I was recently considering the design of a "creatureless" set (which seems to be a relatively common pipe dream) and I wanted to share a couple of mechanics that I designed (and their intended utilization) to see if there are any immediate problems (whether in the context of the set or in outside contexts).
The Two Keyworded Action Words Are: Charge: If it is your turn and no (other) spells have been cast this turn, you gain one charge counter, then each player with 10 or more charge counters wins the game. Drain X: Move up to X counters of any type from target opponent to yoruself, then each player with 10 or more charge counters wins the game.
Rationale:
If one wants there to be a spellslinger based win condition, the existing mechanics of MTG are ill-equipped to handle the situation. While it is possible to give dimir mill, selesnya tokens, and red some burn spells, this isn't a strong enough of a base to really base an entire set on. Instead, I looked to incorporate a mechanics that could be shared among all colors and I ended up with something that feels like a hybrid of energy and infect.
The first clause of the charge mechanic is very important to its balance. One of the hardest parts of designing a spell-based win condition is that only one color can directly interact with the stack. If getting a win was as simple as racing to resolve 10 spells, most opponents would have no way to interact... other than racing harder. The first clause A) allows any color to "interfere" with charge by casting instant-speed spells, B) slows down spell-based victories (only your first charge spell each turn has any chance of giving a counter) so opponents can't just "storm out", and C) encourages the use of of permanent-based effects (as multiple could be triggered/activated in a single round), increasing opportunities for interaction.
Unlike the energy mechanic, the drain mechanic gives a built-in capacity to slow opponents down (and to steal energy/experience counters...). Rather than simply removing those counters and slowing the game down, however, the fact that you gain those counters means that the game is still being pushed forward.
Intended utilization
While there will be the usual as-fan of indirect "creatures" (artifacts and enchantments that animate themselves, the return of the awaken ability, creature tokens, spell-morph), there will be an equivalent as-fan for charge and/or drain (meaning that many psuedo-creatures will also charge/drain and that this effect will be relatively ubiquitous for use in drafts).
These action words will appear on both permanents and spells.
When used on permanents, these abilities will be one-time triggers or will be recurring activated/triggered abilities that generally have a notable mana cost.
When used on spells, some spells will have "Charge, then Charge again" and drain values will reach up to "Drain 3". On permanents, you will only charge once at a time or reach Drain 1.
Some spells or activated abilities will remove one or two charge counters from yourself as a cost, though there will be no effects that give you effects based on the number of counters you remove (no harnessed lightning effects here).
Some spells or permanents may have additional benefits when you have over a certain number of charge counters (meaning that you can still gain some benefit even if you deck doesn't pack enough charging to "seal the deal"
There will be a decent as-fan of instant-speed effects to mess with charge.
Sample Cards
Silent Sentry
Artifact (C)
Remove a charge counter from yourself: Silent Sentry becomes a 2/4 golem creature with Vigilance until end of turn. , Charge
Widened Vision
Sorcery (U)
You may remove a charge counter from yourself. If you do, scry 3. Otherwise, charge.
Draw a card.
Siphon Essence
Sorcery (U)
Target opponent loses 3 life and discards a card.
You gain 3 life a draw a card
Drain 3
Reckless Tinkering
Instant (U)
Charge, then Charge again.
At the beginning of the next end step, Reckless Tinkering deals 4 damage to each opponent who cast a spell this turn.
My big Questions
While I feel that it was inevitable to some degree, I cannot deny that these effects are parasitic in nature. While I feel that an absurdly large as-fan (again, you'd get as many charge/drain cards in an average pack of this set as you'd find creatures in a pack from another set) will make things feel all right in a limited environment, I'm not sure if this would feel too disruptive in other settings (I can imagine a standard environment where a top-level deck only uses cards from one standard-legal set, for example).
I don't have an accurate sense of whether this effect feels too "oppressive"/inevitable. If a player focuses exclusively on the charge plan and isn't disrupted at all, I imagine that the game would close out by turn 7-10, which seems fine (or even a bit slow). I do worry that the inevitability may "feel" a bit too stressful, however (imagine playing a deck where every nonland permanent was a more vulnerable/inefficient darksteel reactor... except they share counters and only need half as many).
If you see other problems with this effect, feel free to let me know.
I’m not sure if I really anticipate an ally commander deck for the same reason I’d never expect a sliver commander deck.
Ally decks don’t have a lot of room for generalized “commander good stuff” commons/uncommon and rely on a whole bunch of cards that would never see play in any other commander deck... which seems to run counter to the purpose of this deck... and ally decks are pretty darn consistent for their price tag... which would make it difficult to build the other deck as an “equal opponent”.
It would be a good chance to reprint a bunch of older, desirable, and relatively inexpensive commons and uncommon a to make a relatively cohesive deck... though I would imagine it overwhelming the elemental/landfall deck on a regular basis unless some decent cards were thrown into the latter.
Honestly, I do not understand Zendikar's appeal at this point.
I like the idea of "Adventure world" and am fine with the tribes being used in the setting but... I'm not really sure what else there is to say. Lots of the flavor of "adventure world" came from the actual setting itself... which has been largely wrecked. I expect that eldrazi will be largely underplayed, if not entirely absent. While lots of players want allies, I feel we are more likely to have the creature type sprinkled around on random cards rather than getting even more rally effects, which I feel is what many players really want (while the shift from Rally to Cohort wasn't positively received, I'm not sure how much more design space really exists for rally, especially on commons). I'm also a bit skeptical about the remaining (exciting) design space for landfall, given that wizards has continued printing a bunch of "pseudo-landfall" cards outside of Zendikar... and that the ability was used rather conservatively last time we visited the plane. If traps come back (and their design space is also relatively small), they are more likely to be conservatively priced (No free traps like archive trap or ravenous trap, I'm guessing). Finally, capturing the excellent feeling of power that the original zendikar held at the time would be really hard as we aren't coming to this set after a sizeable slump. We actually have players complaining that wizards is designing too many overpowered cards these days.
I realize that I'm being a tremendous pessimist here. If I'm wrong on even one or two of these expectations, I could imagine having a lot of fun with this set. As the plane was nearly destroyed last time, there's lots of room to add something entirely new to Zendikar as well (Maybe pack adventure world with D&D box toppers just like Ikiora had Godzilla ones). Either way, I'm going to be interested to see what happens.
Whoops, meant heartless summoning. While the singleton format prevents you from doing degenerate things with myr retriever, I'm sure there are still combos out there...
Havoc Festival is odd. The symmetry to the effect theoretically allows other aggressive decks take advantage of it (a sigil of the empty throne deck or sandwurm convergence deck -huh, that's another one I forgot- would likely overpower it, for example) as well and I'm not sure how consistent a singleton burn deck would really be. I can see it being a bit overwhelming, though.
This being stronger in a mono red aggro/burn deck than a Zombie deck should tell how overpowered it is. Thats not even getting into black/red aggro decks. No ones gonna cry about losing 1 life to Disfigure(which this card acts similar to against 2 toughness or less creatures) or Crippling Blight an opponents creature.
I'm a bit confused. This card only works like Disfigure if your opponent actually chooses to block... and using the land for that doesn't cost life. Each time you tap it afterwards costs life (meaning that you may pay 3+ life over the course of the game for the privilege of getting a single attack with a 2/2). There's also the fact that this card is a giant liability that lets your opponent turn almost any kill spell into a land destruction spell... and the fact that this is terrible in the long game.
While I admit that a red version may see play in burn, I'm not really seeing that capacity for this specific card (even with cards like bump in the night). Simply bolting the opponent for 3 is better than making a single attack with a 2/2 most of the time. While you could make the argument that these are taking land slots instead of spell slots... that isn't really true for many dedicated burn decks that have little-to-no use for off-color mana.
I'm certainly open to altering the design but I'm curious what type of situtions or decks it would be overpowered in. Not sure what those rakdos aggro decks would look like.
While I'm happy about the recent surge of enfranchised casual players we've seen in this forum, the ultimate truth is that magic =/= casual magic. Playing magic casually at kitchen tables with house-rules to address perceived play and power issues is certainly one way to engage with the game but it feels a bit odd to claim that a the game "doesn't work" because it fails to address this one specific play style.
I've seen that several recent posts and threads have likened MTGA netdeckers to the sorts of "Whales" that free-to-play MMOs try to draw. I have seen posts accusing these players as being victory-grubbing brats looking for a quick kick of endorphins. When MMOs go too far in the name of catering to whales, free-to-play players can feel annoyed or disenfranchised and abandon the game in mass numbers. When this happens in a game, the lack of easy targets to crush can cause those victory-junkie whales to leave the game as well... leaving the game empty. To be completely clear, THAT (IMO) is the best indicator that a game has failed. MTGA is not in that position for a couple of reasons.
1. The fact that MTGA is billing itself as a competitive activity is actually protecting it to some degree. While some players out there may enjoy crushing weaker players, there are also genuinely competitive players who want to improve their skills and be the best. While Competitive players and victory-mongers may both bring out top-tier decks (much as they would bring to FNM or similar events), competitive players will continue playing against one another and having fun even if there are no casual players to "oppress".
2. The fact that MTGA's economy is being complained about honestly kind of shocks me. Even considering that cards cannot be sold or re-traded, the system used here is pretty decent. Unlike the tiny "starter decks" handed out in Game Shops, the cards given in MTGA starter decks include some decent stuff. Unlike physical magic, the second-hand market has zero impact on the value of these cards (a mythic wildcard can get a $5 mythic or a $30 mythic). Having gone to many drafts at shops that either A) did not aware enough credit to cover further events or B)did not allow store credit to cover store events, the capacity for highly skilled limited players to "go infinite" is amazing. While one can certainly look at "grinding" in a negative light, I would gladly sit at my LGS and play magic games for a couple hours each day if I was rewarded with a booster pack every couple of days or a free draft every couple weeks. While MTGA doesn't give the ability to "Cash out", the fact that "free-to-play" can exist for mtg is kind of astounding.
With that said, I do believe that there are a couple of things that Wizards should be doing:
1. I wish there was a better solution for the matchmaking, though I'm not seeing one. Even if wizards measures the relative power level of your deck, there aren't any good responses if nobody else at the queue is "at your level". Do they force a new player to wait for an appropriate fight and risk losing them? Do they match them as close at they can so they can have some sort of game play (even if that means getting slaughtered)? Do they give you a choice of whether you want to wait and basically announce to your face that your deck is too weak? I can't think of any good answers.
2. I wish that there was some sort of system in the game designed to incentivize stronger players using weaker decks. If the first game you win each day with an artisan-legal deck gets you +100 gold and XP, for example, that would lead to a flood of players storming into the queues with decks that newer or more casual players trying their best would have a better chance of fighting on even ground. These decks would also be easier and "cheaper" for those new players to imitate, giving those players a decent jumping-off point.
This seems dangerous, like most 'free' effects (e.g. Once Upon a Time). This might allow to much damage to early in the game for hyper-aggressive decks and could enable big combos by combining this with ramp. I would want to stress test it to try and see if it breaks too easily.
In fairer decks, it seems reasonable.
That's a fair point, I suppose.
In most cases, using this as a creature means treating it at a ETB tapped land that causes an opponent to lose 2 life... which could be blocked... and gains vulnerability to creature kill... and that drains you for life for the remainder of the game. While a tribal deck can get a bit more mileage in the late game with lords, I'm not seeing the specific context in which this is dangerous (I could imagine a red card in a burn deck but I'm a bit more skeptical here).
Wanted to try a different sort of manland and wanted to see if this sounds fair.
Restless Necropolis
Land
When Restless Necropolis enters the battlefield, it becomes a 2/2 black zombie creature with haste until end of turn (it's still a land) , Pay 1 life: Add
I imagine that this this is relatively underwhelming in terms of power (possibly printable as an uncommon) but I wanted to check if I am missing something.
When your Wrangle effect ends at end of turn, you will still control your Dead-Iron Sledge but it will be attached to an opponent's creature. The opponent gaining control of their creature causes the equipment to neither "fall off" nor go under their control.
Also just realized that mist-syndicate naga is pretty excellent as traits/abilities gained through mutate are copiable traits... though it might not make sense to put Otrimi in front of the chain here due to legend rule problems.
Edit: List in OP edited with suggestions from thread.
Cadaverous Bloom is just too explosive on turn 1 as you can effectively add 12 mana. The ability to, for example, throw down a Blightsteel Colossus or Genesis Wave where X=9 on turn 1 is just a bit too much. While using the bloom in this way is a sizeable risk if your opponent has a free counterspell or something similar, it allows for plays that would otherwise be impossible in this setting without Omniscience.
Speaking of which, I just realize that I missed Dream Halls as another card that should probably be restricted. Even with card disadvantage and symmetry, an Omniscience effect is really too good for any format that doesn't want to end games on turn 1.
I was recently considering the design of a "creatureless" set (which seems to be a relatively common pipe dream) and I wanted to share a couple of mechanics that I designed (and their intended utilization) to see if there are any immediate problems (whether in the context of the set or in outside contexts).
The Two Keyworded Action Words Are:
Charge: If it is your turn and no (other) spells have been cast this turn, you gain one charge counter, then each player with 10 or more charge counters wins the game.
Drain X: Move up to X counters of any type from target opponent to yoruself, then each player with 10 or more charge counters wins the game.
Rationale:
Intended utilization
Sample Cards
Silent Sentry
Artifact (C)
Remove a charge counter from yourself: Silent Sentry becomes a 2/4 golem creature with Vigilance until end of turn.
Widened Vision
Sorcery (U)
You may remove a charge counter from yourself. If you do, scry 3. Otherwise, charge.
Draw a card.
Siphon Essence
Sorcery (U)
Target opponent loses 3 life and discards a card.
You gain 3 life a draw a card
Drain 3
Reckless Tinkering
Instant (U)
Charge, then Charge again.
At the beginning of the next end step, Reckless Tinkering deals 4 damage to each opponent who cast a spell this turn.
My big Questions
If you see other problems with this effect, feel free to let me know.
Ally decks don’t have a lot of room for generalized “commander good stuff” commons/uncommon and rely on a whole bunch of cards that would never see play in any other commander deck... which seems to run counter to the purpose of this deck... and ally decks are pretty darn consistent for their price tag... which would make it difficult to build the other deck as an “equal opponent”.
It would be a good chance to reprint a bunch of older, desirable, and relatively inexpensive commons and uncommon a to make a relatively cohesive deck... though I would imagine it overwhelming the elemental/landfall deck on a regular basis unless some decent cards were thrown into the latter.
In 2019, we cost a cycle of wedge legends.
This time around, I don’t have too many expectations one way or the other.
I like the idea of "Adventure world" and am fine with the tribes being used in the setting but... I'm not really sure what else there is to say. Lots of the flavor of "adventure world" came from the actual setting itself... which has been largely wrecked. I expect that eldrazi will be largely underplayed, if not entirely absent. While lots of players want allies, I feel we are more likely to have the creature type sprinkled around on random cards rather than getting even more rally effects, which I feel is what many players really want (while the shift from Rally to Cohort wasn't positively received, I'm not sure how much more design space really exists for rally, especially on commons). I'm also a bit skeptical about the remaining (exciting) design space for landfall, given that wizards has continued printing a bunch of "pseudo-landfall" cards outside of Zendikar... and that the ability was used rather conservatively last time we visited the plane. If traps come back (and their design space is also relatively small), they are more likely to be conservatively priced (No free traps like archive trap or ravenous trap, I'm guessing). Finally, capturing the excellent feeling of power that the original zendikar held at the time would be really hard as we aren't coming to this set after a sizeable slump. We actually have players complaining that wizards is designing too many overpowered cards these days.
I realize that I'm being a tremendous pessimist here. If I'm wrong on even one or two of these expectations, I could imagine having a lot of fun with this set. As the plane was nearly destroyed last time, there's lots of room to add something entirely new to Zendikar as well (Maybe pack adventure world with D&D box toppers just like Ikiora had Godzilla ones). Either way, I'm going to be interested to see what happens.
Havoc Festival is odd. The symmetry to the effect theoretically allows other aggressive decks take advantage of it (a sigil of the empty throne deck or sandwurm convergence deck -huh, that's another one I forgot- would likely overpower it, for example) as well and I'm not sure how consistent a singleton burn deck would really be. I can see it being a bit overwhelming, though.
I'm a bit confused. This card only works like Disfigure if your opponent actually chooses to block... and using the land for that doesn't cost life. Each time you tap it afterwards costs life (meaning that you may pay 3+ life over the course of the game for the privilege of getting a single attack with a 2/2). There's also the fact that this card is a giant liability that lets your opponent turn almost any kill spell into a land destruction spell... and the fact that this is terrible in the long game.
While I admit that a red version may see play in burn, I'm not really seeing that capacity for this specific card (even with cards like bump in the night). Simply bolting the opponent for 3 is better than making a single attack with a 2/2 most of the time. While you could make the argument that these are taking land slots instead of spell slots... that isn't really true for many dedicated burn decks that have little-to-no use for off-color mana.
I'm certainly open to altering the design but I'm curious what type of situtions or decks it would be overpowered in. Not sure what those rakdos aggro decks would look like.
I've seen that several recent posts and threads have likened MTGA netdeckers to the sorts of "Whales" that free-to-play MMOs try to draw. I have seen posts accusing these players as being victory-grubbing brats looking for a quick kick of endorphins. When MMOs go too far in the name of catering to whales, free-to-play players can feel annoyed or disenfranchised and abandon the game in mass numbers. When this happens in a game, the lack of easy targets to crush can cause those victory-junkie whales to leave the game as well... leaving the game empty. To be completely clear, THAT (IMO) is the best indicator that a game has failed. MTGA is not in that position for a couple of reasons.
1. The fact that MTGA is billing itself as a competitive activity is actually protecting it to some degree. While some players out there may enjoy crushing weaker players, there are also genuinely competitive players who want to improve their skills and be the best. While Competitive players and victory-mongers may both bring out top-tier decks (much as they would bring to FNM or similar events), competitive players will continue playing against one another and having fun even if there are no casual players to "oppress".
2. The fact that MTGA's economy is being complained about honestly kind of shocks me. Even considering that cards cannot be sold or re-traded, the system used here is pretty decent. Unlike the tiny "starter decks" handed out in Game Shops, the cards given in MTGA starter decks include some decent stuff. Unlike physical magic, the second-hand market has zero impact on the value of these cards (a mythic wildcard can get a $5 mythic or a $30 mythic). Having gone to many drafts at shops that either A) did not aware enough credit to cover further events or B)did not allow store credit to cover store events, the capacity for highly skilled limited players to "go infinite" is amazing. While one can certainly look at "grinding" in a negative light, I would gladly sit at my LGS and play magic games for a couple hours each day if I was rewarded with a booster pack every couple of days or a free draft every couple weeks. While MTGA doesn't give the ability to "Cash out", the fact that "free-to-play" can exist for mtg is kind of astounding.
With that said, I do believe that there are a couple of things that Wizards should be doing:
1. I wish there was a better solution for the matchmaking, though I'm not seeing one. Even if wizards measures the relative power level of your deck, there aren't any good responses if nobody else at the queue is "at your level". Do they force a new player to wait for an appropriate fight and risk losing them? Do they match them as close at they can so they can have some sort of game play (even if that means getting slaughtered)? Do they give you a choice of whether you want to wait and basically announce to your face that your deck is too weak? I can't think of any good answers.
2. I wish that there was some sort of system in the game designed to incentivize stronger players using weaker decks. If the first game you win each day with an artisan-legal deck gets you +100 gold and XP, for example, that would lead to a flood of players storming into the queues with decks that newer or more casual players trying their best would have a better chance of fighting on even ground. These decks would also be easier and "cheaper" for those new players to imitate, giving those players a decent jumping-off point.
That's a fair point, I suppose.
In most cases, using this as a creature means treating it at a ETB tapped land that causes an opponent to lose 2 life... which could be blocked... and gains vulnerability to creature kill... and that drains you for life for the remainder of the game. While a tribal deck can get a bit more mileage in the late game with lords, I'm not seeing the specific context in which this is dangerous (I could imagine a red card in a burn deck but I'm a bit more skeptical here).
Restless Necropolis
Land
When Restless Necropolis enters the battlefield, it becomes a 2/2 black zombie creature with haste until end of turn (it's still a land)
I imagine that this this is relatively underwhelming in terms of power (possibly printable as an uncommon) but I wanted to check if I am missing something.
Yeah, just realized that last night. Whoops.
Also just realized that mist-syndicate naga is pretty excellent as traits/abilities gained through mutate are copiable traits... though it might not make sense to put Otrimi in front of the chain here due to legend rule problems.
Edit: List in OP edited with suggestions from thread.
Speaking of which, I just realize that I missed Dream Halls as another card that should probably be restricted. Even with card disadvantage and symmetry, an Omniscience effect is really too good for any format that doesn't want to end games on turn 1.