|
|
Post by Tesagk on Apr 17, 2019 11:38:17 GMT
I know ability words can't be referenced like keywords, what's the best way to refer to them? I want to make an instant that interacts with other cards with adjudicate by triggering their effects another time. SampleSorcery W Sorcery At the end of your turn, activate an adjudicate ability on a permanent you control. Something like that? See, my understanding is this won't work. Because it's not a keyboard, so it can't be referenced in the text. Do you have an example? |
|
|
|
Post by kefke on Apr 17, 2019 14:41:33 GMT
I know ability words can't be referenced like keywords, what's the best way to refer to them? I want to make an instant that interacts with other cards with adjudicate by triggering their effects another time. SampleSorcery W Sorcery At the end of your turn, activate an adjudicate ability on a permanent you control. Something like that? No, that won't work if it's an ability word. Anything on the card in italics isn't considered rules text, so it can't be referenced. To reference and re-trigger, you'd have to either cause/emulate the trigger condition, or else use Adjudicate as a state-setting keyword. Either "Adjudicate {Cost}" or "When {Condition}, adjudicate" (If this card is not STATE, [SOMETHING {maybe} happens and] it becomes STATE .) With whatever effect you originally wanted being a "When this card becomes STATE, EFFECT." and the card that re-triggers it just being something along the lines of "If target creature has an ability that activates when it becomes STATE, activate that ability." Of course, the state-setting method really only works with one-and-done abilities. Though, I guess you could also do it with "Put a STATE counter on THIS. [Line Break] Whenever THIS gains a STATE counter, EFFECT." and "Put a STATE counter on target" effects. |
|
|
|
Post by ameisenmeister on Apr 17, 2019 16:23:09 GMT
My suggestion is to try to make it as open as possible while still be clear in its synergy with the mechanic.
How about: High Judge's Gesture  Instant  Exile target creature you control, then return it to the battlefield under your control. Adjudicate - Instead, exile up to three target creatures you control, then return them to the battlefield under your control if an opponent cast more than one noncreature spell last turn.
I must, however, tell you that your mechanic probably has some serious flaws because it's not only dependant on your opponent, cares about something that doesn't happen regularly and also has wording/timing issues.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tesagk on Apr 18, 2019 15:25:36 GMT
I must, however, tell you that your mechanic probably has some serious flaws because it's not only dependant dependent on your opponent, cares about something that doesn't happen regularly and also has wording/timing issues. What are the wording/timing issues? It is dependent on your opponent, but it's not like there's insufficient evidence of ability words that require interaction with an opponent. And werewolves are an example of a mechanic that does more-or-less rely on your opponent doing or not doing something. |
|
|
|
Post by ameisenmeister on Apr 18, 2019 17:43:21 GMT
I must, however, tell you that your mechanic probably has some serious flaws because it's not only dependant dependent on your opponent, cares about something that doesn't happen regularly and also has wording/timing issues. What are the wording/timing issues? It is dependent on your opponent, but it's not like there's insufficient evidence of ability words that require interaction with an opponent. And werewolves are an example of a mechanic that does more-or-less rely on your opponent doing or not doing something. The problem is not that it requires interaction with an opponent - every game of magic has plenty of that - but that it requires your opponent to do a very specific thing. Your examples are either things that you can, without much trouble, trigger yourself, like morbid or enrage, or just require your opponent to exist at all (council's dilemma, parley, join forces). With the mechanic you suggested, you have zero chance to have any say in whether it will work anytime. If your opponent is somewhat good at the game, they will just not play two noncreature spells in one turn to completely negate your mechanic. There is nothing that you, who plays cards with your version of adjudicate, can do about this.
|
|
|
|
Post by kefke on Apr 18, 2019 18:12:41 GMT
What are the wording/timing issues? It is dependent on your opponent, but it's not like there's insufficient evidence of ability words that require interaction with an opponent. And werewolves are an example of a mechanic that does more-or-less rely on your opponent doing or not doing something. The problem is not that it requires interaction with an opponent - every game of magic has plenty of that - but that it requires your opponent to do a very specific thing. Your examples are either things that you can, without much trouble, trigger yourself, like morbid or enrage, or just require your opponent to exist at all (council's dilemma, parley, join forces). With the mechanic you suggested, you have zero chance to have any say in whether it will work anytime. If your opponent is somewhat good at the game, they will just not play two noncreature spells in one turn to completely negate your mechanic. There is nothing that you, who plays cards with your version of adjudicate, can do about this.
That in itself can be a strategy, though. Yes, your opponent can prevent the trigger condition from happening, but in so doing, they are letting you dictate in part the pacing and structure of their turns. |
|
|
|
Post by ameisenmeister on Apr 18, 2019 18:37:56 GMT
The problem is not that it requires interaction with an opponent - every game of magic has plenty of that - but that it requires your opponent to do a very specific thing. Your examples are either things that you can, without much trouble, trigger yourself, like morbid or enrage, or just require your opponent to exist at all (council's dilemma, parley, join forces). With the mechanic you suggested, you have zero chance to have any say in whether it will work anytime. If your opponent is somewhat good at the game, they will just not play two noncreature spells in one turn to completely negate your mechanic. There is nothing that you, who plays cards with your version of adjudicate, can do about this.
That in itself can be a strategy, though. Yes, your opponent can prevent the trigger condition from happening, but in so doing, they are letting you dictate in part the pacing and structure of their turns. This, however, would mean that you basically never get the effects written on your card but instead you can only assume that your opponent might have played differently without your card's mechanic. You'll almost never have the satisfaction of really seeing your mechanic do something, even if it influences your opponent in any way. And that leads to the second problem I see with the mechanic: it cares about something that very rarely happens. Casting noncreature spells does happen a lot, granted, but two in the same turn? Go play some games on Arena or with paper cards and count the number of times your opponent really casts two or more noncreature spells in one turn. If you get an average of just two times per game, I'd really be surprised.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tesagk on Apr 18, 2019 18:52:12 GMT
The problem is not that it requires interaction with an opponent - every game of magic has plenty of that - but that it requires your opponent to do a very specific thing. Your examples are either things that you can, without much trouble, trigger yourself, like morbid or enrage, or just require your opponent to exist at all (council's dilemma, parley, join forces). With the mechanic you suggested, you have zero chance to have any say in whether it will work anytime. If your opponent is somewhat good at the game, they will just not play two noncreature spells in one turn to completely negate your mechanic. There is nothing that you, who plays cards with your version of adjudicate, can do about this.
That in itself can be a strategy, though. Yes, your opponent can prevent the trigger condition from happening, but in so doing, they are letting you dictate in part the pacing and structure of their turns. You ignored my mention of Innistrad Werewolves and how their transformation mechanic works. It literally requires your opponent to not cast spells since the mechanic says "last turn" not "your last turn." But, that aside, we have philosophical differences here, that's fine. But you said there was wording/timing issues that needed to be addressed. I'd like to know what those are so that I can fix them. |
|
|
|
Post by Tesagk on Apr 18, 2019 18:55:51 GMT
That in itself can be a strategy, though. Yes, your opponent can prevent the trigger condition from happening, but in so doing, they are letting you dictate in part the pacing and structure of their turns. And that leads to the second problem I see with the mechanic: it cares about something that very rarely happens. Casting noncreature spells does happen a lot, granted, but two in the same turn? Go play some games on Arena or with paper cards and count the number of times your opponent really casts two or more noncreature spells in one turn. If you get an average of just two times per game, I'd really be surprised.
I'm not a fan of the implication that I designed this even though I clearly am not playing the game enough to know how this would play out. This mechanic is a white-blue mechanic that I felt was very fitting of a judicial-law sort of keyword. White blue does care about the noncreature spells your opponents cast. More than that, some mechanics are meant to deal with specific deck types and/or playstyles, which makes them less useful against other decks. So, while you could play a lot of games against aggro and even some midrange decks where this almost never triggers, it's supposed to be a control answer to control decks and instant-sorcery spell happy aggro and midrange decks. There are plenty of those, and so there's more than enough turns where they'll cast more than one noncreature spell. Every turn? No. But twice per game? You're being disingenuous. |
|
|
|
Post by ameisenmeister on Apr 18, 2019 20:28:10 GMT
And that leads to the second problem I see with the mechanic: it cares about something that very rarely happens. Casting noncreature spells does happen a lot, granted, but two in the same turn? Go play some games on Arena or with paper cards and count the number of times your opponent really casts two or more noncreature spells in one turn. If you get an average of just two times per game, I'd really be surprised.
I'm not a fan of the implication that I designed this even though I clearly am not playing the game enough to know how this would play out. This mechanic is a white-blue mechanic that I felt was very fitting of a judicial-law sort of keyword. White blue does care about the noncreature spells your opponents cast. More than that, some mechanics are meant to deal with specific deck types and/or playstyles, which makes them less useful against other decks. So, while you could play a lot of games against aggro and even some midrange decks where this almost never triggers, it's supposed to be a control answer to control decks and instant-sorcery spell happy aggro and midrange decks. There are plenty of those, and so there's more than enough turns where they'll cast more than one noncreature spell. Every turn? No. But twice per game? You're being disingenuous. Okay, one by one. The werewolf mechanic is basically the same thing as morbid in that it certainly helps that you have an opponent (or multiple opponents) but you can easily trigger the ability by yourself. The mutated werewolves of Eldritch Moon even had a different transform trigger that was designed to synergize with the standard version. You spend a lot of mana to transform them, all the while you don't cast spells and transform your othere werewolves too. Your mechanic offers no way to happen unless your opponent lets it happen.
The timing issue is that it does work poorly in multiplayer games. Your mechanic cares about more than one noncreature spell last turn, so if you play a four player game, your only chance to trigger your mechanic is when the player who's turn is right before yours casts two noncreature spells. Unless your adjudicate cards have flash frequently, you will never use it against the other two opponents even if they happen to fulfill the requirement.
Lastly, your saying that the mechanic is an answer to control decks. That's fine and all, and the flavor is spot on, but then you created a mechanic that's doomed to see only sideboard play if any. It's also bad in limited, where control decks are very rare.
On a final note, it's not my goal to bash your idea here. If you just wanted to come up with a flavorful mechanic that matches the word requirement, you certainly succeeded. I just uttered some problems I could imagine with it in normal game play.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tesagk on Apr 18, 2019 20:47:13 GMT
On a final note, it's not my goal to bash your idea here. If you just wanted to come up with a flavorful mechanic that matches the word requirement, you certainly succeeded. I just uttered some problems I could imagine with it in normal game play.
I'm not trying to continue an argument here, but I wanted to respond to this last bit. I see contests like this similar to how I see food competitions. Food flavor (gameplay) is the most important aspect to a card design, if the card doesn't play well, is un-fun to play, or makes the game un-fun to play, that's the primary consideration. However, plating (challenge flavor) is still a very important piece to the contest. The expectation is that you're not just designing any magic card that comes into your head, but one that fits the requirements of the challenge. I came up with a mechanic that I felt held true to the flavor of adjudication. There were other options, but it was the one I chose. It does have its gameplay limitations, but, in my opinion, those limitations did not make it unplayable, or un-fun to play with. You, personally, might not have fun with a card with this mechanic, but that boils down to your playstyle and card design philosophy, and not whether or not the card is actually playable and useful. I appreciate that you took the time to make your case and offer not just an opinion of "it doesn't work" but why you feel it doesn't work. That sort of critiquing is exactly the sort of critiquing I look for from a forum board like this. |
|
|
|
Post by Tesagk on Apr 18, 2019 23:11:18 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by ameisenmeister on Apr 22, 2019 9:07:12 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by fluffydeathbringer on Apr 22, 2019 17:10:48 GMT
kefke: confusing as to when it's activated, which detracts points. otherwise looks pretty potentially interesting to introduce into a game, even though Aggressive Campaigners is definitely not worth a deck slot ameisenmeister: another cool multiplayer one that adds an interesting layer to games, with no notable flaws other than losing engagement potential as the game goes along Jartis: another cool multiplayer one. really narrow, but doesn't have any other issues. would love to use it to divert someone's blue sun's zenith  Tesagk: comparatively uninteresting but does make the game more interesting in its own way. on a card level, pursuit of justice is mondo weak and wandering justice is a human with obvious wings, which detracts
ameisenmeister wins, followed by jartis
|
|
|
|
Post by ameisenmeister on Apr 22, 2019 18:28:17 GMT
Thanks for the win! Your next mechanic will be named Prosper. Have fun!
|
|
|
|
Post by Tesagk on Apr 22, 2019 20:43:04 GMT
Prosper - Whenever you gain life, <blah> I like  , sue me! Still debating on this one.
|
|
|
|
Post by gluestick248 on Apr 23, 2019 2:15:34 GMT
(Warning- terrible jokes incoming) Prosper N (When this creature enters the battlefield, put a +1/+1 counter on it or create a colorless Treasure artifact token with “ : Add one mana of any color”)Luxurious Mink   Creature — Mink Prosper 1 ”Oh, this fur will make a wonderful coat”1/1 Ponzi Schemer   Creature — Human Rogue Whenever another creature enters the battlefield under your control, it gains prosper 1. At the beginning of your upkeep, move all +1/+1 counters from creatures you control onto Ponzi Schemer. ”We’ll be rich! Well, I’ll be rich”1/3 Lottery Winner  Creature — Human Prosper 7 ”It was all thanks to my lucky quarter”2/2 Lying Cheetah Creature — Cat Whenever a player casts a Cat spell, if it has prosper, it loses prosper. ”No, that’s cheaters, with an R. You can’t just...”3/3 Tempestuous Sorcerer Creature — Human Wizard Prosper 0 ”Let your indulgence set me free”2/3 Tesagk: You’re welcome- Live Long  Sorcery You gain 10 life. Draw a card |
|
|
|
Post by kefke on Apr 24, 2019 13:53:43 GMT
Aggressive Campaigners is definitely not worth a deck slot I'm mildly curious what makes you say this. Cost-wise, it's comparable to a Tim, but with a bigger body. The ability can't ping creatures, but it gets to either hit multiple players at once, or at the least make options you don't want them to vote for less appealing, which while small, does give a bit more edge a game prominently featuring political mechanics (which is when you'd want to run this mechanic anyway). |
|
|
|
Post by fluffydeathbringer on Apr 24, 2019 19:59:52 GMT
it's comparable to a Tim, but with a bigger body. The ability can't ping creatures and therein lies the rub. it's damage to each opponent, but it's not enough damage for voting against your interests to be disincentivized in any way. most vote cards in canon magic are effective enough that eating a measly 1 damage to the face isn't going to stop anyone from controlling them to their favour. at least not at three mana without haste |
|
|
|
Post by Jartis on Apr 30, 2019 11:07:06 GMT
Had a real hard time with this one, but I'm pretty happy with the result. Prosper Whenever you cast a spell that shares a creature type with CARDNAME, do x. Goblin Research Team  Creature - Goblin Advisor Prosper — Whenever you cast a spell that shares a creature type with Goblin Research Team, draw a card. “They may be stupid, but you know what they say about monkeys and typewriters...”1/3 Siphoning Clanlord Creature - Vampire  Flying Prosper — Whenever you cast a spell that shares a creature type with Siphoning Clanlord, each opponent loses 1 life. You gain life equal to the life lost this way. 4/3 Cribswapper Creature - Shapeshifter  Changeling (This card is every creature type at all times.) Prosper — Whenever you cast a spell that shares a creature type with Cribswapper, exchange control of that spell and target creature an opponent controls. |
|
|
|
Post by somerandomtom on Apr 30, 2019 17:05:33 GMT
Snipped Robin Hood for missing artist credit. ~Daij_Djan
|
|
|
|
Post by ameisenmeister on Apr 30, 2019 17:47:04 GMT
Going to judge tomorrow. Get your entries in, folks!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2019 11:46:56 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Tesagk on May 1, 2019 16:36:46 GMT
Going to judge tomorrow. Get your entries in, folks! Don't know how I forgot this one. Can't do the renders right now:  ---  ---  ---  |
|
Sanfonier of the Night
7/7 Elemental
Posts: 399
Favorite Card: The Prismatic Bridge
Favorite Set: War of the Spark
Color Alignment: White, Blue, Black, Red, Green, Colorless
|
Post by Sanfonier of the Night on May 1, 2019 17:25:19 GMT
There is no one more prosperous than him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tesagk on May 3, 2019 13:31:48 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by ameisenmeister on May 3, 2019 16:15:28 GMT
Sorry for the delay. RL did hit me with full force this week. So here it goes!
{gluestick248} Your version I actually like very much. It's an interesting twist on mechanize and I believe it could really play well. What makes me hesitant, however, are, firstly, the cards you showed and, secondly, the way the mechanic works in the first place. Lying Cheetah does nothing interesting on itself and even is a reason not to play with your mechanic. Tempestuous Sorcerer I don't get at all and Live Long is probably a reference to Star Trek but I don't know what to do with it here. All in all, I'd rather had seen some cards that are more like many of the mechanize cards from Kaladesh, offering a choice and thereby two different ways to play the card. Cultivator of Blades and Angel of Invention are great examples for this. My second issue is, as I said, that I don't really really understand how the mechanic works. Your reminder text says: Prosper N (When this creature enters the battlefield, put a +1/+1 counter on it or create a colorless Treasure artifact token with “: Add one mana of any color”) So what is it? What choice do I have when I play a creature with prosper 2? Can I decide to either have it get two counters or two tokens or can also decide to have it one counter and one token? It's not clear but would make a huge difference for cards like Lottery Winner.
{Jartis}
A different interpretation on prosper. It's simple and straightforward enough to like, reminds me a bit of Kinship from Morningtide. I don't have much to say about this mechanic other than that Cribswapper is not a very good design imo. Your mechanic says that it cares about creature types but here they're completely irrelevant. I also don't like the way the card forces you to exchange control. Nevertheless, your mechanic is solid.
{somerandomtom}
A twist on Investigate, should've seen that coming. I like it as it is grokkable and solid, but it's also a bit underwhelming. If this got spoiled as a new set's mechanic, I bet not many players would be excited.
Also, Thief of Riches looks insanely powerful! o.O
{mk}
Your mechanic delivers the flavor of prosperity through peace, which is easy to understand and work with. However, your mechanic also has a big no-no that outweighs the fine flavor: it discourages attacking. If you look at all the mechanics wotc printed on cards, you'll see a lot that reward you for attacking but none that reward you for sitting back and waiting. That's no coincidence. Many players, especially newer players, can feel easily intimidated by the complexity of the game. Combat math, instant tricks and other aspects of the game can make it a daring challenge to decide for an attack. And because games aren't fun when both players just sit around, bolstering their defences until the judge calls the timeout, cards and mechanics usually encourage combat action.
As I said, the flavor of your cards is fine and there aren't any rules issues with it, but it will likely change the way games are played in an unpleasant direction.
{Tesagk} Ah, and I way afraid you wouldn't add anything beyond your ambiguous first post. I like your mechanic very much because it's easy to understand, easy to use and doesn't require much work to add in a set. Sure, it's an A-B design. It requires you to do A to get B, just like Madness, but I believe gaining life is common (in all meanings of the word) enough to not make it a big issue. I'd maybe rather had some cards that let you pay mana whenever you gain life to make the effects easier to balance, like Akoum Stonewaker does, but it's still fine.
{Ominividrus}
A nice way to get this feeling of amassing wealth and a nice mirror to poison counters. It's pretty good and I could see your version of prosper on some cool designs (just like the more humorous one you shared). On the other hand, counters put on players are always tricky because there usually is no way to interact with them and if these counters make you win the game eventually, that's extra tough to balance. Sure, you can just design cards that say “target player loses all prosperity counters.” but that would either push a lot of players into playing exactly these cards because there is no easy way to deal with the powerful Prosper cards, or you intentionally design your cards to be weak so that every format and deck has a chance. But why would somebody play your mechanic then?
Don't get me wrong, putting counters on players is no total no-no, but it's a very difficult thing to balance.
{And the winner is...}
...Tesagk! All, gluestick248 Jartis and Ominividrus were a tough competition but your design was the one I would be most pleased to see in a real set. It's not crazy exciting, but adds enough coherence for me to consider building a deck around it.
Thank you all for participating! |
|
|
|
Post by Tesagk on May 3, 2019 16:33:04 GMT
Thanks for the win. Your next keyword is fluid. Ah, and I way afraid you wouldn't add anything beyond your ambiguous first post. I like your mechanic very much because it's easy to understand, easy to use and doesn't require much work to add in a set. Sure, it's an A-B design. It requires you to do A to get B, just like Madness, but I believe gaining life is common (in all meanings of the word) enough to not make it a big issue. I'd maybe rather had some cards that let you pay mana whenever you gain life to make the effects easier to balance, like Akoum Stonewaker does, but it's still fine. Feel free to "steal" the keyword for a future set and do what you want with it. I was surprised this wasn't already a thing, like landfall, so it just sort of fell into place. I see it primarily as White > Green > Black > Blue. With blue mostly appearing in color combinations with White. |
|
|
|
Post by ameisenmeister on May 3, 2019 18:11:01 GMT
Thanks for the win. Your next keyword is fluid. Ah, and I way afraid you wouldn't add anything beyond your ambiguous first post. I like your mechanic very much because it's easy to understand, easy to use and doesn't require much work to add in a set. Sure, it's an A-B design. It requires you to do A to get B, just like Madness, but I believe gaining life is common (in all meanings of the word) enough to not make it a big issue. I'd maybe rather had some cards that let you pay mana whenever you gain life to make the effects easier to balance, like Akoum Stonewaker does, but it's still fine. Feel free to "steal" the keyword for a future set and do what you want with it. I was surprised this wasn't already a thing, like landfall, so it just sort of fell into place. I see it primarily as White > Green > Black > Blue. With blue mostly appearing in color combinations with White. Probably the biggest strike against the mechanic is that it only works for three of the five colors, namely white, black and green. But seeing that even colored mana required mechanics like extort exist, it's probably not that big of a deal. |
|
|
|
Post by Tesagk on May 3, 2019 18:28:48 GMT
I feel like a number of mechanics are fairly color specific. But I could think of ways to work with Prosper even with red (blue is already covered in a multi-color sense)
|
|
