Multiverse Design Challenge: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity
All challenges | Upcoming Challenges | Make a new design challenge! | All challenges (text)

CardName: Challenge # 031 Cost: Type: Challenge Pow/Tgh: / Rules Text: The current (real) Magic card types are instant, sorcery, creature, land, enchantment, artifact, and planeswalker. Wizards likes to include Tribal, but let's face it, it's not really a type like the others. Design a new card type. Flavour Text: Set/Rarity: Multiverse Design Challenge Common

Challenge # 031
 
 C 
Challenge
The current (real) Magic card types are instant, sorcery, creature, land, enchantment, artifact, and planeswalker. Wizards likes to include Tribal, but let's face it, it's not really a type like the others. Design a new card type.
Updated on 11 Jun 2017 by Link

History: [-]

2012-02-29 16:05:46: Link created the card Challenge # 031

Interrupt!

Schemes are a bit like a third kind of non-permanent card type.

Yeah, but they aren't used in a normal game of Magic... I thought this challenge was a good idea, but maybe it isn't.

So, essentially, the design space here is either for a one-shot effect which isn't sorcery or instant (I don't think this exists or would be made) or a permanent effect not on the battlefield (in the vein of Emblems/Planes/Schemes)

I can't remember if we've had a challenge where you make your own Planechase/Archenemy variant - if not, you should make this that, I think.

If not, I have 1 idea.

I'll take the obvious approach of Fickle Fog.

I'll also suggest Silver Bullets

And, I guess, I should protest and demand the return of interrupts.

I'm going to broaden this to include any card types.

2012-02-29 20:46:57: Link edited Challenge # 031

I'm... actually having a hard time coming up with a new permanent type. Thinking aloud:

Mechanically we've got creatures, which have P/T, and other stuff that doesn't. Some of that otherstuff is land, which is limited to one drop a turn, and has no other cost; some of it attaches and some of it is just itself. And then there's some crossover. I guess maybe a creature type with no cost but a one-a-turn limit? Equivalent to {1}{?} cost critters, I'd guess.

From a theme standpoint; (semi) permanent magical creations that aren't already covered? Talismans? Magic already called those artifacts. Charms? Are already here. Potions maybe? Familiars?

Combining these, I get the type 'Familiar', and an example in Emerald Snake.

Sorry, Vitenka- those aren't new card types, they're subtypes. :)

As written yes, but that's just to make them kinda work without adding loads of comprules to do what the reminder text says to do :) Familiar is done as a full type.

Actually, it's a good point' unless you're going to do something really different to the game; you'd be best off using subtypes rather than making a whole new type.

Yeah, personally I think this challenge might be a little hard. After all, it was like 15 years before Plansewalkers showed up, and in that time they dropped interrupt, so they actually removed card types before adding a truly new type (kinda not counting the removal of Enchant Creature as well...)

People! Don't complain about the challenge, rise to it! I admit, Link, that's a heck of a doozy, but we've dealt with harder. Adding Tombs of Arbintok and thinking of another.

I think we're unlikely to suggest anything that really should be a new permanent type, but I think it's very interesting to try :)

For now, Planar Boots and Fury Grounds.

ETA: OK, if jmg and I both designed almost the same concept for Battlefield, maybe there's something in it (at least, an appealing idea, even if it wouldn't work as a major part of the game)! :)

I've also designed some cards previously that could be a new permanent type.

­Island Turtle, which is concepted as a creature so big creatures can attack it.
Loyalty Lands from Gentlemen Magicians, which use the loyalty mechanic, but are otherwise not as mythic as planeswalkers.
­Desolation which is a bit silly, but for maximum "wow" factor I didn't give a permanent type to at all :)

Also added Allegiance Transferal Cannonade, and, since it didn't make much sense without another card kicking about, I added Dizzying Drake.

Created Whims of War and Overwhelming Forces as explorations of the Strategy card type.

Since no one quite picked up on this one in first pass, I figured it was fair game to add one more to the pile.

­But I'm the Victim Here!

I had a lot of trouble with this but I made The Silent Growth

Terrain, another variant on cards representing locations. I took the theory that for a new card type to matter, it had to be relevant to creature combat, and try to feel different to artifacts/enchantments.

­Inconvenient Marsh, Battlefield Feint, Observation Point, Choke Point, Hidden Tunnel.

Wow, very nice. Those really do feel like a different card type, very straightforward rules-wise but really interesting gameplay implications. Masses of design space, enough that I could see it becoming an evergreen part of the game. Fantastic job.

I made Decrees, which are basically cards that change the rules of the game slightly and can't be interacted with. And yes, Decree of Lawlessness is an oxymoron.
­Decree of Honor, ­Decree of Knowledge, ­Decree of Ruthlessness, ­Decree of Lawlessness, ­Decree of Nature

More comparisons to make, this time, it's terrains and decrees and the subject of interplay between players.

I'd have a hard time imagining decrees becoming a major aspect of the game. I definately think they are printable, but would you print 50 of them over two years, say? It's dangerous water, because any one decree could be the reason why someone refuses to play Magic any more... they don't feel like they're interacting with their opponent. That being said, I could be wrong. Heaven knows that emblems keep getting proposed, and it might just be a matter of time.

On terrains: These are excellent. But if you were the designer and I was the developer and we both worked in RnD, I'd hand them back to you and say "Great! Now make them so your opponent rarely benefits from having them on the table." While terrains are the kind of card that Timmy drools over, it's the sort of thing that Spike rips to pieces and throws in the convention center dumpster. Terrains have the potential of seeing real play, and popping up in every set. I think it would be shooting the mechanic in the foot, and hindering future design, if you let both players use it, though. Imagine the ramifications if, in alpha, artifacts could always be used by both players.

Yeah... That was one of my concerns about my card type, and I tried to minimize the non-interactivity issue by making all of them symmetrical and trying to make them change the nature of the interaction between the players rather than reduce interaction. (Except for Decree of Nature, which prevents spells from being countered, but I put that at 6 CMC.) My other concern is: Would anyone actually want to play these? ­
­
By the way, in my opinion, I don't think there's anything wrong with Terrains being able to benefit the opponent. I think the card type works quite nicely as a symmetrical effect, and there's nothing wrong with printing a few cards Spike doesn't like. Besides, one could easily make a Spike-friendly Terrain by designing one that strongly benefits a specific type of strategy. Just because Wrath of God, Balance, Exhume and Hypergenesis are symmetrical doesn't make them non-Spike cards.

Oh, I have no qualms with printing cards that Spike doesn't like. My issue has more to do with the fact that there's less design space in cards that everyone can use than in cards that only one person can use. Cards that everyone can use automatically need two parts to make them work: Part 1 - Good for me, and Part 2 - Not as good for my opponent as it is for me. That may make some excellent design, but, if you were going to make terrain a new addition to the game, you'd aim to have terrains be capable of doing the simplest thing that they can do while still maintaining flavor, and to do that, I think you need to eliminate part 2 (your mileage may vary).

That being said, I don't think Spike likes Wrath of God. Oh, sure he likes Wrath of God because it's a powerful spell that X-for-1s, giving him card advantage. And he likes deciding when the best time to employ Wrath of God would be. But he would prefer Wrath of God said "Destroy all creatures your opponent controls", and he'd prefer to play more cards that operate like Violent Ultimatum. The fact that it destroys his creatures doesn't enamor him to the card, it just makes it costed effective enough for him to be okay with playing it. Timmy, on the other hand loves Wrath of God. It evens the playing field for everybody, and allows him to play the game longer. Timmy will play Wrath of God when there's no real reason to... he can even be winning the game, and he'll press the shiny red button, just to see all the creatures a-splode.

Or, to put it another way, if Wrath of God cost {6}{w}{w}, do you think Spike would play it? How about Timmy? Now, imagine Violent Ultimatum costing {7}{r}{r}. Do you think Spike would enjoy playing it, even at its absurd inefficient cost? How about Timmy?

Thank you! Yeah, I was very pleased when I thought of terrain.

jmg: Oh yeah, I like the idea, but I don't think the rules for terrain are anywhere near finished. I tossed some ideas around, and it seemed like some terrains wanted to be symmetrical and give a small bonus or handicap to all attacking creatures, and the fun is in how to choose creatures that go well with them. But other terrains probably want to be one-sided, and they're interesting because of what they let you do, or prevent your opponent doing.

I considered a couple of variants: maybe terrains could be played on a player? Maybe there were two sorts of terrain, obligatory and optional? Maybe terrains tended to work like that but it was specified in rules text.

I went with the simplest version, and think that's a good start, but I agree design should brainstorm a lot of possibilities and see exactly how the rules for terrain might work, before even involving development :)

PS. jmg, I agree with your general point that non-symmetric effects are often simpler, and that downsides (even symmetrical ones) are hard to balance because they have to be quite severe to be balanced even when someone is looking for the maximum abuse potential, enough they're not very fun in the usual case.

But your description of wrath of god was exactly the opposite of how I think of it. Destroying everything can be awesome, but blowing up your own stuff is normally seen as un-fun. My stereotype Timmy says "I have to killl my own creatures? Really? That sucks." but "One-sided wrath! Wow, that's going to be so powerful." Whereas my stereotype Spike says "It kills my own creatures? Cool, it's useful exactly when I need it, when I'm behind. And because there's a complex trade-off between advantage and disadvantage, it's probably aggressively costed for people who know how to use it best" but "Seven WHAT? Seven mana? OK, yeah, right. Look, if I'm going to pay seven mana, give me something that wins the game right then. Sheeesh."

I stressed casting cost because, in theory, Spike is defined by a lot of factors... but a lot of people like to focus on how Spike plays 'good' spells. That being the case, if Fact or Fiction cost {6}{u}, or Liar's Pendulum cost {3} and {3} to activate it, Spike would still like those cards. He'd hate that they cost so much, and only bust them out in casual decks that he plays against his Timmy and Johnny friends, (or lament that such a cool card is unplayable) but he'd have fun when he played them, probably making fun of himself in the process.

I do know Timmies who love Wrath of God, for what it's worth, and I know a fair share of Spikes who would swear by it. It's probably too difficult to cut it right because it doesn't really fall on the Johnny, Timmy, Spike psychographic... but on another axis tilt. In the same way that "griefer" v. "friendster" has little to do with Timmy, Johnny or Spike. Any of those 3 can be griefers (and heaven help you when you deal with the "Timmie Griefer". That guy's like a cat that keeps toying with the half-dead mouse and won't let it die). I'm probably pointing at "Crazy Timmy" and calling him Timmy, and "Straightforward Spike" and calling him Spike. I suppose I should know better than that.

Another idea: Bosses. They're like Planeswalkers, except they enter the battlefield under an opponent's control, and you get a nice reward for defeating them. ­
­Spore Fiend
­Wavemaker Leviathan ­
For the record, I know these are hilariously unprintable. But I thought it would be a fun idea anyways. I think these would be especially fun in multiplayer.

Going back to my fossil type I created in challenge 3 I made two more cards to go along with the fossil turn.

­Climate Shift Monstrous Skull. The -{r} was an idea I actually want to implement on a plane I hope to use in the future. Since that plane had a prehistoric theme I popped it onto this card to just show it (I think it'd be a failure if actually combined with fossil turns).

Added Terrain as a new card type. See Dense Undergrowth.

Rolled this as one of my Challenge # 073 challenges, and came up with the champion type, with Emmara Tandris and Mirko Vosk as examples.

Scene is a new card type. See Sarpadia for rules and prototype, and Dragon Gate set for this idea put into practice.

Scene evokes a strong sense of storytelling and Planeswalking, not only from plane to plane, but also block to block. Scene cards have subtype with the name of a plane in the multiverse. It's an excellent way to exhibit the central ideas of the plot and the planes.

Add your comments:


(formatting help)
Enter mana symbols like this: {2}{U}{U/R}{PR}, {T} becomes {2}{u}{u/r}{pr}, {t}
You can use Markdown such as _italic_, **bold**, ## headings ##
Link to [[[Official Magic card]]] or (((Card in Multiverse)))
Include [[image of official card]] or ((image or mockup of card in Multiverse))
Make hyperlinks like this: [text to show](destination url)
What is this card's power? Merfolk of the Pearl Trident
(Signed-in users don't get captchas and can edit their comments)