@Circeus.
Missed #5 (Skarrg Oathsworn), fixed the numbering
-Repeatable card filtering is pretty powerful, especially when it can 'go off' like this can. It's not obviously broken at common, but it's concerning.
-Obsoleting weak commons with Rares is fine, but common and rare have the same maximum power ceiling, just in different ways. Prey Upon is a very playable card and making a more powerful version should not be done lightly. It's likely fine here considering it's not that much more powerful, but it's something that could easily prove too good for some environments.
-Was actually referring to Outlaw (#6)
-What do you find objectionable about it? Not that I can't think of any reasons, but I'd like to know.
What do you mean "If this forum situation doesn't get better"? What, because not many people are commenting? That hardly seems fair to criticize people for that.
Card Comments (of those just posted)
1) A fine reprint
2) A bit weak, but maybe that's for the best
3) Not a common
4) Strictly better Prey Upon, not sure that's okay.
5) Fine based on Atarka Beastbreaker
6) Seems overly clunky
7) Fine Reprint
8) Instant speed Bone Splinters, probably good
9) Nice design
10) Should be 'nonland' based on Utter End, it's safer meta-wise as well to avoid efficient LD
11) Fine
12) Might be overly clunky
13) the 'white' mode isn't white, it has no conditions white uses. Also, the green mode is pretty white, maybe change that as well?
14) Seems fine
I don't think Overload + Encore would be enough to break anything, it could be powerful in a storm deck, but those decks are already very powerful, so it shouldn't give them much power they don't already have. The rules around it, as long as they work, should be fine even if quite complex as it's a niche interaction.
It could be 'Dominion' artifact tokens. That way they can be supported by other cards while being more interactive for the opponent as well. Could be flavoured as a regal icon relevant to the world/story. I don't like emblems for the reason that they are totally uninteractive and mess with the established order of the game. Level-Up as an alt-win is a bad idea, that's too great of a change to errata and it would confuse the hell out of a lot players about why you did it. Level-Up could be used though, and a single mythic or rare card that has a level-up alt win effect would be cool. Level-Up is complex though, as I mentioned with 'Build', the level-Up artifact variant as suggested by Mangipan above.
Ten planeswalkers is almost certainly too much. Planeswalkers are cool, yes, but I feel like a lot of people want them to be something they are not. Planeswalkers are defined by their uniqueness and their powers, and their design is reflective of that, something to be kept to a low.
'Alliance' and 'defiance' are too general of a mechanic, they don't do really do anything new. But something along those lines could be used. The guildless are probably best as monocolour, five colour is too hard to support without encouraging two-colour and therefore not differentiating from the guilds. Plus it makes sense that the nameless populace would be something generic to magic.
My thoughts would be that the first set should be a little more conservative with new themes, then the second pushes the new theme/s into the focus. This block probably should be large/large to allow room for all the things that want to be going on. Something I could even potentially see is a lorwyn/shadowmoor style double block (large/small-large/small). In that case, the whole first block should introduce the new theme/s while the second block focuses on the new. It's a lot of space, but Ravnica is one of the most popular worlds so I absolutely see it happening.
Mechanic split for two-set could be 5/5 or 6/4. Megablock could be 5/5, 2/1 or 5/5, 1/1.
I think the set is really cool and brings some cool ideas to the table but I think entrench would be better if it had a way to make your guy attack again. Also the Jace you designed is really cool but the second ability feels a little well too powerful for blue. i hope that wizards sees this and takes some of your ideas into consideration or asks you to help them in the future because this set is really cool.
R&D employees normally cannot view unsolicited designs. Very, very occasionally they can get the head-up from the brand/legal team to do so but usually this is not an option. It is extremely unlikely they will ever see the set, as is true with every set on these forums unfortunately.
Does anyone reading this happen to know if my username will be "saved" if I log out/leave the chat program and then come back? Or did Reuben already answer this somehow and, with my tiny dinosaur brain, I didn't realize that?
EDIT- I found an answer to my own question. Once you sign into the service for the first time, you can create a permanent username/login by clicking the appropriate link in the upper right corner of the screen (I think it said "create an account" or something like that.). Creating a non-premium account was free and super quick and easy. (Apparently this dinosaur is slowly evolving. Perhaps he'll be among the tech-savy creatures one day? A lot can happen in 231 million years, after all. )
231 million years? Why 231? There wasn't many dinosaurs that long back. Since Eoraptor?
So, Level-Up artifacts? That could work. Level-Up is very complex though, so I wouldn't use this without good consideration of the drawbacks.
@Jetvans.
Dominion is potentially a cool alt-win mechanic, it is quite parasitic though, so the usual sort of work-arounds would have to be employed i.e. Plenty of cards with it that can win on their own easily, plenty of cards with it that also help you win in other ways, etc.
About Evolve, why doesn't it fit? In a primal world, survival of the fittest, the basis of evolution, is a more prominent effect. It's the same flavour as Devour, the strong survive, just in devour the weak get eaten whereas in evolve the weak become the strong. It's actually a nice parallel. The mechanical suitability is fine, just 'eating creatures to survive' is not enough of a theme for a set, it's a component theme of the larger primal dinosaur world theme, which evolve fits. But yes, by no means do you have it to use, there is plenty of reasons not to.
I suppose people associate a prehistoric setting with evolution, but it just makes my inner biologist cringe to have people think evolution can somehow stop. Technically evolution still happens even in modern times, but yeah, I guess there's a big association with prehistoric life for most people. After I figure out if I actually do want to use devour or not I can decide wether or not to use Evolve.
I know exactly what you mean, trust me, biology is a field of interest for me. However, while evolution still takes place, it's more dramatically obvious in the whole 'survival of the fittest' way so I wouldn't call it a mistake to associate evolution with prehistoric life.
I was arguing against the mechanic ideas basically, if it's just a cycle or so, then a mechanic would be very unnecessary. I think a horizontal cycle of fossils would be cool, and the slot of 'mana-rocks' in a set would be a good place to put the concept. For example:
Black/Green Fossil ( )
Artifact (U)
As an additional cost to cast CARDNAME, exile a creature card from your graveyard. : Add or to your mana pool. , Sacrifice CARDNAME: Return a creature card exiled with CARDNAME to your hand.
This looks very good. I think I'm gonna yoink this. Might even cut a mana from that, since having to have a creature in the graveyard is a pretty hard restriction in the early game.
Go ahead and use it, I didn't suggest it for my benefit after all .
As I said, it doesn't have to be called Muraganda or include all the parts of Muraganda, but you should allude to it by thematics (which is pretty much already done) and in the abstract consider it the replacement. It's more of a formality than any technical difference, but it's nice to clarify that it is the replacement and let it fill that slot so players can enjoy it in that way.
I'm sorry, but I am not sure if I follow. So, basically you're fine if I make a new world and call it differently, but I still should allude to Muraganda?
Yes. All I am saying is this should be officially labelled as a Muraganda replacement because it's weird to have two 'primal dinosaur worlds' even if they are significantly different. (Yes, the multiverse is supposedly infinite, but that doesn't mean they should make another world exactly like Mirrodin except with 1 more rock even though that entirely feasibly exists in an infinite multiverse, so the same applies.)
@harlannowick.
As I said, "...but more importantly that's what they are by design" The Simic strategy is creatures, the Simic mechanics are on creatures and benefit playing creatures, the Simic main theme so far (+1/+1 counters) supports creatures, individual cards support a creature strategy. The Simic are just as much about creature strategies and +1/+1 counters even as anything flavour related. Deviating more from the +1/+1 counter theme, as long as you still support it somewhat, is staying true to the Simic as they are now, but shifting away from creatures is changing too much to be considered the same. Simic is not by creative or design, only an aspect of it, and that aspect is all about creatures.
What to do to make the set new is Legend's decision but my suggestion would be either expanding the Guildless as you said and have a theme of Guilds vs Guildless or to introduce some plot change to the world that causes the guilds to change in some way and have the theme of 'same same guilds but different'. The only real reason to choose either of these in particular though is because they are very natural extensions of the world, there is plenty of weird and wonderful things to do to make Ravnica fresh yet familiar. I'd say Apoquallyp's Siege of Ravnica is a good example of a more extreme change versus the Guildless conflict being the opposite.
About Evolve, why doesn't it fit? In a primal world, survival of the fittest, the basis of evolution, is a more prominent effect. It's the same flavour as Devour, the strong survive, just in devour the weak get eaten whereas in evolve the weak become the strong. It's actually a nice parallel. The mechanical suitability is fine, just 'eating creatures to survive' is not enough of a theme for a set, it's a component theme of the larger primal dinosaur world theme, which evolve fits. But yes, by no means do you have it to use, there is plenty of reasons not to.
I was arguing against the mechanic ideas basically, if it's just a cycle or so, then a mechanic would be very unnecessary. I think a horizontal cycle of fossils would be cool, and the slot of 'mana-rocks' in a set would be a good place to put the concept. For example:
Black/Green Fossil ( )
Artifact (U)
As an additional cost to cast CARDNAME, exile a creature card from your graveyard. : Add or to your mana pool. , Sacrifice CARDNAME: Return a creature card exiled with CARDNAME to your hand.
As I said, it doesn't have to be called Muraganda or include all the parts of Muraganda, but you should allude to it by thematics (which is pretty much already done) and in the abstract consider it the replacement. It's more of a formality than any technical difference, but it's nice to clarify that it is the replacement and let it fill that slot so players can enjoy it in that way.
Austere: Glad you agree
Refresh: I've heard them, it doesn't change Simic caring about creatures. Simic are a creature based guild, that can change, but that's the way it is now. Even if you look at just the creative, they are creature focused, but more importantly that's what they are by design.
Thrive: The nontoken part is feel-bad for Selesyna fans. That's not necessarily bad provided you give reason why the anti-synergy is there. I don't see any currently, so unless you provide reason for it, I would definitely change this in some way (tweaking it, changing it, replacing it, whatever).
Ultimately, I think the flaw with designing new Ravnica mechanics is that you end up either designing the same sort of mechanics in a boring way or you end up changing things. My #1 suggestion by far with this set is to add something besides execution (do you have already have something like this? IDK). Change the guilds (whilst keeping the essence of their identity) or change something else and reflect that in the guilds to some degree. Give players something legitimately new to be excited about, that way you don't rely on people wanting same Ravnica again, which I can assure you, many don't. I'm not saying you should remake Ravnica, or you should shake up everything, but adding A major element to go alongside everything people know to expect. If larger appeal isn't something you're interested and you are doing this more from a pure design reasoning, do it anyway. I am doubtful that this project would produce any satisfying, interesting result unless you are willing to work really hard on it and just want to see what you can do.
This isn't the first time I have made this argument and I doubt it will be the last. It just seems like CCC designers are overly willing to be uncreative when it comes to Ravnica sequels. Maybe this is reflective of RTR's design, which is thought of by much of R&D as being a little too conservative even for a set that wants to be conservative, and people don't realise (or agree) that the flaw in the original becomes so much worse when repeated. Ultimately, people can do what they want with their sets, and if truly think that what they are doing is what they really want to be doing in the end, then I respect that. But creativity should be a core tenant of CCC designers, there isn't much point to doing this whole thing unless you are doing something interesting and challenging.
Austere is not a good mechanic. Caring about opponent is an automatic warning alarm in mechanics and this is in perhaps the worst possible way. This is unreliable, swingy, feel-bad, limiting strategically, meta damaging, constructed-level undevelopable, the list goes on. In no way do I think this mechanic is at all printable, and I strongly advise removing it.
Refresh is a good mechanic, but I agree with Circeus that having nothing to do with creatures is unsuitable for a creature focused guild. Now this isn't necessarily true, there is the option to actually change the guilds whilst still keeping their identities that could be done, but otherwise this doesn't tie well enough into the Simic in particular.
Thrive has the same problem. It makes perfect sense for GW, but Selesyna has a strong token theme, so this is counter to their identity.
I think using Evolve and Devour would be better than using 'Foodchain', which just seems like a weird hybrid in many ways. Evolve can even help support Devour by creating a stronger emphasis on +1/+1 counter strategies, which would be a fine thing to push in a set like this. Not to say that you should use these mechanics specifically, but they should definitely be high on your list as they fit very well mechanically and thematically for the overall set themes.
'Purge' is too low of a cost, it doesn't really have any interesting decision making like Exploit does where you are unsure when to play the creature and when to sacrifice and what when you do play it. With purge, you almost always wait until you can use it and you almost always do when you can, not very interesting. You could potentially up the number of cards you need to exile if you want to see how that plays.
Fossils isn't a theme I think players will really get behind, nor one that makes a lot of sense, yes fossils are from prehistory but being in prehistory doesn't have any relation to the presence of those fossils, more so the lack of them. Fossils would work extremely well in a later set set in the future to show the past, but unless you are doing that, the fossils concept is probably just fine as a cycle or something rather than a major element. That way you can include the concept because it is relevant, without giving it a significance that it shouldn't have.
One suggestion that comes to mind immediately is that this plane should probably be Muraganda (see Muraganda Petroglyphs). Not that the 'vanilla matters' or 'basic land matters' concepts suggested by known Muraganda cards should be major themes, but you should consider having a few cards with those themes as well. Having a new plane gives more space for identity, but not by any significant degree seeing as Arkhos and Moonseng have already been represented by being replaced by Theros and Tarkir, demonstrating that you can take some liberties and make some significant changes. You can even change the name and just imply and state that they are the same, as was done with the previous examples.
Missed #5 (Skarrg Oathsworn), fixed the numbering
-Repeatable card filtering is pretty powerful, especially when it can 'go off' like this can. It's not obviously broken at common, but it's concerning.
-Obsoleting weak commons with Rares is fine, but common and rare have the same maximum power ceiling, just in different ways. Prey Upon is a very playable card and making a more powerful version should not be done lightly. It's likely fine here considering it's not that much more powerful, but it's something that could easily prove too good for some environments.
-Was actually referring to Outlaw (#6)
-What do you find objectionable about it? Not that I can't think of any reasons, but I'd like to know.
Card Comments (of those just posted)
1) A fine reprint
2) A bit weak, but maybe that's for the best
3) Not a common
4) Strictly better Prey Upon, not sure that's okay.
5) Fine based on Atarka Beastbreaker
6) Seems overly clunky
7) Fine Reprint
8) Instant speed Bone Splinters, probably good
9) Nice design
10) Should be 'nonland' based on Utter End, it's safer meta-wise as well to avoid efficient LD
11) Fine
12) Might be overly clunky
13) the 'white' mode isn't white, it has no conditions white uses. Also, the green mode is pretty white, maybe change that as well?
14) Seems fine
'Alliance' and 'defiance' are too general of a mechanic, they don't do really do anything new. But something along those lines could be used. The guildless are probably best as monocolour, five colour is too hard to support without encouraging two-colour and therefore not differentiating from the guilds. Plus it makes sense that the nameless populace would be something generic to magic.
My thoughts would be that the first set should be a little more conservative with new themes, then the second pushes the new theme/s into the focus. This block probably should be large/large to allow room for all the things that want to be going on. Something I could even potentially see is a lorwyn/shadowmoor style double block (large/small-large/small). In that case, the whole first block should introduce the new theme/s while the second block focuses on the new. It's a lot of space, but Ravnica is one of the most popular worlds so I absolutely see it happening.
Mechanic split for two-set could be 5/5 or 6/4. Megablock could be 5/5, 2/1 or 5/5, 1/1.
R&D employees normally cannot view unsolicited designs. Very, very occasionally they can get the head-up from the brand/legal team to do so but usually this is not an option. It is extremely unlikely they will ever see the set, as is true with every set on these forums unfortunately.
231 million years? Why 231? There wasn't many dinosaurs that long back. Since Eoraptor?
So, Level-Up artifacts? That could work. Level-Up is very complex though, so I wouldn't use this without good consideration of the drawbacks.
@Jetvans.
Dominion is potentially a cool alt-win mechanic, it is quite parasitic though, so the usual sort of work-arounds would have to be employed i.e. Plenty of cards with it that can win on their own easily, plenty of cards with it that also help you win in other ways, etc.
I know exactly what you mean, trust me, biology is a field of interest for me. However, while evolution still takes place, it's more dramatically obvious in the whole 'survival of the fittest' way so I wouldn't call it a mistake to associate evolution with prehistoric life.
Go ahead and use it, I didn't suggest it for my benefit after all
Yes. All I am saying is this should be officially labelled as a Muraganda replacement because it's weird to have two 'primal dinosaur worlds' even if they are significantly different. (Yes, the multiverse is supposedly infinite, but that doesn't mean they should make another world exactly like Mirrodin except with 1 more rock even though that entirely feasibly exists in an infinite multiverse, so the same applies.)
As I said, "...but more importantly that's what they are by design" The Simic strategy is creatures, the Simic mechanics are on creatures and benefit playing creatures, the Simic main theme so far (+1/+1 counters) supports creatures, individual cards support a creature strategy. The Simic are just as much about creature strategies and +1/+1 counters even as anything flavour related. Deviating more from the +1/+1 counter theme, as long as you still support it somewhat, is staying true to the Simic as they are now, but shifting away from creatures is changing too much to be considered the same. Simic is not
What to do to make the set new is Legend's decision but my suggestion would be either expanding the Guildless as you said and have a theme of Guilds vs Guildless or to introduce some plot change to the world that causes the guilds to change in some way and have the theme of 'same same guilds but different'. The only real reason to choose either of these in particular though is because they are very natural extensions of the world, there is plenty of weird and wonderful things to do to make Ravnica fresh yet familiar. I'd say Apoquallyp's Siege of Ravnica is a good example of a more extreme change versus the Guildless conflict being the opposite.
I was arguing against the mechanic ideas basically, if it's just a cycle or so, then a mechanic would be very unnecessary. I think a horizontal cycle of fossils would be cool, and the slot of 'mana-rocks' in a set would be a good place to put the concept. For example:
Black/Green Fossil (
Artifact (U)
As an additional cost to cast CARDNAME, exile a creature card from your graveyard.
As I said, it doesn't have to be called Muraganda or include all the parts of Muraganda, but you should allude to it by thematics (which is pretty much already done) and in the abstract consider it the replacement. It's more of a formality than any technical difference, but it's nice to clarify that it is the replacement and let it fill that slot so players can enjoy it in that way.
Refresh: I've heard them, it doesn't change Simic caring about creatures. Simic are a creature based guild, that can change, but that's the way it is now. Even if you look at just the creative, they are creature focused, but more importantly that's what they are by design.
Thrive: The nontoken part is feel-bad for Selesyna fans. That's not necessarily bad provided you give reason why the anti-synergy is there. I don't see any currently, so unless you provide reason for it, I would definitely change this in some way (tweaking it, changing it, replacing it, whatever).
Ultimately, I think the flaw with designing new Ravnica mechanics is that you end up either designing the same sort of mechanics in a boring way or you end up changing things. My #1 suggestion by far with this set is to add something besides execution (do you have already have something like this? IDK). Change the guilds (whilst keeping the essence of their identity) or change something else and reflect that in the guilds to some degree. Give players something legitimately new to be excited about, that way you don't rely on people wanting same Ravnica again, which I can assure you, many don't. I'm not saying you should remake Ravnica, or you should shake up everything, but adding A major element to go alongside everything people know to expect. If larger appeal isn't something you're interested and you are doing this more from a pure design reasoning, do it anyway. I am doubtful that this project would produce any satisfying, interesting result unless you are willing to work really hard on it and just want to see what you can do.
This isn't the first time I have made this argument and I doubt it will be the last. It just seems like CCC designers are overly willing to be uncreative when it comes to Ravnica sequels. Maybe this is reflective of RTR's design, which is thought of by much of R&D as being a little too conservative even for a set that wants to be conservative, and people don't realise (or agree) that the flaw in the original becomes so much worse when repeated. Ultimately, people can do what they want with their sets, and if truly think that what they are doing is what they really want to be doing in the end, then I respect that. But creativity should be a core tenant of CCC designers, there isn't much point to doing this whole thing unless you are doing something interesting and challenging.
Refresh is a good mechanic, but I agree with Circeus that having nothing to do with creatures is unsuitable for a creature focused guild. Now this isn't necessarily true, there is the option to actually change the guilds whilst still keeping their identities that could be done, but otherwise this doesn't tie well enough into the Simic in particular.
Thrive has the same problem. It makes perfect sense for GW, but Selesyna has a strong token theme, so this is counter to their identity.
'Purge' is too low of a cost, it doesn't really have any interesting decision making like Exploit does where you are unsure when to play the creature and when to sacrifice and what when you do play it. With purge, you almost always wait until you can use it and you almost always do when you can, not very interesting. You could potentially up the number of cards you need to exile if you want to see how that plays.
Fossils isn't a theme I think players will really get behind, nor one that makes a lot of sense, yes fossils are from prehistory but being in prehistory doesn't have any relation to the presence of those fossils, more so the lack of them. Fossils would work extremely well in a later set set in the future to show the past, but unless you are doing that, the fossils concept is probably just fine as a cycle or something rather than a major element. That way you can include the concept because it is relevant, without giving it a significance that it shouldn't have.
One suggestion that comes to mind immediately is that this plane should probably be Muraganda (see Muraganda Petroglyphs). Not that the 'vanilla matters' or 'basic land matters' concepts suggested by known Muraganda cards should be major themes, but you should consider having a few cards with those themes as well. Having a new plane gives more space for identity, but not by any significant degree seeing as Arkhos and Moonseng have already been represented by being replaced by Theros and Tarkir, demonstrating that you can take some liberties and make some significant changes. You can even change the name and just imply and state that they are the same, as was done with the previous examples.