Mechanic Feedback: Greed
Custom Cards forum
Posted on Nov. 13, 2012, 9:07 a.m. by pookypuppy6
Hello peeps!
So like every other person with Set Editor, I'm giving making the typical wedge-coloured set a go (with full respect heeded to the wedge-forged Community Set, of course). To work towards this process I I am brainstorming ideas for a variety of mechanics so I can identify the personalities of my wedges, and I hope to get feedback for each idea that springs from my head! Here is the first: Greed.
So as you can see, Greed is a lot like convoke in that it makes cards with it cheaper to play, but unlike convoke that requires you to tap creatures, it requires you to sacrifice permanents.
This is the first mechanic I want feedback on because it 1) Has a lot of design space and potential (being used on other types of cards beyond creatures, allowing for benefits depending on how many permanents sacrificed, offering strategies based around tokens and generally dying, etc.) and 2) Because it might either be the most overpowered mechanic ever or conversely the most unattractive thing you wouldn't want on your trading card.
Voice your thoughts! Does this mechanic excite you, and in a good way? Are there any noticeable problems with how it works? Should this mechanic be at certain rarities only? What limitations would one need when designing cards with this mechanic? Go ahead, be my design critics!
pookypuppy6 says... #3
You can't play it turn 1 unless you want to sacrifice your first land and a 0-mana creature. That's 2 cards in your starting hand lost by turn 1 for something that can be hit by a burn spell. I guess I do have to be careful still as I intend to have Ornithopter in the set.
That's the unattractive side of Greed I was worried about; you lose your board position, only for your cheap power card gets bummered by removal. I think part of such a mechanic will have to involve a) Protection for the end result (e.g: indestructible or hexproof) and/or b) Plenty of secondary support for permanents going to the grave, so that the deal wasn't all downside.
November 13, 2012 10:25 a.m.
pookypuppy6 says... #4
Now I think about it mind you, a 3/2 on turn 2 is entirely possible if you sacrifice just one permanent to Scythe Harvester. That's very aggressive for black. I've got to think how much the sacrifice drawback weighs against drawbacks of similarly aggressive creatures like Unleash creatures (e.g: Gore-House Chainwalker . Otherwise it might not be suitable at low casting costs at common.
November 13, 2012 10:27 a.m.
Sacrificing a permanent seems a bit steep for what you get out of it. I would either increase the cost reduced to two or make the cards better. Add protection like you said Or maybe some constant additional incentive. perhaps you could make your wurm's ability just part of the mechanic (you get a +1/+1 counter as well as lowering its cost). Sure you could get a 5/4 on the 2nd turn but you would essentially be done for three more turns and that is if you started the game with 4-5 lands. If this set contained any white control the "Greed" deck wouldn't be over powered. I do understand this can get overpowered quickly but right now I think it is a bit under-powered, especially in a limited format.
November 13, 2012 10:51 a.m.
pookypuppy6 says... #6
I think reducing the cost by 2 for each permanent would be risky if I went with the particular BGW specialities I had originally intended (tokens and reanimation); it would also be awkward when I have Greed cards with odd-numbered colourless mana in their costs. But I see what you mean eze01, especially for limited where board position is critical. I'm just wary this mechanic can mean that you can tap a land and sac it to make 2 mana in one go.
So, let's say if I decided to change "Mortality Blast" to make it a bit more powerful and do the mechanic some justice. Would I mitigate the mechanic by lowering its mana cost (E.g: 2WB)? Or would I make the effect more powerful (E.g: Exile/destroy two target creatures)? How else could I go about it?
November 13, 2012 10:59 a.m.
With that card specifically I would say something like...
Exile target creature, that creature's controller loses 1 life (or maybe 2) for each permanent you sacrificed this turn.
The card just doesn't feel like the black cost is justified. You could maybe do "you gain 1 life target opp loses 1 life for each..." as well.
I really like the idea of getting some sort of extra something to the card in addition to reduced cost, it just seems... greedy.
November 13, 2012 11:07 a.m.
pookypuppy6 says... #8
Hmmm...that is very interesting how you feel about the greediness and getting something extra. Because if that's a concept you like, then a) There's hope for the mechanic appealing to people and b) I need to play up the "getting extra" for sacrificing your permanents.
Thing is, I have to keep the mechanic simple at lower rarities, so I can't do the additional greedy stuff at common and not too often at uncommon. Rares and mythics allow the extra complexity space for Greed to expand and play most effectively to that "greedy" aspect, but the simpler commons/uncommons would probably either end up looking like Scythe Harvester (though it could do with a push) or support cards (e.g: When this creature dies, gain life or get land or get tokens or blow something up)
Mortality Blast could actually get away with just being white I think. A cost of 3W or 4W, perhaps. It doesn't matter at the mo, this is more about the mechanic itself than the actual development/power leveling of cards.
November 13, 2012 11:20 a.m.
You have a good point with the lower rarities thing, and not every card has to be completely perfect in terms of power and play-ability. It is a good thing on commons at least to leave the player saying "oh if only this was a little bit more powerful" then to include a more powerful version at a higher rarity.
If you took the black out of the cost I think mortality blast would be a good card as is as far as effects go.
November 13, 2012 11:28 a.m.
I don't really like how it lets you sacrifice lands. That just has the potential for a lot of bad plays and unfun moments, especially for newer players. There's a lot of tension between wanting to sacrifice my own lands to get stuff out early, and you know, casting spells later. It seems difficult to play correctly. It would be nice also if it inherently gave you a way to use lands late game (though I guess some of the uncommons/rares will do this). Finally, it might be difficult to put a whole bunch of these cards into one deck, since they all play off one resource which you may quickly run out of.
I do like the theme and all the support that could go into this. My suggestion is to try maybe "Costs 1 less for every permanent (you control?) put into a graveyard from play this turn" - then you can run a whole bunch of these cards in one deck, have crazy turns. Or maybe some kind of "multikicker - sac a permanent" for effect, that way you're more encourage to sac lands late rather than early game.
November 13, 2012 10:07 p.m.
pookypuppy6 says... #11
I see what you mean; sacrificing lands isn't always fun. But if I was to defend it, I'd say using lands like a resource is a judgement or decision on behalf of the player to help win the games; do I cast spells later? Yeah its tense and can be risky for new players, but on the plus side its adds some strategy and dimension to things that makes the game interesting (having two routes to victory is more fun than one sometimes).
I think flavour-wise Greed should be a risky mechanic. Too greedy at the start of the game? You either win or get punished for it. That can be a great lesson on taking risks for players to learn if they're willing to learn it.
Besides, lands hell, Gruul Guildmage and Magma Rift .sacrifice your lands. It's not the first time this kind of sacrifice has been done before. Though, I guess Greed encourages earlier sacrificed lands than later.
In a wedge block there will probably only be 8-11 instances of each new mechanic, so there won't be too may Greed cards. I'm sure that'll give the support cards plenty of breathing space to support it, and you won't run out of resources that easily.
UmbrotheUmbreon says... #2
I think this mechanic is pretty good :) I don't think it's overpowered, unless of course most of the spells with it are one color required CMC and the rest can be any color.
Your first card has me a bit concerned. A 3/2 you can have possibly turn 1? Seems a bit strong to me. Also, I think the name Devourer Wurm seems kinda weird. Maybe go Devouring Wurm instead?
Overall love these cards though :)
November 13, 2012 10:10 a.m.