All users will need to merge their MTGSalvation account with a new or existing Twitch account starting Sept 25th. You can merge your accounts by clicking here. Have questions? Learn more here.
Lava and ash wash across the land, dealing damage to everything. Only the strong will survive the torrent.
Yeah, it's fine from a top-down flavor perspective. Other sagas like Fall of the Thran or Time of Ice manage to combine flavor and mechanics better though.
The mana helps you to rebuild between the damage sweeps and protect your creatures from the second one and they fit well strategically.
But yes, they aren't mechanically related effects and they have no particular synergy.
I'm not sure if that's really a problem, though I did have the same reaction to seeing the card.
Sentinel X: Enters the battlefield with X slumber counters on it. Whenever you take damage from a source owned by another player, you may remove 1 slumber counter from this creature. For as long as there is a slumber counter on this creature, it has defender.
I really don't see this being versatile enough in order for it to be a new set mechanic. It's quite controlling of the game around itself.
It's also a downside mechanic, which are looked upon very unfavourably.
I would prefer to see using defender as a cost for some reward like +1/+1 counters or an open ended version with life gain and card draw and such.
Decay X: Put X decay counters on this creature. At the beginning of your upkeep, remove a decay counter from this creature. Then, when there are no more decay counters on this creature, sacrifice it.
Deathtouch, Hexproof, Vigilance, Flying and Double Strike cannot be returning mechanics. They are evergreen mechanics. They can and should be used in whatever set.
Untap (untap abilities)
This is not a named mechanic.
Annihilator
A questionable choice for a return. Annihilator is not a very fun mechanic on balance.
Phyrexian Mana (on 1 card)
Returning a set mechanic for use on 1 card is not a good idea. Phyrexian mana can easily be impersonated on an individual card basis. If you want to use Phyrexian mana it should be on something like 10 or 15 cards.
Phyrexian mana is also an explicit reference to Phyrexia. It should not be used unless Phyrexia is a large part of the set.
Just an idea I was kicking around the ol' head this morning at work.
Blackheart Speaker 2BB
Creature - Human Shaman (R)
Transcend (When this creature dies, return it to the battlefield as a noncreature enchantment.)
At the beginning of your upkeep, draw a card and lose 1 life.
2/2
Basically a value mechanic, would slot it into an enchantment matters set, probably one that cares about things dying too maybe.
In line with what user_938036 said, I would probably make Transcend optional, like Bestow, to make them more attractive as well as more controlled.
You could, like Bestow, make it an alternate cost to introduce the effect, but I don't think that works well here, so I recommend making it (or at least trying it out as) an ability you pay for when the creature dies.
I'm not entirely convinced this has the design space for a whole mechanic, given non aura enchantments aren't something usually done at common or at high frequency in general. I'd be wary of that and if it is put into a set, at least not try to make the mechanic super important so you don't have to worry too much about pushing the frequency beyond its viable design space.
The other mechanic is one I cooked up a while back and thought was kind neat.
Aethertorn Prophet 1U
Creature - Human Wizard (U)
When ~ enters the battlefield, scry 1.
Disperse 2 (You may exile this permanent from the battlefield to add 2 mana to your mana pool in any combination of this card's colors.)
0/1
I also agree with user_938036 on Disperse, I really don't think this is an effect you really want to do a lot of. It's much more of a splash, and not a staple, ability. It seems pretty fundamentally flawed to me as mechanic, but it could probably be perfectly good on some individual cards.
Meditative Master 2UR
Creature - Human Monk (U)
Focus (At the beginning of the end step, if this creature was not dealt damage this turn, put a +1/+1 counter on it. If this creature is dealt damage, remove all +1/+1 counters from it.)
Remove three +1/+1 counters from ~, T: Draw a card.
1/2
Cards like Deathcoil Wurm seem to suggest that this should be 'wasn't' not 'was not'. The second part should be a whenever, not, if.
This has memory and tracking issues, and I don't like how much uncapped cumulative potential it is has when it's going to be going on plenty of low rarity cards, and though it has a limiting factor, it's one that arguably increases the cards impact as both players fight to control the creatures stats.
Compare to Evolve, which requires more active deckbuilding to accumulate, and less about whether your opponent has many or even any burn cards. It's not terrible in comparison, but Evolve is the clear winner IMO, and makes Focus look sub-optimal. Obviously, playtesting is necessary to be conclusive about such gameplay issues.
EDIT: Another point I kinda forgot to mention, the condition to Evolve encourages you to play more cards of increasing size, which is something the game wants you to do anyway, and therefore a good condition. But Focus encourages stalling and avoiding combat which the kind of gameplay that is generally actively avoided more than anything else.
*Sigh* One day I will be able to understand the legend rule and its variants again.
The whole point of the change to planeswalkers was to remove the fact that planeswalker had their own version of the legend rule while every other permanent type works just has legendary. It makes things simpler.
I agree that the haste addition may be unnecessary, except perhaps on the creature itself. I recommend using the "except they're not legendary" version fir simplicity's sake.
If the wording isn't clear enough, the creatures are only copies until end of turn.
It should be "When Gazamax the Mad (full title on first reference) enters the battlefield, until end of turn, creatures you control become copies of target Dragon and gain haste".
This way it's clearer that the end of turn condition applies to both effects.
Lots of people have had this idea, of course, because it's cool. People like combining things and like factions. I've seen multiple custom sets, good ones too, based on this premise. Unfortunately, I don't think it'd ever be done on Ravnica specifically simply because there are tricolor faction worlds already and R&D wouldn't want to dilute the premise of Ravnica being ten bicolor factions.
Exactly.
Combining guilds takes away from Ravnica's identity, as well as taking up design space from the two different three colour associated planes.
Which is why scry gets to be evergreen but Uncover doesn't.
The basis of your statement seems to suggest that scry is evergreen because it's to simple.
No the basis of my statement is Scry is simple enough to be evergreen while Uncover is not, but the standard of simplicity for evergreen mechanics is significantly higher than for set specific mechanics, which means I have some room to work with.
As you might be aware, most cards scry for 1, which is in itself a lot more simple than scrying for more than 1 as can be seen in its reminder text being a lot shorter than scrying for more than 1. For that reason, I would recommend adjusting uncover into a variant that only picks the last card of your deck, since that's quite tolerable to physically do IRL and it also removes much of other time consuming choices/actions one might have to do afterwards. This would make it essentially a binary choice instead of some "put N in grave, and N-1 on top in some order" variant where the available combination of choices increases dramatically.
Restricting it to 1 would make it simpler and easier, but it would also make the mechanic less versatile and remove the strategic depth of Uncovering for more than one.
I want to have at least a few cards with Uncover 2 or 3, and I think that should be simple enough.
Just as it is easier to scry 1 than scry 3. Yet we have such variation.
Have you actually sat down, taken a deck, and picked the top 2-5 cards from top, and then compared it to picking the 2-5 cards from bottom? It's not impossible, but clearly harder than picking off top. Add in any extra actions, such as ordering and deciding whether to keep or pitch, and that time begins to accumulate.
Which is why scry gets to be evergreen but Uncover doesn't.
I don't think the variable is necessary. Think of it like explore. For example, of the given cards here, arguably the weakest are the cards that uncover for more than 1.
It's also physically much more easier to just take one card from the bottom of your library rather than take and count # number of cards from bottom.
Just as it is easier to scry 1 than scry 3. Yet we have such variation.
But it is a large part of the reason why I have kept the number fairly low. No Uncover 8 or anything like that.
IMO it would also keep it more flavorful as it shrouds the bottom of library more in mystery - the cards are being uncovered slowly one by one. ... Doesn't 'uncover' imply that the cards would be revealed? My mind kinda of jumped with that description to some mechanical implementation where the card is revealed, then put into your grave unless <something> and you put it into your hand instead.
The flavour is you personally are uncovering them. Your opponent doesn't get to see them because it doesn't need to be public, it's your discoveries. This happens to match the world flavour better as my idea is for a fairly divided society among the people of the world, not too eager to work together and share.
Regardless, Uncover isn't top down. The flavour is at least good enough.
Noble Bloodseeker feels UB to me, what with the potential for so much library manipulation over multiple turns.
Black gets more library manipulation than usual in this set because of it's a theme. Noble Bloodseeker is more blue than most black cards, but it's still very much black enough IMO.
What sort of archetypes do you have so far for the set?
Seems like a solid graveyard-friendly spin on scry. The only issue I have is that taking cards off of the bottom of a library (as opposed to simply putting them on the bottom) is, manually, a PITA that falls just short of shuffling. Especially when dealing with sleeved EDH decks.
The set has a generally greater focus on that kind of complexity over board complexity than most sets.
Uncover N (To uncover N, look at the bottom N cards of your library. Put any number of them into your graveyard and the rest on top of your library in any order.)
This mechanic combines the themes of library and graveyard interaction which are both very important to the set idea. Uncover also introduces more interaction with the bottom of the library, which suites both mechanical interest in exploring new territory, and the generally dark and ominous tone of the set idea.
You may just be familiar with this mechanic already, as it's something I have had around for a while, and posted here in different ways before.
Noble Bloodseeker ( )
Creature- Vampire Cleric (R)
At the beginning of your upkeep, Uncover 1. , : Reveal the top card of your library and put it into your hand. You lose life equal to that card’s converted mana cost.
2/1
Slithering Intrusion ( )
Instant (U)
Target player reveals their hand, you choose a card from among them. That player discards that card, then draws a card.
Uncover 1.
The mana helps you to rebuild between the damage sweeps and protect your creatures from the second one and they fit well strategically.
But yes, they aren't mechanically related effects and they have no particular synergy.
I'm not sure if that's really a problem, though I did have the same reaction to seeing the card.
I really don't see this being versatile enough in order for it to be a new set mechanic. It's quite controlling of the game around itself.
It's also a downside mechanic, which are looked upon very unfavourably.
I would prefer to see using defender as a cost for some reward like +1/+1 counters or an open ended version with life gain and card draw and such.
This is pretty much just Vanishing.
EDIT:
On your returning mechanics
Deathtouch, Hexproof, Vigilance, Flying and Double Strike cannot be returning mechanics. They are evergreen mechanics. They can and should be used in whatever set.
Untap (untap abilities)
This is not a named mechanic.
Annihilator
A questionable choice for a return. Annihilator is not a very fun mechanic on balance.
Phyrexian Mana (on 1 card)
Returning a set mechanic for use on 1 card is not a good idea. Phyrexian mana can easily be impersonated on an individual card basis. If you want to use Phyrexian mana it should be on something like 10 or 15 cards.
Phyrexian mana is also an explicit reference to Phyrexia. It should not be used unless Phyrexia is a large part of the set.
I don't see how they could not.
In line with what user_938036 said, I would probably make Transcend optional, like Bestow, to make them more attractive as well as more controlled.
You could, like Bestow, make it an alternate cost to introduce the effect, but I don't think that works well here, so I recommend making it (or at least trying it out as) an ability you pay for when the creature dies.
I'm not entirely convinced this has the design space for a whole mechanic, given non aura enchantments aren't something usually done at common or at high frequency in general. I'd be wary of that and if it is put into a set, at least not try to make the mechanic super important so you don't have to worry too much about pushing the frequency beyond its viable design space.
I also agree with user_938036 on Disperse, I really don't think this is an effect you really want to do a lot of. It's much more of a splash, and not a staple, ability. It seems pretty fundamentally flawed to me as mechanic, but it could probably be perfectly good on some individual cards.
Cards like Deathcoil Wurm seem to suggest that this should be 'wasn't' not 'was not'. The second part should be a whenever, not, if.
This has memory and tracking issues, and I don't like how much uncapped cumulative potential it is has when it's going to be going on plenty of low rarity cards, and though it has a limiting factor, it's one that arguably increases the cards impact as both players fight to control the creatures stats.
Compare to Evolve, which requires more active deckbuilding to accumulate, and less about whether your opponent has many or even any burn cards. It's not terrible in comparison, but Evolve is the clear winner IMO, and makes Focus look sub-optimal. Obviously, playtesting is necessary to be conclusive about such gameplay issues.
EDIT: Another point I kinda forgot to mention, the condition to Evolve encourages you to play more cards of increasing size, which is something the game wants you to do anyway, and therefore a good condition. But Focus encourages stalling and avoiding combat which the kind of gameplay that is generally actively avoided more than anything else.
The whole point of the change to planeswalkers was to remove the fact that planeswalker had their own version of the legend rule while every other permanent type works just has legendary. It makes things simpler.
I agree that the haste addition may be unnecessary, except perhaps on the creature itself. I recommend using the "except they're not legendary" version fir simplicity's sake.
It should be "When Gazamax the Mad (full title on first reference) enters the battlefield, until end of turn, creatures you control become copies of target Dragon and gain haste".
This way it's clearer that the end of turn condition applies to both effects.
Exactly.
Combining guilds takes away from Ravnica's identity, as well as taking up design space from the two different three colour associated planes.
Yes. It is shorter and allows for higher Uncover numbers that can't really be done like that.
No the basis of my statement is Scry is simple enough to be evergreen while Uncover is not, but the standard of simplicity for evergreen mechanics is significantly higher than for set specific mechanics, which means I have some room to work with.
Restricting it to 1 would make it simpler and easier, but it would also make the mechanic less versatile and remove the strategic depth of Uncovering for more than one.
I want to have at least a few cards with Uncover 2 or 3, and I think that should be simple enough.
Which is why scry gets to be evergreen but Uncover doesn't.
Compare Contingency Plan, Naga Oracle and Sultai Ascendancy.
That's the key reference for this mechanic, given how very close it is to actually being it.
Just as it is easier to scry 1 than scry 3. Yet we have such variation.
But it is a large part of the reason why I have kept the number fairly low. No Uncover 8 or anything like that.
The flavour is you personally are uncovering them. Your opponent doesn't get to see them because it doesn't need to be public, it's your discoveries. This happens to match the world flavour better as my idea is for a fairly divided society among the people of the world, not too eager to work together and share.
Regardless, Uncover isn't top down. The flavour is at least good enough.
Uncommon
Green has some of the most mill cross filter cards like Mulch and Commune with the Gods.
Black gets more library manipulation than usual in this set because of it's a theme. Noble Bloodseeker is more blue than most black cards, but it's still very much black enough IMO.
The set has a generally greater focus on that kind of complexity over board complexity than most sets.
This mechanic combines the themes of library and graveyard interaction which are both very important to the set idea. Uncover also introduces more interaction with the bottom of the library, which suites both mechanical interest in exploring new territory, and the generally dark and ominous tone of the set idea.
You may just be familiar with this mechanic already, as it's something I have had around for a while, and posted here in different ways before.
Noble Bloodseeker (
Creature- Vampire Cleric (R)
At the beginning of your upkeep, Uncover 1.
2/1
Slithering Intrusion (
Instant (U)
Target player reveals their hand, you choose a card from among them. That player discards that card, then draws a card.
Uncover 1.
Shapen Searcher (
Creature- Beast (U)
2/3
Great Haze Drinker (
Creature- Worm Beast (R)
Flying
Whenever Great Haze Drinker attacks, you may pay
6/6
Ancient of Guidance (
Creature- Spirit Beast (U)
You may look at the top card of your library. (You may do this at any time)
6/6
All feedback is appreciated!