Proposing a new turn phase/step.
Custom Cards forum
Posted on Feb. 8, 2018, 2:38 a.m. by StopShot
(First of all I'd like to state I am not a judge on any level, however given the simplicity of my idea for a new turn phase/step I implore you not to declare this a rules nightmare until you've read until the end of this post. Thank you!)
Before I start, the concept for this phase/step was inspired by the card Scarscale Ritual. The phase/step I'm proposing is much different from the Ritual, however; I bring it up because it will be faithful to the card's theme and I feel it can add more depth to playing Magic the Gathering. Do keep the theme of this card in mind as I go on.
The "Forgo Phase" (for lack of a better name) or (more accurately) the "Forgo Step" starts after "The Beginning of Combat Step" and before the "Declare Attackers Step."
Just like declaring an attacker or blocker for their respective steps the "Forgo Step" allows the active player to "forgo" a creature of their choice. (Or they can choose not to forgo similar to choosing not to attack or block as this is a non-mandatory action.) There are a few restrictions before a player can declare to forgo a creature:
.) The active player can not forgo more than 1 creature per combat phase.
.) The active player can not forgo a creature with summoning sickness unless that creature has haste.
.) The active player can never forgo a creature with toughness 2 or less.
.) The active player can never forgo a creature they don't control.
.) A player can not forgo a creature on another player's turn. Only on their own turn.
So what happens when you forgo a creature? By forgoing a creature the active player simply places a -2/-2 counter onto it or moves a -2/-2 counter from one creature they control onto another so long as the creature receiving the counter meets the above restrictions. Then at the end of the active player's turn that player draws a card for each -2/-2 counter on all creatures that player controls. (This ability always checks for -2/-2 counters at the beginning of that player's end step even if there are no creatures with -2/-2 counters that player controls and/or if that player didn't forgo a creature that turn. This ability doesn't trigger every end step for the same player, only on their own end step.)
So why on earth -2/-2 counters? Well as hideous as a -2/-2 counter sounds they're the best in terms of not causing unintended interactions. If under the same scenario it was two -1/-1 counters, creatures with undying would become incredibly advantageous and there would be ways to generate more -1/-1 counters through spells and abilities which would result in broken card draw. -2/-2 counters don't cancel out +1/+1 counters and there aren't any spells or abilities that can generate these counters either. (With exception to proliferate and Ebon Praetor, neither of which being efficient enough to be game-breaking under the parameters set.)
While designing this concept it was important that it would expand upon gameplay rather than narrow it. I understand that the effect to draw cards is powerful if designed poorly and that it can result in rapidly shifting metas, steer to unbalanced gameplay, and may eliminate the practicality of certain cards and/or entire deck archetypes altogether. To this extent, under these parameters set I feel this phase/step may fortunately lean more on the impractical side of usefulness. Nonetheless, I think adding a phase/step like this would be more interesting in multiplayer games like EDH and may add another layer of depth to how players manage their creatures and resources when playing the game.
Any thoughts on this concept or any concerns in terms of balance and design are well appreciated.
This sounds overly complicated. Adding in -2/-2 counters on multiple creatures without some form of ruling card is already complicated, but the number of rules on what can and cant be forgoed is obnoxious and clunky too. This would make sense as an ability on a card, but not as an entire new step.
Also, you claim to be worried about making card draw too strong but whats to stop a player from playing a spell like Managorger Hydra, casting spells and just continually stacking them on them to draw massive amounts as the game goes on?
February 8, 2018 4:38 a.m.
This adds little gameplay for the complexity as a rule but as a one off card or a mechanic this could work well.
to start for memory issues only one type of counter can normally exist at rare and bellow in a set for memory issues. This is less of an issue as a one of at mythic or in an edh product (at which point -1/-1 counters are fine as power is not to huge a concern).
ONE OFF MYTHIC:
Strength for Knowlege
Enchantment
At the beginning of combat on your turn you may tap an untapped creature you control with toughness 1(2) or more (italics means this text is completely unessacary) and put a -1/-1(-2/-2) counter of that creature,
if you do draw a card for each -1/-1(-2/-2) counter among creatures you control.
OR
At the end of your turn draw a card for each -1/-1(-2/-2) counter among creatures you control.
MECHANIC:
Sultai Mechanic, could be the dimir?
Forgo X (at the begining of combat on your turn you may tap ~ and put X -1/-1 counter on ~, if you do draw a card(optional but makes it longer- you may only forgo one create each turn))
NOTE- no conerns with undying as it goes directly on the creature
Divining Sparrow
Creature- Bird Uncommon
Flying
Forgo 2 (at the begining of combat on your turn you may tap ~ and put X -1/-1 counter on ~, if you do draw a card)
0/3
..........
Fasting Elk
Creature- Elk (Common)
Trample
Forgo 5 (at the begining of combat on your turn you may tap ~ and put X -1/-1 counter on ~, if you do draw a card)
4/4
..........
Forever Fasting Flea
Creature- Insect(Rare)
Forever Fasting Flea can't block
exile a card from your graveyard: return ~ from your graveyard to the battlefield tapped.
Forgo 1 (at the begining of combat on your turn you may tap ~ and put X -1/-1 counter on ~, if you do draw a card)
3/1
I hope this offers some ideas on how this could work but it is most likely not by changing the rules (feel free to do this in your own edh group if your group is interested to change it up).
February 8, 2018 5:17 a.m.
RenarenTheWizard says... #5
Seems overly complicated, and all in all a bad idea. I've seen cards I sit there and read for 30 minutes trying to grasp the understanding of it, and adding an insanely complex step wouldn't make the game anymore enjoyable. Confusing cards are enough.
February 8, 2018 3:21 p.m.
Mice_Overseer says... #6
I fully agree with the people above me, but I'd also like to point out just how much more difficult this would make the game to grasp for new players. As it is, the broad strokes of a turn can be fairly intuitively thought of as 'the bit where I play my stuff, the middle bit where my stuff hits the other guy, and the bits on the end where my stuff sets itself back to normal'. Sure, there's a lot more to it than that at even slightly higher levels of play, but the point is that a lot of complexity can be boiled down to an easy-to-grasp working knowledge of what to do and why. An entire step involving fiddling around with a specific type of counter for a specific non-immediate payoff is not just inelegant, it seems totally arbitrary to a newer player, and makes the basics of play seem daunting and overbearing. On top of all that, the drawback element of Forgo is going to alienate them further, as when you're new you're clueless about when you should weaken a creature for card draw - forcing players into uninformed decisions will only turn them off.
I'm sorry about all this negativity, it's definitely an interesting idea you're proposing, and I look forward to you developing it further. It just REALLY shouldn't be part of the regular turn order.
February 8, 2018 4:34 p.m.
Before declare attacks you may put or move a counter on a creature so long as the creature isn't summoning sick and so long as the counter doesn't kill the creature. At end of turn draw cards equal to the number of those counters you have.
Yes, I got overly specific on how the technical issues work, but last time I suggested something so simplistically I had a rules book thrown at me for not initially elaborating what would happen in any given fringe situation. If I had to explain every single rule that goes into a normal combat phase of course it would seem too scary for beginners, however combat can be explained as simplistically as I had just described for this up above.
Furthermore -2/-2 counters are just as alien to new players as +1/+1 counters or -1/-1 counters are. Heck in the latest set players had brick counters and were suggested to use counters to denote exerted creatures. I can see established players grimacing at such a concept but I'd imagine a -2/-2 counter wouldn't be as crazy incomprehensible as a brick counter or an energy counter or an "exert counter" as some newer players have described to me.
Speaking of non-elegance have you ever heard new players tell you how they feel counterspell-magic is the most inherently broken part of magic being able to remove anything, or how a mono-red burn deck is way too noninteractive and how distasteful they pull off wins? Heck, game mechanics themselves such as indestructible, planeswalker ultimates, or surprise hasty creatures that deal lethal damage out of nowhere isn't the aspects of a typical game you'd consider appropriate for new players. In fact what I'm suggesting is a whole lot more tame in comparison and it's a choice that they aren't even forced into making, but are free to explore how they like rather than submit to an unfair circumstance created by other existing game mechanics.
Look, I value simplicity too, I was able to write down the gist of this step in all it's entirety in just two sentences without even needing to use complicated jargon either. In addition I specified this concept without an immediate pay-off because if new players don't take advantage of it it's not like they're going to suddenly fall behind in a game. In fact if I did specify something with a more dynamic pay-off it would be more unfriendly to newer players, because the cost of making a misplay could result in a greater disadvantageous late game which would be more punishing for newer players rather than it be rewarding for them.
I understand the game isn't as easy to be picked up for other players and piling extra stuff can seem daunting, BUT just because it's extra doesn't always mean the 10 foot learning curve has suddenly become an unclimbable mountain. Wizards of the Coast comes up with new mechanics every block and despite this it seems the diversity is attracting more newer players rather than scare them away. My motive is, so long as what's extra doesn't get anymore complicated than mechanics being produced like treasure tokens, or exert, or crewing a vehicle then it should be just as fair game, and in my opinion Forgo seems pretty simple which was how it's intended to be.
(Can I express how much I hate expressing myself on this site. I take what people say heavily whenever I write my next topic. I get called out for not making something simple, so I make the next concept simple. I make something simple and I get slammed for not detailing what happens in a rare circumstance. Either way I'm told it's bad 100% with no redemption. I spent hours paradoxically trying to write something simple and detailed at the same time over something passionate I have that might get just a little praise from strangers online. No, I'm not saying everyone has to agree, you can all disagree, but I don't ever hear anything slightly applaudable? I mean, does everything I write have no essence of intrigue or creativity that's worth getting just a small mention in the paragraphs of bad, bad, bad? You know some kind of a basis I can build off from to sort of make something that doesn't get several paragraphs of bad, bad, bad all the time. Like, hell I feel like I have to elaborate how this makes me feel while trying not to sound whiny, or uptight, or bashful, or pathetic, and just trying to ask for something that's at least seems halfway alright from someone without having to worry about people instead telling me to shut it for not being able to take opinion just like every time before is so disheartening, paralyzing, maddening, depressing, why do I bother? Do I even have a right to respond back, is that me being aggressive, unreasonable? Should I just stop, crawl into a hole and never come back out until another bad, bad, bad, idea germinates in my head for a week and after tedious refining and heavily consideration and edits post it under the same paradoxical scrutiny that I always just to get thrown under the bus again, and again, and again. The very topic I was happy and thrilled and ecstatic to share and discuss with other has now become a nuisance, and pain, and I just want to tear it up. It's not worth salvaging, it's not worth debating. It was just a bad idea all along that didn't deserve this much effort or consideration. I take back what I said about this site, it's just me. This whole word-section is a mess and I don't have the will to write on or proofread twenty times over because it only suffocates me longer in the negativity. If a moderator is reading this please do me a favor and delete the entire thread.)
February 9, 2018 12:51 a.m.
Please note, this is not an attempt to bash, but teach - it is a lot easier to react negatively to something online, since anonimity. Expect it and do not be surprised when it happens. Additionally, if you do not follow a god process with such suggestions, expect a lot of negativity. Let me elaborate:
Now, not to sound too negative after that, but dude, you cannot expect to propose a new step/phase and NOT get any backlash for it. Lets see what happens when Wizards did it:
Last time wizards changed anything to the base structure was adding a scry 1 to mulliganing - that is far less complex than what you are suggesting and still took months to implement properly. Discussion on will it make t1 Delver of Secrets
Flip too OP (maybe it has, Grixis Delver is the top dog in Legacy), is making the game too complex or simplyfying mulliganing too much, and so on.
Now, put that into perspective about what you're suggessting. Wizards realized there is a problem with Magic - mulliganing rule was stifling the game and causing non-games like being flooded or starved on mana to happen more often. They tested and implemented the solution after months of discussion.
If you added near the end of your post: "I tested this with my EDH group and we all loved it, we felt it did this and this to improve the game." You would probably get a very different response.
Look at quests for EDH on this very site and see how they are doing it. The guys behind that implemented the right process and got good results for it. If they just said "Hey guys, here are some quests, add them to your EDH game, they're grrrreat!", the results would have been much different.
February 9, 2018 3:22 a.m.
Spirit_Logan says... #9
i agree with everybody. If you really want to do this, try it in your casual playgroup. If they like it, make it a casual gameplay thing. Tournaments, imho, will never allow that. Sorry if I was rude.
February 9, 2018 6:54 a.m.
Mice_Overseer says... #10
@StopShot I'm sorry that came across as too negative. A creature-focused mechanic that lets you trade board presence for cards genuinely is an interesting, creative idea, and Bobbbyyy has some good thoughts on what could be done with it. The issue is whether or not this should be a combat step. You (correctly) point out that Forgo is actually not any more complex than the sort of mechanics WotC comes up with every block, but the difference is that those mechanics are limited to games in which cards with those mechanics are played. By keeping the basics simple and putting the fiddly stuff on the cards it's possible to curate the complexity of games of Magic, so the intricacies are there for those that want them but newer players can play and be taught with vanilla creatures and basic removal. Having Forgo as an unavoidable, ever-present part of the basic turn order weakens that, because now a new player has to get to grips with a confusing and unintuitive mechanic essentially as soon as they start playing, rather than coming across it naturally on a card when they're ready for it. And it can't simply be ignored until they're a little more experienced, because sudden new parts of the turn order raise the question "Well, what else aren't you telling me? I wonder how many times an entire new thing I always have to do in my turn is just going to be dropped on me."
Again, this is NOT a fundamentally flawed idea you're proposing, and I REALLY hope you don't take all the negativity to heart and give up. I think you really might turn this into something great if you play around with it a bit more - it just shouldn't be a part of the basic turn order. Best of luck!
February 9, 2018 8:21 a.m.
I did not initially comment on this thread, as I felt others had already made my points. That said, your most recent post had some issues I wanted to address from the perspective of one who has not previously commented on your thread. Please note that I say this with all respect, and am not trying to attack you. If I come off that way, I apologize in advance.
(1) "Either way I'm told it's bad 100% . . . I don't ever hear anything slightly applaudable?"
To the contrary, most people did not say it was 100% bad, and most saw that there was potential, they just had some issues with the execution. To sum:
Boza was a bit blunt in his initial post--he admitted it and de facto apologized for it. But the tone of his post was not angry (exclamation points are generally a sign of friendly dissent), and he agreed that it might make an interesting ability.
dbpunk raised two legitimate concerns--that there would be a lot going on with new counters, etc. but there would not be a card which clearly stated the rule for reference, and that there are some creatures which could easily shrug off -2/-2 counters and provide absurd card draw.
Bobbbyyy not only indicated he liked the concept (just not the execution), and suggested some card designs which might work.
Mice_Overseer agreed with the above polite discourse, and suggested a new issue he saw with this being an additional step.
(2) "Do I even have a right to respond back, is that me being aggressive, unreasonable?"
Of course! Dissent is an important part of discussion, and is not a bad thing. The above posters I listed probably wanted you to respond back and engage in a discussion. As stated herein, the people who posted on this thread seem pretty dedicated to helping you hone and improve your idea, not destroy it outright.
(3) "It's not worth salvaging, it's not worth debating. It was just a bad idea all along that didn't deserve this much effort or consideration."
Like those above me, I disagree with this statement. While I agree that making an additional phase is a bit much, I think this could be a pretty cool mechanic on some creatures.
(4) And I do not mean to be rude here, but I really dislike the idea of -2/-2 counters. While there are lots of counters in MTG, and while it can be difficult to keep track of things like exert, monstrous, etc., -2/-2 counters are fundamentally different. Unlike exert, -2/-2 counters interact with another substantially similar form of counter (+1/+1 and -1/-1). Having to do the math every time a creature enters combat (it's a 4/4, and has 3 +1/+1 counters, but 2 -2/-2 counters, which makes it? Oh, wait, were my dice switched? Is that 2 +1/+1 counters, and 3 -2/-2 counters?) is a bit challenging, and would be frustrating for new and old players alike.
If this were made a mechanic however, and limited to certain creatures, this issue would be avoided. You could simply use -1/-1 counters, as the underlying creature could lack abilities which would interact with +1 or -1 counters.
Again, not trying to attack you, merely add to the discourse (and try to renew your faith in this pretty awesome, generally non-combative community!).
February 9, 2018 8:57 a.m. Edited.
I has a thought about how plane cards work and this mechanic would make an awesome plane card (can google them). And it could be fun to play edh but add a random plane card from a pile selected for cool games. This mechanic could be very fun on one of the plane cards in the stack.
a advantage of using a plane card is it has the rule written out on a card so players can read it as they go.
Again I offer advice not cfor any form of attack but because i really want to help make this idea as good as it can be (apologies if I come across very critical).
This idea seems like it can be looked at for that all illusive dimir mechanic, and if you want to keep looking at ideas (most of us have good intentions if sometimes blunt language) I would love to look at possible permutations
February 9, 2018 8:58 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #13
When you look to conceive of and design something new in any field, Magic being but one example, it's a good idea to compare your idea to other ideas functioning at the same level. In Magic, there are mechanics, cards, steps, phases, turns, games, and formats (and this is only a simplified, high-level list). If your objective is to design a new step, you would be best served by comparing your ideas to the steps that already exist within the game. Taking inspiration from a card is fine, but your proposal will ultimately have to function in the context of every other step, as well as within the phases and overall turn structure. An idea that works at the card level may not translate well to a macro view of the game (for reasons I'll explain in more detail in a moment).
So we come to the "forgo step":
- Forgo is inserted into the combat step
- Forgo is between the beginning of combat step and the declare attackers step
- Only the active player may forgo a creature (best explained as a turn-based action)
- The active player may forgo one creature per combat phase
- The active player may only forgo a creature with haste or without summoning sickness
- The active player may only forgo a creature with toughness 3 or more
- The active player may only forgo a creature he or she controls
- When you forgo a creature, you either (1) put a -2/-2 counter on that creature or (2) move a -2/-2 counter from another creature you control onto a different creature that meets the forgo restrictions
- At the end of the turn, the active player draws a card for each -2/-2 counter on creatures he or she controls. (This is phrased as a trigger, but could also be proposed as a turn-based action.)
So the mechanic does meet your stated criteria of expanding gameplay insofar as it adds a new element to gameplay. And it could be said to be interesting, at least as a theoretical exercise. But the question you need to answer is, "is it worth it?" And in order to answer that question, we need to determine whether the added value justifies the added complexity.
The real value is that forgo is an interesting way to allow players greater access to resources. This has the potential to accelerate games and also to mitigate issues related to card availability (notably, mana screw is less problematic if you have significant draw capacity, although you'd need to be able to field creatures to get the draw).
Adding something new to the game, however, cannot be assumed to be valuable in and of itself. Likewise, being "interesting" is an entirely subjective affair, and it doesn't present value in and of itself when value needs to be considered in terms of the proposal's practical implications and applications. "Adding another layer of depth" is also not necessarily valuable; this is merely another way of saying it adds complexity. The depth needs to be justified (e.g., by an observed lack of depth in the current state that needs to be remedied by creating greater depth).
On that topic, the complexity:
Timing The forgo step does not need to occur in combat. It doesn't appear to make any sense in the context of combat, as it's not directly (and is only vaguely tangentially) relevant to attacking or blocking, so inserting it after the beginning of combat is unnecessary. It also creates strange interactions with effects that create additional combat steps, and strange interactions were a stated criteria for avoiding other design choices.
Sprawl The forgo step, rather than being self-contained, results in a trigger (or, with a slight tweak, a turn-based action) in the end step. It doesn't make sense for a decision to be made at one point in the turn if it will only be relevant much later on in the turn. Why not just make the decision during the end step? Or the draw step? Or at least draw the card immediately upon forgoing? Forgo's premise requires a game step to have both an immediate, visible effect on the game that sets up a delayed, less visible effect. Consider this in relation to other steps, which are compartmentalized and relatively easy to understand in a vacuum. The current turn structure can be described rather simply: untap everything, draw a card, play spells, attack, play spells, discard if necessary (you can even skip the upkeep in a very simplistic explanation because it typically only matters if a card specifies that something happens in the upkeep or if an ability is used). Further exacerbating this issue is the potential for a removal spell or other effect to kill the creature with the -2/-2 counter in the time between you forgoing it and you drawing cards for those counters. What have you gained in this scenario? Nothing.
Use of counters Forgo uses -2/-2 counters, which are used by almost no other mechanics in the game and need to be tracked independently. As a general rule, sets are designed such that they include either +1/+1 counters or -1/-1 counters as a measure to reduce complexity, especially in Limited formats (which are intended to cater to new players to a greater degree than Constructed formats do). Adding what is effectively a new kind of counter at the step level introduces complexity to every game played (well beyond the scope of a particular set). And I don't think it can be reasonably argued that -2/-2 counters are "just as alien to new players as +1/+1 counters or -1/-1 counters are"; the latter two are referenced by vastly more cards and are incorporated into the design of many sets, especially new sets. They're also much more intuitive to represent. It's not actually clear why counters need to be used at all; the use of counters presumes that the effect is meant to be more enduring than an until-end-of-turn equivalent, but is it necessary for that to be the case here? In some respects, it helps remember that a creature has been foregone, but this is only necessary because of the aforementioned sprawl phenomenon or if the advantages of forgo need to be balanced by permanence (a tenuous proposition, in my opinion). If all activities relevant to forego occurred simultaneously or sequentially, there wouldn't be a need to remember something.
Moving counters You allow that -2/-2 counters may not only be placed but may also be moved. As a result, forgo, despite being phrased as a "may" effect, is not really binary. There are three options available to players: (1) choose not to forgo a creature, (2) choose to forgo a creature by placing a new -2/-2 counter on it, or (3) choose to forgo a creature by moving a -2/-2 counter from another creature onto the foregone creature. Each of these has a different effect on the board state. The non-binary nature makes for a difficult time explaining how this "may" effect is different from the vast majority of its peers, which offer only binary choices with the "yes" option having one explicitly-described effect on the game ("you may . If you do, ."). With a purely binary choice (place a counter or don't place a counter; no moving of counters), forgo is at least reasonably linear: if you choose to forgo, you get an additional counter that will very likely net you an additional card; if you don't, you don't. With the third option (moving an existing counter), you may now decide to forgo a creature without actually impacting the net draw. The benefit instead exists in another form: it allows you to change the impact of a previous decision to forgo. This means that the decision to forgo one creature may impact another creature as well, and the cost-benefit analysis of your options becomes more complex with the addition of a third, nonparallel option.
Toughness restrictions Because the counters are -2/-2 counters, and because your proposal depends on creatures still being alive during a different step for the player to realize any benefit, you've also created a toughness restriction on which creatures can be foregone. This in itself creates complexity, but it also means that some decks will simply not be able to take advantage of this step since they rely on creatures with predominantly toughnesses of 2 or less. This is, by some accounts, sub-optimal; those decks tend to be aggro decks that could really benefit from the additional draw. Further, the immediate drawback of a -2/-2 counter on any creature that can survive it is still fairly steep. -2/-2 is less manageable than -1/-1 in almost all practical scenarios (and is also less intuitive to players). As mentioned before, this toughness restriction is related to sprawl (as is the case with the counters themselves). If forego was a single, turn-based action in which the creature got -2/-2 (either through a counter or a static effect), you could draw the card immediately and it wouldn't matter if the creature died because its presence wouldn't need to be measured later in the turn.
Stacking On that note, the forgo mechanic stacks if you get multiple -2/-2 counters on creatures you control. This means that the number of cards you draw during any given turn can fluctuate as a result of the turn rules themselves. Whereas the draw step always nets you one card, with any differences being attributable to a card's effect, forgo requires you to calculate card draw based on a shifting game state, which is more complex.
Miscalculation The combined potential challenges of (1) stacking, (2) sprawl, and (3) tracking a specific type of counter that is similar-but-dissimilar to other, common kinds of counters means that there's real potential to miscalculate or even miss the draw effect. And misplays related to cards in hand tend to have a more severe adverse effect on the game than those related to, for example, missing a tap.
Debuffing It's not entirely clear why the foregone creature needs to receive a P/T debuff at all, apart from your having started with Scarscale Ritual as inspiration. It might be more interesting if you instead had to tap some number of your creatures (preventing them from attacking or blocking during the coming turn cycle), which would affect your board position in a manner less permanent but still tactically significant. Additionally, new players (who are, appropriately, used as a standard test for complexity) will likely have trouble navigating the cost-benefit analysis necessary to understand how forgo could be useful. The sprawl issue means that the payoff for forgoing a creature is non-immediate, and players may be inclined to view forgo as weakening their creatures for very little reward. Consider how many players already have trouble justifying the 1 life for fetch lands or the 2 life for shock lands. Now imagine that you're one of these players on turn three and are just now playing your 3/3 for 3. You have the option to turn it into a 1/1 for the potential to draw a card. Would you do that? Likely not.
Lack of reference Lastly, consider that many mechanics, which you correctly identify as other sources of complexity, are printed either with reminder text or in such volume and with such templating that their function is generally known to players. If a card instructs you to take a complicated set of actions, you can follow the instructions that are actually printed on the card. In the case of new mechanics, cards featuring those mechanics are always printed with reminder text explaining the basic function of that mechanic in as short a space as practical (this is done precisely because of the value of having something spelled out when learning it). However, if a step requires a complex set of actions that can't easily be summarized (consider how many lines it actually took to explain all of the rules for forgo, including restrictions on what creatures can be foregone, plus the sprawl issue from above), it presents more of an issue.
Being a step Ultimately, I have to come back to the basic assumption that what you're proposing even needs to be its own step. See the sprawl issue above; nothing I've read in this thread indicates to me that forgo needs to be a step in the combat phase, and I'd argue that it doesn't need to be a step at all. The spirit of your idea can probably be better captured by adding one rule to an existing step rather than trying to insert a new step into the turn structure. If the idea is ultimately to offer a new way to draw cards, why not consolidate it under the existing draw step?
Given all of the above, I have to conclude that your proposal's complexity does not justify its potential value. Extrapolating a mechanic or card to the step level is difficult. That's not to say it's not worthwhile or that it can't be done well. However, this particular proposal doesn't present a compelling case. As a mechanic printed on a card, the idea is much more interesting and workable. But as part of the turn, it is cumbersome and inelegant.
So what could be done to make it more feasible? Here's one alternative that I think would remove much of the unnecessary complexity described above:
As you draw the first card during your draw step, you may tap any number of creatures you control with total power 3 or more. If you do, draw an additional card.
This would get rid of the -2/-2 counters (and debuffs altogether), eliminate the sprawl issue with effects being tracked over multiple steps, and place the draw effect in the same step as the existing turn-based draw. The end result is merely one additional rule for an existing step rather than a new step altogether. It certainly still presents some challenges, but it's much more manageable overall and doesn't necessitate those complexities it can reasonably avoid.
Boza says... #2
1/ This sounds like an ablity, not something that needs to be an extra step. You even call it an ability in your description and never once explain why this needs to be an extra combat step! Or why its needed - making things more complex is not good enough. Plus, you are implying magic is not complex enough as is.
2/ This is a bad combo of monarch and exert.
3/ Why -2/-2 counters instead of -1/-1? For interactions with undying??? If that is what you are worried about, you really have no idea of the implications of what you are proposing.
4/ The idea is incredibly obtuse and unintuitive.
I may be blunt, but I see nothing good about this.
February 8, 2018 3:01 a.m.