Metadesign Collaborative: Recent Activity
| Metadesign Collaborative: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics |
Recent updates to Metadesign Collaborative: (Generated at 2024-04-29 13:01:54)
| Metadesign Collaborative: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics |
Recent updates to Metadesign Collaborative: (Generated at 2024-04-29 13:01:54)
Artifacts are colorless when the set wants them to be colorless. If a set wanted colorless enchantments, the set could very well have them potentially exist, though I'm inclined to believe any potential colorless enchantments not directly relating to the Eldrazi (a la Eldrazi Conscription) would likely be appearing as auras. My reasoning is that global enchantments being static, need a color definition in order to something, so leaving one generically colorless could be giving colors access to abilities they shouldn't be able to access at no repurcussion. An aura could have just a generic stat boon and be fine, if uninteresting and likely worse than a generic equipment, assuming the aura did not have an ability like Totem Armor.
I would have argued that artifacts and enchantments biggest difference was that artifacts' abilities need to be activated while enchantments' are static, though that was never fully true for enchantments, and War of the Spark and Throne of Eldraine seemed to have leaned back to the times when artifacts could be static. I'd argue there are some cases where the artifact exists as a colorless artifact solely to allow more players the option include the card in their deck should the format need such a card, e.g. Grafdiggers Cage. Glass Casket, on the other hand, is a significant offender, where neither the card nor ability are colorless and the ability has had historic frequency in enchantment cards.
If anything, the static planeswalker abilities that planeswalkers had in War of the Spark was a greater threat to the territory of enchantments' identity than are a bigger threat to enchantments' space than artifacts have been in general as far as recent years are concerned.
Without a sound, adding a tap ability offers little benefit that can't be done by designating a time for the ability to occur. Sorry, I'm tired right now and not quite coherent.
I will end on this. For me at least, I'd would argue that enchantments are actually such a root concept of Magic that many cards or features of cards seem to be enchantments built in to another card or dolled up in a fancy appearance.
We presume the difference between artifacts and enchantments is artifacts are colorless and enchantments never tap. However they are willing to create colored artifacts, but never tapping enchantments.
Thus they can innovate artifacts without rules, but enchantments must be bound by the strictest constraints among all card types.
Maul of the Skyclaves, Utility Knife, etc. Equipments that attach on arrival. Who needs Auras?
I think the recent Shrines have been examples of excellent enchantments. But then again enchantments are just a valid permanent type that I use all the time. I wish enchantment creatures were as common as artifact creatures (e. g. any number of Illusions, Elementals etc.)
I thought of many ideas. One is: "Enchanted permanent has totem armor."
I don't mind Enchantments not tapping. I've never seen a point in going that route beyond trying to squeeze some unnecessary design space where they may as well become colored artifacts at that point. That being said, I can get behind a mechanic like Tahazzar's Chant, assuming it's showing up as a set (or formerly block) mechanic.
As for being non-interactive, perhaps more global effects can be pushed (something I'd be happy to see on permanents in general). Barring some enchantress decks, there usually don't seem to be too many enchantments out to cause serious consideration over this imo.
A lack of cohesive and mechanical themes- fair enough. I can't recall the last time there was a mechanic unique to or at least heavily used in (nomcreature) enchantments. Totem armor, a decade ago?
I feel that auras, generally having colors, are typically more powerful, or at least versatile, than equipment (barring sets taking place on Mirrodin). Is it still worse when that aura goes to the graveyard? Absolutely, but I do not believe this makes auras useless.
One idea that that inspired Scene card type were Quest enchantments that earned victory points upon achieving some criteria. Each color has different modus operandus. Intended to be somewhat viable in draft, like milling. For every set.
The problem was inconsistent ways to get victory points. Hard to balance, and may seem too try-hard designwise. So Scenes streamlined that process. Furthermore Scene cards are laid in landscape mode (like Planes cards), which make them stand out from other card types.
In my Silmarillion fan set I tried out tapping enchantments as a mechanic with the following keyword:
> Chant (Your enchantments can enhance this effect. Copy this effect for each enchantment you tap in response.)
I have longer description of my thoughts on it on the mechanics page of that set. As the name implies, there is a theme of playing in unison to power a singular effect (unlike say artifacts which tend to work more like clockwork pieces). Light Before Fall and Glorious Theme are two example cards.
I think it's one interesting direction though it's somewhat difficult to design for and I'm unsure about the size of the design space.
Somewhat related but even wilder idea I came up was in this "husk" set where I explored potential color pie divisions within colorless itself which lead to the direction of creating subcolors and new types of basic lands. So Monument and Sigil Carrier where the "new type of mana" could even appear without the new basic... Hmmm, seems at the time I also noted it being related to chant given how I used the keyword for that card as well.
Global enchantments probably ought to be big build-around cards. When you see an opponent drop a new rule of reality, that ought to both be a big "Oh, you're attempting THAT" moment as well as feeling like it's changing the rules of the game.
Less "All creatures you control have +1/+1" and more "There are two combat phases each turn" or "All dragons are indestructible".
To allow them to be bigger and flashier (without forcing huge cmc) maybe bring back a variant of enchant-world, so that each player gets to choose only one world-shaking effect.
And for activated abilities - honestly, I'd have them take over the role that planeswalkers usurped. Limited number of activations per turn, maybe limited total.
Auras are a bit of a different. As you say, they're basically equipment that dies when the creature does and you can't move and...
There've been different ways of addressing this in the past (totem, those 'cast as either creature or enchantment' ones) and those seem ok?
Probably the biggest drawbacks of auras have historically been:
1. It makes a single creature in a 1-for-2 target.
2. You need a creature to put it on. Replacing the aura with a second creature is often better for making your play consistent.
But.... both of those apply to combat tricks too. And people love those!
So - there's the solution. All aura's now have flash. Those that already do get cantrip.
(Edit: I hate markdown. That was meant to be 'ordered list item' not 'Header 1'.)
Issues for Enchantments:
Boring, noninteractive.
doesn't tap. Just sits on the table, never touched again for rest of the game.
few cohesive, interesting mechanics and themes.
auras provide less value than equipment.
Etc.
Resolutions:
Please suggest ways to catapult enchantments into status that rivals artifacts.
I'm very much not a fan of DFC; but as a design space - sure, it's a whole new state - literally doubling the number of things a card can do.
I think an interesting space is actually the one morph played around with. "What's on the back? Nooooot gonna tell you just yet." But done with DFC you can get around the whole "Wait, so this face down is a 22 creature and that one is a land and..." by having the un-morphed state be a whole card on its own.
I used DFCs to repesent t magical girl transformations (though mechanically I made this happen every turn) as well as gods posing as mortals inn before revealing their true form in Skavjando.
Interesting there really are CCGs where emptying your own deck counts as winning.
"Epic" TCG actually came out two years before I had this idea. The counterplay to preventing opponent by winning this way is to "banish" opponents' cards back to the bottom of their deck. Also returning cards (usually from your discard pile) to your deck for some benefit, but would also slow you down if you want to win this way.
IMO it depends on which color is "centered", if any.
with 
is an ideal democratic society. Philosophically, I can see this as "each individual's talents can contribute towards a great society". So I'd center this sort of wedge around tempo weenies - little to no tokens, but instead relying on evasive cards or cards with a bit of extra reach to achieve a goal. You're not swarming the board so much as gathering a bunch of creatures with various talents to outmaneuver the enemy.
with 
is all about creativity and self-expression. This is where I'd place stuff like societal technological advancements. So this would be more focused on a "great machine" type build - artifacts or other cards that create an elaborate machine to advance your goals. So, many combo decks.
with 
is Jeskai, through and through. Society is set up so that the individual is free to pursue their passions. 
's creativity and passion tempered by 
's societal structure. This is where I'd put prowess weenies - you're expressing your passions (casting spells) so that others benefit from it (prowess).
There's also something to be said about
with 
, 
with 
, and 
with 
, but I feel like they'd be similar to the above themes.
Melvin-wise, I think the overall theme of "noncreature spells affecting your creatures" is a good way to go as a broad stroke. It should firmly be in the realm of Johnny rather than Timmy, IMO. Exciting
faction cards should appeal more to someone who wants to to exploit it or cards with it.
Some simple, totally not balanced mechanics off the top of my head:
Galvanize (Your next spell you cast this turn costs
less to cast.) - This would be a companion or alternative to prowess, found mostly on creatures as an action keyword i.e. "Whenever ~ attacks, galvanize." It's a bit of a stretch for white, but IMO so was Prowess before Jeskai popped up, so...
Dematerialize (Exile this creature until the beginning of your next upkeep/end step.) - A spiritual successor to phasing, but gameplay-wise would have many similar uses to the Gustcloak ability (Gustcloak Harrier) or cards like Voyager's Staff and Norin the Wary. Philosophically, I'd place this in a "
with 
" or "
with 
" type wedge, since 
is the odd-one out with this ability but could arguably get it as a sort of drawback i.e. "Whenever ~ attacks, dematerialize it unless you pay 
".
Tinker -
, Tap an untapped artifact you control: [EFFECT] - Similar to Cohort, but instead of losing an attacker/blocker, you're losing out on a presumably-tap effect of the artifact you're using. This would probably be either 
influenced by 
(Cohort is fairly 
, but artifact manipulation makes it 
), or 
influenced by 
(Artifact manipulation done in a 
fashion).
represent the ideal democratic, libertarian justice, wisdom, and compassion. Without 
's selfish one-up-manship, and 
's survival of the fittest.
feels more reactive, counteractive, controlling.
Bosses examples:
See Spatial Awareness.
See Spatial Awareness.
See Spatial Awareness.
A variant could be Bosses, who are surrounded by minions. Theros did something similar for their Hero's Path minigame for Game Day. But extend|combine that with EDH/commander. Such that all legendary cards are considered bosses.
This variant has the player control one or more bosses (legendary nontoken permanents, which now include planeswalkers.) Players try to eliminate all the opponents' bosses.
Other creatures are needed to protect the bosses. They may be assigned to protect a specific boss; a creature can't protect more than one boss at a time. A creature can also be unassigned, but can't protect any boss.
This starts to feel like L5R. Active player decides which bosses to attack during combat phase. Resolve one boss battle at a time.
If a spell or ability targets a boss, the boss's controller can choose to have a minion of that boss become the target instead.
At the start of the game, players put three bosses in the commander zone. Players can cast them as normal to the battlefield. If a boss leaves the battlefield, it does not return to the commander zone. A player loses if e has no bosses in the battlefield or commander zones. Other legendary permanents from the library do not count as bosses.
Spatial attacking/blocking or control of items would be difficult to implement because of how ingrained the game rules are in the minds of the players. Stuff like Rushing River played around with it, but it ended up being a bit too heavy in wordcount for Magic-ese and a complete rewriting of the rules would be the only way to cleanly solve it.
Right now the main movement in Magic is between zones; the one game that you listed that I'm familiar with, Netrunner, doesn't let you move cards between zones aside from Hand/The Card's Respective Zone for the most part. Not sure about other games, but I think that movement alone has enough design space so that you don't need to put even more focus on the battlefield and creature combat than there already is.
Can Magic work with the additional of spatial dimensions?
Magic is dimensionless: it doesn't take into account physical spatial dimensions (1d, 2d, 3d). Thus no additional strategies and thinking towards movements and proximity.
Many other games do consider the spatial dimensions, and usually base entire rules and victory conditions around it. Such as Netrunner, Shadowfist, Legend of Five Rings, Guardians. Shadowfist centers on Sites, Netrunner on servers and ICE, L5R has provinces, Guardians you control terrains.
Let's mention the features of spatial gameplay.
Location. Other cards are deployed on or around these locations.
Movement. Sometimes objects can move between locations.
Combat. Usually players vie for control of locations. They can be directly attacked and defended.
Victory. Some games let you win the game based on how many locations you control, destroyed, or other relations to locations.
However, Magic being designed as dimensionless from the beginning, and now entering its 25th year, would it be possible to add such a feature? If so, how much could it change the nature of this game? For backwards compatibility, spatial strategies preferably are optional.
Oh, those are indeed cool things blue could do.
But sometimes you just want the brute-force "No." option.
@SecretInfiltrator: I had considered that wording, and I like it, but I was unsure about the reception. I thought blue manipulating the spell in other ways (like I listed above) would go over better. Ha!
Just linking to an old discussion on some ideas I put forward: Here.
Also I'll put forward (for the Nth time) the wording "Cancel target spell." for Cancel.
I'm saying you could replace Counterspell with "Destroy target spell". Which works, does the same thing, and makes sense without needing specific terminology. But would be horrible because new players would expect it to work on "Spells in play" i.e. permanents.
@Vitenka: I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I imagine something like this:
> NuMagic
> Instant
> Change the text on target instant or sorcery spell to say, "Target opponent draws a card."
Or something like:
> ManaSap
> Instant
> Target spell loses all text and has "Tap two target uptapped lands you control."
"Destroy target spell"
Too confusing for new players though. The spell/Permanent distinction is, frankly, horrible already.
IMHO, the word 'counter' while intuitive is also messy because there are also 'counters' which are entirely different despite being so similar.
Also, if we look at the history of 'counter-spells' in popular culture, we can trace it back to DnD and the works of fantasy that inspired it, and in those works a 'counter spell' was just that: a spell which specifically undid, negated, or cancelled the effects of another spell. By that logic Doom Blade is very much a counter-spell - it counters your enemy's summons. Demystify is very much a counter-spell - it counters your enemy's enchantments. Unsummon is a counter-spell!
IMO, the phrase 'counter target X' should be entirely replaced with blue doing other forms of card manipulation. Putting spells back in their owners hand, sapping the mana out of their mana pool, putting spells back in their owners libraries, blanking cards or replacing card text entirely.