Soradyne Laboratories v1.2: Comments

A broader topic I've been meaning to bring up —

Is there room in the first set of a block to support both Feint and Morph?

I was thinking about how they're each rooted in concepts of subterfuge and surprise, allowing players to use their mana in creative ways and circumvent certain timing restrictions. There's a lot of exciting synergy, such that I don't doubt they belong in the same block, but I was re-reading the commentary on Jon Loucks' GDS2 submission and felt like many of the concerns expressed there could be applied here.

Appearing simultaneously alongside Evidence, the three mechanics could add up to a sum of such extreme "fiddliness" that your average player would just concede out of frustration after failing to see a line of play through a field of hidden information and graveyard triggers.

Houlding- I see where your concerns are coming from. I've read the article you posted, and yeah, it feels like Loucks was putting a TON of stuff into his design space. I counted four keywords including morph. There were a bunch of other design gimmicks (including a one-off hybrid), and as a result it did feel a bit over complicated.

Looking at SOR, I also have four key mechanics: Morph, Feint, Mindstrike, and Evidence. Going strictly on numbers, SOR is as complex as Loucks's set. I do feel though (based on admittedly small comparative pool) that SOR is a bit more constrained in the way it uses these mechanics. Three of the SOR mechanics are tied to creatures, and the fourth (Evidence) has very few new mechanical "gears" behind how it works.

I don't know. You're able to see things from the outside in a way I can't. At the same time, I really do believe that my use of these mechanics and themes is done in a way that shouldn't confuse an typical or even starting player.

This is all something that, as with most stuff, can really just sit on the back-burner until you've dug into some playtesting. But beyond the complexity concern (that I'll further elaborate on with a hypothetical scenario), I was also thinking about how modern middle sets have failed to capitalize on the strengths of the first set. Conflux, Worldwake, and Mirrodin Besieged are mediocre in many respects, each seemingly afraid of draining the well of what made the first set so enticing, demonstrating some of the most dry and unexciting mechanical concepts this side of Mercadian Masques. As such, an exercise in building on the lessons of real world mistakes might be to flesh out the Feint/Morph relationship, but then push one of them into the second set.

Now, for an example of an all-common "brain-freeze" scenario:

Player 1 has a board of — Face-down (((Unsettled Bones))), (((Coal Road Pathtracker))), and face-up (((Outraged Torchmage))) with Swamp, Swamp, Mountain, Mountain, Mountain untapped and Firebomb and Tie Up Loose Ends in hand.

Player 2 has a board of — Face-down (((Debronian Skyguard))) and a Phytomancer with Plains, Forest, Forest untapped and (((Calming Presence))), (((Draw Support))), and (((Soradyne Advocate))) in hand.

The amount of totally reasonable things that player 1 has to account for in calculating whether to attack is CRAZY, and the same goes for player 2 with blocking decisions. It's exceptionally skill-intensive, and thus very enticing to the experience player, but I can see it resulting in a lot of relatively mundane feel-bad moments for the inexperienced.

Okay, this absolutely gives me things I can address in design.

One of the game designers I work with took a look at your scenario with me. We think we have a way to significantly reduce the number of Morphers in the set without completely nerfing them as a theme. I don't want to see them go away entirely, because they illustrate intrigue, suspicion, and suspense so well, but I can see where that much hidden information will make a freshman player's head spin and possibly feel like a trap.

Right, it's a very precarious thing to balance, as Morph is one of those mechanics that depends on density in order to actually have a reason to exist. Without that particular density, there's little that's actually hidden, as people will only ever play the best Morphs that are in their colors.

And once you add Feint to the mix, where people are incentivised to bluff bad attacks in order to get their opponent to let some crappy 1/1 through, you've got this whole insane web of reactions that can be intimidating.

So after looking at a complexity consideraton from Houlding and talking it over with Bombshell and some others, I’ve decided I’ll be taking nearly all of the Morph out of Soradyne Laboratories and moving it off to the second set, “Door 47” (which will probably begin posting as Soradyne is closing in on completion.

In order to keep some element of Morph in the set — so that novice players can get acclimated to the mechanic — my plan is to create a small number of artifact creatures with “unmorph” abilities that serve more utilitarian functions than combat-based roles. This should give players a little more “surprise” in their cards without creating frustrating blocking decisions. Recall Drone is the first of those creatures, and at least two more or on the way.

While I realize you might be looking at Feint as your premier mechanic and thus more appropriate for the 1st set, I think there are few good reasons that you might want to actually have Feint pushed into the 2nd set:

1. As I mentioned above, Morph actually requires a certain density to truly function within an environment, as there needs to be that element of mystery about what is actually face-down on the table. It'll be hard to achieve that density if you're only dedicating a portion of your utility artifacts to that role. Without the element of mystery, Morphs are little more than awful transform cards.

2. Though Morph has already been explored a great deal, I think there's significantly more depth to the mechanic than Feint in terms of how you can further develop it to be unique to Soradyne. Due to Feint's precise functionality within combat and it's identity as a cost-reduction mechanism, certain avenues for alteration are shut off as they would ultimately transform it into something that isn't Feint.

3. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, I feel like the flavor of Morph can be better fit to both predominant set 1 themes pertaining to Corporate Espionage and those of mutation (as per Tarkot's Cross), whereas the introduction of Feint during set two would do a great job of accenting the shift of timeline back to the military conflict that brought about Door 47.

Actually, flavor is a pretty important reason why I want to really push Morph in set two — but that can wait for a few minutes.

Your (Houlding’s) assessment last week that combat scenarios involving both Feint and Morph may be intimidating to less experienced players is spot on. One of the two had to play a significantly diminished role in set 1. Between Feint and Morph, I’ll choose to let Feint shine for the simple reason that Soradyne Laboratories needs to feel like my set — an original creation, and not one based on a revisiting of known mechanics. Morph is great and will play to the flavor of the block perfectly, but it’s not original.

So the real challenge comes down to allowing the two mechanics to come together in a way that doesn’t overload players, but also doesn’t completely neutralize Morph.

One option is to push Morph off to set 2 entirely. It would simplify the build of SOR and give D47 plenty of fresh toys to play with. I thought about this for a few days, and was completely ready to go that way until this morning. Then I started wondering if I wasn’t just delaying the same combo-shock we talked about earlier.

So I found another option. I work with a game designer, Rob, who had suggested a set of utility Morphers similar to the Mirrodin/Scars Spellbombs. This got me thinking about simplifying the Morph-plus-Feint equation by simply making combat a near non-factor as far as the Morphers were concerned. In SOR, the Morphers are utility drone costructs used by Soradyne Laboratories to handle small tasks. To an untrained eye, they’re just dorky little non-specific work machines until they do their jobs. When you see one coming, you know they’ve probably got a job to do, but making combat scary isn’t high on their priority list.

They’re not the most exciting part of SOR this way, but that’s okay. I don't want them to be. They’ll serve a bigger purpose later.

Okay, fine. Here’s the plan:

The villain in the second set is the Reigsman Empire. They’re almost completely out of the picture now, but ten years ago they almost conquered the world. They’re an empire of faceless automatons, stripped of their individualism to serve some backwards ideological communal purpose. If we were to see them today...or in 1950...from the capitalist side of the world...we might have called them Commies. And we’d think they were all brainwashed into being an endless flood of social clones.

I’d been having trouble figuring out what their internal thematic connection was going to be, and then this Morph thing came up. It’s the answer to how to illustrate an Empire that Debronia and it’s allies just don’t understand (and by “understand”, I mean in a social philosophy context). From the outside, the allies fail to recognize any individual roles the Reigsmans might have until they’re face to face on the battlefield. And for me, that’s a pretty cool story piece to tie Morph to.

I also plan on blending one other existing mechanic into the mix (in small doses) as a throwback, which I think will help make the set feel like a flashback/origin story; you’ll recognize the mechanical players because you’ve seen them before, but the way you see them this time will change the way you see everything else. Like in a flashback.

And no, I’m not going to rehash Flashback. That’s just too literal.

So the Morpher drones Soradyne employs are literally faceless automatons. The Reigsman Morphers are perceived to be faceless automatons. And the Morphers in set 3, Terminus, are... nope, not dropping that one yet.

There’s probably more I can say, but this is already a mile long and I’m tired.

Feint is just a slight tweak on ninjitsu, though - so it isn't all that original either.

Still, it makes sense to highlight it as your chosen thing.

A note on the UtiliRune Auras: This cycle is one that I feel illustrates the "consumer goods" end of Soradyne Laboratories really well, but a large part of that comes from the ability to give them "World's Fair" type names. I actually want the names to sound a little dated and cheesy, because that's how we feel about brands from the post-war era now. "Electrolux". "Phone-O-Scope". "MagiKwik". "Toast-O-Lator". Things you'd find in your grandmother's basement. Ideally, the art for these cards would even look like the ads from that era.

If Don Draper were selling this set, how would he market the auras and equipment?

OK, that makes a bunch of sense--I'll look at those Runes with that in mind: truthfully, they're the most awkward and thus in need of fixing. Should take a couple days but I can gear something up.

Also: I have not seen Mad Men.

All other comments and notes aside, I believe the common run for SOR is done. Not locked in, but filled out.

Woot.

Free Efficiency Choppers for everyone!

Definitely the hardest part. Congrats!

I'm looking at doing a physical play testing of some dummied cards in the near future. Who's in the Seattle area?

Minor question: is it pronounced "sôr-ə-dēn" or "sôr-ə-dīn"? ("sore-a-deen" or "sore-a-dine")

I've been assuming "sɒr-ə-dīn" ("sorr-a-dine")... :)

I know that it's Soradyne, but for some reason I always read it/say it in my head as "Sornadyne." Don't ask me why.

SOR-uh-DINE.

Foehr: FAIR
Houk: HOKE
Thames: TEMS
Asaiah: A-ZAY-uh
Debronia: De-BRO-nee-uh

You don't seem to have very much control over when evidence goes off; it has little mechanical connection to the set except for when your opponent mindstrikes you. For new players, it's a little weird to think of adding the effect to all of the instants and sorceries, though I guess they'll figure it out. Your opponent's decision of whether or not to pay mana also seems very strange; it seems like it would lead to a lot of "feel bad" moments where the player controlling the evidence was counting on the ability and got let down. It seems like the pay mana clause is there mainly so that mindstriking opponents don't get blown out by a lot of evidence triggers.

The green evidence ability also seems seems significantly better than all of the other ones, as some green decks (especially in Limited) will be almost entirely creatures and land. Some of the creatures are also not designed very well such that they can trigger evidence when you want them to; only Pendarvian Scout has a "sacrifice this creature: effect" clause. Some discard triggers (other than blue evidence) would also be nice; it could feel pretty good to say Faithless Looting or Wild Mongrel away 2 evidence cards, deal 2 damage to opponent.

In testing, controlling Evidence wasn’t as big a deal as it might seem. In fact, the moments where it was the most fun were the ones where it wasn’t expected, or the ones where it added tension to cards getting milled.

There was also a general response that there wasn’t much lost when an Evidence trigger was “paid off”; the effects come across as a nice little bonus when they work, but aren’t so strong as to feel like something you’re going to count on or build around. In other words, the cards with Evidence are intended to be worth playing even when you know your opponent will pay them off.

Having the evidence triggers on creatures feels pretty natural when playing too. It comes off as no different than a creature with a “dies” trigger, which we’ve seen plenty of. They’re absolutely better if you have a way to sac them at will (and there are ways to do that in the set), but they’re totally playable without one. There’s also a very strong focus on combat and blocking in this set, which means that having some disposable chump blockers around is a good idea — especially against a deck full of Feint tricks.

I can understand your concerns about the blue trigger. We debated the possible “may” clause at a few tests, and decided that it would add more layers to that particular ability than were necessary. The number of cases where looting is a strictly bad thing is small, even in an environment where mill is a strong strategy.

Green’s trigger is absolutely strong — in a straight-up creature build with very few combat tricks. Fortunately, this is a set that puts a big emphasis on combat tricks, especially in green builds. Feint-based all-creature decks are possible (and solid), but few players seem willing to cut back on removal or other tricks to boost their possibility of Evidence draws. The story line for the set puts blue and green in the roles most interested in exploiting Evidence — they are the biggest “truth seeker” colors — and the evidence triggers there were built accordingly.

Could there be more ways to exploit Evidence? Sure. I like the balance in Soradyne Laboratories though. If I were to make the Evidence more exploitable, I think it would work best in the third set, Terminus, where the truth behind all the suspected conspiracies is untangled.