|
|
Post by gateways7 on Sept 13, 2019 0:25:36 GMT
Closed and judging! FLAREdirector: This is a cool take on “enchantment copy of creature”, but some of the cards don’t have the best effects for enchantments - it would have been nice to see some effects that are usually seen on normal enchantments (o-ring, propaganda, etc.) and some other cool Seal effects. That said, that does speak to the design space of the mechanic, so I am a fan! Great job! Mechanic: A Cards: B- Tesagk: Weird distinction of astral v. interstellar, and I don’t really get the flavor here, although it is a cool idea. The problem with this set of cards, for me, is the high power level on Konda (+4/+2, lifelink, first strike, and trample for only six? jeez), the lack of necessity that Stone of the Heavens has (you don’t need an answer to mechanics like Astral, as it defeats the point of playing with them - at the very least, use a card with a Eldrazi Processor-esque card), Swarsi is more fine than the rest but still seems pretty pushed, and Temple of the Dawn has several wording errors and does so much that it’s confusingly complex. Mechanic: B Cards: C- viriss: Although this is a really good mechanic, I don’t really get how the ability to ignore nonlethal damage has anything to do with the idea of “astral”, and it seems like making the creatures enchantments was a way to try and bridge that with no explanation. That said, your cards are simple yet showcase how the mechanic will affect normal creatures, and I do like that (despite the fact that the Sphinx does not have to be rare at all.) Good job! Mechanic: B+ Cards: B ameisenmeister: Similarly to viriss’s entry, I’m not sure how the idea of “astral” relates to letting your creatures enter the battlefield with -1/-1 counters. Furthermore, mechanics like astral and suspend with two variables (cost and number) don’t need to be two things - it would probably be better served as a set number of -1/-1 counters with variable cost. Finally, I think this mechanic would “feel better” if it gave +1/+1 counters to a weaker creature rather for an increased cost than the reverse way it is - this leads to the “evoke problem” where players don’t realize they can cast their spells. That said, your cards are interesting, but they do have some weird balance issues (1W for a 1/1 first striker is really underpowered). Good job overall, though! Mechanic: B Cards: B- Daij_Djan: This is a really solid mechanic in terms of design space and flavor, but my problem with it is that it feels like a waste of using DFC’s - my favorite part about them is that they have a lot of conditions to meet to transform, and a death trigger means that these cards had to be balanced around a fixed mana cost. (For instance, being able to flashback them from your graveyard for a different cost would have allowed for stronger back-sides.) The cards themselves were good and worked well in conjunction, which was nice, but the flavor felt very off, as for the last three, the sides didn’t feel related. That said, there are strong positives, so good job! Mechanic: B+ Cards: B Overall, FLAREdirector is our winner, with Daij_Djan coming in as second place. Favorite Card: Cabal Gravecaster |
|
|
|
Post by FLAREdirector on Sept 13, 2019 17:45:40 GMT
Thank you thank you!
Your next keyword is lament. Variations are also acceptable--lamentable, lamentation, lamenting. It already doesn't look like a word. Good luck and have fun!
|
|
|
|
Post by Tesagk on Sept 13, 2019 17:49:21 GMT
Lament - If a card in your graveyard has the same name as ~, do <foo> Adnan Reserve  Creature - Human Soldier  Lament - If a card in your graveyard has the same name as ~ when ~ enters the battlefield, it enters the battlefield with an additional +1/+1 counter on it. 1/1  Tomes of the Lost Citadel   Sorcery  Draw two cards, then discard a card. Lament - If a card in your graveyard has the same name as ~, draw three cards instead.  Tome of Kryx'nyx   Artifact  ,  : You may cast target instant or sorcery from your graveyard without paying its mana cost. If that card would be put into your graveyard this turn, exile it instead. Lament - If a card in your graveyard has the same name as ~ when ~ enters the battlefield, you may cast target instant or sorcery with converted mana cost 3 or less without paying its mana cost.  Echoes of the Forgotten  Legendary Enchantment  If a spell or ability of an opponent would cause you to put a card into exile, put it in your graveyard instead. All other permanents you control have, " Lament - If a card in your graveyard has the same name as this spell, when this enters the battlefield create a token that's a copy of this spell, except if it's Legendary it's not Legendary." 
|
|
|
|
Post by sdfkjgh on Sept 13, 2019 21:57:15 GMT
Tesagk: You picked the exact thing I was originally thinking of for lament, so I went with a morbid/revolt variant instead (Lament--If a spell, ability, or permanent you control was exiled this turn, <foo>). In order of creation:
Wipe the Slate  Instant Exile all permanents, all abilities, and all other spells. Each player loses all unspent mana.
Geordinha, Mistress of The Vast  (I picture her as Magic's first Centaur planeswalker.) Legendary Planewalker--Geordinha Lament--Whenever a spell, ability, or permanent you control is exiled, add one mana of any type.  : Exile target permanent, then return it to the battlefield under its owner’s control at the beginning of the next end step.
 : Deal X damage divided as you choose among any number of targets. If a permanent dealt damage this way would die this turn, exile it instead. X can’t be less than 6.
Fang of The Vast Creature--Naga Assassin (Hard to believe this typeline hasn't been seen before.) Deathtouch
Lament—When Fang of The Vast enters the battlefield, if a spell, ability, or permanent you control was exiled this turn, choose one—
• Another target creature gets -3/-3 until end of turn. If that creature would die this turn, exile it instead.
• Target opponent loses 3 life.
• Remove three loyalty counters from target planeswalker. If that planeswalker would die this turn, exile it instead. 3/3
Entangler of The Vast  Creature--Spider Reach
Lament—This spell costs less to cast if a spell, ability, or permanent you control was exiled this turn. 4/6
Disprove Instant Exile target spell, activated ability, or triggered ability. -------------------------------------------------------------- "Allow me to correct the mistake of your existence"
Undo Existence Instant Lament—Choose one. If a spell, ability, or permanent you control was exiled this turn, choose both instead—
• Exile target spell.
• Exile target creature or planeswalker.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tesagk on Sept 14, 2019 2:26:34 GMT
Tesagk : You picked the exact thing I was originally thinking of for lament, so I went with a morbid/revolt variant instead (Lament--If a spell, ability, or permanent you control was exiled this turn, <foo>). In order of creation:
Had to make sure I took it first  |
|
|
|
Post by gateways7 on Sept 14, 2019 16:00:40 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by viriss on Sept 14, 2019 16:36:15 GMT
I wanted to explore space in red with emotions. Something that would disable a creature, if only for a little while. I started with the idea of not being able to block, but then thought about not being able to use activated abilities. Each color has explored that idea a little bit, but mostly it's in white and on an Aura. So... what if red could do it but only temporarily. And since red can already do the "can't block" with Stun and en masse with Cosmotronic Wave, it seemed doable. Lament (This creature can’t block and its activated abilities can’t be activated.)   Edit: changed card name from Grief Striken to Painful Memory |
|
|
|
Post by sdfkjgh on Sept 14, 2019 23:13:36 GMT
viriss: Your version of lament is very nice, but you might want to pick cardnames with greater difference from each other, to avoid confusion. Also, states of being (grief stricken) sound more suited to permanents, whereas events or happenings (strike with grief) are more appropriate for instants and sorceries.
|
|
|
|
Post by gluestick248 on Sept 15, 2019 11:42:07 GMT
Lamentable reminds me of doing something so terrible you regret it for the rest of your life. Lamentable (at the beginning of your upkeep, if ~ is in your graveyard, you lose 1 life)Desecrated Corpse Creature — Zombie Lamentable 2/2 Gruesome Mutilation Instant Target creature gets -7/-7 until end of turn Lamentable Demonic Teachings Sorcery : Draw three cards. Lamentable Demon of Regrets Creature — Demon Flying As long as ~ is on the battlefield or in your graveyard, cards in your graveyard with lamentable have an additional instance of lamentable (Each triggers separately). 5/5 Mental Massacre Sorcery Each player discards four cards at random. Lamentable |
|
|
|
Post by FLAREdirector on Sept 22, 2019 22:43:01 GMT
Bump! I'm ending this challenge on Friday, September 27.
|
|
|
|
Post by ameisenmeister on Oct 8, 2019 20:11:59 GMT
I very much hope that this is still open.
My idea:
And a nice reprint for my mechanic's set: |
|
|
|
Post by Tesagk on Oct 9, 2019 11:19:59 GMT
Bump! I'm ending this challenge on Friday, September 27. |
|
|
|
Post by FLAREdirector on Oct 9, 2019 18:26:57 GMT
Well this one completely slipped my mind! Whoops. The winner is ameisenmeister!!
Tesagk Simple but effective. Flavorful, evocative, plus it has plenty of design space. As a Commander player, this doesn't do a whole lot for me personally, but as a mechanic I think it works very well. Echoes of the Forgotten in particular is super cool.
sdfkjgh "Exile matters" sounds unworkable at first, but then your cards reminded me that flicker and blink effects also count. I don't think abilities can be exiled, is the thing. But disregarding that clause, I think you've done a really good job making this mechanic not just workable but effective. (Also, yeah, a centaur planeswalker would be dope.)
gateways7 Good but not great. Like, could WOTC plausibly print this mechanic? Sure. They absolutely could. It's just that it's not very interesting. This is just cost reduction based on a single, easily accomplished event. I'm not convinced that it has any real depth. It is, in the truest sense, Completely Fine.
viriss Pacifism But More Of It? Neat. I was initially not convinced that this was appropriate for red or even, like, interesting as a mechanic, but I've really come around to it. It's not exactly flashy, but it seems solid and reliable. Not much else to say about it, but I think you did a good job with this.
gluestick248 Sorry, but I'm just not a fan of keywords whose only function is to balance cards by giving them downsides. Heck, it might not even be a downside? I'll openly concede that there are probably a lot of cards and archetypes, both yours and WOTC's, for which taking a small amount of damage every turn is hardly a penalty at all. Having said that, as for me personally, I just don't like this kind of thing. Sorry.
ameisenmeister I very much am glad that this stayed open! This mechanic rocks. I'm definitely into it. It can slot into sacrifice decks that don't discard a lot as well as discard decks that don't sacrifice a lot, so it's flexible. My biggest issue with this is that it doesn't really fit the word lament? But I'm honestly inclined to overlook that. |
|
|
|
Post by ameisenmeister on Oct 10, 2019 9:57:12 GMT
Well, thank you! Your next mechanic will be called amalgam. Have fun!
|
|
|
|
Post by Tesagk on Oct 10, 2019 11:14:36 GMT
Oh damn, I thought for sure my entry would win.
|
|
|
|
Post by majicallah on Oct 10, 2019 18:22:01 GMT
my card
|
|
|
|
Post by gluestick248 on Oct 10, 2019 21:22:18 GMT
So simple, yet so weird... Amalgam (This artifact is all artifact types)Gleaming Guardian  Artifact Creature — Construct Amalgam Whenever you sacrifice a Treasure, draw a card 2/3 Rakdos Unicycle  Artifact Amalgam Equipped creature gets +3/-1 Equip Crew 1 3/1 Spilled Caviar Artifact Amalgam , sacrifice ~: Add one mana of any color , sacrifice ~: Draw a card , , sacrifice ~: You gain 3 life |
|
|
|
Post by sdfkjgh on Oct 10, 2019 22:10:15 GMT
FLAREdirector : In regards to exiling abilities, I took inspiration from things like Summary Dismissal, and thinking that if you can counter a spell on the stack, and you can exile a spell on the stack, and you can counter an ability on the stack, then why not go the next step?
By your commentary, am I correct in thinking I came in a close second? |
|
|
|
Post by Daij_Djan on Oct 10, 2019 22:50:10 GMT
FLAREdirector : In regards to exiling abilities, I took inspiration from things like Summary Dismissal, and thinking that if you can counter a spell on the stack, and you can exile a spell on the stack, and you can counter an ability on the stack, then why not go the next step? You exile stuff from the stack to prevent it from going to the graveyard, which abilities don't do anyway - so you could say there simply is no point in doing so. However it might also be flat out impossible as the exile is a "holding area for objects" (Comp. Rule 406.1) whereas abilities only are objects while they are on the stack in the first place (Comp. Rule 109.1)..? Might be overthinking this, though xD |
|
|
|
Post by viriss on Oct 11, 2019 21:28:49 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by ameisenmeister on Oct 27, 2019 17:13:41 GMT
Going to judge this soon so get your entries in!
|
|
|
|
Post by Tesagk on Oct 27, 2019 23:25:02 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by gateways7 on Oct 28, 2019 4:30:50 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by ameisenmeister on Oct 30, 2019 19:50:32 GMT
I will judge this tomorrow. I'm very sorry about the delay.
|
|
|
|
Post by ameisenmeister on Oct 31, 2019 15:31:43 GMT
It's judging time! Finally!
{Majicallah} I honestly don't know what to say about your card There are a lot of minor issues and also some bigger issues that I will adress. First off, this is the keyword challenge and I can by no means see what your keyword does. Will every card with amalgam have the exact same ability? Or will some look at a different number of cards? Or look for other types of cards instead of instants and sorceries? Or will it not always be an etb trigger but sometimes a dies trigger? I absolutely have no idea what your mechanic does and that alone kills it and also makes it impossible for me to say anything more specific about it. This is something that you could possibly circumvent next time by posting not one but two or three cards with your mechanic so that one can determine what your mechanic's core idea is. Furthermore, your card is no way a common. I'd dare to say that a card that lets you cast two spells, regardless their costs, for only three mana without even sacrificing itself being a common is as likely as Jesus himself resurrecting and coming to my house to play a game of commander with his Boris Devilboon deck. I mean, come on. You play your card on turn three, look at the top five cards and exile a Time Warp and a Seering Wind which you then cast in the next turn for only three mana! Even if you just exile something like a Divination and a Lightning Strike your card is completely bonkers and so grossly overpowered that it would never ever be at common rarity. That all said, there is also the fact that card names are written in capital letters, sentences start with capital letters, an amount of cards are written as words and not as numbers and the problem that your card does nowhere say what happens to the rest of the revealed cards. I know I probably chided you a lot here but don't give up. Designing keywords is probably one of the most demanding challenges a designer can come across and they are very very hard to get right. Seeing the number of your posts I assume that you're new and perhaps not that experienced. I suggest, and I probably sound way more paternalistic than I intend to, that you go to other challenges first, get some feedback from other members and also look at real existing cards for orientation.
{gluestick248} “So simple, yet so weird...” That hits the nail on the head. At first, I was intrigued by your idea but I soon realized that it is mostly novel for the sake of novelty and not to achieve something interesting on its own. I don't even know whether a creature can be an equipment at the same time so that alone makes it way too weird for my tastes. But I also don't see anything cool that could be done with your mechanic other the “Whenever you sacrifice a treasure,...” stuff that you showed. What good is my equipment with no equip cost and no equip effect? What good is my vehicle that I can't crew? Sure, Captain Lannery gets a buff when you sacrifice your Gleaming Guardian but I don't see why you shouldn't just run another treasure creating card instead. A set featuring this mechanic would likely need to feature clues and treasures, if that's even enough, and still the little gain wouldn't be worth the trouble. I like your thinking as you really design outside of the box, a skill that many designers (including myself) lack, but I'm afraid this experiment led to no valid results.
{viriss} Your take on amalgam is a no brainer and I'm almost a bit surprised that not more people tried the come up with a combine-creatures-mechanic here. I like your execution. Having the creatures combine when entering the battlefield is nice and simple, combining only with creatures with lesser CMC is also a fine idea (although it's a bit irrelevant on your 7 mana card). I don't like that your mechanic uses the word combine because that just introduces a new term next to the keyword. Just call it amalgamate instead of combine to make it more coherent. The last and biggest issue I have, though, is that Grusilda is an un-set card which is in an un-set for a reason. I'm not a hundred percent sure about the technicalities but combining creatures is probably way more packed with rules baggage than you might think. What happens, for instance if the creature gets returned to its owner's hand? Are bot cards returned or just one? Can you even target one of the creatures individually? What if I use Journey to nowhere on a combined creature and then the journey leaves play? What if I use my Duplicant to exile a combined creature? I'm not saying that your mechanic can't work but there is a good reason why wizards has been reluctant with a combine mechanic so far. This will probably change with Ikoria but I don't expect them to just copy paste Grusilda's ability and trn it into a set mechanic.
{Tesagk} Keywording an already existing mechanic is a valid design option but I will then be a bit more picky when it comes to your execution. Unfortunately, your first card is basically a fail to me. It's not only very very weak but it also doesn't transport the concept of different color identities. A red card could easily give your creature first strike so what's the for? Your second has a memory issue in that you will probably not remember whether you paid or not to cast this two or three turns later. Your third card is fine, I guess, but uncounterability could also be red or green so it has a similar problem as your first card. Your fourth card, on the other hand, is just strange. The difference in power depending on whether you paid or not is striking and perhaps in itself problematic. Seeing that a deck that can afford to run white, black, red and green mana sources will likely also be able to run blue ones makes it even stranger. All in all, the mechanic is good, but it isn't really your mechanic, is it? That leaves me with judging your execution and that makes me wonder whether you fully understand what this ability is about in the first place.
{gateways7} Nice and simple card which has it's uses in the early and the late game. I like the link between deathtouch and destroying a creature and would like to see other cards in that vain. Your mechanic itself is simple and elegant, but maybe a bit too with its life loss. I also not particularly like the fact that it doesn't really matter which cards you amalgamate when because, unless they all have an abiliy like the card you posted, it will always just drain life.
{And the winner is...}
gateways7! With viriss coming in second place. If anyone has questions or remarks, feel free to contact me.
Thank you all for participating! |
|
|
|
Post by Tesagk on Oct 31, 2019 20:15:41 GMT
Unfortunately, your first card is basically a fail to me. It's not only very very weak but it also doesn't transport the concept of different color identities. A red card could easily give your creature first strike so what's the for? This is probably the one point I can mostly agree with you on. I also realized that potential issue, but, while commons shouldn't inherently be bad commons, I figured it wasn't such a complete waste of design space. In hindsight though, yeah, it really sort of is. Your second has a memory issue in that you will probably not remember whether you paid or not to cast this two or three turns later. This is perhaps one of the biggest things that I have a disagreement with. While we shouldn't necessarily be encouraging bad design because "WotC" has done it, I really don't see it as difficult to mark the card with some sort of counter to denote that it has the vigilance. Is it a bit out there on the design space? Sure. Is it fundamentally problematic? No. Your third card is fine, I guess, but uncounterability could also be red or green so it has a similar problem as your first card. I disagree with this a lot more than the first example. Yes, examples can be found in the other colors, but that doesn't mean adding it in as an additional bonus for using blue is somehow screwing with the color pie or otherwise wasting design space. Just because something can be done in another color doesn't mean that it has to, 100% of the time, and that adding in an additional color to do it is somehow sacrilege. Your fourth card, on the other hand, is just strange. The difference in power depending on whether you paid or not is striking and perhaps in itself problematic. Seeing that a deck that can afford to run white, black, red and green mana sources will likely also be able to run blue ones makes it even stranger. I feel like you're using strange with a negative connotation here, and I'm not sure why. Cards can be strange in many different ways and, while I agree that this one is strange, I again don't see how it's out-of-place. All in all, the mechanic is good, but it isn't really your mechanic, is it? That leaves me with judging your execution and that makes me wonder whether you fully understand what this ability is about in the first place. This is what got me to do the full on point-by-point reply though. You really shouldn't make such inferences based off of your own opinions. Could I have made better choices for the use of the mechanic? Absolutely. I won't lie, this one was a rushed drop off at the end when I realized I had completely forgotten to do an entry. With a bit more time I would likely have had more interesting entries (I will, in fact, re-work these just to show that.) So please don't insinuate that I don't understand the mechanic I chose to represent. I executed poorly? Sure. But it doesn't stem from lack of understanding. |
|
|
|
Post by Tesagk on Nov 1, 2019 13:18:18 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by ameisenmeister on Nov 2, 2019 11:25:17 GMT
Your second has a memory issue in that you will probably not remember whether you paid or not to cast this two or three turns later. This is perhaps one of the biggest things that I have a disagreement with. While we shouldn't necessarily be encouraging bad design because "WotC" has done it, I really don't see it as difficult to mark the card with some sort of counter to denote that it has the vigilance. Is it a bit out there on the design space? Sure. Is it fundamentally problematic? No. Your fourth card, on the other hand, is just strange. The difference in power depending on whether you paid or not is striking and perhaps in itself problematic. Seeing that a deck that can afford to run white, black, red and green mana sources will likely also be able to run blue ones makes it even stranger. I feel like you're using strange with a negative connotation here, and I'm not sure why. Cards can be strange in many different ways and, while I agree that this one is strange, I again don't see how it's out-of-place. All in all, the mechanic is good, but it isn't really your mechanic, is it? That leaves me with judging your execution and that makes me wonder whether you fully understand what this ability is about in the first place. This is what got me to do the full on point-by-point reply though. You really shouldn't make such inferences based off of your own opinions. Could I have made better choices for the use of the mechanic? Absolutely. I won't lie, this one was a rushed drop off at the end when I realized I had completely forgotten to do an entry. With a bit more time I would likely have had more interesting entries (I will, in fact, re-work these just to show that.) So please don't insinuate that I don't understand the mechanic I chose to represent. I executed poorly? Sure. But it doesn't stem from lack of understanding. 1. The memory issue is a serious thing that would stop this card from ever becoming "real". You are right that you could use some kind of counter, preferably a +1/+1 counter like [url=https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?name=+[volver]] [/url]volvers had and you'd be fine.[/div]
3. When judging, I can only talk about the things I see. I can hardly know whether you just did a rushed drop off at the end or whether you wrecked your mind about it seven days through. As for your understanding of the mechanic: the mechanic you are referencing is to my understanding made for limited. It carefully pushes you to playing multiple colors without bein too restrictive. You could, for example, play Seed Spark in your Boros limited deck and it would be an okay card, but if you happen to play Selesnya or can afford to splash green, the card turns to be much better. Mechanics like these are typical stuff for limited and therefore do not appear on higher rarities than uncommon. You, however, used it on a rare, which gave me the assumption that you did not fully understand what the mechanic was made for. So let's sum it up. What I saw was a mechanic that already existed used on cards that had some (sometimes serious) flaws. I feel my judging was adequate and I honestly believe that you can relate to my criticism because in your reworked cards (which are great btw except for the fourth one) you adressed all my points in your design. |
|
|
|
Post by Tesagk on Nov 4, 2019 15:39:38 GMT
3. When judging, I can only talk about the things I see. I can hardly know whether you just did a rushed drop off at the end or whether you wrecked your mind about it seven days through. And this is precisely why generalized statements about whether someone understands something or not just end up making things personal and causing that person to be defensive than acting as constructive criticism. You literally could have said almost everything you said without that line and it would have come off completely different than it did with that little unnecessary remark snuck in. |
|
|
|
Post by ameisenmeister on Nov 12, 2019 18:40:15 GMT
|
|
