|
Post by mrlozano on Feb 13, 2019 21:18:29 GMT
Hi guys! I've been working on a set inspired on a world ruled by marchants and commerce. I have shifted the main mechanic, the Merchant creature type a few time now and around last week I found a way to represent trading in a satisfactory way. After this, I have been trying to make cards that care about your opponent choosing one ore the other options, but I haven't been able to come up with an usable wording. Something like "If an opponent accepted a choice this turn <effect>". Has anyone an idea on how to word this? I would really appreciate any feedback!
|
|
|
Post by cajun on Feb 13, 2019 21:57:18 GMT
You're going to want to use something like Forecast.
Offer--2U, T: Target opponent may draw a card. If they accept, draw two cards. Otherwise, scry 1.
|
|
|
Post by voltaic-qui on Feb 14, 2019 2:50:26 GMT
So, IMO, this should always be "target opponent may draw a card," and the other two cards illustrate the folly of doing otherwise.
- With Merchant 2, if your opponent gains 3, you can just dome them for 4, so the result is very likely to be identical unless it's good for you. More relevantly - repeated lifegain can make games drag a very long time, ESPECIALLY if you're in a format with lots of creatures with tap abilities. (This is why Soulmender-type creatures are always deliberately gimped.) - With Merchant 3, your opponent may not be able to take the offer of sacrificing the creature - in which case, it's not really an offer at all. I also am concerned about the offer you make allowing your opponent to change their boardstate.
Every color gets cantrips, so color pie's not a problem here (especially given you're not the one drawing the cards).
|
|
|
Post by mrlozano on Feb 14, 2019 22:29:14 GMT
So, IMO, this should always be "target opponent may draw a card," and the other two cards illustrate the folly of doing otherwise. - With Merchant 2, if your opponent gains 3, you can just dome them for 4, so the result is very likely to be identical unless it's good for you. More relevantly - repeated lifegain can make games drag a very long time, ESPECIALLY if you're in a format with lots of creatures with tap abilities. (This is why Soulmender-type creatures are always deliberately gimped.) - With Merchant 3, your opponent may not be able to take the offer of sacrificing the creature - in which case, it's not really an offer at all. I also am concerned about the offer you make allowing your opponent to change their boardstate. Every color gets cantrips, so color pie's not a problem here (especially given you're not the one drawing the cards). Well, the example cards were just that, examples of how the mechanic would work. I get the point with the lifegain one but in the black one, it can be flavored as some kind of mafia, "an offer you can't deny". Anyway, thanks for you time! You're going to want to use something like Forecast. Offer--2U, T: Target opponent may draw a card. If they accept, draw two cards. Otherwise, scry 1. This is simply wonderful, it's what I was looking for. It solves my point, being usable in things like "Ifan opponent accepted an offer this turn <effect>. In fact it opens a lot of desing space and its very simple. Thank you for the help!
|
|
|
Post by kefke on Feb 15, 2019 0:17:31 GMT
In my opinion, having a built-in punishment for not accepting is bad flavour. At that point, it's not an offer, it's a shakedown. I can understand the desire to get something back even if the opponent won't play ball, but having it be something bad for the opponent doesn't feel like a very "merchant" option. That's the sort of offer better suited to demons, corrupt officials, and the like. Another good place for negative effects is on enchantments, which can be framed as setting laws and regulations. When it comes to the merchants themselves, though, I'd say that the most common effect you'd want to see is undoing the cost paid in some way; such as untapping lands (getting the mana paid back), creating Gold tokens (as though someone else bought what they wouldn't), or even letting you choose a new target you haven't selected yet if the set will be focused on matches with more players in it. That last could even technically be applied to the mechanic in general, with the option to offer as many people as you like until either someone takes the deal, or you get the alternative payment.
|
|
|
Post by ameisenmeister on Feb 21, 2019 12:11:46 GMT
I agree with kefke and his argument that it feels less than making deals but more like a coercion. On the other hand, making always does do flavor stretches and I'm not sure that this one here is too far off.
However, from a gameplay perspective, having a mechanic like this is problematic because it is basically best when your opponent doesn't know what they're doing. If you take your first card, for instance, if your opponent is smart enough not to be tempted by the card draw they will just give you a scry 1 for . Not a good deal. Your second card is even worse then. They can just deny the life gain for three times and then, if they really need it, gain their life right back. This isn't really a question of power level but an intrinsic problem with these kinds of effects. Browbeat is a fun card because it presents two equally bad choices for your opponent, but having this all over again every turn can be a bit dull. You understand my position?
|
|
|
Post by mrlozano on Feb 21, 2019 17:48:28 GMT
In my opinion, having a built-in punishment for not accepting is bad flavour. At that point, it's not an offer, it's a shakedown. I can understand the desire to get something back even if the opponent won't play ball, but having it be something bad for the opponent doesn't feel like a very "merchant" option. That's the sort of offer better suited to demons, corrupt officials, and the like. Another good place for negative effects is on enchantments, which can be framed as setting laws and regulations. When it comes to the merchants themselves, though, I'd say that the most common effect you'd want to see is undoing the cost paid in some way; such as untapping lands (getting the mana paid back), creating Gold tokens (as though someone else bought what they wouldn't), or even letting you choose a new target you haven't selected yet if the set will be focused on matches with more players in it. That last could even technically be applied to the mechanic in general, with the option to offer as many people as you like until either someone takes the deal, or you get the alternative payment. Wow, my brain ignored this, sorry. I get the point on the black merchant, but I think the mechanic doesn't have enough desing space if all the time the "good" option is just drawing cards. On the second regard I like the untapping lands point (or just adding mana). I hope you don't mind if I use it, in the case I use this incarnation of the mechanic. I agree with kefke and his argument that it feels less than making deals but more like a coercion. On the other hand, making always does do flavor stretches and I'm not sure that this one here is too far off. However, from a gameplay perspective, having a mechanic like this is problematic because it is basically best when your opponent doesn't know what they're doing. If you take your first card, for instance, if your opponent is smart enough not to be tempted by the card draw they will just give you a scry 1 for . Not a good deal. Your second card is even worse then. They can just deny the life gain for three times and then, if they really need it, gain their life right back. This isn't really a question of power level but an intrinsic problem with these kinds of effects. Browbeat is a fun card because it presents two equally bad choices for your opponent, but having this all over again every turn can be a bit dull. You understand my position? I see your point and I will think about it. I might end up changing the mechanic completely if it doesn't work well. Anyways, thank you for your feedback!
|
|