|
|
Post by Idea on May 6, 2019 21:01:53 GMT
Greetings everyone! So I've come up with a set idea that revolves around a plane where certain stories were played by living dolls over and over again. The set will therefore include and synergize with sagas (will be using a simplied one-ability saga to allow them to be feasible for common), and so does the "Taleborn" or "Fabled" (still picking the name, leaning more towards the first one) mechanic: Taleborn <action>: When this creature <action>, you may move a lore counter from another permanent onto it. Example card:  One thing I won't budge on is the counters moving rather than just being put on the card. The point is to interact with the counters on the sagas. Pretty much everything else is negotiable though. So, any thoughts? I'd love to hear what you guys think.  |
|
|
|
Post by 2wb on May 7, 2019 0:59:48 GMT
This definitely sounds super cute and fun to mess with. I'm concerned, though, on:
1- Since you're moving Lore counters onto creatures, you'd also want to get rid of +1/+1 counters, which may be counterintuitive, and especially since it doesn't one-to-one at all (as your example shows). I don't think it's a problem.
2- "One-ability Saga" can't work due to Sagas sacrificing themself after using their last chapter ability (704.5s).
---"When this enters the battlefield do X and after your draw step do Y" doesn't seem too complicated even for a common, so I don't think two abilities would be an issue.
-----Unless you meant a Saga that has all its chapter abilities be the same effect, which also makes sense.
3- Repetition of Saga effects gets incredibly awkward with certain existing Sagas (Time of Ice, for example, becomes "opponent's creatures can't untap", and would linger eternally).
---Of course, that's solvable by just not doing effects like that.
Personally; I like "fabled" more than "taleborn" because "taleborn" makes me think that it's coming out from the story, which means that it's destroying the story, not embodying a part of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Idea on May 7, 2019 1:29:25 GMT
This definitely sounds super cute and fun to mess with. I'm concerned, though, on: 1- Since you're moving Lore counters onto creatures, you'd also want to get rid of +1/+1 counters, which may be counterintuitive, and especially since it doesn't one-to-one at all (as your example shows). I don't think it's a problem. 2- "One-ability Saga" can't work due to Sagas sacrificing themself after using their last chapter ability (704.5s). ---"When this enters the battlefield do X and after your draw step do Y" doesn't seem too complicated even for a common, so I don't think two abilities would be an issue. -----Unless you meant a Saga that has all its chapter abilities be the same effect, which also makes sense. 3- Repetition of Saga effects gets incredibly awkward with certain existing Sagas (Time of Ice, for example, becomes "opponent's creatures can't untap", and would linger eternally). ---Of course, that's solvable by just not doing effects like that. Personally; I like "fabled" more than "taleborn" because "taleborn" makes me think that it's coming out from the story, which means that it's destroying the story, not embodying a part of it. Thank you very much for your feedback! 1- I don't entirely understand why I'd have to remove +1/+1 counters. I mean I understand that we shouldn't have every kind of counter known to planeswalkers going around out there, but typically people can handle +1/+1 and one more. Are we just in disagreement there or did I misunderstand what you were saying? 2 and 3- Here is an example of one of those Sagas  I'm trying to make them simple enough to work in common and with weak enough effects that it won't become gamebreaking to repeat them, mostly by making them tiny effects. I was thinking of making a cycle with just one effect and whether the other common one should have one or two effects. Regardless, thanks for bringing up some of the issues And well, in a sense they are doing both- they both embody and twist the stories now. It's something I'll get into more detail once I make the actual set introduction though. |
|
|
|
Post by 2wb on May 7, 2019 3:45:39 GMT
1- I don't entirely understand why I'd have to remove +1/+1 counters. I mean I understand that we shouldn't have every kind of counter known to planeswalkers going around out there, but typically people can handle +1/+1 and one more. Are we just in disagreement there or did I misunderstand what you were saying? I've found that people are very bad at understanding board state if a card has a counter type except the one referenced by its rules text on them, or +1/+1 counters if the card has no such counter. It should not be an overly large issue, but it is something that came immediately to my mind because of how you made the example's ability work (increasing P/T). Okay, I did parse it wrong the first time through. This definitely looks like both categories. Ah, I see. That's an interesting take! Not quite how I understood the lead-in, but as you say, it would stand strong with a proper introduction. |
|
|
|
Post by Idea on May 7, 2019 11:40:54 GMT
I’ve decided I’ll be adding a restriction on the effect so that it can only take 3 counters in total, so as to avoid infinitely spamming saga effects.
I’ll also aim to make fabled actions the kind that is harder to pull off multiple times, or at least which offers a bigger degree of control to the opponent, like attacking, blocking and entering the battlefield.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jéské Couriano on May 8, 2019 5:19:29 GMT
1- I don't entirely understand why I'd have to remove +1/+1 counters. I mean I understand that we shouldn't have every kind of counter known to planeswalkers going around out there, but typically people can handle +1/+1 and one more. Are we just in disagreement there or did I misunderstand what you were saying? 2wb's explanation hit the nail on the head. Other than time, poison, charge, +1/+1, and -1/-1, counters are universally  for this reason unless a set is pushing them hard (in which case they're generally a parasitic mechanic). |
|
|
|
Post by Idea on May 8, 2019 11:47:06 GMT
1- I don't entirely understand why I'd have to remove +1/+1 counters. I mean I understand that we shouldn't have every kind of counter known to planeswalkers going around out there, but typically people can handle +1/+1 and one more. Are we just in disagreement there or did I misunderstand what you were saying? 2wb's explanation hit the nail on the head. Other than time, poison, charge, +1/+1, and -1/-1, counters are universally for this reason unless a set is pushing them hard (in which case they're generally a parasitic mechanic). Hmmm.... well, I’ll try to keep the +1/+1 counters on a low count of cards. They are a cheap pertinent green effect, so I don’t want to rule out having those counters entirely. Thank you for your comment |
|
