jverse
3/3 Beast
Posts: 195
Favorite Card: Animar, Soul of Elements
Favorite Set: Shadowmoor
Color Alignment: Blue, Red, Green
|
Post by jverse on Mar 30, 2019 8:37:17 GMT
Hello. I'm new here, but I really need some help ironing out a mechanic I'm building into two sets in the same block. Both are nearly completed, and I'm happy with my other mechanics, but I can't quite get this one right. I want to include creatures with a Mount ability that boosts both the mounted creature and the mount itself. +1/+1 counters are a big theme in my sets, so I want to keep them involved somehow. I started with something similar to Bestow, but they aren't enchantments and it felt strange and complicated. Then I moved on to something very similar to Soulbond, which is where it's at now. Still, it's very wordy, and in my playtesting, not usually worth it to play the creatures' Mount ability. Here is the current text: Mount <cost> - Pair this creature with another creature you control that isn't mounted. Put a +1/+1 counter on both creatures and they gain haste and become mounted for as long as you control both of them. Whenever one of those creatures attacks or blocks, the other must attack or block the same target if able. I'm open to any and all modifications as long as it provides the same flavor. Even a temporary or single-turn effect is fine. Attachment DeletedAttachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by Jéské Couriano on Mar 30, 2019 18:37:46 GMT
Verbiage is an issue. As a general rule, anything that's at least 6-7 lines in the text box by itself after shrinkage is not viable except on (French) vanilla creatures. This is 8, and that assumes that the cost is a single mana circle.
Even if you were to drop the +1/+1 counter - there are more fitting places to stick them in and it makes no real flavour sense - it's still 7 lines by itself.
|
|
jverse
3/3 Beast
Posts: 195
Favorite Card: Animar, Soul of Elements
Favorite Set: Shadowmoor
Color Alignment: Blue, Red, Green
|
Post by jverse on Mar 30, 2019 21:37:29 GMT
Well the idea is that a mounted creature and the creature riding it are more powerful than either would be on their own. A horse or a guy with a spear aren't that scary, but together they are pretty powerful. Anyways, I agree about the length and the complexity.
Here are some alternatives:
Option A. Mount <cost> - Put <cost> +1/+1 counters on it and it becomes mounted. When this creature dies, put a */* human creature token onto the battlefield for each +1/+1 counter on it.
This is pretty much monstrous, which works thematically with my set since there are "mount" and "mounted" interactions, plus the idea is that a mount can die and leave behind the rider. This also eliminates the headaches associated with combining or fusing two creatures together.
Option B. Mount <cost> - You may play this creature for its mount cost. If you do, it enters the battlefield mounted with haste and an additional +1/+1 counter on it.
The simplest solution I can think of. It's more powerful if you pay more, is a single entity, and still gets a worthwhile boost.
Option C. Mount <cost> - Exile another target creature you control. Put X +1/+1 counters on this creature and it becomes mounted, where X is the exiled creature's power. When this creature dies, return the exiled card to the battlefield tapped.
Fuses two creatures together without keeping them both in play. There are some exile mechanics in my set as well, which would make this one a little strange to implement, but it works.
Any thoughts on opinions on the above would be greatly helpful. I may end up playtesting all three to see which feels right, but getting more eyes involved always helps. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by Jéské Couriano on Mar 31, 2019 2:02:59 GMT
Literally any iteration that includes +1/+1 counters and combines creatures soulbond-wise fails fluff-wise. It makes no sense for a mounted warrior to retain what strength he has should his mount die, and vice-versa.
+1/+1 while mounted is fine. +1/+1 counters are not.
Option A needs a reword:
The way you had it written, it turned the Mount creature into an ambiguous clown car. This is 6 lines.
Option B needs a reword:
This is the simplest and most feasible one. This is 4 lines unshrunk, which is good.
Option C's wording is fine - but it's 7 lines in the text box.
|
|
jverse
3/3 Beast
Posts: 195
Favorite Card: Animar, Soul of Elements
Favorite Set: Shadowmoor
Color Alignment: Blue, Red, Green
|
Post by jverse on Mar 31, 2019 5:19:07 GMT
The wording wasn't meant to be finalized, but thanks for checking it. I think I'm leaning towards B as well. Thanks for the input. I agree that it doesn't make sense for counters to stick around after one of the creatures dies, but I wanted the mounted effect to be persistent as long as the creature had a "rider", and counters were the only way I could think of to track that easily. I'll give it a try i practice and see what happens. Thanks again.
|
|
|
Post by Jéské Couriano on Mar 31, 2019 7:26:05 GMT
[...]I wanted the mounted effect to be persistent as long as the creature had a "rider", and counters were the only way I could think of to track that easily.[...] To be perfectly fair, Soulbond and any ability that functions like it has memory issues from the word go (remembering which creatures are bound to which), but you don't need to use counters for this. You could have just made it so both creatures got +1/+1 as long as they were mounted.
And nine times out of ten, clarifying the RT's wording also makes its text more concise.
|
|
|
Post by davejoria on Mar 31, 2019 14:26:01 GMT
Mount <cost> - Pair this creature with another creature you control that isn't mounted. Put a +1/+1 counter on both creatures and they gain haste and become mounted for as long as you control both of them. Whenever one of those creatures attacks or blocks, the other must attack or block the same target if able. 1st. The problem with the "counters" is that it causes an interesting situation where you would want to hop on and off your mount as frequently as possible to stack up the counters. Thus, I'd recommend that the "mount" mechanic doesn't grant +1/+1 counters by default (however, you could have a few specific mounts that DO grant +1/+1s as part of their ability.) Bear Mount - - Bear - 2/2 - Mount - As long as CARDNAME is mounted by another creature, both creatures have "Whenever this creature attacks, put a +1/+1 counter on it." ~~~ 2nd. I would ignore the "block the same target" rule. Why? Because if you have a trained warhorse, they might be able to fight attacker X while you shoot an arrow at attacker B. Rather, "whenever one of them attacks or blocks, the other must attack or block too if able." So, that trims the text a little. (The verbiage would mean it's possible for a rider to attack a player and the mount to attack a planeswalker, but whatever). ~~~~~ 3rd. Not sure why they BOTH gain haste. Thematically, if I am weary and a I have fresh horse, I could ride the horse. However, if the horse is weary, I don't see why getting a rider will make it not weary. So, I'd have the RIDER gain haste but not the mount. ~~~ 4th. To prevent instant-speed shenanigans, it might be easier if you have it only work at sorcery speed. To compile all of those together: Mount <cost> - Pair this creature with another creature you control that isn't mounted; that creature gains haste. They both become mounted for as long as you control both of them. Whenever one of those creatures attacks or blocks, the other must attack or block if able. Use this ability only as a sorcery. ~~~~~~~~~ LAST option, which is a bit out there: You make "mount" a new type, like equipment. Mount <cost> - This creature stops being a creature. Attach to target creature you control; that creature gains haste until end of turn. If unattached, cardname becomes a creature again. Mount only as a sorcery. Thus, War Dromedary would read: War Dromedary - - Creature Camel - 3/2 - Mount (This creature stops being a creature. Attach to target creature you control; that creature gains haste until end of turn. If unattached, cardname becomes a creature again. Mount only as a sorcery.) If CARDNAME is attached to a creature, the mounted creature gains Lifelink. (Alternatively, you could have the "haste" be included with every mount, just to avoid confusion:) War Dromedary - - Creature Camel - 3/2 - Mount (This creature stops being a creature. Attach to target creature you control. If unattached, cardname becomes a creature again. Mount only as a sorcery.)- If CARDNAME is attached to a creature, the mounted creature gains haste and Lifelink. Why this is useful: it would let non-artifact colors like Green enjoy some of strength / fun of equipments, while still getting triggers for casting creatures. EDIT: On retrospect, a straight "creature" that loses the type "creature" would be type "___". So, probably would only work if you gave them a second type, like "artifact" or "enchantment."
|
|
|
Post by Jéské Couriano on Mar 31, 2019 21:57:27 GMT
LAST option, which is a bit out there: You make "mount" a new type, like equipment. Mount <cost> - This creature stops being a creature. Attach to target creature you control; that creature gains haste until end of turn. If unattached, cardname becomes a creature again. Mount only as a sorcery. Licids were not well-liked because they were confusing as hell. This is basically licidifcation.
|
|
|
Post by davejoria on Apr 1, 2019 1:06:02 GMT
A fair point. However: 1. You could also argue that "bestow" was as equally licid-like in some ways. 2. Licids have other reasons why they were messy. The "tap" condition meant they moved slowly, but also worked at instant speed (ex. I block with my licid and activate it, so it's not a creature anymore). It's the worst of both worlds. You'll note a lot of mechanics these days do the opposite: you can activate it on turn 1, but not as an instant, making mental math for your opponents much easier. 3. Licids and auras share a common complaint, in that they are negative card advantage. Unless you have the right mana to "turn off" a licid, you're losing two cards for one. 4. Equipment was created as a way around this card disadvantage; Mount-as-equipment would likewise avoid this problem, and thus, one more reason to avoid the licid 5. MtG player knowledge is cumulative. Equipments built on the "attach" tech of auras. Players now have more experience of creatures that stop/start becoming creatures (ex. Enchantment Gods; vehicles); and even Creatures that are auras and then become creatures. By building on the scaffolding of existing terms and tech, I think players would accept a creature that acts like an Equipment. Note: Much as I LOVE "Enchantment creatures," I feel mounts that worked like equipments would be best as "artifact creatures." It would connect the player even closer to, "this animal becomes an equipment." It could even say that in the rules: Warding Ram - - Artifact Creature Sheep - 0/3 - Vigilance. Mount (This creature stops being a creature and becomes an equipment. Attach to target creature you control. If unattached, cardname becomes a creature again. Mount only as a sorcery.)- If CARDNAME is attached to a creature, the mounted creature gains haste, vigilance, and +0/+3. (Based on Accorder's / Cathar's shield)
|
|
jverse
3/3 Beast
Posts: 195
Favorite Card: Animar, Soul of Elements
Favorite Set: Shadowmoor
Color Alignment: Blue, Red, Green
|
Post by jverse on Apr 1, 2019 4:07:00 GMT
I tried the equipment thing originally. It just didn't make sense to make them anything other than a creature. I agree on your assessment of haste as well. The rider should be granted haste but not the mount itself. I also played around with the idea of making Mount a creature type, which was great for card interactions, but bizarre and confusing as hell when Mount creatures had mount as an ability. I could never come up with a better keyword to replace it, so I ditched the creature type idea.
|
|
|
Post by davejoria on Apr 1, 2019 22:17:35 GMT
Yeah, that could be tricky.
If you were to use "mount" as a type, some synonyms for the mechanic:
(from rider's pov) Saddle; Ride; Bestride; Sally Forth (or from, mount's) Carry; Convey; Bear*
*Bear probably won't work, but you could have a bear bear a bear.
|
|