Beledros3BG
Legendary Creature - Elder Dragon
4/6
Flying, lifelink 5BG: Your life total becomes half your starting life total, rounded down. Then each opponent loses life equal to the amount of life you lost this way.
// Beledros' Method4BG
Sorcery
Your life total becomes half your starting life total, rounded down. Then scry X, where X is the amount of life you lost this way.
Tanazir3GU
Legendary Creature - Elder Dragon
3/3
Flying, trample
At the beginning of combat on your turn, choose odd or even. Put a +1/+1 counter on each creature you control with power of the chosen value.
// Tanazir's Theorem1GU
Sorcery
Put a number of +1/+1 counters on target creature equal to its power. Then scry X, where X is the number of creatures you control with even power.
Shadrix3WB
Legendary Creature - Elder Dragon
4/4
Flash
Flying, vigilance
Whenever an attacking creature dies, draw a card.
// Shadrix's Ethos1WB
Sorcery
Choose up to four target creatures you control. For each of those creatures, choose first strike, vigilance, deathtouch, or +1/+1, then put a counter of that kind on it. Until end of turn, whenever a creature dies, scry 1.
Working on the last two next. The fact that these all ended up at 5 mana is coincidental, so depending on balancing, they may change stats/mana cost.
adressing that defeated part real quick. None of your designs can't be done using the exile zone instead.
To answer your question I want to say just look at the comprehensive rules for zones. Not any of the zones, just the part describing zone and understand that this new zone needs to fit into all of these points.
Going further, cost might not be the right word as the actual cost is mapping out a future of the zone which will be more encompassing than a mechanic but not that significant.
I think a more proper word is commitment. By creating new zone you are making a commitment to use this new design space. And so you have to ask. "Will this be used?" Do I really need to add notebook to the "put a creature into its owner's XXXX." list? Is this something that wants to be around and be part of the game?
If you're committed to using every part of this design then its worth it. But I don't see this being more than a one set ability as its play patterns are too strong and repetitive. You don't want more repetitiveness built into the game.
I’ve said this before but yeah, I know that nothing here can’t be done without creating a new zone. My argument has just been that I believe that creating a new zone is the cleanest way to use the Study mechanic and the best way to open up new design space, not the only way. I just think that the exile version is cumbersome, ugly, and severely limiting to the mechanic’s design space.
I do agree that creating a new zone is a huge commitment, although I wouldn’t say that having it be a permanent part of the game would hurt the game even if it does only get used for one set, unlike Tribal and Miracle, for example. Rules-wise, yeah it would be a ton of effort for something that will only be used deciduously at most, and in a single set at worst. Still, even in the worst case scenario, where it’s used in one set and flops, never to be used again, its existence isn’t obtrusive.
I suppose the only way it would have a problematic and lasting impact on the game is if the notebook was so poorly received that it never gets used again AND there is at least one card using the notebook that is powerful enough to become an eternal format staple. That would cause the problem of forcing players to learn how the zone works for single card or handful of cards, and that’s obviously not ideal, so that’s a legitimate concern.
I think what this comes down to is sitting down and really pushing the design space to see how much mileage can be gotten from the notebook and how easily it can be balanced across multiple sets.
Treating the creation of a new frame or mechanic on the same level as a new zone it massivly underselling the significance of creating a new zone. There is a reason conspiracies, emblems and even planes/schemes exist in the command zone. Creating a new zone for these things wasn't worth it because the cost of a new zone is far higher than a mechanic.
Speaking on the merits of the mechanic. Its a stronger more complicated scry. It could defintly be used but you don't want too much of it. Overall to make the cards that care about the notebook viable you'd need more than scry is currently used. Which isn't likely to be stable. Remember, variance is the lifeblood of magic and while there is too much in the base set too much smoothing does more damage than too little smoothing.
I’m curious exactly what the cost of creating a new zone is and how much more it is than creating a new mechanic on the level of DFCs. Is there a way you can explain what is more costly about it? I don’t doubt that you’re correct, I’m just struggling to quantify these things.
Edit: It’s also worth noting that conspiracies, emblems, planes, and schemes are all unique card types that needed a place to be that wasn’t the battlefield or a zone belonging to any single player. They didn’t require any more unique rules, whereas the draw of the notebook is that it’s a version of the library a player can freely tutor from, which does require its own rules. I wouldn’t compare the two.
For your second point, the beauty of this mechanic is that you don’t NEED to perform the study action in order to put cards into your notebook. The notebook can be interacted with in as many ways as any other zone, so study itself can be kept to healthy levels while other cards can add to or manipulate the notebook without the study mechanic.
For example:
“Put target permanent card from your graveyard into your notebook.”
“When this creature dies, you may put it into your notebook.”
“Target player puts the top N cards of their library into their notebook.”
“Put target nonland permanent into its owner’s notebook.”
“Search your library for a card, reveal that card, and put it into your notebook.”
“Exchange your hand and your notebook.”
“Exchange your graveyard and your notebook.”
“Reveal the top five cards of your library. An opponent separates them into two piles. Put one pile into your notebook and the other into your graveyard.”
“If a spell or ability an opponent controls causes you to discard a card, you may put that card into your notebook instead of putting it anywhere else.”
“As you study one or more cards, you may put an additional card from among them into your notebook.”
“Target player reveals their hand. You choose a nonland card from it. They put that card into their notebook.”
I could go on but the point is that the card-smoothing of Study isn’t the only way to add to the notebook, so it can be balanced as necessary.
Yeah, I don't doubt that WotC would try to find a way to execute on this idea that didn't involve creating a new zone. They fought pretty hard against DFCs because of the rules baggage they come with when they could technically be done with rules text and a single card face, but eventually DFCs won. I'm less concerned with what WotC would do and more concerned with whether or not this mechanic seems fun and balanced, so I'm glad it seems like it's gotten a positive reaction on that front.
No you’re right, anything that can be done by creating the new zone can also be accomplished without creating a new zone. My argument is that while it’s worth acknowledging that, I don’t think that alone constitutes a reason NOT to create a new zone.
My point about the reminder text is that at least for the first set to have this mechanic, the vast majority of cards will need to have the reminder text for it, so text space is a legit concern.
There’s also the matter of grokkability. If a mechanic has too much reminder text, players will be much less likely to remember or understand how it works. R&D has a soft rule against any mechanic with more than three lines of rules text because of this. On the other hand, a player won’t necessarily understand what a “notebook” is when they initially read the reminder text for this mechanic, but I feel like they’d more likely react with curiosity rather than disinterest, they’d be intrinsically motivated to find out how it works.
I will say that the lack of reminder text for the draw replacement effect might be problematic while the mechanic is new, so how about this:
Study N (Look at the top N cards of your library. Put up to one into your notebook and the rest on the bottom in a random order. If you draw a card, you may draw from your notebook.)
And then after the first set and players are familiar with how the notebook works, the last sentence can be dropped from the reminder text.
Study N (Look at the top N cards of your library. Exile up to one of them with a note counter on it and put the rest on the bottom of your library in a random order. If you exiled a card this way, it gains “If you would draw a card, you may put this card into your hand from exile instead.”)
This is already a ton of text, and the cards that would reference the exiled cards are also much more dense as a result:
Educated Retort 2U
Instant
This spell costs 1 less to cast for each instant card you own in exile with a note counter on it.
Counter target spell unless its controller pays 3.
Learned Skinshifter 2G
Creature - Shapeshifter
1/1
Trample
When ~ enters the battlefield, study 2.
Whenever ~ attacks, it gets +X/+X until end of turn, where X is the greatest power among creature cards you own in exile with note counters on them.
Not every card is that bad, but any card that both studies and references cards with note counters on them would have such little room after reminder text that the ability would need to be exceedingly simple or the text would need to me exceedingly small. I’ll post a render later. The point is that the amount of text taken up by avoiding making a new zone is severely limiting to the design space.
If a new zone is made, then yes the comprehensive rules would need a brand new section just to go over its attributes and interactions and all the quirky subtle things that can’t be outright explained in rules text or a rules tip token. However, between the context clues gleaned from individual card designs and the inclusion of a rules tip token like with the Day/Night mechanic from the newest Innistrad sets, I think that it’s perfectly manageable to learn, even for newer players. Heck, some cards can even have a bit if extra reminder text for the card draw replacement effect:
“Study 3, then draw a card. (You may put a card from your notebook into your hand instead.)”
I believe that creating a new zone offers more than enough design space to justify the required rules baggage, especially considering that most of the comprehensive rules don’t really need to be detailed on magic cards in order to be understood. I honestly think that the notebook could be used deciduously, and even have additional mechanics designed around it from set to set. Yes, the same effects could technically be achieved with existing rules technology, but not realistically used that way. It’s like how some modal card designs could technically work as “choose one” cards or split cards or MDFCs, but that doesn’t stop WotC from making new modal mechanics. Mutate probably also could have been done by exiling both creatures and creating a token that has specific attributes of one or the other, but obviously it was less cumbersome to rely on a player’s intuition even if that came with more complex comprehensive rules. The same could be said for Vehicles. Crew could have just been an ability word that said “This artifact becomes a N/N artifact creature until end of turn” instead of having a unique card frame, a p/t box, and the Vehicle subtype. But WotC decided to go with the option that required more behind-the-scenes explanation and visual communication, and that worked out fine.
I’m not a fan of Learn/Lesson. All the cards with the mechanic feel overcosted and underpowered, and the mechanic lends itself to repetitive games by essentially allowing players to tutor cards. So I came up with a replacement for Learn/Lesson as Strixhaven’s “school” mechanic:
Study N (Look at the top N cards of your library. Put up to one into your notebook and the rest on the bottom in a random order.)
This mechanic introduces a new zone: the notebook. It’s similar to exile, except it has an extra inherent rule:
“If a player would draw a card, they may put a card from their notebook into their hand instead.”
That makes this mechanic very similar to scry/surveil in that it smooths card draw, but it is slightly more powerful, especially after multiple uses, and opens up unique design space.
Educated Retort 2U
Instant
This spell costs 1 less to cast for each instant card in your notebook.
Counter target spell unless its controller pays 3.
Learned Skinshifter 2G
Creature - Shapeshifter
1/1
Trample
When ~ enters the battlefield, study 4.
Whenever ~ attacks, gets +X/+X until end of turn, where X is the greatest power among creature cards in your notebook.
Open-Note Exam 1R
Sorcery
Study 2. You may cast cards from your notebook until the end of turn.
Self-Sung Hero W
Creature - Human Knight
2/1
When ~ is put into your notebook from anywhere, create a token that’s a copy of it, except it’s a Spirit in addition to its other types.
Unfortunate Specimen 1B
Creature - Frog
1/3
When ~ dies, you may put it into your notebook.
I get what the card is meant to do, but its not a white card - Its white / green. Cards that repeatedly draw multiple cards in white are, by definition of the color, a break and cards like Mentor of the Meek and Inspiring Commander have been pointed to as breaks, and even though they are very limited in what triggers them.
The best option for the Guardian is to make it green/white - and that's even if you add the once per turn trigger - but I think you could make this a 2GW and it would probably be fine otherwise as written above.
I don't fully agree that it's a break, or that it should be, anyway. WotC has shown that they are willing to reward white with card draw for doing things white does best, like casting equipment or auras or small creatures. This card presents a restriction that white can get around using several tools that white not only has access to, but is usually primary or secondary in: token creation, flicker, and reanimation. Reanimation is probably the biggest stretch here, but it's by no means a complete break. The inability to cast creature spells makes triggering the card draw significantly more difficult, but doesn't require the player to do anything that white isn't allowed to do in order to achieve that. As for the precedent of having this much repeatable card draw on a mono-white card, I think it's fine to give white more card flow anyway. I don't believe that any single color should be worse off than others when it comes to how often they can actually be active in a game. I think that some colors being better or worse than others in card flow is an antiquated idea that ultimately hurts the game. Each color should have ways of increasing card flow, but those ways should require that the player lean into that color's playstyle. A white deck should get to draw cards for doing white things, a red deck should get to draw cards for doing red things, etc.
Wth the number of cards here, I think you should have just named this thread "A Mardu Reanimator Deck"
The cards seem pretty balanced overall.
"Burst into Treats" made me think it was going to make a bunch of Food Tokens. I'm persnally not a fan of putting Lifelink on spells vs writing it out, but thats just an aesthetic thing.
Ethereal Guardian's card draw is way too strong for white, even with the "Can't cast creatures" rider. Make it once per turn and it should be fine.
You can shorten Alesha to, "If a permanent entering the battlefield from the graveyard causes..."
Lesser Evil probably needs to be activated as a sorcery or have a manacost associated with the activation.
lol I guess there might be enough pieces here for a competent deck minus some support elements.
I don’t really see why we shouldn’t save text space with keywords on sorceries when we can, but it doesn’t really matter either way.
Etherial Guardian is meant to be a really enticing build-around card, strong enough for most constructed formats. maybe the mana cost is off, but I definitely don’t want to limit the trigger to once per turn.
The reason I worded Alesha the way I did was to avoid the misinterpretation that it only doubles triggered abilities that exclusively trigger off of creatures entering from graveyards. Basically I want it clear that both Champion of Lambholt AND Flayer of the Hatebound get their triggers doubled when something enters from a graveyard, not JUST the latter.
I know Lesser Evil is probably too powerful for standard as is, but I wanted it to be a straight up colorshifted Greater Good and didn’t want to change it so as to remain faithful to the source material. I could see this card being printed in a modern horizons set, ala Yavimaya, Cradle of Growth. For standard, I could see a powered down version with some kind of cost or drawback. For example:
Erebos, Underworld Warden4B
Legendary Enchantment Creature - God (M)
4/5
Indestructible
As long as your devotion to black is less than five, ~ isn’t a creature.
At the beginning of your upkeep, you lose 1 life and create a 2/2 black Zombie creature token. 2B: Sacrifice a non-God creature: Draw cards equal to the sacrificed creature’s power, then discard three cards. Activate only as a sorcery.
Just brainstorming some cards that could contribute to a RWB reanimator deck. Not all of these are explicitly reanimator themed, but all are designed to fit well in a reanimator deck, either as a reanimator spell, a reanimator target, a way to fill the graveyard, or a way to reward reanimation.
Whole Again1RWB
Sorcery (R)
Return target artifact, creature, or enchantment card from your graveyard to the battlefield.
Hell Gang4RR
Creature - Devil (R)
3/3
Haste
When ~ enters the battlefield, create two 1/1 Devil creature tokens with haste.
Whenever a creature you control attacks, ~ deals 1 damage to defending player.
Dream Fiend2R
Creature - Horror (R)
3/3
First strike, defender
Discard a card: Until end of turn, ~ can attack as though it didn’t have defender.
Discard a card: ~ gains haste and menace until end of turn.
Whenever ~ deals combat damage to a player, draw two cards.
Onox, the Reclaimer2RW
Legendary Creature - Minotaur Warrior (R)
2/3
During each of your turns, you may cast an Aura or Equipment spell from your graveyard.
Whenever one or more cards leaves your graveyard, you may discard a card. If you do, draw a card.
Burst into TreatsBR
Sorcery (U)
As an additional cost to cast this spell, sacrifice a creature.
Lifelink
~ deals damage equal to the sacrificed creature’s power to any target.
Alesha, the Smiling Death1RWB
Legendary Creature - Spirit Warrior (R)
3/3
Undying
If a permanent entering the battlefield causes an ability of a nonland permanent you control to trigger, and that permanent entered the battlefield from a graveyard, that ability triggers an additional time.
Ashborn Phoenix1BR
Creature - Phoenix (R)
2/2
Flying, haste
Whenever a creature enters the battlefield under your control from a graveyard, you may return ~ from your graveyard to your hand.
Ethereal Guardian 1WW
Creature - Spirit (R)
3/3
Undying
You can’t cast creature spells.
Whenever ~ or another creature enters the battlefield under your control, draw a card.
Markov Awakener 2WB
Creature - Vampire (R)
2/2
Undying
Each creature you control enters the battlefield with a Lifelink counter on it. If that creature entered the battlefield from a graveyard, it also enters with an additional +1/+1 counter on it.
Lesser Evil2BB
Enchantment (M)
Sacrifice a creature: Draw cards equal to the sacrificed creature’s power, then discard three cards.
Locust Queen2BBB
Creature - Insect (R)
2/2
Flying, deathtouch
When ~ enters the battlefield, create X 1/1 black Insect creature tokens with flying and deathtouch, where X is ~’s power.
Eternalize 4BBB
Doom4BB
Sorcery (R)
Destroy all creatures.
// Eternity3B
Sorcery (R)
Aftermath
Return target creature card from your graveyard to the battlefield.
Glaz, Disciple of Ugin3WB
Legendary Creature - Human Shaman (R)
3/3
When ~ enters the battlefield, search your library for a creature card and put it into your graveyard, then shuffle.
If you would create one or more tokens, you may manifest up to that many cards at random from your graveyard instead.
I would first like to say its interesting how you say you wanted to show law enforcement because without actual law enforcement crime is just a word. Then proceed to only create one law enforcement card with lots of corrupt cops that would just fall into the mob families.
Police Corruption, I like the feel of are you giving into the corruption or not. It doesn't feel white.
Brutal Vigilante, this is definitely a green card. Delaying the card draw isn't enough to shift it so much out of color.
Lose the Evidence, this is great but shouldn't be common. Even with cycling you don't want so many in a draft.
Mob Boss, this is sadly awful. The cost of keeping it tapped is inconsequential while there's also little incentive to keep it tapped. Making a clue actually makes this a threat.
Blind Eye doesn't need the cost to be unblockable. Its a fairly cheap ability.
Stake Out, this is the exact kind of card that should never be printed. You never want to encourage your players to not win or play the game.
I should note about the color identities that I thought more about what colors I want to have access to these effects in the context of deckbuilding than historical precedent. By that I mean I don't think any of these card effects specifically do something a color shouldn't do, but also the cards aren't limited to what the colors traditionally do either. I wanted W to be focused on the Investigate mechanic because it's so closely linked with the flavor of law enforcement, which is a very W institution. I realize that an abundance of unconditional card draw is probably not something W should have access to, so I was careful to find holes for it to jump through to get Clues:
Stake Out requires that you play defensively, and makes you decide between drawing extra cards or being more active. I agree that having cards that disincentivize action isn't the best thing in the world, but I don't think a single card at a high rarity is an issue, especially since the overwhelming majority of the rest of the cards in any given set will encourage exactly the opposite, which makes the choice of drawing cards or being active that much more compelling. You either choose to be rewarded by other cards for being active, or you choose to lay low and be rewarded by this card.
Brutal Vigilante uses the R in its color identity to define the hoops the player has to jump through. This card requires that the creature deal damage, however it can, and even gives you the ability to fight with it. All of that is very mechanically red, and in the context of this set, the Clue is tied to the white half of the color identity. I understand that in most sets, W wouldn't be the card draw color, but colors have bent in the past to accommodate set themes and I think this is an example of one of those moments. Again, as long as W has to do specific things that fall in the color identity of the card (even if it's a second color like on this card), it's fine. That means that this card is less a RW card and more a R card that requires that you also be playing W in your deck. I don't believe that every multicolor card needs to include rules text that specifically represents each of its colors. Mana cost at its core exists to determine which decks are allowed to have access to it, and that's what drove this design.
Police Corruption uses a one-time investigate trigger, which is less than a cantrip, something any color can do. Again, this is less of a WB card and more of a B card that you can only play in a deck that's also playing W. I chose to put W in the mana cost to signal the theme of the color pair for the set (W is investigate, B is Treasure, WB is tokens).
I also want to reiterate that I specifically avoided using WU for investigate because I assume the crime families will be ally colored and I didn't want to step on the toes of the WUB or GWU families. I also just think the flavor works out better this way (in this context, W believes in following the rules, RW believes in following its own rules and punishing those who break the rules, and WB believes in manipulating the rules to protect itself).
As for your other comments, my goal was to show the state of law enforcement on New Capenna, not to show what it ideally would be in a perfect world. Here, (presumably) law enforcement is divided between good cops (investigate) and bad cops (treasure), and the bad cops clearly have the upper hand. The police being corrupt demonstrates that there was, at one time, a formidable force against crime, but that force has since been considerably weakened. The story this tells speaks to just how deeply entrenched New Capenna as a plane is in organized crime, and emphasizes how powerful the crime families are, while still offering up the possibility that there are still good cops fighting the good fight, even if it's a losing battle.
And as for the balancing of the rest of the cards, I took my best guess at costs and abilities, but mostly designed them from the top down. I figure after playtesting they'd change a bit. I chose these iterations because they are the best at demonstrating the flavor I was going for.
I don't love that police corruption uses a mechanic to create a token it will never make. I really like the flavor of the card but the execution is clunky. I love the flavor of the other two enchantments though. Stake Out in particular is really cool, I don't think WotC would print it in white but as a card to play with I love it in any color.
Blind Eye is great but does the flavor make more sense if it taps the enchanted creature rather than making it unblockable? It's a very different card that way but I think it captures the idea of an officer pocketing the bribe and looking away better if it's a negative enchantment on an opposing creature.
Police Corruption is a "may" ability. You can choose to actually get a Clue.
I could see Blind Eye changing a bit. Tapping could work just as well as unblockable. With unblockable, I see it as the creature with Blind Eye on it (as in the creature the "blind eye" is being turned to) pays off whoever is in the way.
We know New Capenna is gonna be the MTG "Gangster" world, and that it will focus on five three-color crime families (most likely ally colors). However, one of the staple elements of organized crime stories is law enforcement and detective work. Without those elements, the word "crime" has no meaning. So I thought it would be neat to show the state of law enforcement on New Capenna given the elevated status of organized crime.
Notably, multicolor cards here will be enemy colored to differentiate themselves from the presumably ally colored crime families.
Police CorruptionWB
Enchantment (R)
When ~ enters the battlefield, investigate.
If you would create one or more tokens, you may create that many Treasure tokens instead.
Lose the Evidence1R
Instant (C)
Exile target artifact.
Cycling 2
Mob Boss2B
Creature - Demon Noble (R)
*/4
Flying
~'s power is equal to the number of Treasures you control.
At the beginning of combat on your turn, an opponent may have you create a Treasure token. If they do, tap ~.
Blind EyeU
Enchantment - Aura (C)
Enchant Creature
When ~ enters the battlefield, create a Treasure token. 1: Enchanted creature can't be blocked this turn.
Stake OutW
Enchantment (R)
At the beginning of your end step, investigate.
Whenever you cast a spell or attack with a creature, sacrifice ~.
This is a pretty good bet. I predict that they'll be called "_____ Turf" instead of "Triome", to lean into the theme of territorial crime families.
The inclusion of triomes would probably hinge on the inclusion of cycling, though. If this is like other typical faction sets where each faction has its own mechanic, that'll make the set a little crowded. (Strixhaven didn't have faction mechanics, but it also had larger set themes to fill that space. I don't think this set will be the same.) Still, it's happened before.
Alternatively, cycling might also just be a deciduous/evergreen mechanic by the time this set comes out, so maybe it doesn't need to be a set theme.
I think WotC is gearing up to transition from 4 standard set releases per year to 6. This occurred to me when I was thinking about why they shifted the release dates of the upcoming Innistrad sets. This would result in a new rotation model, and here's how I think it'll work:
1. Standard sets will release every two months rather than every three.
2. As a result, rotation will happen every 8 months rather than every 12. This is to maintain the size of the standard card pool (5-8 sets at all times). This means that rotations would happen in September, then May, then January, then September again, and repeat.
Here are the reasons I believe they're doing this. Note that I'm not saying this is why they SHOULD transition to this model, only why I think they WOULD. This is a prediction, not a wish.
1. More products = More $. WotC is a business, and has demonstrated that they are willing to ignore player frustration if what they're doing makes them more money. Increasing from 4 set releases to 6 would pressure standard players to buy new cards more often.
2. Faster rotations is an answer to player frustration. I know this contradicts my last statement, but hear me out. WotC is undoubtedly aware that players are frustrated with standard stagnating because of sets like Throne of Eldraine. Players want to start playing the next standard last month, not next month. WotC's two options to combat this are to either try to design standard sets more carefully, which they've been trying to do with very mixed results; or to decrease the amount of time sets like this remain in standard. Faster rotation allows them a safety net in case they fail on the first option. Again, WotC has demonstrated that they're willing to ignore this kind of frustration in the past, but as I explained in my first reason above, 6 sets a year can potentially make them more money, so their interests and player interests happen to align.
3. This could succeed where the 2 block paradigm failed. The first change in standard rotation caused a lot of player frustration because their cards were suddenly in standard for 6 fewer months, meaning that they got a lot less out of their investment. Oddly enough, a 6-set year is both a little better and a little worse than that, because a given standard set would remain in standard for up to 16 months rather than 18 (even shorter than with the 2 block paradigm), yet rotations would happen every 8 months rather than every 6 (less frequent than the 2 block paradigm). This means that individual cards would, in fact, rotate out quicker, but the standard format as a whole would be a bit more static. I have no idea whether that would increase or reduce frustration on this point, but it at least accomplishes one of the goals that the 2 block paradigm tried to accomplish in an arguably better way: making standard less stagnant by making the format harder to solve. There are also a number of notable differences between the metagame and the state of MTG as a whole between 2016 and now. SaffronOlive wrote a pretty in-depth article detailing these differences (take a look), but it essentially comes down to the difference in the average cost of a standard deck and how that's affected by Project Booster Fun and the presence of MTG Arena. Tl;dr: Players are in a much better position to be able to accept faster rotations now than in 2016.
There are, of course, potential issues with this model. For example, players are already getting worn out with the increasing number of product releases in a single year, and adding two extra standard sets into the mix would not help on that front unless WotC reduces the number of supplemental product releases to compensate, which I'm skeptical of them doing. Still, even on that front, MTG has a lot of different player bases, and we've already seen frustration with the speed of standard rotation that seems to contradict the product exhaustion. I think it's entirely possible that the standard player base will be much more willing to forgive the increased frequency of set releases in exchange for a more exciting format. I think that the MTG playerbase as a whole is in a sort of transition period between a state where most players can comfortably buy a bit of every product and a state where players' interests are more focused and segregated between the different kinds of products. Basically, I have a feeling that product overload fatigue is eventually going to wear off as players get more used to the increased number of products per year, whereas frustration toward stagnating formats is the kind of thing that only ever gets worse.
There's also the question of how this will effect the development of these sets. Right now, standard sets average between 2 and 3 worlds per year, plus a core set. Upping the number of sets from 4 to 6 complicates that a bit. They can still maintain that average of 2 to 3 worlds per year by staying on more worlds for multiple sets in a row (like Innistrad), and even adding a second core set per year or something like that. Still, this is more about speculating what kind of sets we'll see under this model rather than the pros and cons of the model itself.
I personally would be interested in trying a model like this. What do yall think?
Legendary Creature - Elder Dragon
4/6
Flying, lifelink
5BG: Your life total becomes half your starting life total, rounded down. Then each opponent loses life equal to the amount of life you lost this way.
//
Beledros' Method 4BG
Sorcery
Your life total becomes half your starting life total, rounded down. Then scry X, where X is the amount of life you lost this way.
Tanazir 3GU
Legendary Creature - Elder Dragon
3/3
Flying, trample
At the beginning of combat on your turn, choose odd or even. Put a +1/+1 counter on each creature you control with power of the chosen value.
//
Tanazir's Theorem 1GU
Sorcery
Put a number of +1/+1 counters on target creature equal to its power. Then scry X, where X is the number of creatures you control with even power.
Shadrix 3WB
Legendary Creature - Elder Dragon
4/4
Flash
Flying, vigilance
Whenever an attacking creature dies, draw a card.
//
Shadrix's Ethos 1WB
Sorcery
Choose up to four target creatures you control. For each of those creatures, choose first strike, vigilance, deathtouch, or +1/+1, then put a counter of that kind on it. Until end of turn, whenever a creature dies, scry 1.
Working on the last two next. The fact that these all ended up at 5 mana is coincidental, so depending on balancing, they may change stats/mana cost.
I’ve said this before but yeah, I know that nothing here can’t be done without creating a new zone. My argument has just been that I believe that creating a new zone is the cleanest way to use the Study mechanic and the best way to open up new design space, not the only way. I just think that the exile version is cumbersome, ugly, and severely limiting to the mechanic’s design space.
I do agree that creating a new zone is a huge commitment, although I wouldn’t say that having it be a permanent part of the game would hurt the game even if it does only get used for one set, unlike Tribal and Miracle, for example. Rules-wise, yeah it would be a ton of effort for something that will only be used deciduously at most, and in a single set at worst. Still, even in the worst case scenario, where it’s used in one set and flops, never to be used again, its existence isn’t obtrusive.
I suppose the only way it would have a problematic and lasting impact on the game is if the notebook was so poorly received that it never gets used again AND there is at least one card using the notebook that is powerful enough to become an eternal format staple. That would cause the problem of forcing players to learn how the zone works for single card or handful of cards, and that’s obviously not ideal, so that’s a legitimate concern.
I think what this comes down to is sitting down and really pushing the design space to see how much mileage can be gotten from the notebook and how easily it can be balanced across multiple sets.
Edit: It’s also worth noting that conspiracies, emblems, planes, and schemes are all unique card types that needed a place to be that wasn’t the battlefield or a zone belonging to any single player. They didn’t require any more unique rules, whereas the draw of the notebook is that it’s a version of the library a player can freely tutor from, which does require its own rules. I wouldn’t compare the two.
For your second point, the beauty of this mechanic is that you don’t NEED to perform the study action in order to put cards into your notebook. The notebook can be interacted with in as many ways as any other zone, so study itself can be kept to healthy levels while other cards can add to or manipulate the notebook without the study mechanic.
For example:
“Put target permanent card from your graveyard into your notebook.”
“When this creature dies, you may put it into your notebook.”
“Target player puts the top N cards of their library into their notebook.”
“Put target nonland permanent into its owner’s notebook.”
“Search your library for a card, reveal that card, and put it into your notebook.”
“Exchange your hand and your notebook.”
“Exchange your graveyard and your notebook.”
“Reveal the top five cards of your library. An opponent separates them into two piles. Put one pile into your notebook and the other into your graveyard.”
“If a spell or ability an opponent controls causes you to discard a card, you may put that card into your notebook instead of putting it anywhere else.”
“As you study one or more cards, you may put an additional card from among them into your notebook.”
“Target player reveals their hand. You choose a nonland card from it. They put that card into their notebook.”
I could go on but the point is that the card-smoothing of Study isn’t the only way to add to the notebook, so it can be balanced as necessary.
Yeah, I don't doubt that WotC would try to find a way to execute on this idea that didn't involve creating a new zone. They fought pretty hard against DFCs because of the rules baggage they come with when they could technically be done with rules text and a single card face, but eventually DFCs won. I'm less concerned with what WotC would do and more concerned with whether or not this mechanic seems fun and balanced, so I'm glad it seems like it's gotten a positive reaction on that front.
My point about the reminder text is that at least for the first set to have this mechanic, the vast majority of cards will need to have the reminder text for it, so text space is a legit concern.
There’s also the matter of grokkability. If a mechanic has too much reminder text, players will be much less likely to remember or understand how it works. R&D has a soft rule against any mechanic with more than three lines of rules text because of this. On the other hand, a player won’t necessarily understand what a “notebook” is when they initially read the reminder text for this mechanic, but I feel like they’d more likely react with curiosity rather than disinterest, they’d be intrinsically motivated to find out how it works.
I will say that the lack of reminder text for the draw replacement effect might be problematic while the mechanic is new, so how about this:
Study N (Look at the top N cards of your library. Put up to one into your notebook and the rest on the bottom in a random order. If you draw a card, you may draw from your notebook.)
And then after the first set and players are familiar with how the notebook works, the last sentence can be dropped from the reminder text.
Study N (Look at the top N cards of your library. Exile up to one of them with a note counter on it and put the rest on the bottom of your library in a random order. If you exiled a card this way, it gains “If you would draw a card, you may put this card into your hand from exile instead.”)
This is already a ton of text, and the cards that would reference the exiled cards are also much more dense as a result:
Educated Retort 2U
Instant
This spell costs 1 less to cast for each instant card you own in exile with a note counter on it.
Counter target spell unless its controller pays 3.
Learned Skinshifter 2G
Creature - Shapeshifter
1/1
Trample
When ~ enters the battlefield, study 2.
Whenever ~ attacks, it gets +X/+X until end of turn, where X is the greatest power among creature cards you own in exile with note counters on them.
Not every card is that bad, but any card that both studies and references cards with note counters on them would have such little room after reminder text that the ability would need to be exceedingly simple or the text would need to me exceedingly small. I’ll post a render later. The point is that the amount of text taken up by avoiding making a new zone is severely limiting to the design space.
If a new zone is made, then yes the comprehensive rules would need a brand new section just to go over its attributes and interactions and all the quirky subtle things that can’t be outright explained in rules text or a rules tip token. However, between the context clues gleaned from individual card designs and the inclusion of a rules tip token like with the Day/Night mechanic from the newest Innistrad sets, I think that it’s perfectly manageable to learn, even for newer players. Heck, some cards can even have a bit if extra reminder text for the card draw replacement effect:
“Study 3, then draw a card. (You may put a card from your notebook into your hand instead.)”
I believe that creating a new zone offers more than enough design space to justify the required rules baggage, especially considering that most of the comprehensive rules don’t really need to be detailed on magic cards in order to be understood. I honestly think that the notebook could be used deciduously, and even have additional mechanics designed around it from set to set. Yes, the same effects could technically be achieved with existing rules technology, but not realistically used that way. It’s like how some modal card designs could technically work as “choose one” cards or split cards or MDFCs, but that doesn’t stop WotC from making new modal mechanics. Mutate probably also could have been done by exiling both creatures and creating a token that has specific attributes of one or the other, but obviously it was less cumbersome to rely on a player’s intuition even if that came with more complex comprehensive rules. The same could be said for Vehicles. Crew could have just been an ability word that said “This artifact becomes a N/N artifact creature until end of turn” instead of having a unique card frame, a p/t box, and the Vehicle subtype. But WotC decided to go with the option that required more behind-the-scenes explanation and visual communication, and that worked out fine.
Study N (Look at the top N cards of your library. Put up to one into your notebook and the rest on the bottom in a random order.)
This mechanic introduces a new zone: the notebook. It’s similar to exile, except it has an extra inherent rule:
“If a player would draw a card, they may put a card from their notebook into their hand instead.”
That makes this mechanic very similar to scry/surveil in that it smooths card draw, but it is slightly more powerful, especially after multiple uses, and opens up unique design space.
Educated Retort 2U
Instant
This spell costs 1 less to cast for each instant card in your notebook.
Counter target spell unless its controller pays 3.
Learned Skinshifter 2G
Creature - Shapeshifter
1/1
Trample
When ~ enters the battlefield, study 4.
Whenever ~ attacks, gets +X/+X until end of turn, where X is the greatest power among creature cards in your notebook.
Open-Note Exam 1R
Sorcery
Study 2. You may cast cards from your notebook until the end of turn.
Self-Sung Hero W
Creature - Human Knight
2/1
When ~ is put into your notebook from anywhere, create a token that’s a copy of it, except it’s a Spirit in addition to its other types.
Unfortunate Specimen 1B
Creature - Frog
1/3
When ~ dies, you may put it into your notebook.
I don't fully agree that it's a break, or that it should be, anyway. WotC has shown that they are willing to reward white with card draw for doing things white does best, like casting equipment or auras or small creatures. This card presents a restriction that white can get around using several tools that white not only has access to, but is usually primary or secondary in: token creation, flicker, and reanimation. Reanimation is probably the biggest stretch here, but it's by no means a complete break. The inability to cast creature spells makes triggering the card draw significantly more difficult, but doesn't require the player to do anything that white isn't allowed to do in order to achieve that. As for the precedent of having this much repeatable card draw on a mono-white card, I think it's fine to give white more card flow anyway. I don't believe that any single color should be worse off than others when it comes to how often they can actually be active in a game. I think that some colors being better or worse than others in card flow is an antiquated idea that ultimately hurts the game. Each color should have ways of increasing card flow, but those ways should require that the player lean into that color's playstyle. A white deck should get to draw cards for doing white things, a red deck should get to draw cards for doing red things, etc.
lol I guess there might be enough pieces here for a competent deck minus some support elements.
I don’t really see why we shouldn’t save text space with keywords on sorceries when we can, but it doesn’t really matter either way.
Etherial Guardian is meant to be a really enticing build-around card, strong enough for most constructed formats. maybe the mana cost is off, but I definitely don’t want to limit the trigger to once per turn.
The reason I worded Alesha the way I did was to avoid the misinterpretation that it only doubles triggered abilities that exclusively trigger off of creatures entering from graveyards. Basically I want it clear that both Champion of Lambholt AND Flayer of the Hatebound get their triggers doubled when something enters from a graveyard, not JUST the latter.
I know Lesser Evil is probably too powerful for standard as is, but I wanted it to be a straight up colorshifted Greater Good and didn’t want to change it so as to remain faithful to the source material. I could see this card being printed in a modern horizons set, ala Yavimaya, Cradle of Growth. For standard, I could see a powered down version with some kind of cost or drawback. For example:
Erebos, Underworld Warden 4B
Legendary Enchantment Creature - God (M)
4/5
Indestructible
As long as your devotion to black is less than five, ~ isn’t a creature.
At the beginning of your upkeep, you lose 1 life and create a 2/2 black Zombie creature token.
2B: Sacrifice a non-God creature: Draw cards equal to the sacrificed creature’s power, then discard three cards. Activate only as a sorcery.
Whole Again 1RWB
Sorcery (R)
Return target artifact, creature, or enchantment card from your graveyard to the battlefield.
Hell Gang 4RR
Creature - Devil (R)
3/3
Haste
When ~ enters the battlefield, create two 1/1 Devil creature tokens with haste.
Whenever a creature you control attacks, ~ deals 1 damage to defending player.
Dream Fiend 2R
Creature - Horror (R)
3/3
First strike, defender
Discard a card: Until end of turn, ~ can attack as though it didn’t have defender.
Discard a card: ~ gains haste and menace until end of turn.
Whenever ~ deals combat damage to a player, draw two cards.
Onox, the Reclaimer 2RW
Legendary Creature - Minotaur Warrior (R)
2/3
During each of your turns, you may cast an Aura or Equipment spell from your graveyard.
Whenever one or more cards leaves your graveyard, you may discard a card. If you do, draw a card.
Burst into Treats BR
Sorcery (U)
As an additional cost to cast this spell, sacrifice a creature.
Lifelink
~ deals damage equal to the sacrificed creature’s power to any target.
Alesha, the Smiling Death 1RWB
Legendary Creature - Spirit Warrior (R)
3/3
Undying
If a permanent entering the battlefield causes an ability of a nonland permanent you control to trigger, and that permanent entered the battlefield from a graveyard, that ability triggers an additional time.
Ashborn Phoenix 1BR
Creature - Phoenix (R)
2/2
Flying, haste
Whenever a creature enters the battlefield under your control from a graveyard, you may return ~ from your graveyard to your hand.
Ethereal Guardian 1WW
Creature - Spirit (R)
3/3
Undying
You can’t cast creature spells.
Whenever ~ or another creature enters the battlefield under your control, draw a card.
Markov Awakener 2WB
Creature - Vampire (R)
2/2
Undying
Each creature you control enters the battlefield with a Lifelink counter on it. If that creature entered the battlefield from a graveyard, it also enters with an additional +1/+1 counter on it.
Lesser Evil 2BB
Enchantment (M)
Sacrifice a creature: Draw cards equal to the sacrificed creature’s power, then discard three cards.
Locust Queen 2BBB
Creature - Insect (R)
2/2
Flying, deathtouch
When ~ enters the battlefield, create X 1/1 black Insect creature tokens with flying and deathtouch, where X is ~’s power.
Eternalize 4BBB
Doom 4BB
Sorcery (R)
Destroy all creatures.
//
Eternity 3B
Sorcery (R)
Aftermath
Return target creature card from your graveyard to the battlefield.
Glaz, Disciple of Ugin 3WB
Legendary Creature - Human Shaman (R)
3/3
When ~ enters the battlefield, search your library for a creature card and put it into your graveyard, then shuffle.
If you would create one or more tokens, you may manifest up to that many cards at random from your graveyard instead.
I should note about the color identities that I thought more about what colors I want to have access to these effects in the context of deckbuilding than historical precedent. By that I mean I don't think any of these card effects specifically do something a color shouldn't do, but also the cards aren't limited to what the colors traditionally do either. I wanted W to be focused on the Investigate mechanic because it's so closely linked with the flavor of law enforcement, which is a very W institution. I realize that an abundance of unconditional card draw is probably not something W should have access to, so I was careful to find holes for it to jump through to get Clues:
I also want to reiterate that I specifically avoided using WU for investigate because I assume the crime families will be ally colored and I didn't want to step on the toes of the WUB or GWU families. I also just think the flavor works out better this way (in this context, W believes in following the rules, RW believes in following its own rules and punishing those who break the rules, and WB believes in manipulating the rules to protect itself).
As for your other comments, my goal was to show the state of law enforcement on New Capenna, not to show what it ideally would be in a perfect world. Here, (presumably) law enforcement is divided between good cops (investigate) and bad cops (treasure), and the bad cops clearly have the upper hand. The police being corrupt demonstrates that there was, at one time, a formidable force against crime, but that force has since been considerably weakened. The story this tells speaks to just how deeply entrenched New Capenna as a plane is in organized crime, and emphasizes how powerful the crime families are, while still offering up the possibility that there are still good cops fighting the good fight, even if it's a losing battle.
And as for the balancing of the rest of the cards, I took my best guess at costs and abilities, but mostly designed them from the top down. I figure after playtesting they'd change a bit. I chose these iterations because they are the best at demonstrating the flavor I was going for.
Police Corruption is a "may" ability. You can choose to actually get a Clue.
I could see Blind Eye changing a bit. Tapping could work just as well as unblockable. With unblockable, I see it as the creature with Blind Eye on it (as in the creature the "blind eye" is being turned to) pays off whoever is in the way.
Notably, multicolor cards here will be enemy colored to differentiate themselves from the presumably ally colored crime families.
Police Corruption WB
Enchantment (R)
When ~ enters the battlefield, investigate.
If you would create one or more tokens, you may create that many Treasure tokens instead.
Brutal Vigilante 1RW
Creature - Rogue (R)
3/3
Whenever Brutal Vigilante deals damage, investigate.
2, Discard a card: ~ fights target creature you don't control.
Lose the Evidence 1R
Instant (C)
Exile target artifact.
Cycling 2
Mob Boss 2B
Creature - Demon Noble (R)
*/4
Flying
~'s power is equal to the number of Treasures you control.
At the beginning of combat on your turn, an opponent may have you create a Treasure token. If they do, tap ~.
Blind Eye U
Enchantment - Aura (C)
Enchant Creature
When ~ enters the battlefield, create a Treasure token.
1: Enchanted creature can't be blocked this turn.
Stake Out W
Enchantment (R)
At the beginning of your end step, investigate.
Whenever you cast a spell or attack with a creature, sacrifice ~.
The inclusion of triomes would probably hinge on the inclusion of cycling, though. If this is like other typical faction sets where each faction has its own mechanic, that'll make the set a little crowded. (Strixhaven didn't have faction mechanics, but it also had larger set themes to fill that space. I don't think this set will be the same.) Still, it's happened before.
Alternatively, cycling might also just be a deciduous/evergreen mechanic by the time this set comes out, so maybe it doesn't need to be a set theme.
1. Standard sets will release every two months rather than every three.
2. As a result, rotation will happen every 8 months rather than every 12. This is to maintain the size of the standard card pool (5-8 sets at all times). This means that rotations would happen in September, then May, then January, then September again, and repeat.
Here are the reasons I believe they're doing this. Note that I'm not saying this is why they SHOULD transition to this model, only why I think they WOULD. This is a prediction, not a wish.
1. More products = More $. WotC is a business, and has demonstrated that they are willing to ignore player frustration if what they're doing makes them more money. Increasing from 4 set releases to 6 would pressure standard players to buy new cards more often.
2. Faster rotations is an answer to player frustration. I know this contradicts my last statement, but hear me out. WotC is undoubtedly aware that players are frustrated with standard stagnating because of sets like Throne of Eldraine. Players want to start playing the next standard last month, not next month. WotC's two options to combat this are to either try to design standard sets more carefully, which they've been trying to do with very mixed results; or to decrease the amount of time sets like this remain in standard. Faster rotation allows them a safety net in case they fail on the first option. Again, WotC has demonstrated that they're willing to ignore this kind of frustration in the past, but as I explained in my first reason above, 6 sets a year can potentially make them more money, so their interests and player interests happen to align.
3. This could succeed where the 2 block paradigm failed. The first change in standard rotation caused a lot of player frustration because their cards were suddenly in standard for 6 fewer months, meaning that they got a lot less out of their investment. Oddly enough, a 6-set year is both a little better and a little worse than that, because a given standard set would remain in standard for up to 16 months rather than 18 (even shorter than with the 2 block paradigm), yet rotations would happen every 8 months rather than every 6 (less frequent than the 2 block paradigm). This means that individual cards would, in fact, rotate out quicker, but the standard format as a whole would be a bit more static. I have no idea whether that would increase or reduce frustration on this point, but it at least accomplishes one of the goals that the 2 block paradigm tried to accomplish in an arguably better way: making standard less stagnant by making the format harder to solve. There are also a number of notable differences between the metagame and the state of MTG as a whole between 2016 and now. SaffronOlive wrote a pretty in-depth article detailing these differences (take a look), but it essentially comes down to the difference in the average cost of a standard deck and how that's affected by Project Booster Fun and the presence of MTG Arena. Tl;dr: Players are in a much better position to be able to accept faster rotations now than in 2016.
There are, of course, potential issues with this model. For example, players are already getting worn out with the increasing number of product releases in a single year, and adding two extra standard sets into the mix would not help on that front unless WotC reduces the number of supplemental product releases to compensate, which I'm skeptical of them doing. Still, even on that front, MTG has a lot of different player bases, and we've already seen frustration with the speed of standard rotation that seems to contradict the product exhaustion. I think it's entirely possible that the standard player base will be much more willing to forgive the increased frequency of set releases in exchange for a more exciting format. I think that the MTG playerbase as a whole is in a sort of transition period between a state where most players can comfortably buy a bit of every product and a state where players' interests are more focused and segregated between the different kinds of products. Basically, I have a feeling that product overload fatigue is eventually going to wear off as players get more used to the increased number of products per year, whereas frustration toward stagnating formats is the kind of thing that only ever gets worse.
There's also the question of how this will effect the development of these sets. Right now, standard sets average between 2 and 3 worlds per year, plus a core set. Upping the number of sets from 4 to 6 complicates that a bit. They can still maintain that average of 2 to 3 worlds per year by staying on more worlds for multiple sets in a row (like Innistrad), and even adding a second core set per year or something like that. Still, this is more about speculating what kind of sets we'll see under this model rather than the pros and cons of the model itself.
I personally would be interested in trying a model like this. What do yall think?