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.