For Challenge # 031. These are awesome. I think they'd need to be ruled to only pay off if destroyed via damage, as otherwise this makes a simple Rootgrapple a bit too good.

Would it be possible for the planeswalker frame to be moved to the frames dropdown ? or possibly just code it to activate for either Planeswalker OR boss?

Also with regards to defeating a boss, that could be covered in the rules rather than on card - much like attacking/assigning damage to a planeswalker. Rules could say something like - a Boss is only defeated when its last loyalty? counter is removed due to damage???

On defeat: Yeah, that's what I was assuming. I don't think the card needs to spell out the rules any more than planeswalker cards do.

On frames: Yeah, that's a reasonable idea. There wasn't much call for it at first, but between these bosses and JackV's loyalty lands, I ought to get around to it.

The planeswalker frame has most in common with the token frame, actually, and perhaps I ought to allow that on cards that don't have the token rarity too.

Forget Rootgrapple, just play 2 of these in a row. to draw 14 cards should be in line with mythic, right?

On the planeswalker frame: I know I've chosen not to make a card use loyalty because I would need to add the word 'Planeswalker' to do it. There's probably a lot more misses than just Jack and Bosses. As it is, many non-Magic designs that I've been working on (that aren't public yet) would like the Planeswalker frame...

This is a hell of a cool idea!

But for wording purposes, this should probably read "When this card is put into a graveyard from play".

Don't get me wrong, I love the flavor of the wording but Magic doesn't currently use it.

Well, Magic isn't currently using Bosses either. There are three reasons for using "defeated" instead of "put into a graveyard from play".
1) As you mentioned, it's better for flavor purposes.
2) It's shorter. As you can see, the space on the card is already quite limited.
3) Lastly, the most important reason is that the two wordings are (theoretically, since one of them isn't actually in Magic) not the same thing. As mentioned earlier, if Bosses really existed in Magic the rules would be set up so that they are only "defeated" when they are put into the graveyard through damage. Otherwise, they become too powerful with anything that says "Destroy target permanent."

I still think you've got a dilemma using that language. In order:

1) Neat but you don't want flavor to trump usability. Nobody knows what 'defeated' is, just by reading the card. Which leads to:

2) That means you now have to add reminder text so people understand what that means. There are suddenly special rules in place. So you can either use game language or you can eat up space with reminder text AND complexity that is unnecessary.

3) Planeswalkers are already an issue in the game--it's just barely learning how to compensate for them. The items that say 'Destroy Target Permanent' generally start around 3 but if you feel it's too problematic then costing it appropriately is certainly the challenge with this.

As a sub-set of this, if this card can ONLY be handled with creatures then that excludes every player who wants to build a deck that doesn't use creatures. This is is a pretty big problem, because what does that deck do, in terms of sideboard options? Are you wanting to alienate a group of players just for flavor?

I do like the idea behind it but I think if you go this route then you may be creating more problems than you're solving.

That all makes sense, but we're talking about a new card type here. When Planeswalkers were first rolled out, they didn't bother with reminder text, Wizards just made the cards so alien looking that you had to either ask about the rules on Planeswalkers, or look them up your self. There wasn't even a 'saturation point of cards that have the mechanic' with Planeswalkers. 5 were rolled out in Lorwyn, and we didn't see new ones until Shards Block.

I think defeated makes sense when using these cards, because, yeah, you don't want Rootgrapple spontaneously giving you mad props for beating bosses that deserve to be beat the right way. The real thing that needs to be done here is remove the reminder text. Bosses can't possibly hold all the reminder text needed to run them the right way, so we shouldn't tease people with the idea that "all you need to do to figure this card out is spelled out on the card". It should be impossible to figure out simply by looking at the card, and force people to find a rulebook.

I think there's two overlapping questions here.

1. Do we need to put "can only be destroyed by damage" or "if it's destroyed by damage" on the card? If there are anything like planeswalkers, I think there literally isn't room (if there's room on the same line, then ok, there's no problem). Then the only option is that that is in the comprehensive rules, and you just have to know -- I think that's OK for mythics. In fact, I think bosses are a really cool idea, but there's a couple of things like this (in both templating and play) that I think mean they would need a redesign. But in a design challenge about exploring new ideas, I think it's fine to play with an idea that's 90% good, even if it would need to be seriously reworked before it could be printed for real.

2. Should it say "defeated" or "put into the graveyard from play"? I think Bombshell is right that it matters whether people will know what it means just from reading the card, but I think people WILL know what it means just from reading the card. I think "defeated" is MORE obvious than "put into the graveyard from play" :)

@jmgariepy: "It should be impossible to figure out simply by looking at the card, and force people to find a rulebook."

I'd bet that WotC would rarely agree with that statement, especially given the amount of effort they've gone through to put reminder text and other hints to help new players out. Not saying it should never be done but 'checking the rulebook' is not a fun game.

On top of this, Planeswalkers are still a permanent and can be affected like one. Plus, they take damage from any source, just like a player. Explaining this to players was fairly clear because they followed the basic principles of the game.

I still don't know how one "defeats" this card and it's more confusing because this is a Planeswalker. Except it's a PW that doesn't follow the rules for that type? This would be a first, to my knowledge; supertypes that don't behave like supertypes-a Land that you cast as a spell, say.

So now you're talking about a totally new type of card altogether: doable but now you have to introduce a wholly new rule set for it and the potential rules issues are considerable-not to mention needlessly limiting, in my opinion, if creatures are the only answer to it. You're forcing people into a playstyle, thus alienating a segment of your audience and I don't see a need for that.

Also, why don't you want Rootgrapple giving you mad props for beating this? If I can cast a Rootgrapple through the impediment that this card provides, why shouldn't I reap the benefits? Nobody cares if you beat an opponent through life loss or milling, right? Why should there be that kind of clause here?

I realize there are a lot of questions there and I'm not asking them ferociously. I just think that the game is incredibly complicated and so the stuff that can be done to keep the rules straightforward should be done that way.

Which is where I'd respond to Jack V's point: Yes, defeated is more obvious but it's not gamespeak. There's a common "Magic" language that exists and we're able to handle what is a very, very complex system because we are using the same language. They don't use 'Buried' anymore, even though it's pretty straightforward and shorter than 'destroyed and cannot be regenerated', because it was clashing with the other game language (destroyed, in this case) and confusing players.

If you just decide to change things because it's cool, you're going to confuse more people who might be excited by and love your idea otherwise. Templating matters for precisely this reason: to convey complicated information in a clear manner so mechanics can get out of the way and people can play the game.

@Bombshell: Ah... I see where some of the mix-up is. This isn't a Planeswalker, despite the fact that it has 'Planeswalker' in its type. Camruth only put that there because it was the only way to get the Planeswalker frame to appear in Multiverse.

So, in theory, this card would have a very different frame, and though it would use some Planeswalker tech, it would be obvious from looking at it that it was different from all the other cards you've seen before, and therefore, you would need to do a bit of independent research to figure out what the card does.

"'checking the rulebook' is not a fun game." Absolutely. I would rarely suggest that as an answer. However, when the change in gameplay is so fundamental, forcing the player to consult a rulebook or a person who knows the rules is better than forcing the card to bend to the current rules system.

"Planeswalkers... Explaining this to players was fairly clear because they follow the basic principles of the game." Actually, no. I follow your arguments Bombshell, and agree with you on many points, but Planeswalkers are not intuitive. They don't follow the basic nature of the game. They are permanents that can be attacked, can have damage redirected to and gain or lose counters because of it. They have activated abilities without colons, leave the battlefield when they have no counters and can only be activated once per turn at sorcery speed. If all that feels like an intuitive extension of the game, that's because of hindsight playing nasty games. When Planeswalkers first came out, I met two separate people who ripped them up and threw them in the trash... they thought they were just some crazy card thrown in the pack for flavor reasons... like an MVP card, but for in-story Planeswalkers.

As for Rootgrapple, I figure that's a matter of taste. I like 'defeated' because it's harder to achieve, and, because it is harder to achieve, the rewards can be much greater. If a player had an out like "If you destroy this with Vindicate, you get a reward" How big a reward could you legitimately put on that card? Because, with 'defeated', you could make the reward something like "Deal 50 damage to target player". That could be cool and exciting, but would only be fair on a Boss that was really, really difficult to beat.

"Yes, defeated is more obvious but it's not gamespeak."

Yeah, but I still disagree. I'm NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT saying "I hate simplicity and clarity and we should use fancy complicated words". I think people massively overuse new terminology and ALMOST ALWAYS it's a mistake, and it should be clear, not clever.

I'm saying IN THIS SPECIFIC AND UNUSUAL SITUATION I think the word "defeated" is equally or more clear than spelling out "when this card is put into the graveyard", especially on a mythic rare.

That is, I think if you take ten beginner magic players -- ones who know the current permanent types, and told them what a boss was, and asked them if they knew what defeated meant, I would guess they would all say "Um, dealt damage until it's dead?" or something, which isn't very precise but shows they understand what the card is supposed to do. I think you'd probably have a higher hit rate than asking about some existing magic terminology.

My apologies for the confusing requirement to have type "Planeswalker" in order to get the loyalty frame. The current edit I'm working on will remove this requirement (and similarly separate the token frame from the token rarity). Loyalty lands and Bosses can finally display the way they're meant to.