Logistical was not the right word, I apologize. I meant more that the nature of this particular usage of transform can risk leading to some feel bad moments if you aren't cognizant of the problems. Because revolutionaries will often come into play transformed, if for whatever reason the transformed side does something different than what the front side does that can be situationally worse than the front side, then there is the chance someone will play the card, not realize the back side was worse for them than the front (since they couldn't read it due to it being sleeved,) and then feel like a dummy for playing a card that looked fine in the situation, but instantly becoming a poor play.
This is what differs this mechanic from other transform cards. Every other transform card always at least enters the battlefield face up, and most give you some level of control of when they flip. This allows players not intimately familiar with the card to look at the backside of the card and remind themselves what the other side does. This mechanic has you put into play a creature different from what you have been looking at in your hand.so if the back card serves a completely different purpose than the front of the card, then people could easily play the creature and have it not seeve the role they thought it was going to serve, which is a feel bad.
I'm not so sure that is true. Especially if you have valuable cards in your pull, why wouldn't you sleeve them and put them in your deck? And besides, it seems unwise to just assume people wouldn't want to sleeve them and put them in their decks. If people want to play with their cards and not placeholders, and have gotten the appropriate sleeves and such to do so, they shouldn't be punished because they didn't memorize the back of the card.
Still, it's a relatively small complaint, and it's a good mechanic overall, but I think it should be taken into account.
I think the flavor is a home run. I like how if your opponent wants to stop the revolution, they have to get rid of all the dissenters, because even one around will keep the revolution going. However, if they do manage to do that, then it will take a bit of work to get it going again, especially that late in the game.
I'm very curious about the logistical issues with the Transform mechanic, however. The biggest knock against the mechanic is that once you have revolted, provided you are playing with sleeved cards, there are going to be a bunch of cards in your hand that you don't actually know what they do, since the face you see is not the face they'll be coming in as. While this is partially true with every DFC, since there has yet to be a card that comes into the battlefield pre-flipped, you at least know what your card will do immediately upon playing it. And yes, you could pull the card out of the sleeve and flip it over and read it, but you are giving away a lot of information doing so, even if they fail to notice what specific card it is.
In general, even if this is found to be an issue, most are pretty strict upgrades from their front side, so there aren't many circumstances where you would be unhappy with the flipped side. The biggest offender is probably Peaceful Protester // Rioting Mob, since there are times when you just need a body to block, and being forced to attack could really mess with your plans. Since there is no indication you will be locked into attacking on the front side, unless you have simply memorized the card you could very well be caught off guard by the creature you played to gum up the ground being forced into the red zone. I could foresee that giving players less familiar with the cards very feel bad moments where they feel they have made quite a fool of themselves.
All that being said, it could turn out to just not be much of an issue and everything be fine. I do think that is something to keep in mind though.
Am I mistaken, or does this just basically read "this creature cannot be chump blocked"? I mean, yes there are times that they have a creature with enough toughness to survive the attack but not enough power to kill it, and it stops deathtouch shenanigans, but generally speaking you hope to either eat or trade with your opponent's creatures. This doesn't stop that from happening.
I just don't really see the point of this mechanic. I don't feel like there are many times this is relevant, and when it is, it's basically unblockable. I think Trample fits the flavor of green much better than this, and it much more interactive.
Basically, forcing the rules to change is a significant cost and makes the card unprintable under current design. You can propose such designs if you like - but it'll cost points no matter what; because a cost in rules changes is definitely a cost. As designers, we'd have to get the rules team to buy in, it might cause unforseen problesm we're unaware of, judges and players have to relearn things... It's a major cost. It needs a major benefit.
If the design is so good that it utterly overwhelms that, awesome. Otherwise, I'd recommend embracing the creative limitations of MTG's current rules. Try to capture the essence of what you like in your idea, then find a way to accomplish it within the context of Magic's current design rules. This is how the hideaway lands came from the treasure mechanic after all during Lorwyn's design.
Big rule-changing cards are interesting to talk about and make a great topic for exploring them in other threads (Reuben's got a whole set of them because they seriously serves his design goals for that set), but they don't make the best submissions for these design challenges. We have to rate them by the current standards, not hypothetical future ones.
That's fair, I will keep that in mind for future reference. I appreciate your patience in responding to my queries and criticism, and look forward to giving your later challenges a shot when they come up!
@Lifeleik - The central issue here is that I was making the point that face-up cards in the library with special rules for free casting aren't something MTG does right now. It simply wouldn't work. You couldn't print it without the rules team doing things. That's why I viewed it as an unprintable design. I view it as a more severe problem than a color pie break. Breaking the color pie once confuses players' sense of the colors but the card still works. Premonition variants simply don't work unless the rules change. That was what I was referring to.
To sum up my points...
1) The card as turned in was about a 2 because it had a lot of problems, some subtle and some significant.
2) Even as an in-color, polished white angel - the premonition still breaks the rules as is and makes it unprintable.
If we assume the rules are indeed changed to work for premonition, then I'd rate it an 8.5 as a white angel with the other issues cleaned up. Without those changes, it's a 3 because - while cool - it breaks things.
Does that clear things up?
That seems reasonable. So, in the future, should I simply abstain from doing mechanics that rely on rule tweaks for it work, or is there a way to acceptably preeent them?
It's possible I did misunderstand you. Let me see:
Quote from Remaking Magic Episode 25 »
Reuben: Okay, so, I think as an angel, and if you remove that little line, it would be a sweet design. I think it would be an 8 or something, if not higher-
Dan: Actually, I’m going to actually challenge that...it’s like a 3. Because, my thing is Warp is so confusing, premonition is based on the mechanic warp which we use as premonition, is so freaking confusing, this card could not be a standalone. It would have to be used in a set like dreamscape. In dreamscape, like as an angel, I’d say, which you can be used to this premonition mechanic, I would say it’s like an 8 or a 9.
Reuben: Yeah, see, I guess I’ve been working on dreamscape so long
Dan: Yeah, you got to remember that rules gurus would look at this and be like “what the heck is this, it’s unprintable!
Reuben: Yeah, so okay, yeah. But as it is it is a bit of a mess.
(Talk about color issues which I agree with)
Dan: -But the fact is that ability, that premonition ability. I know that mentions that he is trying to play to the judges, but without treating this as if it's just a card on its own, without having a whole set explaining how this bizarre mechanic works, a set designed to twist your brain, yeah it’s not...you, you can’t do that. It would cause rule people headaches, it would do weird things, and you can’t do that without properly supporting it.
I left out most of the talk about color pie breaking since I agree with those points. This is the part I take most issue with:
Because, my thing is Warp is so confusing, premonition is based on the mechanic warp which we use as premonition, is so freaking confusing, this card could not be a standalone.
I agree, it wouldn't be standalone. But neither would undying, or transform, or dash. Unless a mechanic is evergreen, it is not going to be standalone, it will be a supported mechanic of the set it appears in. You couldn't take any of these transform phoenixes and just stick them into any old set, because it would feel wildly out of place and would eat up a lot of complexity points for not much gain. The same would be true if anyone tried to put a random transform card into a set before 2011, it simply would confuse people. That would not make it a poor design, it would simply mean that it would need to go in the right set, just like any card with a non-evergreen mechanic.
In short: Critique my card because it's out of color? Reasonable. Critique it because it's overly wordy and has unnecessary abilities? Sure. Critique it because it doesn't feel 100% like a phoenix? Okay, I can see that. But critique it because it doesn't make sense as a standalone? That simply does not seem reasonable.
////////////
Also, and this has nothing to do with my card, but while I agree with your point about some mechanics needing more support, flying is not a good example of a mechanic that needs little to no support to function. Yes, while flying does "work," strictly speaking, without having other flyers to contextualize it. If there was theoretically only one flyer, the mechanic would be pretty pointless, since it would essentially be "This creature cannot be blocked except by other copies of this creature." In fact, flying is the evergreen mechanic that basically requires they offer ways to interact with it in each set in order for it to be reasonable. You don't see cards that say "destroy target creature with vigilance," and flying is the only keyword that I can think of that another keyword was made specifically to interact with it, a la reach. Vigilance or haste would be a better example of what you are trying to convey, since they in fact did start out as one-shot mechanics essentially.
And morph wouldn't work as a standalone mechanic on a card not really because of the complexity issue, (I mean that is a factor, but not really the main one,) but because the mechanic's entire purpose is to obscure the card you played to your opponent, which would not be done if there was only one morph creature in existence. A better example for what you are saying I believe would be transform, since while it technically could only appear on one card and make sense, (the mechanic doesn't inherently necessitate other transform cards to work,) the mechanic would need a high enough as-fan to get people used to the mechanic, would need to have rules inserts to explain how it works, and would need to have special checklist cards at high enough levels for those who don't want to feel forced to play with sleeved cards.
Edit: I want to add that I hope that my very long replies are not seen as me trying to overwhelm or outsmart either of you. I really respect both of your opinions, which is why I try to be a thorough as possible in presenting my point in order to minimize confusion. I really do want to understand why not being standalone would be a valid criticism for a card of this nature, when all the other cards that would not slot into just any set were not given that criticism. It does not seem internally consistent, and if I'm missing something then please point it out to me.
@lifeliek - You're also making the mistake of dealing with each criticism individually and comparing each individual problem to the card's total grade. None of the issues we brought up on their own would rank this card a 2 out of 10. Once you combine all the issues, however, we believe they do.
It's also worth noting that just because the current card might be unprintable, it doesn't mean that a few small tweaks wouldn't make the card great. Like I said, putting Lifelink on Ashcloud Phoenix would cripple an otherwise great design. However, it would be simple to remove that keyword.
I do not take issue with the final score, because like you said I could see where the issues could compound to lead to that. My issue is specifically at the 39-40 minute mark, after Reuben said he would rate it as a 8/10 if it was a white angel, you said that it would be a 3/10 since it would not work standalone. Bear in mind this is a 3/10 after all the other issues were assumed to be fixed. My argument is that is not a fair critique, because all mechanics and cards require context, and no card is "standalone."
@lifeliek I think your undervaluing how much a color pie break is hurting the design. The main reason we gave it a 2/10 as far as I can remember without re-listening to the podcast is that it brought back other creatures which was what was breaking the color pie. If it had been only bringing itself back it would of scored higher. This is the main thing that is bringing down your marks, I agree that due to how we mention the rules/standalone issues just before scoring it that it maybe sounded like that was the main thing bringing it down.
Example a card like Hornet Sting is a card that is actually actively harming the game and would be rated by us as a 1 or 0. Your color pie break isn't as bad obviously but when combined with the other issues we mentioned it created the overall low score.
Think of it like this:
Most designs start at a 7.
Color pie break makes it like a 4
the host of other issues make it a 2
Stairc, after you said that you would rate it 8/10 if it was a white angel, said he would contest that and make it a 3/10, for the reasons I expressed above. That is what I am contesting.
Edit: I am not even really contesting the final score, as I understand the issues with the color pie. My issue is that Stairc made it very clear he had problems with the design due to it not being able to work standalone, and I simply do not think that is a fair barometer for a design of this nature.
Glad to hear it was enjoyable. We had a lot of fun doing it.
I appreciate your input on my design. However, I would like to defend some of my design choices that were critiqued.
Great. Let's hear it.
One of the things Stairc made a point of mentioning was that the premonition wording would have to be used in a set that has other cards that work in a similar nature, due to how strange the ability is. I agree completely with that. However, wouldn't the same be true with Transform cards, which many people submitted?
That's worth bringing up. Transform is nestled more securely within MTG mainstream than Premonition. The transform aspect makes the card special and unique in a dramatic way and has already been introduced into a prior set. It also has very flexible flavor, whereas a mechanic as bizarre as Premonition seems very odd to place on the first legendary phoenix. The card needs to be one that can stand on its own, out of the context of a dream set.
There's also the matter that the transform mechanic fits cleanly into a Phoenix's identity. The phoenix life cycle has a lot to do with transformation, similar to the transform planeswalkers we're getting in MTG origins. Premonition on a Sphinx would make sense, even outside the context of a dream set, due to the flavor of the sphinx meshing with the mechanic. Premonition doesn't fit a phoenix as well, so it's odd that premonition would show up on the first legendary phoenix. It's the same as if Metalcraft were to show up on the first legendary phoenix. The flavor doesn't make the mechanic feel at home even outside the context of its set.
Basically, if there were NO other double faced cards before the legendary phoenix and none ever again - the mechanic would still fit perfectly with what the phoenix wants to do. It makes sense and works beautifully with the flavor. Premonition? Not so much.
But I wanted to voice my defense of my design, since I feel a 2/10 is an unfair evaluation, especially when points were not taken off of transform cards.
The reason it was a 2/10 in its current form is for several reasons.
1) Premonition is a poor choice for the first legendary phoenix for reasons mentioned in the podcast, and above in this post.
2) It breaks the color pie, which alone makes it unprintable.
3) The +1/+0 isn't necessary.
4) The "saving other guys" isn't in the core identity of the phoenix - which the first legendary phoenix has to deliver extremely clearly on.
It's worth noting that if Ashcloud Phoenix was the only card ever printed with Morph, and a white ability with lifelink was tacked onto it as well, it would score very low as well. Of course, even then it still feels mostly like a phoenix (flipping it faceup is like hatching the egg) but it would still rate very low. In the current version though, it's a stellar design.
It's fair to say the card did not fit the red color and that it did not fit the current way Wizards is portraying phoenixes. However, I still take issue with saying its premonition-esque is not appropriate for a phoenix. The very nature of what phoenixes do is die and come back in the future, which is precisely what putting it face in your library and casting it for free a turn or two later accomplishes. Note that while this uses similar ruling to premonition, it itself does not have premonition, which means the idea of playing the card for free could be flavored in a different manner for this card.
In fact, since we are going specifically off of how WotC portrays phoenixes, I'd argue the mechanic portrayed in my design would be more flavorfully representative of phoenix rebirth than the transform mechanic. Aside from Ashcloud Phoenix, none of the phoenixes have any kind of mechanic that suggests it leaves an egg or remnant of itself behind that could be tampered with and prevent it from being reborn. They simply die and come back at a later time, sometimes when certain conditions are me, which is precisely what this mechanic portrays. I chose this type of mechanic because I thought it perfectly encapsulated the idea of a phoenix, and did so in the most awesome way possible, so it confuses me that this mechanic is being criticized for not being flavorful enough.
All of that being said, I believe the part I take most issue with is at around the 40 minute mark of your podcast you mentioned that this card has to be judged as a stand alone. Now, to be fair, I should have made it clearer that I imagine this card in the context of a set that supports this kind of shenanigans, like dreamscape. However, it seems a bit weird to not assume that this card would be in a set that would provide appropriate context. Considering any mechanic that is not evergreen would need a set that supports that mechanic to really justify being printed, why is this critique being thrown at my design and not anyone else's with non-evergreen mechanics? I understand that the rules don't currently support this kind of card, but my reason for citing Reuben's mock comprehensive rules on the mechanic was to show how it would probably be supported if it was printed in the appropriate set. It would be one thing if the challenge was to design a legendary phoenix for a core set, but that was not the challenge and saying it can't be printed just anywhere, while accurate, is not a not consistent with how you looked at the other cards.
And I just want to make it clear, I am not arguing that it would be better served as being red/white, or possibly an angel. Not even defending the +1/+0 addition. My main concern comes at around the 39-40 minute mark where Stairc rates my card low since the card could not be a "standalone." I simply do not think that is fair to judge this card as a standalone when cards simply do not exist as standalones in magic. They have sets to give them context, and the rules are expanded on to support the mechanics of the set. Besides, often the point of legends are to show off the cool mechanics of the set. Many, many legendary creatures don't make sense without their set and the mechanics the come with it informing the players of how the cards work, (for example, imagine seeing Mogis without having been exposed to the Theros block at all!)
Anyway, I still enjoy your guy's work, I just don't feel that the critique of the card mechanic not being suitable does not hold much water. If could just be because you two had so many cards to go through and were a tad rushed, and that would be completely understandable. If I am missing something critical though, or my rebuttals are not on point or are misinformed somehow, I would like to know so as to improve in the future.
I appreciate your input on my design. However, I would like to defend some of my design choices that were critiqued.
One of the things Stairc made a point of mentioning was that the premonition wording would have to be used in a set that has other cards that work in a similar nature, due to how strange the ability is. I agree completely with that. However, wouldn't the same be true with Transform cards, which many people submitted? Even in Magic Origins, we don't see a one-of Transform card. We see a cycle of high profile transform cards. Even mechanics like hybrid mana, split cards, and flip cards don't appear as one-of design choices in a set as of yet. My point being is that, if the other cards with transform are not going to be scored lower for having a mechanic that the set has to support, then I have trouble seeing how it is fair that my card is scored lower because of that.
As for giving creatures +1/+0 and haste, perhaps the +1/+0 was not necessary. However, I feel that granting all of your creatures haste is an important part of the cinematic design of this card. If it did not grant haste, then all the creatures who were sent forward in time would just mill around for a turn when they came back into play. That is not the gameplay this card is looking to create. Rather, it is looking for the feel of "Not only do my creatures come back, but they come back charging straight at you! Which is much more red than it would be otherwise.
That being said, I do agree with you both that the saving ability is not red, but white. If I were to design this again, I would make it Red White and get rid of the +1/+0. And yes, admittedly the saving ability hasn't typically been aligned with phoenixes. In my defense though, I was designing this card with a dreamscape-esque set in mind, with the idea of this phoenix actually being the incarnation of the phoenix as a symbol. The Phoenix as a symbol gives hope to people, and makes people think that, just as the phoenix can be reborn, so to can I. Perhaps that idea did not come across as I would have liked, and that is my fault for not tightening up the design. But I wanted to voice my defense of my design, since I feel a 2/10 is an unfair evaluation, especially when points were not taken off of transform cards.
Oh yeah, I came across that. It's funny, I actually have been working on this set on and off since around Return to Ravnica, without really any interaction with the custom magic community. Then I come across the thread you're referring to, where a very similar mechanic was very much lampooned. It was admittedly a bit jarring, but I also felt I approached it more tactfully than the other mechanic, so that motivated me to actually share this and see what others thought.
Will give this challenge a shot, and we'll even try to earn some brownie points by pandering to the judges!
Fawkes of Eternal Ardor4RR Legendary Creature - Phoenix
Flying, Haste
Other creatures you control have +1/+0 and haste.
Whenever Fawkes of Eternal Ardor or another creature would die, instead put it face up in your library, beneath the top two cards. (If a face up card in a library would become the top card of a player's library, that player casts it without paying its mana cost instead.)
3/3
Note that I'm basing the rules text on Doombringer's comprehensive rules for Premonition, specifically:
702.PRMc If a face up card in a library would become the top card of a player's library, that player casts it without paying its mana cost instead. If that player can't, he or she turns the face up card face down instead and it becomes the top card of his or her library. It is no longer face up.
Really liking the look of this, I recall when you first discussed Ruin.
Just a note that proactive control mechanics (i.e. effects that remove your opponents options proactively, rather than reactively like counterspells or removal) are always polarizing, mainly due to some overpowered ones in the past that weren't fun to play against (Stasis, Sinkhole, Strip Mine, Stifle, Winter Orb, Wasteland all come to mind).
An individual card that ruins the opponent's lands and that is too good will give this mechanic a bad name. I'd be inclined to keep 'ruin target land' abilities fairly weak as a result. Ruining your own lands to fuel spells is fine - it's a very Spiky mechanic and some people won't like those cards but they just won't play them (just as I, as a fairly Spiky player, look at a card like Worldspine Wurm and immediately think "oh, that's a Timmy card unless there's a way to break it, is there? No? OK, ignore its existence").
The 6th land type causes no insurmountable issues. Ruin counters might cause memory issues, however, and should be used carefully.
That's a good point about proactive control options. I think it will be important any cards that do ruin opponent's lands are either: A. Fairly easily preventable, or B. Overcosted. The overcosted ones should be treated as more of a sideboard option to use against decks that push their mana base by playing a lot of ruins in deck. I have some cards to illustrate that, but I will refrain from posting them until I find the right artist credits.
Also, you might be thinking of someone else, unless you happen to be a facebook friend of mine, since I have only really posted any of this on FB, (and I suppose briefly on No Goblins Allowed.)
This is what differs this mechanic from other transform cards. Every other transform card always at least enters the battlefield face up, and most give you some level of control of when they flip. This allows players not intimately familiar with the card to look at the backside of the card and remind themselves what the other side does. This mechanic has you put into play a creature different from what you have been looking at in your hand.so if the back card serves a completely different purpose than the front of the card, then people could easily play the creature and have it not seeve the role they thought it was going to serve, which is a feel bad.
Still, it's a relatively small complaint, and it's a good mechanic overall, but I think it should be taken into account.
I'm very curious about the logistical issues with the Transform mechanic, however. The biggest knock against the mechanic is that once you have revolted, provided you are playing with sleeved cards, there are going to be a bunch of cards in your hand that you don't actually know what they do, since the face you see is not the face they'll be coming in as. While this is partially true with every DFC, since there has yet to be a card that comes into the battlefield pre-flipped, you at least know what your card will do immediately upon playing it. And yes, you could pull the card out of the sleeve and flip it over and read it, but you are giving away a lot of information doing so, even if they fail to notice what specific card it is.
In general, even if this is found to be an issue, most are pretty strict upgrades from their front side, so there aren't many circumstances where you would be unhappy with the flipped side. The biggest offender is probably Peaceful Protester // Rioting Mob, since there are times when you just need a body to block, and being forced to attack could really mess with your plans. Since there is no indication you will be locked into attacking on the front side, unless you have simply memorized the card you could very well be caught off guard by the creature you played to gum up the ground being forced into the red zone. I could foresee that giving players less familiar with the cards very feel bad moments where they feel they have made quite a fool of themselves.
All that being said, it could turn out to just not be much of an issue and everything be fine. I do think that is something to keep in mind though.
I just don't really see the point of this mechanic. I don't feel like there are many times this is relevant, and when it is, it's basically unblockable. I think Trample fits the flavor of green much better than this, and it much more interactive.
That's fair, I will keep that in mind for future reference. I appreciate your patience in responding to my queries and criticism, and look forward to giving your later challenges a shot when they come up!
That seems reasonable. So, in the future, should I simply abstain from doing mechanics that rely on rule tweaks for it work, or is there a way to acceptably preeent them?
I left out most of the talk about color pie breaking since I agree with those points. This is the part I take most issue with:
I agree, it wouldn't be standalone. But neither would undying, or transform, or dash. Unless a mechanic is evergreen, it is not going to be standalone, it will be a supported mechanic of the set it appears in. You couldn't take any of these transform phoenixes and just stick them into any old set, because it would feel wildly out of place and would eat up a lot of complexity points for not much gain. The same would be true if anyone tried to put a random transform card into a set before 2011, it simply would confuse people. That would not make it a poor design, it would simply mean that it would need to go in the right set, just like any card with a non-evergreen mechanic.
In short: Critique my card because it's out of color? Reasonable. Critique it because it's overly wordy and has unnecessary abilities? Sure. Critique it because it doesn't feel 100% like a phoenix? Okay, I can see that. But critique it because it doesn't make sense as a standalone? That simply does not seem reasonable.
////////////
Also, and this has nothing to do with my card, but while I agree with your point about some mechanics needing more support, flying is not a good example of a mechanic that needs little to no support to function. Yes, while flying does "work," strictly speaking, without having other flyers to contextualize it. If there was theoretically only one flyer, the mechanic would be pretty pointless, since it would essentially be "This creature cannot be blocked except by other copies of this creature." In fact, flying is the evergreen mechanic that basically requires they offer ways to interact with it in each set in order for it to be reasonable. You don't see cards that say "destroy target creature with vigilance," and flying is the only keyword that I can think of that another keyword was made specifically to interact with it, a la reach. Vigilance or haste would be a better example of what you are trying to convey, since they in fact did start out as one-shot mechanics essentially.
And morph wouldn't work as a standalone mechanic on a card not really because of the complexity issue, (I mean that is a factor, but not really the main one,) but because the mechanic's entire purpose is to obscure the card you played to your opponent, which would not be done if there was only one morph creature in existence. A better example for what you are saying I believe would be transform, since while it technically could only appear on one card and make sense, (the mechanic doesn't inherently necessitate other transform cards to work,) the mechanic would need a high enough as-fan to get people used to the mechanic, would need to have rules inserts to explain how it works, and would need to have special checklist cards at high enough levels for those who don't want to feel forced to play with sleeved cards.
Edit: I want to add that I hope that my very long replies are not seen as me trying to overwhelm or outsmart either of you. I really respect both of your opinions, which is why I try to be a thorough as possible in presenting my point in order to minimize confusion. I really do want to understand why not being standalone would be a valid criticism for a card of this nature, when all the other cards that would not slot into just any set were not given that criticism. It does not seem internally consistent, and if I'm missing something then please point it out to me.
I do not take issue with the final score, because like you said I could see where the issues could compound to lead to that. My issue is specifically at the 39-40 minute mark, after Reuben said he would rate it as a 8/10 if it was a white angel, you said that it would be a 3/10 since it would not work standalone. Bear in mind this is a 3/10 after all the other issues were assumed to be fixed. My argument is that is not a fair critique, because all mechanics and cards require context, and no card is "standalone."
Stairc, after you said that you would rate it 8/10 if it was a white angel, said he would contest that and make it a 3/10, for the reasons I expressed above. That is what I am contesting.
Edit: I am not even really contesting the final score, as I understand the issues with the color pie. My issue is that Stairc made it very clear he had problems with the design due to it not being able to work standalone, and I simply do not think that is a fair barometer for a design of this nature.
This has been one of my favorite of the cards it has designed. The card makes perfect sense, yet makes no sense at all.
It's fair to say the card did not fit the red color and that it did not fit the current way Wizards is portraying phoenixes. However, I still take issue with saying its premonition-esque is not appropriate for a phoenix. The very nature of what phoenixes do is die and come back in the future, which is precisely what putting it face in your library and casting it for free a turn or two later accomplishes. Note that while this uses similar ruling to premonition, it itself does not have premonition, which means the idea of playing the card for free could be flavored in a different manner for this card.
In fact, since we are going specifically off of how WotC portrays phoenixes, I'd argue the mechanic portrayed in my design would be more flavorfully representative of phoenix rebirth than the transform mechanic. Aside from Ashcloud Phoenix, none of the phoenixes have any kind of mechanic that suggests it leaves an egg or remnant of itself behind that could be tampered with and prevent it from being reborn. They simply die and come back at a later time, sometimes when certain conditions are me, which is precisely what this mechanic portrays. I chose this type of mechanic because I thought it perfectly encapsulated the idea of a phoenix, and did so in the most awesome way possible, so it confuses me that this mechanic is being criticized for not being flavorful enough.
All of that being said, I believe the part I take most issue with is at around the 40 minute mark of your podcast you mentioned that this card has to be judged as a stand alone. Now, to be fair, I should have made it clearer that I imagine this card in the context of a set that supports this kind of shenanigans, like dreamscape. However, it seems a bit weird to not assume that this card would be in a set that would provide appropriate context. Considering any mechanic that is not evergreen would need a set that supports that mechanic to really justify being printed, why is this critique being thrown at my design and not anyone else's with non-evergreen mechanics? I understand that the rules don't currently support this kind of card, but my reason for citing Reuben's mock comprehensive rules on the mechanic was to show how it would probably be supported if it was printed in the appropriate set. It would be one thing if the challenge was to design a legendary phoenix for a core set, but that was not the challenge and saying it can't be printed just anywhere, while accurate, is not a not consistent with how you looked at the other cards.
And I just want to make it clear, I am not arguing that it would be better served as being red/white, or possibly an angel. Not even defending the +1/+0 addition. My main concern comes at around the 39-40 minute mark where Stairc rates my card low since the card could not be a "standalone." I simply do not think that is fair to judge this card as a standalone when cards simply do not exist as standalones in magic. They have sets to give them context, and the rules are expanded on to support the mechanics of the set. Besides, often the point of legends are to show off the cool mechanics of the set. Many, many legendary creatures don't make sense without their set and the mechanics the come with it informing the players of how the cards work, (for example, imagine seeing Mogis without having been exposed to the Theros block at all!)
Anyway, I still enjoy your guy's work, I just don't feel that the critique of the card mechanic not being suitable does not hold much water. If could just be because you two had so many cards to go through and were a tad rushed, and that would be completely understandable. If I am missing something critical though, or my rebuttals are not on point or are misinformed somehow, I would like to know so as to improve in the future.
One of the things Stairc made a point of mentioning was that the premonition wording would have to be used in a set that has other cards that work in a similar nature, due to how strange the ability is. I agree completely with that. However, wouldn't the same be true with Transform cards, which many people submitted? Even in Magic Origins, we don't see a one-of Transform card. We see a cycle of high profile transform cards. Even mechanics like hybrid mana, split cards, and flip cards don't appear as one-of design choices in a set as of yet. My point being is that, if the other cards with transform are not going to be scored lower for having a mechanic that the set has to support, then I have trouble seeing how it is fair that my card is scored lower because of that.
As for giving creatures +1/+0 and haste, perhaps the +1/+0 was not necessary. However, I feel that granting all of your creatures haste is an important part of the cinematic design of this card. If it did not grant haste, then all the creatures who were sent forward in time would just mill around for a turn when they came back into play. That is not the gameplay this card is looking to create. Rather, it is looking for the feel of "Not only do my creatures come back, but they come back charging straight at you! Which is much more red than it would be otherwise.
That being said, I do agree with you both that the saving ability is not red, but white. If I were to design this again, I would make it Red White and get rid of the +1/+0. And yes, admittedly the saving ability hasn't typically been aligned with phoenixes. In my defense though, I was designing this card with a dreamscape-esque set in mind, with the idea of this phoenix actually being the incarnation of the phoenix as a symbol. The Phoenix as a symbol gives hope to people, and makes people think that, just as the phoenix can be reborn, so to can I. Perhaps that idea did not come across as I would have liked, and that is my fault for not tightening up the design. But I wanted to voice my defense of my design, since I feel a 2/10 is an unfair evaluation, especially when points were not taken off of transform cards.
Fawkes of Eternal Ardor 4RR
Legendary Creature - Phoenix
Flying, Haste
Other creatures you control have +1/+0 and haste.
Whenever Fawkes of Eternal Ardor or another creature would die, instead put it face up in your library, beneath the top two cards. (If a face up card in a library would become the top card of a player's library, that player casts it without paying its mana cost instead.)
3/3
Note that I'm basing the rules text on Doombringer's comprehensive rules for Premonition, specifically:
702.PRMc If a face up card in a library would become the top card of a player's library, that player casts it without paying its mana cost instead. If that player can't, he or she turns the face up card face down instead and it becomes the top card of his or her library. It is no longer face up.
That's a good point about proactive control options. I think it will be important any cards that do ruin opponent's lands are either: A. Fairly easily preventable, or B. Overcosted. The overcosted ones should be treated as more of a sideboard option to use against decks that push their mana base by playing a lot of ruins in deck. I have some cards to illustrate that, but I will refrain from posting them until I find the right artist credits.
Also, you might be thinking of someone else, unless you happen to be a facebook friend of mine, since I have only really posted any of this on FB, (and I suppose briefly on No Goblins Allowed.)