Arix
1/1 Squirrel
Posts: 54
|
Wield
Aug 16, 2018 3:36:32 GMT
Post by Arix on Aug 16, 2018 3:36:32 GMT
When it comes to fantasy-based games, I always enjoy playing non-magical characters, usually tanks who put themselves out there on the frontlines. Which is where I got the idea of Equipment that you could pick up and use yourself:
Of course, balancing this sort of thing - and even making it work in the first place, is super hard. Thoughts and possible individual card ideas?
The battleaxe is missing artist credit. ~Daij_Djan
|
|
|
Wield
Aug 16, 2018 5:22:58 GMT
Post by Jéské Couriano on Aug 16, 2018 5:22:58 GMT
Impossible as writ as Wield does not make them creatures. Only creatures can attack, as per the rules (Comp. Rules 506.3).
It goes without saying that making them creatures also entails giving them P/T values as a consequence, otherwise the game will treat them as having 0 toughness (I am assuming that number is power) and SBE them into the bin. (704.5f) It would also make them fall off. (704.5p)
|
|
Arix
1/1 Squirrel
Posts: 54
|
Wield
Aug 16, 2018 5:24:36 GMT
Post by Arix on Aug 16, 2018 5:24:36 GMT
Well, obviously. I think the assumption is that that would change.
|
|
|
Wield
Aug 16, 2018 5:27:44 GMT
Post by Jéské Couriano on Aug 16, 2018 5:27:44 GMT
Well, obviously. I think the assumption is that that would change. I am not a fan of randomly deleting, editing, or adding rules sections to the comp. rules outside of Section 702 because this is at best a kludge. It goes without saying any revisions Wizards makes to a rules section supersedes whatever ad-hackery we make.
|
|
Arix
1/1 Squirrel
Posts: 54
|
Wield
Aug 16, 2018 9:35:15 GMT
Post by Arix on Aug 16, 2018 9:35:15 GMT
Well, obviously. I think the assumption is that that would change. I am not a fan of randomly deleting, editing, or adding rules sections to the comp. rules outside of Section 702 because this is at best a kludge. It goes without saying any revisions Wizards makes to a rules section supersedes whatever ad-hackery we make. I'm on the opposite side of the fence. I feel like good design and creative ideas are hard enough to come by without imposing additional restrictions on ourselves, and that making such ideas work is a fun and useful exercise. And if WotC shift the rules to make cool ideas work, why should that be off limits to us? Obviously there's a line, it's just that everyone's line is different.
|
|
|
Wield
Aug 16, 2018 19:59:01 GMT
Post by Jéské Couriano on Aug 16, 2018 19:59:01 GMT
My line is "Editing sections that concern core sections of the game that Wizards can and will edit as necessary, rendering our kludges impossible as writ."
Wizards employees are not allowed to look at fansites or custom-card sites. As such, they cannot see any houserules (read: revisions) we make to accommodate certain custom cards and cannot take them into account when they edit the comprehensive rules. The only reason Section 702 is an exception (and even then only for adding) is because that section contains the rules for every keyword.
A good designer takes into account what came before, and doesn't do something radical just for the sake of doing something radical. Wield literally throws out a massive chunk of the core paradigm of combat in Magic for no good reason other than ripping off Hearthstone.
|
|
|
Wield
Aug 16, 2018 20:46:37 GMT
Post by Tesagk on Aug 16, 2018 20:46:37 GMT
I lean on the side of "if there's going to need to be rules changes, you need to write those out yourself as though you worked at WotC"
I did such when I tried introducing a new card supertype. It didn't work out in the end, but it was an interesting process.
|
|
|
Wield
Aug 16, 2018 22:13:47 GMT
Post by Tesagk on Aug 16, 2018 22:13:47 GMT
How about this?
|
|
|
Wield
Aug 16, 2018 23:45:46 GMT
Post by Jéské Couriano on Aug 16, 2018 23:45:46 GMT
Tegask ) "Attach" has rules significance outside Wield; I would choose a different word.
|
|
Arix
1/1 Squirrel
Posts: 54
|
Wield
Aug 17, 2018 0:52:58 GMT
Post by Arix on Aug 17, 2018 0:52:58 GMT
Wizards employees are not allowed to look at fansites or custom-card sites. As such, they cannot see any houserules (read: revisions) we make to accommodate certain custom cards and cannot take them into account when they edit the comprehensive rules. The only reason Section 702 is an exception (and even then only for adding) is because that section contains the rules for every keyword. ...I know full well they're not allowed to look at this stuff. I'm...I'm not trying to get them to look at this stuff and tell them "Hey guys, change the rules for us so our custom stuff can work plzkthxbi". I have entirely no idea what made you think that.
Seems pretty easy to me. They're not creatures, therefore don't interact with anything that interacts with creatures or says "target creature".
I have literally never played Hearthstone and know nothing about it.
If you don't like the idea, okay, sure. But if all you have to say is "It doesn't work under current rules and I don't like changing current rules", I can respect that, but not only do I disagree, it's completely and utterly unhelpful. Isn't the point of this place to, you know, help work new ideas? That's what it's here for - not to show off "Hey guys check out my cool thing I made", but to work, test, build and change. If you're not interested in doing that, then just...you know, don't respond. I have no more interest in hearing you say "Nope, doesn't work" than you have in hearing me say "But how could it".
Tesagk I'm not entirely sure what that card means, or what the flavour you're going for is.
|
|
|
Wield
Aug 17, 2018 1:02:48 GMT
Post by Tesagk on Aug 17, 2018 1:02:48 GMT
Tesagk I'm not entirely sure what that card means, or what the flavour you're going for is. I tried to replicate the flavor of your original idea with stuff that is more aligned to the current rules.
|
|
Arix
1/1 Squirrel
Posts: 54
|
Wield
Aug 17, 2018 1:18:07 GMT
Post by Arix on Aug 17, 2018 1:18:07 GMT
Well, in all technicality it's not aligned to the current rules (if a creature is attached to a thing, it immediate drops off as an SBA). More importantly though, I'm not entirely sure the flavour is right, since that looks a lot like the equipment is still being wielded by the creature it's attached to.
|
|
|
Wield
Aug 17, 2018 1:39:59 GMT
Post by Jéské Couriano on Aug 17, 2018 1:39:59 GMT
Arix ) Your reply ignores Phage.
And your lassez-faire attitude is the exact issue with what you're proposing. Virtually all of Magic's combat revolves around the interaction between creatures. Allowing non-creatures to attack breaks this paradigm a lot, by making it impossible to truly stop Wielded attackers short of chump-blocking with a Phage (which kills the player using the Wielded item).
There are ways to mitigate or remove creatures in literally every colour. The ability to remove artifacts is not present in blue or black, breaking the game in twain for both of those colours outside of the aforementioned Phage.
|
|
kinotherapy
6/6 Wurm
stupid kor i just fell out of the floor
Posts: 322
Favorite Card: Ruthless Raider
Favorite Set: Rising Tides
Color Alignment: Blue, Black, Red
|
Wield
Aug 17, 2018 1:50:52 GMT
Post by kinotherapy on Aug 17, 2018 1:50:52 GMT
Had a quick look at the comp rules for the changes you'd have to make for this to work: These two are mostly introductory, but they ought to be changed to so that each "creatures" becomes "creatures and equipment wielded by a player". The real meat of it comes up next: Oof, that's no good. Wreck this one. These are all subrules of 506.3 so they're already assuming that noncreatures can't attack; you'll need to edit them to account for the equivalent cases of equipment wielded by players. From here on out it's mostly just rules mistakenly assuming that only creatures can be attacking or blocking, though there'll be particular ones to look out for such as damage assignment. Here's a quick list of the remaining combat phase rules that need changing. (Some of them could just have separate rules added, which I would particularly recommend for damage assignment, though note that will make it much harder to keep your custom ruleset up to date with Wizards.) - 506.4
- 506.4a
- 506.4b
- 506.4c
- 506.4d
- 506.5
- 508.1a
- 508.1b
- 508.1c
- 508.1d
- 508.1e
- 508.1f
- 508.1g
- 508.1h
- 508.1k
- 508.2b
- 508.3a
- 508.3b
- 508.3c
- 508.3d
- 508.4
- 508.4a
- 508.4b
- 508.5
- 508.6
- 508.8
- 509.1a
- 509.1b
- 509.1g
- 509.1h
- 509.2
- 509.2a
- 509.3
- 509.3a
- 509.5a
- 509.5b
- 509.5c
- 509.5d
- 509.5e
- 509.5f
- 509.5g
- 509.6
- 509.7
- 509.7a
- 510.1
- 510.1a
- 510.1b
- 510.1c
- 510.1d
- 510.1e
- 510.4
- 511.3
I probably missed some but I'm sure you'll give it a proper look through if you haven't already. There will also be many rules outside of the combat phase section to adjust, but they will be difficult to find since there's no way to filter them except to search "creature" which has 1,453 matches. Still, it's necessary to be able to use noncreatures in combat.
EDIT: If you do use a custom ruleset in this way, you'll also need to follow the rules changes with each set and make equivalent changes if you want to be able to use new cards (though if you don't play on mixing them I guess it's fine)
|
|
Arix
1/1 Squirrel
Posts: 54
|
Wield
Aug 17, 2018 1:57:31 GMT
Post by Arix on Aug 17, 2018 1:57:31 GMT
There also exist artifacts that are powerful on their own. Along with enchantments that blue, black and red can't deal with, and instants/sorceries which no colour outside of blue can deal with. None of this "breaks the game in twain".
Now if you're just going to continue saying "Nope, doesn't work", then let me save you the time. If you absolutely don't like the idea and don't think it's workable, or worth it to try making it workable, I can respect that, but I'm also completely uninterested in hearing it. What I am interested in is advice and suggestions. You have some to offer? Great, let me hear them, that's literally the entire reason I'm here.
kinotherapy I was aware when I begun that things would need changing. I'm not quite sure whether you're saying "Difficult but doable" or "Not worth it in the least". In either case, what would you suggest as possibilities?
|
|
bagz
1/1 Squirrel
Posts: 91
|
Wield
Aug 17, 2018 2:01:45 GMT
Post by bagz on Aug 17, 2018 2:01:45 GMT
Living Weapon keyword - MTG wikiYou familiar with Living Weapon? I feel like you could use Living Weapon and just change the 0/0 black Germ creature token to a 0/0 Planeswalker Avatar creature token or something. If you want to make a unique keyword for wield, put it on a living weapon artifact equipment card as a way to equip it to yourself if you have no creatures and the 0/0 is exiled or dead at this point. - Wield (4) (If you control no creatures, you may pay (4) to put a 0/0 Planeswalker Avatar creature token onto the battlefield then attach this to it.) - my attempt: closing thoughts... hmm. Maybe wield should make the token share the colors of all permanents you control?
|
|
Arix
1/1 Squirrel
Posts: 54
|
Wield
Aug 17, 2018 2:25:23 GMT
Post by Arix on Aug 17, 2018 2:25:23 GMT
I am indeed familiar with living weapon, and it's close, but still not quite the thing I'm after. I know the easy way to go about it is making a token to attach the equipment to, but that still just feels like you're creating something to send into battle on your behalf, rather than getting into the thick of it yourself.
Is there perhaps a way to style a Haunted Plate Mail-style animation effect to get the flavour I'm after?
|
|
|
Wield
Aug 17, 2018 2:28:14 GMT
Post by Jéské Couriano on Aug 17, 2018 2:28:14 GMT
There also exist artifacts that are powerful on their own. Along with enchantments that blue, black and red can't deal with, and instants/sorceries which no colour outside of blue can deal with. None of this "breaks the game in twain".
Now if you're just going to continue saying "Nope, doesn't work", then let me save you the time. If you absolutely don't like the idea and don't think it's workable, or worth it to try making it workable, I can respect that, but I'm also completely uninterested in hearing it. What I am interested in is advice and suggestions. You have some to offer? Great, let me hear them, that's literally the entire reason I'm here. None of those can attack as if they were creatures.
Again, the entire paradigm of combat in Magic is centred around creatures, and the existing cardpool reflects this - every colour has a means of removing or mitigating creatures. The same cannot be said for noncreature artifacts attacking as if they were creatures without actually being creatures. This *does* break the game in twain, because it fucks the two colours which are the friendliest towards artifacts by ensuring they have no realistic means of not being swung on every single turn.
|
|
bagz
1/1 Squirrel
Posts: 91
|
Wield
Aug 17, 2018 2:35:42 GMT
Post by bagz on Aug 17, 2018 2:35:42 GMT
I am indeed familiar with living weapon, and it's close, but still not quite the thing I'm after. I know the easy way to go about it is making a token to attach the equipment to, but that still just feels like you're creating something to send into battle on your behalf, rather than getting into the thick of it yourself.
Is there perhaps a way to style a Haunted Plate Mail-style animation effect to get the flavour I'm after? I don't see how the equipment animating is any better than creating a token. they are equally neither exactly what you want but both solutions. Either way its another object representing you. Might as well make it an enchant player aura at this point.
|
|
Arix
1/1 Squirrel
Posts: 54
|
Wield
Aug 17, 2018 3:00:29 GMT
Post by Arix on Aug 17, 2018 3:00:29 GMT
I am indeed familiar with living weapon, and it's close, but still not quite the thing I'm after. I know the easy way to go about it is making a token to attach the equipment to, but that still just feels like you're creating something to send into battle on your behalf, rather than getting into the thick of it yourself.
Is there perhaps a way to style a Haunted Plate Mail-style animation effect to get the flavour I'm after? I don't see how the equipment animating is any better than creating a token. they are equally neither exactly what you want but both solutions. Either way its another object representing you. Might as well make it an enchant player aura at this point. I know that straight-up it doesn't do the job, I'm just wondering if that would be a good starting point to get somewhere that does.
|
|
bagz
1/1 Squirrel
Posts: 91
|
Wield
Aug 17, 2018 4:29:52 GMT
Post by bagz on Aug 17, 2018 4:29:52 GMT
I don't see how the equipment animating is any better than creating a token. they are equally neither exactly what you want but both solutions. Either way its another object representing you. Might as well make it an enchant player aura at this point. I know that straight-up it doesn't do the job, I'm just wondering if that would be a good starting point to get somewhere that does. As I said, I think either of those things are equally good starting points for a solution. Not sure how creating a token of an avatar is so odd while animating the artifact is fine. They are both creating some way to wield it and neither of them is using you, they are using a creature representation of you. I'd argue they both the same thing for the most part though my solution for wield is an alternative equip that creates the token to equip it to.
|
|
Arix
1/1 Squirrel
Posts: 54
|
Wield
Aug 17, 2018 4:50:38 GMT
Post by Arix on Aug 17, 2018 4:50:38 GMT
I feel like creating a token specifically calls attention to the idea that "This creature is using the equipment", whereas something based on animation has a bit more potential to feel like, with nothing else "carrying" it, you're the one using it. That's the current thought running through my head, at least.
|
|
|
Wield
Aug 17, 2018 11:46:26 GMT
Post by Daij_Djan on Aug 17, 2018 11:46:26 GMT
The concept definitely is interesting, but besides being a rules nightmare I guess it has an additional issue: If you don't turn into a creature yourself, you basically ignore all combat related spells - which really is a shame. It's basically why Poisonous is a bad mechanic compared to Infect (even if that one is borderline broken). Then again if your mechanic does make you interact with this kind of stuff, then Deathtouch alone would most likely make the ability completely useless.
Sometimes in Magic there are concepts that seem to be very simple & completely logical - but turn out being nightmares if you want to make them work properly under the given rules. Feels free to prove me wrong, but it feels like this might be one of those concepts?
|
|
Arix
1/1 Squirrel
Posts: 54
|
Wield
Aug 17, 2018 23:56:48 GMT
Post by Arix on Aug 17, 2018 23:56:48 GMT
I was never under the impression that this was "very simple". I fully realise it's weird and would require a lot of work. That's the entire reason I'm here, after all.
I'm also of the opinion that poisonous is a much better mechanic than infect, buuut that's a completely unrelated note.
As for support, I would imagine it would be in an environment that specifically supports it.
|
|
impspiritguide
2/2 Zombie
Favorite Color: Brown
Posts: 129
Set Hub: http://magicseteditor.boards.net/thread/256/pokemon-thread
Formerly Known As: Imp Elemental Spirit Guide
|
Wield
Aug 18, 2018 1:56:01 GMT
Post by impspiritguide on Aug 18, 2018 1:56:01 GMT
Arix,
My questions would concern flavor, everything else can be overcome in some fashion (the depths of my ingenuity, cunning, and trickery have yet to be overcome), but ultimately in this case flavor is the primary design criterion.
What are you trying to do with this. Do you want to turn yourself (the player) into a non-wizard or partial wizard character; do you want to create some special weapons that protect the player independent of their skill, something like a dancing sword or something.
How do you see a duel in MtG (I ask this as the game has undergone a significant change in flavor from it's inception with Alpha and Beta to the current, so different people see the game differently flavor wise).
Please try to answer these questions for yourself before following this link, but here is something from the old forums. Please note that the items found in that link will need significant rules modification, and possibly even complete redesign, if you like them (the idea originated before anyone even thought of creating the comprehensive rule book and haven't been modified by a good rules lawyer since around 5th or 6th Edition).
|
|
Arix
1/1 Squirrel
Posts: 54
|
Wield
Aug 18, 2018 3:00:22 GMT
Post by Arix on Aug 18, 2018 3:00:22 GMT
What are you trying to do with this. Do you want to turn yourself (the player) into a non-wizard or partial wizard character; do you want to create some special weapons that protect the player independent of their skill, something like a dancing sword or something. More the former than the latter. As I mentioned in the OP, the inspiration came from my preference towards playing non-magical characters in other games (my favourite DnD class is Fighter, I avoid magic in Elder Scrolls games, even my main "fanwalker" character is more a physical tank with significantly less magical ability than his fellows). Obviously in a game called Magic with card types like Sorcery and Enchantment, going completely non-magical is pretty much impossible without a complete redesign, but that was the basis for the original idea - wielding weapons and equipment yourself rather than giving them to summoned creatures, and throwing yourself into the combat phase.
So my first set was Prophecy, and I really started getting into the game in Invasion. Back then I saw it as, well, pretty much the way it's marketed - you are a super-powerful mage, going up against another for some unspecified reason (though I am a lover of flavour and often came up with my own ideas as to "why" based on my deck and my opponents') in a battle to the death. These days with the more "story driven" approach, though, it feels less like "You're a planeswalker, go carve out your own stories" and more "These guys are planeswalkers, go play out their stories". Originally I felt like the players were active participants, these days they're more like abstract entities. I have...a lot of complaints about the modern approach, but that's neither here nor there. Point is, I preferred my original thoughts behind the matter, and that's the way I'd like to see it.
Reading that over, it seems close to and idea I was toying with of an overhaul of the game to reinforce the flavour of being a less magically-inclined class, perhaps in a Conspiracy or Battlebond-style supplemental set. Thinking more on it, perhaps fully designing such a set would be the best way to do this - making it one weird thing in a set of weird things may make it easier to swallow than tossing it out there on its own, in the way Conspiracy's "draft matters" cards make a lot more sense in the context of the rest of Conspiracy.
|
|
impspiritguide
2/2 Zombie
Favorite Color: Brown
Posts: 129
Set Hub: http://magicseteditor.boards.net/thread/256/pokemon-thread
Formerly Known As: Imp Elemental Spirit Guide
|
Wield
Aug 18, 2018 3:29:14 GMT
Post by impspiritguide on Aug 18, 2018 3:29:14 GMT
Reading that over, it seems close to and idea I was toying with of an overhaul of the game to reinforce the flavour of being a less magically-inclined class, perhaps in a Conspiracy or Battlebond-style supplemental set. Thinking more on it, perhaps fully designing such a set would be the best way to do this - making it one weird thing in a set of weird things may make it easier to swallow than tossing it out there on its own, in the way Conspiracy's "draft matters" cards make a lot more sense in the context of the rest of Conspiracy. Well feel free to use and/or plagiarize anything you find in that link (it was my work originally), post things as you come up with them and I'll try to help.
One other thing my play-group considered that never really came to fruition was to create a set of Vanguard style oversized cards that had specific classes that heavily modified the game. Players could choose the class they wanted to start with. Things considered were things like giving the fighter more potency in combat as himself while potentially giving him "Lord" style abilities for soldiers and knights (I would now consider making him tribal as this was before Human creature type). The modifications to spellcasting for a fighter would be greatly restricting instants, sorceries and enchantments, & modifying creature spells (Summons) to mimic more of a recruiting than a summons. There was a developed concept for Cleric as well but I forget how it worked. The problem is that we never found anything we felt truly represented Rogues/Thieves, the biggest problem with this is that in D&D they can be quite potent and useful characters, BUT they are quest and role-play driven rather than combat driven and MtG is pretty much only combat.
Another friend did an entire set that took all of the D&D spells, monsters, and artifacts (AD&D, 2nd Edition I believe) and made them into cards. I don't believe he ever printed them out though.
|
|
Arix
1/1 Squirrel
Posts: 54
|
Wield
Aug 18, 2018 4:01:07 GMT
Post by Arix on Aug 18, 2018 4:01:07 GMT
I'm currently having an idea where rather than having outright "classes" to choose from (which would basically just be Vanguard), packs would contain conspiracy (the card type, not the set)-style "skills" that you could potentially mix and match. Some skills would be complementary to each other - say, one skill that makes small tokens and another that gives a team buff for a "warlord" style build, or a few different skills that interact well with these wielded Equipment to allow a "fighter" build, to allow DnD style "multiclassing" where you can be a great specialist or decent but not great at a bunch of different things.
Course, that's all bigger-picture future stuff that can be worked out once this is nailed down a bit more proper.
|
|
impspiritguide
2/2 Zombie
Favorite Color: Brown
Posts: 129
Set Hub: http://magicseteditor.boards.net/thread/256/pokemon-thread
Formerly Known As: Imp Elemental Spirit Guide
|
Wield
Aug 18, 2018 4:43:39 GMT
Post by impspiritguide on Aug 18, 2018 4:43:39 GMT
What you are describing makes me think of GURPS and it's character creation more than D&D. You might look at them, I found this link but not sure how good it is, I've got several sets of books but they are in storage, I may have to dig them out.
You would still have to make sure that there is a "cost" associated with the skills (if you go with the GURPS style some would be a beneficial cost for a "disadvantage") to make sure that someone drafting an overabudance of skills doesn't have an autowin because of their starting skills.
Thinking outloud but after the first set is completed you could create an Archenemy style set designed for cooperative play (a party entering a dungeon) but make it quest oriented rather than combat driven. Not completely sure how yet, but it sounds fun to me.
|
|
|
Wield
Aug 18, 2018 18:16:47 GMT
Post by Jéské Couriano on Aug 18, 2018 18:16:47 GMT
I'm currently having an idea where rather than having outright "classes" to choose from (which would basically just be Vanguard), packs would contain conspiracy (the card type, not the set)-style "skills" that you could potentially mix and match. Some skills would be complementary to each other - say, one skill that makes small tokens and another that gives a team buff for a "warlord" style build, or a few different skills that interact well with these wielded Equipment to allow a "fighter" build, to allow DnD style "multiclassing" where you can be a great specialist or decent but not great at a bunch of different things.
Course, that's all bigger-picture future stuff that can be worked out once this is nailed down a bit more proper.
There are some things that are better suited to other games. This is one of them.
You're basically describing the Dragon Ball Z CCG or the UFS System (which is set up similarly to a traditional fighting game), both of which have you center a deck around an avatar of sorts and play out a one on one fight.
It's dissimilar enough that you might want to consider prototyping a new game entirely, but what you're looking at doesn't work rules-wise in Magic and honestly would be better served as its own separate card game, given the (inconsistent and varied) perspectives as to the agency of the actual player-planeswalker.
|
|