things resolve, I still have to sac Taste for Blood, but I get no points because my opponent was smarter than me.
Your version: Everything happens as above, except without counters, my Doubling Season does nothing. In addition, my opponent can't stop me from gaining the one victory point when I play Aggressive Behavior, because I've already gotten the point, no going back. Without counters, the number of interactions with quests becomes very...limited, both on the side of the player and the opponent.
I don't really want to use the new legend rule for these, though maybe I can be convinced with a good reason besides "it's what players expect"--they don't expect anything, quests are new
Here's what I'm hoping from this format: it will mostly feel like regular Magic. You're still trying to win. But in addition, you're also trying to trigger different conditions so that even if you lose, you might still win. If that makes sense. Let's consider a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 is "totally conventionally focused" and 10 is "totally quest focused". I want the format to rank a 6 or 7. I don't want quests to be the ENTIRE point of playing, I just want it to be a fun supplement to the game that helps with alternate wincons. Speaking of which, even if the quests are free, you're not getting wincons for free--the quests mean nothing unless you put in the resources and strategy to trigger them!
Also, while quests are focused on the "trigger it, gain points" aspect, they won't all be inactive rocks. Some will do things similar to enchantments, often related to the number of quest counters on them (another reason to keep the counters!). For example, I designed this card last night:
Non-Rock Quest
Note that it continues to hurt you until you're dead unless you can sac it for points earlier. Keep in mind this is probably going to be a multiplayer-encouraged format, so losing doesn't mean the game ends. The longer you're in the game, the more points you can rack up, and the more likely you'll win for the winner's prize points. And even if it's 2-player, if you lose, your opponent gets the 15 points for winning (or 20...like I said, the number needs calibration).
There might also be Ongoing quests with maxima (i.e. "sac this when it has X or more quest counters on it") or ones that do something in addition to gaining counters when they trigger. Basically like enchantments, but ones that give you points towards a win.
I hope I responded to most of the things... >_<
I'm thinking the quests wouldn't count towards deck size limits. So in Standard, the deck size would be 60 cards + quests. This way, existing decks don't necessarily need to be modified besides shuffling in some quests and you're ready to go. But then, as you said, if players WANT to build around their quests, they can start modifying the other cards as well. Maybe, to prevent issues, there could be a limit to the number of quests in each deck? Something like this:
Standard Magic Quest: 60 non-quest card minimum, plus between 5 and 15 quests; non-quests can have up to 4-of, quests can have up to 2-of.
Commander Magic Quest: 100 non-quest cards (including your Commander), plus between 10 and 30 quests; all cards, including quests, are singleton
...etc...
I still think that not having guaranteed quests is the way to go. In a format focused on quests, you should need to focus on getting them out just as much as you focus on getting anything else out in Magic.
*EDIT* Sorry for not waiting for responses as I continue development on this. I will take all suggestions into consideration, I'm just excited enough to continue developing it >_< .
So I've come up with a concept for an ability on certain quest cards called Delegate. If a quest says "Delegate to a Goblin," for instance, then when that quest enters the battlefield, it's attached to a Goblin you control. The quest's trigger is specific to the delegated Goblin. Flavorfully, it's you tasking one of your creatures to go on the quest for you, and mechanically, it allows for quest triggers specific to one creature's actions rather than global to everything you do. I figure it'll usually be on Ongoing or Singleton quests, though some normal quests might have it as well. Here's a sample:
Delegate Example
And here are the updates to the CR that I think would be needed to support Magic Quest variants:
CR Update for Magic Quest Variants
The cards were for a new format of Magic where the winner was decided not necessarily by the last man standing, but by victory points. A new type of card, Quests, would allow you to gather victory points while you played an otherwise normal game of Magic in any format of your choice. Winning the game conventionally (being the last person alive) would also give you a large number of victory points (I guessed about 15 or 20, though the number needs to be calibrated). When the game ends, everyone totals their victory points, and the person with the most wins.
So, how do you earn victory points? What are these "Quests"? Well, here's the run-down.
Quests are cards which almost never have any casting cost, but always have a gold frame. (Even Quests which do have monocolor casting costs still have gold frames.) Quests are always considered colorless by default, regardless of any mana symbols on them.
You can cast quests from your hand at sorcery speed. Those with no mana costs may be cast for free (if no casting cost is printed, they're treated as though they have a casting cost of
Quests generally have certain trigger conditions on them formatted like triggered abilities. There are three main subtypes of Quests, and how you gain victory points from their triggered abilities depends on the type.
Ongoing Quests
An Ongoing Quest may have its condition triggered over and over as long as it's on the field. Each time its condition is triggered, you put a quest counter on it. Whenever an Ongoing Quest leaves the battlefield (or you win or lose the game), you remove all quest counters from it and gain that many victory points.
Ongoing Quest Example
Quest -- Ongoing
(When an Ongoing Quest leaves the battlefield or you win or lose the game, remove all quest counters from it and you gain that many victory points.)
Whenever a creature you control deals 6 or more damage to an opponent, put a quest counter on Taste for Blood.
Singleton Quests
A Singleton Quest can only earn you a set number of victory points one time. Generally, when you trigger a Singleton's condition, you gain victory points and then must sac the Quest. Some Singletons may give you the option not to sac it, but if you don't, you don't get the victory points yet.
Mandatory Singleton Quest Example
Quest -- Singleton
Whenever a creature enters the battlefield under your control from a graveyard, sacrifice Necromancy Practice. If you do, you gain 5 victory points.
Optional Singleton Quest Example
Quest -- Singleton
Whenever an artifact enters the battlefield under your control, you may sacrifice Treasure Hunter. If you do, you gain victory points equal to the number of artifacts you control.
Normal Quests
Normal Quests are similar to Ongoing Quests in that you can trigger their conditions repeatedly to add quest counters to them. However, you don't automatically get victory points when they leave the battlefield. Instead, normal Quests all have an activated ability called Store, which is of the format Store N--[COST]. At instant speed, you may pay [COST] and remove exactly N quest counters from the Quest to gain that many victory points. Keep in mind that you MUST pay the cost, and you MUST remove exacly N counters--so if you don't have enough counters on it, you can't convert them to victory points! Also remember that if a normal Quest leaves the battlefield, any counters on it disappear and you do NOT get victory points for those, either. So you need to be strategic in deciding when to store your accumulated points!
Normal Quest Example
Quest
Whenever all creatures you control able to do so attack together, if you control three or more creatures, put a quest counter on Aggressive Behavior.
Store 3--4 (4, remove 3 quest counters from this Quest: You gain 3 victory points.)
So, what do you all think about it? Is it an interesting format to you, too, the way it is to me? Is it worth designing Quests for and playtesting? Would anyone want to help me design new Quests, or other cards which interact with Quests and/or victory points? And what should the victory point prize be for winning a game (i.e. 15, 20, more, less)?
Tribal Instant - Nymph
Target creature is unblockable until end of turn. Return it to its owner's hand at the beginning of the next end step.
He felt the power...the speed...the agility...and then he felt nothing but cold and darkness.
Next: A human (or humanoid) wizard has his hands on either side of a large demon's head. Both of them have their eyes closed, and an aura surrounds them, seeming to travel between the two minds.
Thanks, guys
But what if there's an alternate reality where the original 5 colors had a totally different basis for their identities? Imagine a world where blue doesn't represent intelligence; red doesn't represent passion; green doesn't represent nature; white doesn't represent order; and black doesn't represent ambition. Imagine a world where the colors are each instead based upon the Five Senses.
Now, although I'm suggesting the original colors would have different identities, for the sake of clarity, this thread will not be using WUBRG, but instead will be using BOIPY:
Brown (B):
Orange (O):
Pink (I):
Purple (P):
Yellow (Y):
(Ignore the symbols on them. These images were "borrowed" from the Magic Set Editor forums' smileys and had their own identities in mind.)
So I'll describe each of their identities, and then this thread will be everyone making cards in this bizarro color pie
BOIPY Color Pie
Enemies (Ignore until they're more developed and less..broken)
Yellow vs Pink/Orange (because taste and smell are chemical senses, while yellow's sight doesn't rely on material things)
Orange vs Pink/Yellow (against yellow because it doesn't get close enough to smell anything, and against pink because once it eats something, it destroys the smell)
Brown vs Purple/Purple (because sight and touch are too "narrow" compared to brown's hearing)
Pink vs Orange/Brown (because smell and sound can only enjoy things vicariously, they can't absorb the things they enjoy)
(Note that clockwise in this new pie, the acronym is actually BOPIY...that's just less pronounceable.)
Some of that...needs work. I know. If you'd like to develop the identities more here, please do so! It'll be fun! You can even help decide which tribes belong to which color, including potentially new tribes! But now that the basics are laid down...
Here's the main point of this game/thread: design cards for this weird color pie (possible using the symbol images I provided, or else just using their letters from BOIPY). Make sure they fit the sense-based identities, but otherwise, feel free to be creative! New mechanics, new game dynamics, anything is possible in this bizarro world! Just as long as the overall framework is clearly MTG, anything goes
I'll start:
Sharpear Scout
Creature - Elf
Listen (Whenever this blocks or is blocked by another creature, treat that creature as though it had only its printed power and toughness.)
In the forests of Landinar, the Sharpears stand on the borders, listening for threats... and intruders aren't loud for long once they've been heard.
2/2
It's of course designed to ignore buffs. Two rulings: "In the case of variable printed power or toughness, treat all unknowns as 0s." Also, "If a creature would have a printed toughness of 0 after Listen is considered, it instead has a toughness of 1 for the purposes of the Listening creature."
SOMEONE KEEP IT UP
Does anyone know if there's a certain piece of the color pie that cares more about card color than the others? And...is it white, by chance?
@Thought Criminal: So for Leech, would this be the better way to word it, then? (On cheaper creatures or more expensive rares and mythics):
Leech [COST] (When this creature dies, you may pay [COST]. If you do, exile this card. Return it to your graveyard at the beginning of your next main phase and add its casting cost to your mana pool.)
It's getting a little wordy, but does that work better and prevent memory issues, since all your leeched cards will be exiled until they're "used"?
As for Possess... I guess that works a little better, though it's still very wordy... as a replacement effect, I figured the cost of casting it would already be paid before the possess kicked in, but if it can't do that, then I'd make it Possess N--COST instead. Which adds more words to the reminder text...
@Willows: Well...yes, and also it has the CMC limitation on the target. But you might be right that it's a little derivative...
@Everyone: So, let's say for argument's sake I scrap Possess. I had a hard time coming up with that mechanic, so maybe you guys can help me find a replacement? Mechanically, it needs to fit in the Blue/Black color pies. Flavorfully, it needs to fit the mind-manipulation of my blue faction and the spirit-communication and dead-raising of the black faction. What's a decent way to make this combo work in a not-broken and not-derivative way?