|
Post by ameisenmeister on Feb 7, 2021 11:52:37 GMT
Hello everyone!In this thread I want to give my thoughts about some real mtg mechanics that are, for whatever reasons, considered to be unlikely to return in standard legal sets. The metric I use is the semi official storm scale, introduced by Mark Rosewater at his tumblr accout and updated on a regular basis in some of his articles. If you want to read more about the storm scale, you can check out this site. Basically, it's a ranking system that defines how likely a mechanic is to get used in a standard legal set, where 1 means that the mechanic is evergreen and will most likely appear in most sets to come (flying, indestructible,...) and 10 means that the mechanic will most likely never show up in standard again (storm, dredge).
What I will do is this: On a regular basis - probably once every week - I'm going to post a short essay about one mechanic that has a storm scale rating of 8 or higher. I will talk about what I think the mechanic's problems are and how it could be used again without its rules text being changed and I will add some example cards that show how the mechanic could look like on (digital) paper.
To make it a bit more exciting, I will neither tell which mechanics I picked nor in which order I'm going to address them, so stay tuned. I'm eager to get your feedback on this thread's premise and of course on my evaluations of the individual mechanics. Maybe you have other ideas, maybe my ideas are flawed, and maybe this thread inspires you to consider an underdog mechanic for your next design project - let me know in your comments. {Additional notes} A lot of mechanics of the storm scale with a rating 8 or higher are things that wotc abolished as part of a paradigmatic change or has already fixed themselves by introducing an updated version of it. Examples are regeneration, landwalk or shroud. I won't talk about those here just as I won't talk about keywords that were created for multiplayer or un formats like dice-rolling, voting, gotcha or lieutnant.
|
|
|
Post by ameisenmeister on Feb 8, 2021 8:16:05 GMT
Mechanic #1: Buyback On his tumblr blog MaRo stated that buyback is an 8 on the storm scale making it unlikely to return, but possible if the stars align. This is mostly because of the development issues a repetetive mechanic like it have. The problem with buyback is the fine line which cards have to be on to be good. Most effects, if costed fairly, look unattractive because they are fine as one-shot effects but can become troublesome when done over and over again. Examples are Invulnerability, Searing Touch or Mind Peel. Although not necessarily bad these cards' buyback costs are high enough to quench exitement of most players, turning them more into material for brewers than into mechanical flagship cards. On the other hand, even if the buyback costs are fair, some effects are just really unfun to occur over and over as they create a kind of lock that draws out the game and has both players sit there and just wait for the inevitable. Examples are Flowstone Flood, Forbid or the infamous Capsize. Although creating soft locks and keeping the opponent from actually playing the game is a widespread and accepted strategy, having a whole mechanic that does this is a dangerous and potentially unhealthy thing to have. There are cards, however, that imo hit the sweet spot and from which I derived my ideas for a rehabilitation of the mechanic. A lot of these “good” cards are found in Time Spiral, for example Demonic Collusion or Mystic Speculation, but some are from original tempest like Corpse Dance or Slaughter. Most of these cards have in common that A They either don't generate card advantage (or at least not in an unconditional way or B They limit themselves in a way that you can't just cast the card over and over for the rest of the game as soon as you have enough mana to spend. If at least one of the two factors is taken into account, buyback cards can be powerful, exciting and still balanced. Wotc has learned their lesson when it comes to repeatable spells, either limiting them like the popular flashback and Jump Start do, or making them require a resource that (under normal circumstances) doesn't refill every turn like escape does. My idea for buyback would be to only have a few cards feature mana only costs and most of them having additional costs that limit how often you can use the buyback no matter how much mana you have. Making the costs similar on different cards can even be used as a kind of archetype design. Having a lot of green and black cards exiling cards from your graveyard as buyback cost pushes a self mill archetype, for instance. These three example cards show how it could be done to reintroduce buyback to standard. Lost in the Maze works very similar to Sweet Oblivion from Theros Beyond Death and is balanced because it doesn't generate card advantage. Filkati's Verdict is a powerful removal spell that is limited by slowly killing you too if you use it too often. Urborg Rites is probably the card I'm the least sure about but think it's fair because of its high costs in life and sacrifice material. As a last note I'd like to add that in an environment with buyback, you'll need a higher number of cards that interact with spells or cards in hands than usual. The ability to counter spells should be extended into  (with some limitations) and discard should be available to  " style="max-width:100%;"], probably with randomness involved. You could even do  cards that O-Ring cards from an opponent's hand without breaking the color pie imo. How green could interact with cards in hands I'm not decided on yet, but maybe ou have some ideas. Let me know your thoughts!
|
|
|
Post by ameisenmeister on Feb 9, 2021 23:13:24 GMT
Thanks for the heads up. I figured that PabloQ simply has a part of his Deviantart page where he uploads artwork he likes. I mistook it for his own creations.
|
|
|
Post by hydraheadhunter on Feb 13, 2021 16:15:27 GMT
Replying for the thread follow. I'm not sure how many essays you plan to do, since a lot of mechanics I see around 8 are there because theyr flavorful mechanics (eg delerium) rather than mechanics that are tricky to balance(buyback) or mechanics with legal ramnifications (ante) what I see in the high end of the storm scale
|
|
|
Post by ameisenmeister on Feb 13, 2021 16:36:56 GMT
Replying for the thread follow. I'm not sure how many essays you plan to do, since a lot of mechanics I see around 8 are there because theyr flavorful mechanics (eg delerium) rather than mechanics that are tricky to balance(buyback) or mechanics with legal ramnifications (ante) what I see in the high end of the storm scale There are a lot, maybe even the majority, of mechanics on the 8+ level that totally deserve their place. Some, like buyback, do not. There are some essays in the making and I‘m going to release the next either tomorrow or on monday. So stay tuned!
|
|
|
Post by ameisenmeister on Feb 13, 2021 20:43:23 GMT
Mechanic #2: TributeThe mechanic tribute first and only appeared in the third set of original Theros block – in Born of the Gods. I think that the unpopularity of the set had no little influence on the mechanic's popularity (or lack thereof), which in my opinion is not fair. In his storm scale article about the two Theros blocks, MaRo's analysis of the mechanic shows a lot of issues that make it an 8 on the storm scale. Although I can see that the cards with the mechanic are tricky to design and kind of hard to just throw into a set, it's the mechanic's presumed unpopularity which I take an issue with. Tribute is a choice mechanic that has your opponent make tough decisions whether to face a bigger creature or giving you a powerful effect. In concept, this is a very cool idea that, interestingly enough, MaRo himself is convinced of: I argue that not the concept, aka the mechanic itself, was it that lead to its demise but the execution. Quick, give me the name of a powerful tribute card! No ideas? Fanatic of Xenagos maybe or Oracle of Bones? These are more or less the only halfway playable cards with tribute in existence and can perhaps be still found in some commander decks today and for two different reasons. The different options that Fanatic of Xenagos offers are very similar to each other and the card is on it's core a fine aggro card with not much fancy business going on. Oracle of Bones does something that no other tribute card does in that it doesn't make it obvious to the opponent which consequences their decision will have. With all the other cards, for example Nessian Demolok or Thunder Brute, the opponent can simply think through both scenarios and pick the best option for them. If they can take a hasty 5/5, there's no reason to give Thunder Brute any counters and if their best noncreature permanent is a Whip of Erebos they might just be fine with you having a 6/6 Demolok. With Oracle of Bones it isn't that easy. Maybe your bluffing and only have a Lightning Strike or something, but what if there's a Cruel Ultimatum or an Insurrection in your hand, just waiting to cause the ultimate blowout? In my opinion, Oracle of Bones shows a good way how tribute can be done right. Another issue with the tribute cards from Born of the Gods is their power level. Even for a set released 7 years ago, the power of almost all the cards was lackluster. Shrike Harpy and Siren of the Fanged Coast are just underwhelming and Snake of the Golden Grove is just a five mana 4/4 with 4 life gain 99,9 % of the time. Basically, these cards could all have just given you the choice and not the opponent and would still be fair. Paired with the obviousness of the choices' consequences, it's no wonder that these cards – and with them the mechanic itself – didn't fare well. So it's clear how to make tribute better: by making decisions harder and the cards more powerful in general. Because you're giving the opponent the choice, it really has to be a quandary or it is just you getting outsmarted by your own cards every time. There you have my ideas for splashy and interesting tribute cards. Charger of the Claw simply takes the good formula of Oracle of Bones and uses it for another card type, while Extorsive Drake is a simple yet interesting limited card. Dewblood Shieldbearer might be the most outspoken about what the opponent can expect from their choices but shows a possible usage of tribute aside from etb effects. As a final note, I'm by no means implying that tribute can or should be a tournament viable mechanic, giving your opponent a choice always gets worse the more skilled your opponent is, but it can certainly be fun and lead to interesting gameplay as well as a lot of moments where players can {just be like...}  Let me know your thoughts about my explanations and about tribute in general!
|
|
|
Post by hydraheadhunter on Feb 13, 2021 23:47:23 GMT
With a lot of one off mechanics, one of the factors in theyr being uninteresting is that there aren't enough cards exploring the design space surrounding that mechanic. Like, there aren't any cards that interact with tribute cards. What I imagine will be an emergent pattern is the idea of adding lords and hatebears. I haven't the energy to make full cards right now, but examples of effects in isolation:Whenever an opponent tributes to a creature you control create a treasure. Example lords-esques: - Whenever an opponent tributes to a creature you control create a treasure.
- Creatures you control have tribute N.
Whenever a creature enters the battlefield under your control without a +1/+1 counter on it, foo.
Example tribute instant:
- Target creature demands tribute X (An opponent of your choice may place X +1/+1 counters on it). If this tribute isn't paid tribute, trigger each of that creature's triggered abilities as if that creature just entered the battlefield.
Example hatebear:
- If you would put a +1/+1 counter on a creature you don't control, put one fewer of those counters on that creature instead.
|
|
jverse
3/3 Beast
 
Posts: 195
Favorite Card: Animar, Soul of Elements
Favorite Set: Shadowmoor
Color Alignment: Blue, Red, Green
|
Post by jverse on Feb 14, 2021 5:19:29 GMT
I've slipped oracle of bones into a number of commander decks. No one has ever let me cast a spell with him, which illustrates the problem with this mechanic (and all modal cards really). If one of the choices is clearly better than another, it really isn't a choice at all. I agree with your assessment, however. I like your 1 cost creature.
|
|
|
Post by yangfiretiger121 on Feb 14, 2021 13:56:38 GMT
Replying for the thread follow. I'm not sure how many essays you plan to do, since a lot of mechanics I see around 8 are there because theyr flavorful mechanics (eg delerium) rather than mechanics that are tricky to balance(buyback) or mechanics with legal ramnifications (ante) what I see in the high end of the storm scale There are a lot, maybe even the majority, of mechanics on the 8+ level that totally deserve their place. Some, like buyback, do not. There are some essays in the making and I‘m going to release the next either tomorrow or on monday. So stay tuned! Then, why even waste time on the mechanics like buyback when you could focus and go to town on the ones that do?
|
|
|
Post by Daij_Djan on Feb 15, 2021 13:17:35 GMT
Really like the idea behind this thread. I like analyzing what issues concepts / mechanics have and how to overcome these problems, so I'm very interested in this topic. The mechanic tribute first and only appeared in the third set of original Theros block – in Born of the Gods. I think that the unpopularity of the set had no little influence on the mechanic's popularity (or lack thereof), which in my opinion is not fair. In his storm scale article about the two Theros blocks, MaRo's analysis of the mechanic shows a lot of issues that make it an 8 on the storm scale. Although I can see that the cards with the mechanic are tricky to design and kind of hard to just throw into a set, it's the mechanic's presumed unpopularity which I take an issue with. For the record: Born of the Gods was the second set, not the third - which kind of makes it even worse since Theros as well as Journey into Nyx both featured the much more popular Monstrosity mechanic which was phased out right in the middle of the block to the annoyance of its fans. But yeah, I'm a big fan of Tribute and would love to see it appear in the future 
EDIT:
There are a lot, maybe even the majority, of mechanics on the 8+ level that totally deserve their place. Some, like buyback, do not. There are some essays in the making and I‘m going to release the next either tomorrow or on monday. So stay tuned! Then, why even waste time on the mechanics like buyback when you could focus and go to town on the ones that do?
I'd say because the point of this thread is to look at mechanics ranking high on the Storm Scale that still have redeeming qualities nethertheless and exploring how to make them work despite their flaws.
|
|
|
Post by ameisenmeister on Feb 21, 2021 23:18:30 GMT
Mechanic #3: ClashThe mechanic clash showed up in Lorwyn and has, although I'm admittedly not a fan of the set, become somewhat of a concern of the heart to me. It was designed to be a draw smoothing mechanic, similar to scry or cycling, but one that also makes players put more high cmc cards into their decks, thereby making games more diverse and flashy.
The mechanic was considered a failure by MaRo in an article from 2010 because it incorporated a big element of randomness, yet was disliked by timmies/tammies and only in some iterations liked by spikes (Lash Out comes to mind). Another negative aspect mentioned with clash is the possibility that players are so eager to win their clashes that they jam their decks full with high cmc cards, eventually crippling their mana curves and play flow.
I'm going to address these issues in a moment but want to talk about another problem with clash in Lorwyn first: mechanical embedment. You see, there are a lot of mechanics that can theoretically be thrown into any set and be fine. Flashback for example or kicker can be put into the next set without necessarily warping the set in any way. However, they aren't just put into every other set, although both mechanics are very popular. And that's because mechanics shine most when they're used within an environment that supports them with flavor and mechanical build around. Flashback was used in Odyssey block and Innistrad, two sets that highly focus on graveyard interactions with a lot of self mill and discard effects. Kicker, on the other hand, appeared in Invasion block and original Zendikar; in Invasion to allow for multicolor effects and in Zendikar to play into the land matters theme where lands and mana come more easily than in other sets. With clash, the mechanical embedment, as well as the flavor support, were almost non existent. MaRo mentions the harbinger cards and the kinship cards as a support but imo this is very very far fetched. The harbingers are etb effects, so you'd have to cast the clash card in the same turn as you cast the harbinger. Seeing that almost all the harbingers cost three or more mana, this is hardly a convenient way to set up your clashes. The interaction with kinship is even wonkier, because kinship triggers during your upkeep so right before the draw step when the card leaves the top of your library and goes into your hand. You can certainly cast some clash spells during your upkeep, but of the 31 cards from the whole Lorwyn block (!), only 7 can be meaningfully cast during your upkeep. But how about support for clash from a different angle – the high cmc matters part? Well, there's even less here. With Favor of the Mighty, the whole block had exactly one card that positively cared about high converted mana costs. But did the block really have no cards that supported clash? Yes, it did, in the form of three clash matters enchantments! These were awfully bad (with Sylvan Echoes perhaps not being complete garbage) and all in all a pitiful excuse for the lack of a supporting set environment.The randomness and the almost complete lack of support within its set earned clash a whooping 9 on the storm scale, the same place as horsemanship, landhome and contraptions. Heck, even the infamous affinity for artifacts is just an 8. But, just as I am going to argue for every mechanic I present here, this isn't the mechanic's fault.
So how could clash be done right? First and foremost, clash is not and will never be a set's main mechanic. It grants a small event of excitement that also leads to smoother draws, no more, no less. The element of randomness is part of the fun and shouldn't be seen as something negative. Some players, especially competitive ones, tend to dislike randomness, and that's okay. Next to being far to easy to break, cascade is a very random mechanic and it's very popular. For every player how doesn't enjoy some randomness, there are three who do, and outside of limited, nobody is hold at gunpoint and forced to play with clash cards. The second aspect I brought up was the (presumed) tendency of inexperienced players shoving high cmc cards into their deck beyond measure, crippling themselves in the process. This can easily be avoided by simply having most or all cards with clash in a set have low cmc. This way, if you want to play clash, you have to play a lot low cmc cards too. The biggest problem I see is the set support and how you design clash cards where the difference between winning and losing a clash is neither negligible nor completely game changing. The solution to both problems lies in the way wotc did another mechanic on another plane: exert. Exert wasn't only never a one-shot effect but could (in theory) used over and over again with the same creature, but all the exert support cards like Resolute Survivors already have exert themselves. Also, just like with exert, clash would make a fine keyword that, although it appears in all colors for draw smoothing reasons, is only explicitly cared about by one or two of a set's factions. Following this model, we arrive at the following criteria that should make clash's glorious return possible. - have a reasonably wide gap between the win and the lose effect
- make (most) cards that let you clash have low cmc - make cards that can clash multiple times - have clash matters cards let you clash - find ways to support clash within the set (a high-cmc-matters faction would be the easiest) - embed clash in the set's flavor - Do something cool with it here and there [/div] Silverplate Paladin was an idea of gamma3 , so thanks for that! So here you have it, some initial ideas for new clash cards. I linked the flavor to knights, which seems like a natural fit to me. By having a higher number of cards that reward clashing, you can get away with the actual clash cards having mediocore effects. Both, Silverplate Paladin and Blooming Ash make you play clash cards without dedicating too hard and Inferno Dashers are an example of how you can run high cmc creatures while still having stuff to cast in the midgame.
Please let me know your thoughts. What do you think about clash? Would you consider giving it a try in your next set?
|
|
jverse
3/3 Beast
 
Posts: 195
Favorite Card: Animar, Soul of Elements
Favorite Set: Shadowmoor
Color Alignment: Blue, Red, Green
|
Post by jverse on Feb 22, 2021 6:32:15 GMT
Totally agree with your assessment of clash. Mechanically, it is very easy to understand and has the potential for some really fun interactions. I would love to see a splashy clash commander that could support a high cmc deck as well, but there would need to be a lot more synergy than the current card pool.
|
|
|
Post by ameisenmeister on Feb 22, 2021 15:43:02 GMT
Well, why don't you create one?
|
|
|
Post by Daij_Djan on Feb 22, 2021 18:44:49 GMT
To be honest, Clash is probably my least favorite mechanic tackled so far - I do especially like your two support cards, though. Combining it with cost reduction seems like a good idea - even though that design space is known to have its own share of problems, obviously  Maybe two-brid mana would make for a good pairing?
|
|
|
Post by ameisenmeister on Feb 22, 2021 19:58:29 GMT
Yes, that's exactly what I meant with mechanical support! Two-brid mana is fine, affinity is a good supplement as are most cards with surge. You don't have to work magic here - what makes the almost complete absence of supporting cards in Lorwyn even more frustrating.
|
|
|
Post by Daij_Djan on Feb 22, 2021 23:49:54 GMT
Oh yeah, cost reduction of any kind would work for sure - I just wanted to suggest something less powerful/broken than Affinity or Delve  (Also I'd really like to see two-brid to return one day.)
|
|
|
Post by ameisenmeister on Feb 23, 2021 6:31:26 GMT
Oh yeah, cost reduction of any kind would work for sure - I just wanted to suggest something less powerful/broken than Affinity or Delve  (Also I'd really like to see two-brid to return one day.) Oh, I think affinity for basic lands, for creatures, for instant and sorcery cards in the graveyard, etc. would be just fine. As far as I know, affinity for artifacts could only go through the roof like it did because of the artifact lands.
|
|
jverse
3/3 Beast
 
Posts: 195
Favorite Card: Animar, Soul of Elements
Favorite Set: Shadowmoor
Color Alignment: Blue, Red, Green
|
Post by jverse on Feb 24, 2021 0:08:51 GMT
Well, why don't you create one? Alright, you convinced me. This is probably wildly busted and quite possibly unfun, but who knows. Not like I tested it... 
|
|
|
Post by hydraheadhunter on Feb 24, 2021 19:53:12 GMT
Alright, you convinced me. This is probably wildly busted and quite possibly unfun, but who knows. Not like I tested it... 
| Tarnlanc, Obstinate Mage One generic a Blue and a Red Legendary Creature - Elf Wizard
Whenever an opponent would draw their second card each turn, clash with that player. If you win, you draw a card instead. Otherwise, that player draws a card and you discard a card.
Whenever an opponent casts their second spell each turn, clash with that player. If you win counter that spell. Otherwise, that player may copy that spell and may choose new targets for the copy.
FT: "Wanna fight about it?"
2/2
Art by Christian Schob |
I like this card, but have notes {Card critique and a deck tech} It doesn't seem wildly powerful, but it's maybe a bit under-costed (I'd put it at a CMC of 4. I'd want to give it access to a third color: green, since it's a CMC matters commander, it needs access to the biggest bombs and the best ramp smooth out the necessarily trixy-wacky curve and because this card's mechanical identity just feels more gruul+blue to me than izzet.
The first ability is a conditional Notion Thief that punishes you as it turns off when you lose a clash for this ability; The second ability is an Erayo's Essence that hits the second spell cast each turn (and is therefore much less unfun), that again has a clapback for losing the clash. It rewards you for being able to consistently control the top of each players library and punishes you if you fail to do so. A reasonable balance of abilities until someone tries and succeeds in breaking it. At first glance this lends well to control or prison, but the problem with that is it let's your opponent's first spell through no matter what. For this reason I'm reading it as a card that wants to slow down your opponent just enough to get to a mid-game so it's high CMC strategy can take off; for that reason, I'm teching a Temur Stompy deck.
First, we have to make sure your commander's doing good things for you, meaning we need to make sure your winning clashes.
Foresee, Nissa's Revelation, Ugin's Insight give you large once off scrys. Jace, Mirror Mage, Psychic Impetus, and Prognostic Sphinx give you the ability to repeatedly scry 2 or more. Spin into Myth and Jace, the Mind Sculpter effectively let you fate seal. Nulltread Gargantuan lets you put one of your big permanents on top of your library either to win a clash or retrigger its etb.
To have a good chance of winning clashes, even without your deck sculpting cards, you need high CMC cards in the deck. But we don't actually want to cast them for that CMC.
The first way to cost cards for less than their CMC is to have cards with deceptively high CMCs: twobrid cards are the first of cards that do these, but unfortunately, only Tower Above really fits into the deck strategy; so we'll be including more split cards, whose CMC when not on the stack is equal to the sum of both halves: Armed||Dangerous(2+4=6), Insult||Injury(3+3=6), Mouth|Feed(3+4=7) Reason||Believe(1+5=6), Spring||Mind (3+3=6), Struggle||Survive(3+2=5), then there are cards with much lower alternative costs like Deep-Sea Kraken and Greater Gargadon; and last are cards that reduce their own cost like Ghalta, Primal Hunger, Icebreaker Kraken, and The Great Henge.
The second strategy is skip on the full casting cost is to reduce the cost of spells: Goreclaw, Terror of Qal Sisma, Rhonas's Monument do this while making creature big and trample-y and Thryx, the Sudden Storm also makes big creatures uncounterable. And the third option is to cheat them in witout paying for them: Court of Bounty, Eldritch Evolution, Reason||Believe, Rashmi, Eternities Crafter, and Vivien, Monsters' Advocate.
After making sure we're winning clashes, we have to make good use of that fact. The first ability makes it so that symetric draw engines like Font of Mythos, Reforge the Soul, and Rights of Flourishing slant in your favor and cards like Barbed Shocker and Xyris, the Writhing Storm become stronger for similar reasons. Word of War and Words of Wilding both let you spend a mana to turn the draw from your commander into another effect allowing you to keep a clash winning card on top to prevent multiple extra draws. And for second ability Guile will let you cast any spells you counter.
High CMC cards are strong, but why not make them stronger with Battle of Frost and Fire and Imoti, Celebrant of Bounty. While your at it, hose your opponents smaller spells with Ugin, the Spirit Dragon.
Neheb, Dreadhorde Champion pulls double duty as a card filter and mana ramp. Song of Creation also fills both these roles as well as as a mana ramp. Spellbound Dragon and Wolf of Devil's Breach both let you turn dead High CMC cards in your hand into damage.
In addition to Court of Bounty, I'm including the monarch cards Azure Fleet Admiral, Court of Ire, and Regal Behemoth. (Also Throne of the High City, but that's a land.) Mutate Cards let you turn your relatively small commander into a threat; Auspicious Starrix, Dreamtail Heron, Illuna, Apex of Wishes, Migratory Great Horn, Parcelbeast (is here for it's activated ability).
For ramp the land fetching spells Cultivate, Spring||Mind, Rights of Flourishing, Verdant Confluence, and the mana doublers Mana Flare, Overabundence, Vorinclex, Voice of Hunger, Zhur-Taa Ancient. Radha, Heart of Keld let you play lands from the top of you library to clean up your draws and clashes. Coveted Jewel and Nyx Lotus are strong mana rocks in the deck's theme.
Mana sinks Genesis Wave, Hour Of Eternity, and Mass Manipulation give you places to spend excess mana.
And lastly miscelanious spells: Toski, Bearer of Secrets, Craterhoof Cehemoth, Beastmaster Ascension, Yidaro, Wandering Monster, Bow of Nylea.
Landbase is whatever, but it will include Akoum Warrior, Bala Ged Recovery, Glasspool Mimic, Kazandu Mammoth, Kazuul's Fury, Khalni Ambush, and Sea Gate Restoration, Song-Mad Treachery, Turntimber Symbiosis, Umara Wizard, and Valakut Awakening as bonus spells with a 3+ CMC, and Faceless Haven, Throne of the High City, Opal Palace, and Reliquary Tower for their effects.
Companion: Because I might as well, Keruga, the Macrosage. If you don't want to use Keruga, you could probably find slots for lower CMC spells like Scroll Rack, and Ponder to help sculpt your top deck. Nissa, Steward of the Elements, Displacement Wave, Electrodominance, Finale of Devastation, Finale of Revalation, and Kamahl's Druidic Vow were X spells cut for their CMC of 2. Ediolon of the Great Revel and Pyrostatic Pillar will do a lot more harm to players running sol ring etc than they will to you.
You'd probably also want to find ways to make room in the deck for clash matters cards... but meh. I barely managed to cut the list this short (it's always harder to cut spells).
And now, back to your irregularly scheduled essays /joke
|
|
jverse
3/3 Beast
 
Posts: 195
Favorite Card: Animar, Soul of Elements
Favorite Set: Shadowmoor
Color Alignment: Blue, Red, Green
|
Post by jverse on Feb 24, 2021 23:01:41 GMT
I thought about making him temur, but his abilities aren't, and I dislike the idea of every big mana deck needing green. I currently have a Narset omniscience deck that this card would work perfectly in. I would definitely load up on MDFCs and things like mutate, flashback, etc. that feature high CMC but can be cast in the early game or from the graveyard as well. You could even play a wheel/group hug draw strategy and steal your opponent's draws. Anyways, I don't want to hijack this thread. The point was simply to show how a one-off mechanic could work on a commander with no other clash cards needed. I could see something like this appearing in a future commander legends or modern horizons type of set.
|
|
|
Post by ameisenmeister on Feb 25, 2021 13:49:33 GMT
Good point to use split cards. Combined cmc when they appear during a clash, modal (small) cmc when cast.
No worries about hijacking. As long as the conversation is still related to the mechanic essay I posted, it's exactly what I hoped to start here.
|
|
|
Post by ameisenmeister on Mar 7, 2021 21:41:32 GMT
Hey guys, I know I forgot to post a mechanic last weekend but tomorrow, on monday, a new one will be discussed. I am almost done with writing the essay, so stay tuned!
|
|
|
Post by ameisenmeister on Mar 8, 2021 17:23:31 GMT
Mechanic #4: FormidableThere are a lot of mechanics in mtg that had to carry entire sets - permeating all colors and rarities - that had better just been given to a small faction. With today's mechanic formidable it's almost the other way around. And I am going to explain why.
Formidable only appeared in one set, Dragons of Tarkir, and was the mechanic of the Atarka Brood dragons. Caring about your creatures having a combined power of 8 or greater sure was a nice twist on its predecessor ferocious, but the mechanic was met with bad popularity results which led MaRo to giving it a 9 on the storm scale in Tarkir block storm scale article. The reasons he mentiones are its almost extreme unpopularity and its small design space. Although I respect MaRo very much, I have to say that the part about the small design space is complete bs. You can basically put formidable on any permanent type and add basically any effect to it, so I don't even how he's coming up with that. The other reason, the unpopularity, is very real though, but, as it is often the case, not intrinsically the mechanic's fault. Formidable indeed has a weak spot which I will talk about in a minute, but it rather has to do with the way wotc tends to design sets than with the mechanic itself.
Just as with tribute, I'd like you to think about a powerful card with formidable. Any card. Go!
No ideas? Or did you think of Shaman of Forgotten Ways? Or perhaps you even remembered Dragon Whisperer. If you are actually aware that these cards exist (1. kudos, but) you most likely didn't remember them from your limited games during Dragons of Tarkir standard but rather from games at the commander table. Both cards are mythics and have splashy effects that you will likely only see during a commander game. What cards were there in limited that could have made an impact? Probably not Atarka Pummeler, also probably not Glade Watcher. And don't even get me started on Surrak, the Huntcaller! I am convinced that the poor popularity ratings of formidable are not because of its rules text but because of the cards it was printed on. Weak, uninspired cards aren't popular and that transmits to the mechanics printed on those cards. But not only did wotc make formidable cards that are weak, but they also tend to design sets in a way that gives mechanics like formidable an uphill battle. You see, formidable is what could be called a set up mechanic - a mechanic that requires you to already have something else to make it do something. Other examples would be metalcraft, treshold or conspire. The difference between these three and formidable (as well as ferocious) is that it is quite hard for the opponent to get rid of your set up once you achieved it. Noncreature artifacts are not as easy to destroy as creatures, removing cards from a graveyard is possible, but not something every deck can do, and having two creatures that share a color is very easy to have in the first place. Having your creatures have a total power of 8 however is something you have to work hard for, oftentimes only to see your most integral creature get removed right before you wanted to reap the fruits of your labor. In my opinion, Wizards tends to regularly shoot itself in the foot by designing mechanics and themes that care about creatures (objectively the most interactive card type of all) while at the same time printing pushed control cards that reduce the number of playable creatures to a few selected bombs like Goldspan Dragon or Questing Beast. This not only causes trouble and disappointment, for example when players realize that the whole premise of their party deck that they ran during the Zendikar Rising limited event completely falls apart as soon as they enter a standard event, but it's also detrimental to mechanics like formidable. To tackle this issue, amping up the power of formidable cards can only be the first step. In the long run, wotc would have realize that decks like azorius control or superfriends don't really contribute to a fun and inviting play environment. In my opinion, having control decks be dominant in standard should be something to be avoided and not be seen as something that's just an inevitable part of competitive magic.
Anyways, in my opening for this essay I said that formidable could fill a larger role in a set that just a small faction mechanic. This is true not only because its design space is pretty large but it also plays well with a lot of other themes and strategies. The most obvious possibilities are using formidable with a battlecruiser game plan (aka having one really big creature) or with a go-wide approach (aka having a lot of small creatures on the field). It also works well as a supplementing mechanic for auras, equipment, +1/+1 counters, etc.
Summing up, if you're thinking about using formidable for your next set, think about the following: - As a creature based set up mechanic, formidable is a mechanic that's prone to interruption, so adjust the power level accordingly - To mitigate the blowout potential, don't do state based effects but triggered effects. (Not „as long as blablabla“ but „at the beginning of combat, blablabla“) - Mind the set environment! Try not to overdo it with removal and give creature based strategies a chance,
Of course I can't simulate point 3 here but as usual I have prepared some example cards that might tickle your fancy.
Now let me hear your thoughts. What do you think about formidable? Am I right with my evaluation? Tell me about it!
|
|
jverse
3/3 Beast
 
Posts: 195
Favorite Card: Animar, Soul of Elements
Favorite Set: Shadowmoor
Color Alignment: Blue, Red, Green
|
Post by jverse on Mar 8, 2021 23:02:15 GMT
First of all, I really look forward to these posts each week. It's a great way for designers to consider their mechanics and the many factors that influence their reception.
My issue with mechanics like formidable is that they reward advantageous board states. If you have 8 or more power on the board, there is a good chance you are already doing pretty well, in which case you probably don't need the formidable boost. Those cards are necessarily underpowered to address this issue, and only become playable (sometimes) when you can get the added payoff. Otherwise you would always play formidable cards regardless of your creature status. So really this mechanic has two strikes against it for me: rewarding players who are already ahead, and being intentionally underpowered. I agree that the payoff needs to be strong, however.
|
|
|
Post by ameisenmeister on Mar 9, 2021 10:20:03 GMT
First of all, I really look forward to these posts each week. It's a great way for designers to consider their mechanics and the many factors that influence their reception. My issue with mechanics like formidable is that they reward advantageous board states. If you have 8 or more power on the board, there is a good chance you are already doing pretty well, in which case you probably don't need the formidable boost. Those cards are necessarily underpowered to address this issue, and only become playable (sometimes) when you can get the added payoff. Otherwise you would always play formidable cards regardless of your creature status. So really this mechanic has two strikes against it for me: rewarding players who are already ahead, and being intentionally underpowered. I agree that the payoff needs to be strong, however. Thanks for the kind words.
You have a point in that formidable rewards already established board states but let me adress this with a few points I think are important. - First off, there are multiple mechanics that you have to work for and already control certain permanents to work. Metalcraft is a prime example, as is devotion, populate and basically every type of tribal matters. - Also, even if it seems unnecessary to get a bonus when you're already in good shape, this can also be perceived as a reward for your "work" during the game. The whole Timmy/Tammy psychographic lives for those plays when something big gets absurdly bigger ( Colossus of Akros being the prime example for a Timmy/Tammy card). - Having a total power of 8 or greater reads like much, but probably isn't. Controlling a Moss Viper, a Nessian Hornbeetle and a Loathsome Chimera nets you 8 total power on turn three with even one mana left open. Sure, in limited this would be a powerful play sequence, but in contructed it shouldn't be too unusual. And it's not that you've basically won the game with that board state.
|
|
|
Post by ameisenmeister on Mar 14, 2021 21:33:36 GMT
Gonna post the next mechanic tomorrow on Monday. Small hint: It will be a mechanic from one of the Ravnica sets. See you then!
|
|
|
Post by Daij_Djan on Mar 14, 2021 23:12:04 GMT
Have to admit, Formidable is a mechanic I also pretty much dislike. To me, it always felt a bad twist off of Ferocious – or rather a boring one? It just seems like a lazy ripoff, even the name is less interesting to me. To me, it would have been fine as an unkeyworded subtheme / cycle back then.. Small hint: It will be a mechanic from one of the Ravnica sets. Consider me interested! 
|
|
|
Post by hydraheadhunter on Mar 15, 2021 7:06:18 GMT
Gonna post the next mechanic tomorrow on Monday. Small hint: It will be a mechanic from one of the Ravnica sets. See you then! I'mma put a zero dollar bet down on Haunt.
|
|
|
Post by ameisenmeister on Mar 15, 2021 21:12:05 GMT
Daij_Djan & hydraheadhunter sorry to disappoint you but our next mechanic is...Mechanic #5: CipherThe mechanic Cipher only appeared on a total of 13 cards from Gatecrash and Dragon's Maze and was the House Dimir mechanic that time around. It only appeared on instants and sorceries and allowed you to cast the spell again each time the creature encoded with the spell card dealt combat damage to a player.
Of all the mechanics I looked at by now – and probably even of those I will look at in the future – Cipher is maybe the most flawed mechanic already in itself. However, there are ways to make good use of the keyword and to harness its potential without falling into any traps.
In his Ravnica storm scale article MaRo states that players in general liked the mechanic. This should come at no surprise, as players tend to like getting their spells doubled or cast again (hence the great popularity of flashback). Cipher brings strong issues in basically all other categories, though. Its design space is small, its versatility rigid, it sometimes causes timing issues and is also really hard to balance. The main problem is that the cards can't be undercosted because its repetitive nature, especially when the ciphered spell nets you card advantage, can get seriously out of hand easily with something as small and innocent as a Mist-Cloaked Herald or a Tormented Soul. At the same time, having the card cost too much make it absolutely worthless if you don't happen to control a creature to encode it on. Cards like Last Thoughts and Shadow Slice look absolutely horrible – and kind of are – because just one mana less could warp them into limited dominating and almost format defining game pieces.
But not all cipher cards are this way, and it is those exceptions were we can learn from how designing cards with the keyword can be done. Paranoid Delusions, Hands of Binding and Whispering Madness all are fine cards that can do their job encoded on a creature during a casual or limited game or that can even be cast without a suitable creature without having you feel like kicked in the guts. What's differentiates these spells from, for example, Midnight Recovery? As so often, it's the card advantage. As I already talked about when writing about buyback, generating repeatable card advantage can boost a card from a sweet trick to a fun-draining menace. In theory, a creature with an encoded spell is way easier to get rid of than a Spell Burst sitting in an opponent's hand, but you can speak about this with my Invisible Stalkers and three Negates in my hand.
But does that mean that, just like with buyback, cipher cards should almost never generate card advantage? No, because we're a smart bunch and do some crafty stuff with the keyword – of course without changing its rules text.
With this little trick we almost got rid of all the problems the mechanic had while still having it reward you for playing evasive creatures. You don't need to feel too bad when casting Mind Abuse without a perfect encoding candidate on the field because it will do its most powerful effect already, and for a reasonable price. But if you happen to control a creature that can get through this turn, you get a sweet bonus on top that will even power up the next Mind Abuse you cast from your hand.
Let me know what you think about my ideas on cipher, my solutions on how to fix it and whether you'd consider using the keyword in a set of yours.
|
|
jverse
3/3 Beast
 
Posts: 195
Favorite Card: Animar, Soul of Elements
Favorite Set: Shadowmoor
Color Alignment: Blue, Red, Green
|
Post by jverse on Mar 16, 2021 1:12:35 GMT
A clever fix for sure. Well done. Now you've got me thinking about other scalable and broken mechanics that might somehow be capped this way without making them unplayable.
|
|