MTG Salvation

Quote from Tilwin »

1. I think we need more implants. If we want to make it a feasible mechanic, I would consider multiple Implants. Think Scars of Mirrodin, that featured 15 equipments, or Mirrodin Besieged that featured 11. Since the Brotherhood is dominant in the first set, we should consider more implants and maybe some colored artifacts too (they don't even need to be Esperian only since now both factions feature all 5 colors).

I don't disagree with this. Although I'm not sure we want colored artifacts, but I can definitely see some colored activated abilities on them. I would like to keep some of the implants with colorless equip costs though, since that was how I envisioned them when I first developed them (last July I think).

2. The only reason why I included more mechanics is because Flatline suggested in a PM that maybe we should have something more oppressive for the Brotherhood. I don't mean to be annoying and come up with "I don't like what we have so far". That was not my intention. As for the mechanics chosen and the colors they fit:

Sorry Tilwin, since that PM, lion convinced me that we shouldn't/didn't need another mechanic. There is nothing annoying about suggesting some though. Even though I'm satisfied with where we are for mechanics right now, if you came up with something that was mind-blowingly perfect for the set, I would certainly want to hear about it.

Detain - I don't see why it needs to stay U/W only. I see black as a color that could prevent creatures from blocking, and so does red. And sometimes green has been seen as doing so. Maybe we can incorporate it into all 5 colors? Just like Convoke saw play in all colors, it doesn't feel like breaking the color pie. Remember, Detain is pretty much a limited mechanic.

I think this seems wrong outside of W/U. I agree with lion's post below above on this. I'm fine with it being a limited mechanic. I feel like most mechanics are "limited" mechanics. It's cards that are constructed playable. It is possible to design a card with detain that would be constructed playable, even if detain wasn't the main reason why.

Brainwash - I just noticed the mechanic after reading the blog. It feels a lot like a weaker Poisonous cross-bred with Renowned. Doesn't really break the color pie though so if everyone is on the boat with Brainwash I guess I could go with it too. Feels a lot like a limited mechanic though.

I absolutely love this mechanic. It's one of my favorite mechanics I've ever made so far (I hope it tests well ). I feel like this mechanic has a ton of flavor and design space. Also, I disagree that it has to be a limited mechanic. I think this could definitely be made into build around me block constructed type mechanic. Not that people play a lot of block constructed. I would almost say it could see play in standard, but that would be tough to do if it's not in the second set.

Implant - Is great! I would actually make this a completely separate subtype (Artifact - Implant) with the keyword Implant. Not sure if you should attach it to your creatures too, we need to decide here how much of a design space we want to leave here. Sounds like a limited mechanic too - Equipments are so good specifically because you can stick them on YOUR creatures to power them up. If your opponent has no creatures, the implant will not be so great.

I'm glad you like implant. I see what you're saying about it relying on your opponent having creatures, but that can be said about any creature control spell. Path to Exile isn't a good card if your opponent doesn't have creatures either. That said, there's nothing saying we can't make a few that have a positive effect too. We have discussed Father Dahl using implants on himself for long life and power. We could have a few like this perhaps...

Soul Governor
Artifact - Equipment Implant
(This Equipment can be equipped to creatures your opponents control. You still control it when it's equipped to a creature an opponent controls.)
As long as you control equipped creature, it gets +1/+0. Otherwise it gets -1/-0
Equip

Bottom line - I feel the brotherhood interacts mostly with opponent creatures. You interact with and rely a lot on the opponent. For a more complex environment I strongly suggest we think of at least one mechanic that does not have such an interaction. The Brotherhood also conveys information as well as religious control. Why not use a bit of that?

I actually really like your Intel idea, and would listen if you wanted to push it, but otherwise, I agree with everything lion says in his response to this. I also am seeing the fact that white has access to each mechanic the same way.

Recruit - I already stated here we should consider something else rather than Enter the Battlefield "Rally" style. But the idea is good and I like it. Might see competitive play.

It's really unfortunate that rally came out a few days after I thought of this, but I still really like the simplicity and flavor of it for the set. It's not like rally was the invention of creatures having abilities that trigger off of a creature entering the battlefield. It's more like nontoken creature-fall than rally really. That is what I thought of it when I came up with the idea.

Embolden - Reducing costs is also cool and as we know is highly coveted for competitive play. Count me in, though I don't really like the name - sounds a bit pompous. It may just be illiterate me though here :))

I think the name is good, although I'm open to others. It hadn't occurred to me that the word would be considered pompous though.

3. I still think since they are religion-related, that we could rename the Ministries as "Clergies" instead, which mean "Ministries of Church". Fits the religious - focus better perhaps.

I just think ministries is the way to go here. It's the perfect blend of religion and government. Clergy would be my second choice, but I think I'd only change it if Orwell threatened to sue me (or haunt me more like it). Of course, I am not Father Dahl, so if everybody else wants to change it, I'm fine with that too.

4. Archos - not sure how much they would let themselves warped by religion. But if you guys feel like Archons fit better than Angels, sure. Maybe artificial Archons? (not sure how much sense that makes but we can come up with something)

"Archons symbolize White's harsher aspects like it's moral rigidity and ferocious retribution, while angels have a more varied role, generally leaning towards compassion and mercy."
This description of Archons, taken from MTGS Wiki is why I like Archons better than Angels for the block.


5. Draft - we can go the official way. What harm can it do since we are just starting the design? Besides, a 1st-2nd-2nd draft sounds really cool and offers more diversity. Not sure how relevant it is now though.

We can't draft the sets together if we intend to switch to +1/+1 counters in the second set, which everybody seemed down with. Also, the second set is a ways away still.

6. We could come up with a completely new type for blue, or we could split the merfolks between those who joined Dahl, and those who became part of the Rebellion. Not all merfolks are wild so to speak, some like opulence and could be corrupted one way or another. Or were those the Naga?

I have the feeling we're gonna get stuck with Merfolk. It's not that I dislike Merfolk (I've got Modern Merfolks built), but I'm just am not thrilled having them in the set.

(gotta go now so these are the responses I could come up with right now...)

Quote from Tilwin »

I've also started doing some thinking on the dual lands we might include in this format. To be honest, I am getting quite bored with lands entering the battlefield tapped so I started considering other types of restrictions on the lands to offer more diversity.

1. Sorcery Lands
This is a very old idea of mine I had. Basically sorcery lands do not give the flexibility of using the mana anytime you want. There are various variations I had in mind, with the following examples:

Fulgent Nihility
Land (R)
T: Add 1 to your mana pool.
T: Add B or R to your mana pool. Activate this ability only any time you could cast a sorcery. (It is still a mana ability.)

It can of course be balanced to include or exclude the colorless mana. We can also tamper with the second ability to decide whether we want to tap as sorcery, or tap only on your turn, and/or rephrase it however we see fit.

Quote from bravelion83 »

I like the shorter name best.

Ok by me. It was just a thought.

Pretty much. I think we just have to identify the five pivotal moments we want to represent in the first set, as scrad mentioned a while ago. I am thinking about identifying those and will have a proposal in short order.

I think the story is basically set too. What I'm talking about posting is more a scene setting type post. Things like how the Brotherhood views women, and non-Human creatures.

Yes, we are. We'll need two new mechanics, one for the Brotherhood and one for the Rebels, in the second set, and that's where Tilwin's mechanics will come in handy. Feedback on those later.

I also think we are set for mechanics. Unless someone has major objection to one of the existing ones (or it playtests poorly), I say we revisit Tilwin's ideas when we get into set 2.

This is the major component we lack, and the only real one we need to address before getting to what we all actually want: the cards! Your suggestions are a very nice first step in the direction of worldbuilding.

I will begin to focus my attention on world building now.

Yes, that's correct. We need a secondary race for blue (could that just be Faeries after all?) and I'll eliminate Vampires from the list keeping the mindless Zombies as secondary one for black.

I'm just not sure about Faeries. I suppose they could work though. My votes are: Vampires-No, mindless Zombies-Yes.

Yes, every large set nowadays has a few multicolored cards, mostly and notably including the "draft archetype" uncommons, which we will definitely need. And draft archetypes are another thing we should establish before designing cards.

Good. I like multi-colored cards. I think I'm going to need to read up on draft archtype development. It is not something I know a lot about to be honest. I'm sure I can do it though.

Leave that to me! I wanted to prepare a first layout for the design skeleton last night but in the end I didn't, I might just do it later today.

Sounds good, and thanks. I'll check it out ASAP.

Yes, I'd wait. We can't do everything at once. Let's address things one at a time, otherwise we all lose track of what's going on.

OK.