Since poison counters kill at 10 and Infect is a thing, this should be scrapped.
NEVER assume a mechanic you make will forever be in a vaccuum.
To be perfectly frank, that's exactly what I had in mind. A novel mechanic in and of itself, but also something that would make some opponents cautious about using infect too much, plus a way to turn poison on it's head essentially.
I try to avoid making stuff in a vacuum, if anything I prefer mechanics built around the entire game tbh.
Post by Jéské Couriano on Dec 19, 2019 0:48:33 GMT
Infect, however, is more than just the poison counters. A player may be using it more for the -1/-1 counters, because there aren't that many abilities that can grant them so reliably and cheaply, especially in black. The only time the poison counters are really a factor is if a player refuses to (or cannot) block, it's combined with another poison-counter-giving ability, is combined with copious amounts of Proliferate, or is facing enough damage for them to outright kill (i.e. an alpha-strike or Blightsteel Colossus.
Infect, however, is more than just the poison counters.
Fair enough, though the idea would be for such a mechanic to be used in conjunction with costs that would involve giving yourself poison counters for some form of benefit.
I actually intended it to go with a variant of phyrexian mana, but where you give yourself a poison counter instead of paying 2 life. Honestly, I began with trying to find a usage for a phyrexian mana-like symbol (it had a biohazard symbol instead of ) that came with a symbol set that added snow hybrid mana.
But I figured that poisoning yourself to just avoid paying one colored mana seemed a bit off, especially since you could easily regain spent life potentially if it was phyrexian mana. Hence I figured that adding a threshold mechanic to spells that might use this poison mana could be an interesting way to add value to such a mechanic while also having an interesting interaction with existing cards that give poison counters.
But there is still the chance that such a mechanic could have broken cards with it (lord knows that's the case with phyrexian mana), but I figure that card designers can end up breaking almost any mechanic if they don't consider the ramifications, case-in-point affinity.
[...]I figure that card designers can end up breaking almost any mechanic if they don't consider the ramifications, case-in-point affinity.
MaRo has outright said that balanced cost-reduction mechanics look unappealing, while busted ones look awesome. Phymana, despite being a cost-substitution rather than a reduction, falls into the latter camp of "awesome-yet-broken".
I decided to remake Slipstream into a mechanic I think I vastly prefer:
Slipstream X — (cost) You may cast this spell for its slipstream cost rather than its mana cost if X or more spells had been cast before it this turn
I feel like this version would be better at limiting just how low a mana cost can get, while also enabling some spells to be overpriced, but after just a couple spells being cast, could turn into a significantly cheaper spell, while avoiding the pitfalls of a mechanic like affinity. One could also have spells and/or permanents that have additional effects apply when slipstreamed.
I was thinking about the colour pie, the fact there's no blue-red evergreen creature keyword mechanic, and how you might go about finding the design space for one. The following occurred to me: blue-red's shared ally is black, and black's enemies are green and white, so green-white can be thought of in some way as the enemy of blue-red. (This process can be done for all ten colour pairs, making five pairings: white-blue and black-green, blue-black and red-white, black-red and green-blue, red-green and white-black, green-white and blue-red.) As such, a way to find a UR evergreen creature keyword mechanic is to take the evergreen creature keyword mechanic of green-white and invert it. Green-white's creature keyword is vigilance, so...
Stalwart (This creature's blockers must tap and don't untap during their controller's next untap step.)
702.Xa Stalwart is a static ability that modifies the rules for the declare blockers step.
702.Xb A defending player must tap all creatures assigned to block a permanent with stalwart. Those creatures don't untap during their controller's next untap step. This action doesn't use the stack. (See rule 509, "Declare Blockers Step.")
701.Xc Multiple instances of stalwart on the same creature are redundant.
I'm not sure I can really see Red getting a creature that just has Stalwart on it. Preventing creatures from untapping is generally not a thing that Red does. Plus, both colors are more focused on sidestepping the whole "blockers" thing. Hmm...
Trickery(When this creature attacks, it can't be blocked by target creature this turn.)
That might also suck - keywords that lower interactivity usually do.