|
|
Post by Tesagk on Jul 21, 2018 10:57:29 GMT
Mechanic #1: Reverb - At the beginning of your next upkeep, pay <cost> or sacrifice <permanent>. If you do, <effect>Mechanic #2: Replay 2WW (You may pay an additional <cost> as you cast this spell. If you pay, return <spell> to your hand from your graveyard at the beginning of your next turn.) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2018 11:43:00 GMT
Reverb as a planeswalker ability makes them too wordy.
Bounce is fine, apart from the fact that "bounce" is Magic slang for "return to owner's hand".
The problem is, your cards are far too wordy. Their text is cramped and unaesthetic.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tesagk on Jul 21, 2018 13:24:33 GMT
The problem is, your cards are far too wordy. Their text is cramped and unaesthetic. Including the bounce cards? Because you only said that the Reverb mechanic was specifically too wordy (which I can very much understand) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2018 13:39:45 GMT
Bounce cards are okay I guess. Both your Sagas and your planeswalkers are cramped.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tesagk on Jul 21, 2018 14:05:53 GMT
Bounce cards are okay I guess. Both your Sagas and your planeswalkers are cramped. I've adjusted the Sagas and Planeswalkers already (I assumed this is what you meant  ) so it looks like we were on the same page there. They've still got a lot of words, but hopefully they're not "overly wordy." As for Bounce, I renamed it Replay. To be honest, I was sort of making a play on the use of the slang term Bounce, but I changed it to reduce confusion. Also, if you have any problems with Replay as a mechanic or the templating on any of the examples, please let me know how you would word them. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2018 14:12:35 GMT
Replay... I'd call it Playoff. What do you think? Planeswalkers are better now, though still Ice Cauldron-y. You forgot to name the legendary tokens tou get from Sagas. The Sagas' names are also a bit too long, although this is a rather minor issue. |
|
|
|
Post by Tesagk on Jul 21, 2018 14:23:22 GMT
Replay... I'd call it Playoff. What do you think? Not sure I get the reference here. When I think of playoffs, I think of tournaments... |
|
|
|
Post by Tesagk on Jul 21, 2018 14:26:32 GMT
Also noticed a hilarious, game-breaking typo in Giyala.
|
|
|
|
Post by fluffydeathbringer on Jul 21, 2018 15:55:52 GMT
the reverb card images don't show anymore because of imgur fuckery
|
|
impspiritguide
2/2 Zombie
Favorite Color: Brown
Posts: 129
Set Hub: http://magicseteditor.boards.net/thread/256/pokemon-thread
Formerly Known As: Imp Elemental Spirit Guide
|
Post by impspiritguide on Jul 21, 2018 16:44:09 GMT
I don't like Reverb, my opinion is it should be two abilities rather than 1. The upkeep and the beginning of the upkeep triggered ability. It seems to convoluted to combine both. That's kind of like saying Upkeep:  and if you pay it this gets +1/+1 rather than just making the creature 1/1 bigger than before, seems redundant and prone to causing some unforseen rules bonus or conflict.I still don't like it but I see why you would have to combine the two to make sure you don't get at least 1 upkeep trigger out of it for the same reason. It's just wordy and convoluted. For the card you are talking about how about an end of turn upkeep (since they un-evergreened Upkeep this should be possible). Something like pay <cost> at the end of your turn or sacrifice <this>, and then run the upkeep triggered ability.
Replay, I've seen people try this before (it may even be an existing keyword somewhere on the old forums). It works and tended to be popular depending on your metagame, but assuming something hasn't negated my understanding of the rules you need to reword it to make sure that the spell isn't countered by removing the target or something else (coupled with making sure it isn't a positive to counter your own spell). I don't know the exact wording anymore but something to the effect of.
Replay - If this spell would be countered by an opponent's spell or ability, exile it instead. Then, <new or lesser effect>.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tesagk on Jul 21, 2018 17:33:24 GMT
the reverb card images don't show anymore because of imgur fuckery They all show up for me? I'm confused by the first part of this. I can see the second part of it, but could you give an example for the first part of it? |
|
|
|
Post by fluffydeathbringer on Jul 21, 2018 17:53:39 GMT
okay now they do show. weird
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2018 18:04:21 GMT
|
|
impspiritguide
2/2 Zombie
Favorite Color: Brown
Posts: 129
Set Hub: http://magicseteditor.boards.net/thread/256/pokemon-thread
Formerly Known As: Imp Elemental Spirit Guide
|
Post by impspiritguide on Jul 21, 2018 18:32:56 GMT
I'm confused by the first part of this. I can see the second part of it, but could you give an example for the first part of it? As Gorgonzola said, you can counter a spell by either removing its target or by using cards with the wording "counter ... spell". I believe there were other ways to do this as well. But for example in the case of your Moment of Grace by the original wording if you cast it on a creature and then sacrificed the creature due to some other ability, you would still gain 4 life because Moment of Grace was countered by removing the target.
As for Reverb I've thought about it some more and the biggest problem is that there is little benefit to creating a keyword ability. The point of keyword abilities is to not have to write the entire rules text on the card (for example can you imagine all of the cards with Regenerate or Protection from putting all of the rule wording on the card, the cards would have smaller print than Yu-Gi-Oh cards you'd have to play with a magnifying glass). Reverb doesn't do much of this because you have to both the upkeep and the triggered ability on there at which point there isn't much point in keywording the ability.
I see two possible ways to fix this:
The first which I prefer is to make the triggered ability the same for all cases, given the cards you have presented the best I've come up with is Reverb: <cost>; <counter type> Reverb - At the beginning of your upkeep pay <cost> or sacrifice ~this~, if you pay this cost place a <counter type> counter on target permanent.
The other possibility is to shorten the cost in some way (like in the case of Echo where it uses the casting cost, but this seems very expensive). The best I've come up with for this possibility is. Reverb: <triggered ability> Reverb - At the beginning of your upkeep if this card was not in play during the previous upkeep then pay it's casting cost or sacrifice ~this~. If you have payed this cost or this card was in play during the previous upkeep then <triggered ability>.
|
|
kinotherapy
6/6 Wurm
stupid kor i just fell out of the floor
Posts: 322
Favorite Card: Ruthless Raider
Favorite Set: Rising Tides
Color Alignment: Blue, Black, Red
|
Post by kinotherapy on Jul 21, 2018 19:03:56 GMT
As of Dominaria, removing targets doesn't counter spells or abilities any more, so it's fine. A spell with no targets still fails to resolve, but is no longer technically "countered": see the errata on cards like Abrupt Decay. |
|
|
|
Post by Tesagk on Jul 21, 2018 21:53:11 GMT
So I went back and looked at Teferi and Karn, each of which have 7 and 9 lines of text respectively. I get that people want cards to be less wordy, but my three planeswalkers fall within that range, so I don't understand why people think it's too much text.
Also, aren't ability words always done with the reminder text, since it's part of the trigger? My calling it a keyword was a bit of a misnomer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tesagk on Jul 22, 2018 1:59:24 GMT
To be clear, I'm not trying to come off as defensive. Just trying to understand the reasoning. The sagas are likely too wordy and will have to be ditched or changed in some drastic way. But the "rules" I've followed with Magic design is that wordier cards should be rares or mythics, and that Planeswalkers are often going to be wordier cards.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jéské Couriano on Jul 22, 2018 11:08:04 GMT
[T]he "rules" I've followed with Magic design is that wordier cards should be rares or mythics, and that Planeswalkers are often going to be wordier cards. Rarity is a matter, nine times out of ten, of complexity of effect, not so much complexity of wording (wordsmithing goes a long way here). Also, abilitywords such as what you've designed, Threshold, and Hellbent do not have reminder text.
Your Reverb examples only use one "conditional". Quotes intended, because it's a binary "effect or die" thing that essentially puts a gun to the player's mana. Given that the examples you presently have are fairly wordy, I would stick to it, but rework it so that it's more of an option.
The main reason counterspell-hate doesn't exist is because, with very few exceptions (generally the very few nonblue counterspells), counterspell-hate is automatically colour-hate against blue. Replay is too narrow unless you're giving other colours counterspells.
Also, Dominaria shortened some wordings. "[...]to your mana pool" is now superfluous.
kinotherapy ) I can see why they did that, but I can't help but feel that designers are going to make a "can't be killed" spell. We already have issues with players doping up infinites-with-legs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tesagk on Jul 22, 2018 11:28:45 GMT
I see some of what you're saying and I can agree with it to some extent. But other things don't make sense at all. [T]he "rules" I've followed with Magic design is that wordier cards should be rares or mythics, and that Planeswalkers are often going to be wordier cards. Rarity is a matter, nine times out of ten, of complexity of effect, not so much complexity of wording (wordsmithing goes a long way here). That's a fair point, but I'm pretty good with words. If there's an alternate version where the wording can be shorter, I'm all ears. But I'm seeing a lot of "too wordy" without any suggestions on how to reduce the word count. And while I'm not trying to be combative, I don't see that as very helpful, it really does feel a bit like people trying to denigrate an idea without putting in the actual effort. Also, abilitywords such as what you've designed, Threshold, and Hellbent do not have reminder text. [/div][/quote] What are we defining as reminder text? Both Threshold and Hellbent still remind you of the triggering conditions. So I'm not sure what you're referring to. It's going to be a consistent mechanic, though I may not to reword Replay to deal with the other colors' "counterspells." I may not like counterspells much, but I'm not intentionally sabotaging blue here. So I don't know what to do here, really. My first iteration of Almos also had a lot of negative responses to the keyword mechanics. This one is as well, which means it will likely be delayed again, because there's no point in designing something if people don't find it fun. |
|
|
|
Post by Fleur on Jul 22, 2018 17:14:51 GMT
Feedback time! I'll be going over individual cards and mechanics, in that order. Sagas Overall feedback: I think these need a bit of a rework, mostly because their third abilities take up a lot of space. The other issue aside from that is that you've made a rare that asks you to also miraculously own a specific mythic card for it to actually function to its full potential, which IMO is a pretty big problem design-wise. While granted, the Scepter/Throne/Crown of Empires cycle exists, the fact that two of those are at uncommon and one is at rare makes it a lot less egregious in terms of parasitism and makes it easy to pull both and make the combo work. Right now it's a straight-up drawback if you don't have the PW, which isn't good, so I'd recommend making the sacrifice a may instead of a must. See below for an example. Story of John   Enchantment - Saga  I: Create John of Rabiah, a 2/2 white Cleric legendary creature token with lifelink. II: Up to one target creature you control gets +2/+2 and gains flying until end of turn. III: You gain 4 life. Then, you may sacrifice a creature you control named John of Rabiah. If you do, search your library for a card named John, the High and Holy and put him on the battlefield. Above: John's Story doesn't lose power even if you don't have John, the High and Holy. This makes it more compelling to deckbuild with while still rewarding you for playing him with his planeswalker iteration. Individual Feedback: Ballad of Roses and Romance is missing Anarys' name in the first chapter. The second ability needs a shuffle. And I think that's a lot of upside for an already efficient card - three mana 2/4 that can ramp for GG is good. Adding a land search to that is possibly too good. And adding five mana that doesn't empty is definitely far too strong, especially if you can search up Anarys' (the planeswalker) right after. Not a fan of the card as-is, but it's a cute idea. Treastise of the Sun: Haste? In two of red's enemy colors? It's more likely than you think. Well, it shouldn't be - that's an outright color pie violation. Also, a repeatable counterspell that doesn't even cost cards to use is pretty disgusting, especially when it's tacked onto a scry two, draw three for three mana. That's just too much power on one card, tbh. Personally I'd make the counterspell mode a taxation a la judge's familiar, so that it's not quite as oppressive as it is now. (There's also absolutely nothing white about the card as-is right now, which is a whole other can of worms.) Pact of Blood and Fire: 4/2 for first strike and haste at 1BR is aggressively costed and probably not okay. I'd make that 3/2? Having said that though, the second ability is ringing huge bells in my head - it's like Mizzium Mortars, but three mana, comes with a 4/2 and you know, hits face as well. There's a lot wrong with that ability power-wise and you'd likely need to scrap chapter 2. Overall conclusion: A lot of these seem too pushed and two powerful - I'd take a look at some more recent cards as precedent for what's too good/what's not to good - a precursory glance at Mizzium Mortars, for instance, would've been enough to avoid making a 3-mana version with significant upside. Once again, I'd like to reiterate that I like the idea of sparkings being depicted by sagas a lot - it's just the executions that are a little bit crap right now.
Planeswalkers
Initial Notes: These are interesting. Reverberate gives them a rather different playing dynamic which I dig. In fact, I think some of these are too weak - they don't do anything when they land and they cost N+2 mana to get going where N is the CMC and 2 mana is the reverberate. Individual Cards: Anarys the planeswalker is underpowered - GG for two +1/+1 counters, except only if your planeswalker survives a turn is very weak. The ult's also quite weak for the same reason - if you're using the +1 regularly, the ult's going to do... well..... basically nothing. I'd say you're just better off using straight-up +1/+1 counters for this and cutting out the middleman (growth counters). Sifa: White does not get land destruction anymore for good reason (it's gets land wiping but not single target land killing). This actually manages to justify requiring a one-turn wind-up, which is good. Slightly less good is the fact that this is really bloody strong??? White blowing up planeswalkers and creatures like that just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Blue doesn't really help that issue, either. Gyala: You could reword the +2 to say "CARDNAME deals 2 damage to each creature with a flame counter on it.", I think. Or "CARDNAME deals 2 damage to any number of target creatures with flame counters on them." The +2 and -4 feel very same-y in a way since they're both removal - personally I'd rather planeswalker designs use the 2-3 ability format to do different things instead of doing the same thing to various degrees of efficiency. I like that you can put flame counters on players though, that's cute.
Mechanics and Other Fun Stuff
I'm going to be blunt here. I really don't like replay. It's a mechanic dependent on what your opponents play (bad), that disproportionately affects a single color (worse) and doesn't offer any build-around potential worth considering (no, building replay.dek to piss off that one player who uses counterspells doesn't count as build-around potential since it isn't doing anything other than hating on a single color). Overall it's almost everything a mechanic shouldn't be. If you want a way to deal with counterspells there are a bunch of better ways to do that IMO. Flashback means that your spells can be cast again even if they're countered. Same for Embalm and Unearth. Other than that, the cards are fine (even though a CMC2 counterspell is hella suspect, especially since it has effective uncounterability). Anyways, that's about it. Thanks for posting nonetheless - you've got some good ideas, even though some of them are rather flawed in their execution (for reasons I've outlined above). Looking forward to seeing more of your stuff  |
|
|
|
Post by Tesagk on Jul 22, 2018 17:25:29 GMT
Thanks for the kind words. It's back to the drawing board though, so it may be a bit before I post anything else. Though I did have a legendary transform cycle that was needlessly complex previously. I'm hoping I've managed to simplify it, but I'm worried about the cards being properly balanced and still possibly too wordy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Daij_Djan on Jul 22, 2018 22:56:35 GMT
Much feedback has already been given, so I only have one minor thing to add concerning Replay: Pseudo mechanics have no rules meaning whatsoever (this means you can't have a card saying "Whenever a landfall ability triggers", f.e.), they are only used to showcase/highlight a theme of your set. To make this work means you also have to support that given theme. So if you want to make "this can't really be countered" into a theme, you need to support it by.. making many counterspells. And looking at your original intro I don't think you'd want to do this |
|
|
|
Post by Jéské Couriano on Jul 23, 2018 2:29:48 GMT
Tesagk ) Reminder text, as the Comprehensive Rules states, is the parenthetical and italicised text that appears after most instances of an expert-level keyword. (Rule 207.2a-b)
The reason why the Comprehensive Rules clarifies precisely what reminder text is is to further explain that as far as card rules text goes reminder text does not exist. The RT is literally just a summarisation of the Comp Rules section for that keyword.
Abilitywords, on the other hand, do not have reminder text because they aren't technically keyword abilities. The word itself exists only to denote cards with a similar theme and effect. (207.2c)
In general, keywords are well-defined abilities with one or two variables while abilitywords are ill-defined abilities with one constant.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tesagk on Jul 23, 2018 2:33:35 GMT
Tesagk ) Reminder text, as the Comprehensive Rules states, is the parenthetical and italicised text that appears after most instances of an expert-level keyword. (Rule 207.2a-b)
The reason why the Comprehensive Rules clarifies precisely what reminder text is is to further explain that as far as card rules text goes reminder text does not exist. The RT is literally just a summarisation of the Comp Rules section for that keyword.
Abilitywords, on the other hand, do not have reminder text because they aren't technically keyword abilities. The word itself exists only to denote cards with a similar theme and effect. (207.2c)
In general, keywords are well-defined abilities with one or two variables while abilitywords are ill-defined abilities with one constant.
Fair 'nough |
|
|
|
Post by Tesagk on Jul 25, 2018 16:59:45 GMT
Updated my mechanics. Replay and Reverb:   |
|
impspiritguide
2/2 Zombie
Favorite Color: Brown
Posts: 129
Set Hub: http://magicseteditor.boards.net/thread/256/pokemon-thread
Formerly Known As: Imp Elemental Spirit Guide
|
Post by impspiritguide on Jul 25, 2018 17:19:16 GMT
I really like what you are trying to do with Replay, and we'll let other more current rules lawyers chime in but I think it should be.
Replay <cost>: (If this spell fails to resolve, you may pay <cost>. If you do return <this> to your hand from your graveyard at the beginning of your next turn.)
Your looking for a triggered ability and so you won't pay the cost as you cast the spell but instead when the spell fails to resolve.
If it were me I would make the spells that use this ability very complex flavorwise. Like spells that the caster knows might fail to resolve due to difficulty so they take the time to make sure that they can recast them if they fail.
As for Reverb, using "At the begining of your next upkeep" seems to be the wrong wording but I don't know what is.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tesagk on Jul 25, 2018 17:26:02 GMT
I really like what you are trying to do with Replay, and we'll let other more current rules lawyers chime in but I think it should be.
Replay <cost>: (If this spell fails to resolve, you may pay <cost>. If you do return <this> to your hand from your graveyard at the beginning of your next turn.)
Your looking for a triggered ability and so you won't pay the cost as you cast the spell but instead when the spell fails to resolve.
If it were me I would make the spells that use this ability very complex flavorwise. Like spells that the caster knows might fail to resolve due to difficulty so they take the time to make sure that they can recast them if they fail.
As for Reverb, using "At the begining of your next upkeep" seems to be the wrong wording but I don't know what is.
Well, I wanted to make it broader than just counterspell hate, so the effect is supposed to flat return the card to your hand if you pay the extra cost. The counterplay being, obviously, removing it from the graveyard before the next turn. But I figured I could keep some of that flavor still in there by allowing it to still be paid if the spell is countered or otherwise fizzles. As for the other deal, I can't say anything definitively, but a quick search reveals similar wording. |
|
impspiritguide
2/2 Zombie
Favorite Color: Brown
Posts: 129
Set Hub: http://magicseteditor.boards.net/thread/256/pokemon-thread
Formerly Known As: Imp Elemental Spirit Guide
|
Post by impspiritguide on Jul 25, 2018 18:48:13 GMT
Aah, well in that case, and intending no offense, why not just stick with the original counterspell hate Buyback rather than re-inventing the wheel. But if you choose not to then there is no need to even say anything about the spell not resolving. Abilities triggered upon casting are not removed from the stack when the spell is countered (part of why I will come over to anyones house and beat them with a really large wet noodle if they ever decide to reprint "Storm" the most broken ability I ever dealt with). So keep it as is without the extra stuff.
Replay: <cost> (You may pay an additional <cost> as you cast this spell. If you do, return <this> card to your hand from your graveyard at the beginning of your next turn.)
As Reverb I will bow to your search, I'm just used to seeing that wording only on instants and sorceries and it somehow seems wrong or incomplete, but it is a feeling not concrete data.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tesagk on Jul 25, 2018 19:35:46 GMT
Aah, well in that case, and intending no offense, why not just stick with the original counterspell hate Buyback rather than re-inventing the wheel. But if you choose not to then there is no need to even say anything about the spell not resolving. Abilities triggered upon casting are not removed from the stack when the spell is countered (part of why I will come over to anyones house and beat them with a really large wet noodle if they ever decide to reprint "Storm" the most broken ability I ever dealt with). So keep it as is without the extra stuff.
To be honest, it was an after thought. For some reason I suddenly convinced myself that this might be foiled if a spell didn't resolve and that I had to account for it. I have no clue why. |
|
|
|
Post by Tesagk on Jul 25, 2018 19:37:10 GMT
I think the idea was, you might not pay the cost when you cast the spell, but, if it gets countered, you might then want to pay it to keep it. Which is, admittedly, a bit cheap and probably toxic to gameplay, which is why I'm removing it. But I think that's what was going through my head.
|
|
) so it looks like we were on the same page there. They've still got a lot of words, but hopefully they're not "overly wordy."
"When in doubt, do a common."