Designer's Workshop 2 Followup

Card Design

squire1

27 March 2013

1763 views

I'm back for our next installment of designer's workshop. This time I am going to provide feedback on some of the mechanic designs from the last assignment. Firstly, I want to thank all of you for your participation. I recieved tons of mechanic submissions from you all. Many of them were very good. Unfortunately, I do not have time to review all of them. So I selected a large handful to review. I picked them based on which struck my interest in reviewing them. I will also review one of my own designs from a completed set I developed.

Chaos by Blakkhand

Original Wording: Chaos = You may cast this spell for its chaos cost. When this spell is cast for its chaos cost, instead of choosing its target(s), choose its target(s) at random.
Suggested wording: Chaos <cost> - You may cast this spell for its chaos cost, if you do, choose its target at random.
Comments: Right from the start this one struck me. I am a sucker for fringe effects like coin flips and random effects (both usually red). Great design space for Red. You want red card draw?

R
Sorcery
Choose a player at random. That player draws a card.

Not really a great design there, but these random effects, as demonstrated with Chaos, have tons of untapped design space and add new dimension to the game, especially in multiplayer formats. Good fun stuff.

As you can see from the cards presented I cahnged the wording a bit from its original. I think to make it easier to read the "(s)" needed to be removed. This limitis chaos spalls to only have one target, but its is less confusing that way anyway.

Note that the suggested wording limits this to single targets, but i think that is ok.

Rebirth by jminute14

Original Wording: Rebirth - You may cost this card from your graveyard by sacrificing a creaturein addition to paying its mana cost.
Suggested wording: Rebirth (You may cast this card from your graveyard. If you do, as an additional casting cost, sacrifice a creature.)
Comments:This mechanic looks solid because of the steep recursion cost. One problem I have with it is the playtesting and the card designs that could come from this. A simple card like "Cards in your graveyard have rebirth until end of turn." is a storm nightmare. I am worried about this mechanic as a combo piece is all. I like it though. Seems like it should be limited to zombie type creatures though.

Bloodied by shadowdart

Original Wording: A player is bloodied when they recieve damage this turn.
Suggested wording:A player is bloodied if they have recieved damage this turn.
Comments: This reminded me of bloodthirst with more design space. It is not just limited to +1/+1 counters, but can still utilize them. You can have a card that says "When ~ enters the battlefield, if an opponent is bloodied, it enters the battlefield with three +1/+1 counters on it." Works just as well as Bloodthirst and has other applications as well. For this reason, I think this is a great mechanic. It really has some great design potential. Now burn does become very powerful with a mechanic like this, especially repeatable burn like Fireslinger. Based on the original wording, the question comes up "Are they bloodied the rest of the game when they recieve damage this turn?" Note the changes to the wording based on that question?
Original Wording:

Linger by twiggles

Original Wording: Linger <cost> (You may pay an additional when you cast this spell. If you do, this spell remains in effect until the end of your next turnand "end of turn" is replaced with "end of your next turn"
Suggested wording: Linger <cost> (You may pay an additional <cost> as you cast this spell. If you do, this spell remains in effect until the end of your next turn instead.)
Comments: So I like this. I really do. I get an effect for two turns instead of one. Here is the good part. I get continuous effects extended without a break in service so to speak. Very cool. Here is the bad part/s. This is called kicckerbound. Yes it is just kicker with a narrower effect. The effect is always extend this to next turn. This effect is called rebound. Problem being, rebound was easier to keep track of. How do I know which of your 5 instant/sorceries you played this turn or last are still in effect. The card stays in play maybe? but instants and sorceries don't do that. I liek the idea, but i think this mechanic causes more problems than it solves.

Biosphere by Lotex

Original Wording: Bioshpere X (As long as you control X or more forests, effect)
Suggested wording: Biosphere <number> (As long as you control X or more forests, effect)
Comments:This is a very cool idea. I like this a lot. It is land counts in all the right ways. It does have the drawback of making shocks even more money. But hey whatever. takkactus developed a similar mechanic, just not forest specific. I actually like it forest specific, but it could go either way. The problem I have with this is, why does it have a name and a number parameter. Look Kird Ape made this mechanic a reality in the first MTG expansion ever. i loved it and exploited it then. I think it doe shave a place in magic, but not sure it needs to be a keyword.

Land Flash by azumanga94

Original Wording: Land Flash ((If you did not play a land on your last turn, you may reveal this card from your hand to your opponent during thier turn and place this card onto the battlefield untapped. You cannot landflash more than once in a turn.)
Suggested wording: Land Flash (If you did not play a land on your last turn, you may place this card onto the battlefield any time you could play an instant. You can landflash once per turn.)
Comments:I shouldn't pick this because I do not want to promote people liking manga (reference to username). Not the most flavorful mechanic name, but we get the idea of course. I changed the wording, not sure I did so correctly. I think we all get what he is getting at. But how to word it? i like this mechanic because I can hold a "flash island" and a Counterspell in hand on turn two to act like I am mana screwed and then pounce. The greatest fakeout ever!!! Might even be too strong. I say this because without drawback everyone will play four of each basic one in every deck in every format. Why wouldn't you? That kind of play and people start swinging the ban hammer. An easy way to fix this (my heart hurts) it to make them enter tapped. This would allow for off turn landfall triggers and */* creatures based on landcount being pumped from nowhere, but not sure its worth it that way.

Stalk by MinscAndBoo

Original Wording: Stalk <cost> (You may cast this creature for its stalk cost as long as an opponent controls an attacking or blocking creature. If you do, when this creatureenters the battlefield, it fights target attacking or blocking creature.
Comments:I like it, but I have questions. Is this good for the game? This is a two for one when played right? NWO indicates that should be uncommon and up only. Problem?

Decay by jkarnes

Original Wording: Decay (When this creature dies, search your graveyard for a creature with combined power and toughness less than the converted mana cost of this card and put it into your hand.
Suggested wording: Decay (When this creature dies, put a creature card from your graveyard into you hand with a lesser converted mana cost.)
Comments:I know, I know, read first then judge the suggested wording. First thing is I really love the idea here. It seems fun and has some great interactions. There are some problems though. First, does this start feeling like a math equation to anyone else? C > P + T is what I get out of it. This might not be the most intuitive thing in the world. The less intuitive portion and less flavorful in my opinion is the mana cost to P/T conversion.

Might this be better if it was the suggested wording. Also notice in the suggested wording that it does not say "search". Graveyard is public information, so need to search.

Before I go, lets talk about support cards. Mythics are NOT support cards. We can not support a mechanic that you will likely never see in any limited format. Mechanics need to be present and supported in lower rarities. I know its is fun to design for the shock and awe, but it is not practical for gameplay. Good job to those of you who designed support cards in common or uncommon slots.

Lots of great designs all. I even got one that involved contraptions. I will be saving that one for another time. Please discuss my comments and changes all you wish below. i will be back next week with another installment. Until then, keep designing!

This article is a follow-up to Designer's Workshop 2 The next article in this series is Designer's Workshop 3

jkarnes says... #1

If Decay was worded as the suggestion entails it would say "Soulshift X." I worded it the way it is because it makes costing creatures and picking their power and toughness relevant. A CMC 1 0/4 wall is decent in draft, but when you have Decay in the format, it becomes possible to generate small advantage with each death assuming the creatures are designed properly.

In this way, Decay does not take over a standard metagame because chaining out of the higher CMCs becomes prohibitive as you head down due to things like Champion of Order being the norm (if not slightly better than the norm) in the C/U brackets.

March 27, 2013 11 a.m.

MinscAndBoo says... #2

Thanks for featuring my Stalk mechanic, though I think Wanderlust was more interesting!

As for the power level of the two-for-one-ness: That's easily adjustable via the cost of the ability. Perhaps the Bears' Stalk cost should be upped to 3GG or even 4GG.

March 27, 2013 11:57 a.m.

MinscAndBoo says... #3

PS: Mythics can certainly be support cards. Armada Wurm does a good job enabling Populate decks. It's just that there need to be plenty of non-Mythic support cards as well.

So, for Stalk we might have something like:

Ambush Tactics (U)

1GG

Enchantment

Whenever a creature enters the battlefield, if it's your Main Phase, target creature gets +1/+1 until end of turn. Otherwise, target creature gets +2/+2 until end of turn instead.

The Assassins were quiet--but on the Beasts' home turf, they were nervous too.

March 27, 2013 12:06 p.m.

http404error says... #4

Is this the part where we all yell at Lotus Cobra ?

And holy bean dip I thought of a magnificent design for contraptions.

Oh yeah, good job with the mechanics, everyone! I couldn't muster the bravery to submit one...

March 27, 2013 12:25 p.m.

That_Girl says... #5

Suggested wording for "Stalk:" (You may cast this creature for its Stalk cost by targeting an attacking or blocking creature. If you do, that creature fights this creature.)

March 27, 2013 3 p.m.

MindAblaze says... #6

@ MinscAndBoo

I think he was more getting at the idea that Mythics are not good examples of support cards. My mythic sets up Rebirth perfectly, board-wipe and make a bunch of tokens to sac to bring your rebirth creatures back? Sweet...it's the same as how Armada Wurm fits the populate mechanic perfectly, but doesn't benefit the game for limited.

You need uncommons and commons that make your mechanic useful...for example, Rebirth needs creatures on the board, and cards in the graveyard to work...so I need something like;

Auntie's Healing Table (3)

Artifact U

Sacrifice a creature: regenerate target creature.

March 27, 2013 4:44 p.m.

MindAblaze says... #7

Essentially, what you said.

March 27, 2013 4:45 p.m.

killroy726 says... #8

did anyone care for my terraforming idea?

March 27, 2013 9:45 p.m.

Lotex says... #9

@killroy726It seemed a bit cumbersome. i don't think it is the sort of stuff i would expect a common or uncommon to do. But it does have synergy with the stuff Tekkactus and me thought about (well either that or it disrupts on more than one level). Somehow it feels more like a (probably blue) support card than a mechanic of a larger number of creatures.

The mechanic i liked best of all the submitted/featured ones is chaos. This one just seems like fun, but spikes would probably not be a fan of the random element.

Landflash is probably the most troubling one. Lands which are strictly better than basic lands should not be created cause everyone would run 4 of them. A "flash island" would require some sort of additional cost or drawback. Also i suspect there is some stuff in the zendikar block which acts funny with this in the mix. Btw the only way i can think of to play lands with instant speed requires at least two other cards or is there some green spell i am missing?

March 28, 2013 5:16 a.m.

meecht says... #10

Could Landflash be balanced by forcing you to sacrifice/exile the land at the end of turn, essentially making it Evoke for lands?

March 28, 2013 9:40 a.m.

zaddos says... #11

Something like: you may play this land with flash. If you do exile this card at the beginning of the next end phase.
or Exile it after it becomes tapped for mana.

March 28, 2013 10:24 a.m.

MindAblaze says... #12

I'd have to say I like Landflash

I do agree with sacrificing the flashed in land at EoT to balance it a bit. Coming in tapped would solve the problem too, but it depowers it a lot and defeats the way it was intended to play.

The mechanic opens up some fun ETB design space, never mind the cards that would have to exist to balance them...It might open up a door to reprint Stifle

March 28, 2013 11:02 a.m.

Blakkhand says... #13

For landflash, there is nothing wrong with lands being highly played. abur duals, fetches, and shocklands are all played an enormous amount in there respective formats. Besides, they would probably not occur as 4-ofs simply because they only tap for one color of mana, though you could make duals that come into play tapped.

March 29, 2013 10:27 a.m.

Please login to comment