Conversation
Conversation by Alex
142 cards in Multiverse
115 with no rarity, 7 commons, 6 uncommons,
4 rares, 9 mythics, 1 token
95 colourless, 1 colourless multicolour, 5 white, 4 blue, 2 black, 3 red,
2 green, 14 multicolour, 3 hybrid, 5 artifact, 8 land
1728 comments total
A venue for discussions about Magic design
Conversation: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
Mechanics |
Cardset comments (30) | Add a comment on this cardset
Recently active cards: (all recent activity)
been moving away from it myself, mainly because if my sets ever get played it sure won't be by newbies. might as well give myself license to ratchet up the complexity
do you guys design as if you're a WOTC employee, or do you do it for yourselves/your friends?
do you guys design as if you're a WOTC employee, or do you do it for yourselves/your friends?
Discuss criteria and candidates for good duals that go into the core sets.
Strixhaven will see "shuffle your library" to just "shuffle."
converted mana cost is reworded as mana value.
converted mana cost is reworded as mana value.
When is it appropriate to give a land a basic land type?
What do you think this card type will be?
Recent comments: (all recent activity)
See other cardsets
FIRE and NWO are not mutually exclusive. Both co-exist today.
Modern design sensibility is based around FIRE: https://magic.wizards.com/en/news/card-preview/fire-it-2019-06-21
I acknowledge that there are benefits of NWO. Being said, I have generally found (large) sets from this decade to be more engaging than ones from the 2010s. I haven't followed how much core design philosophy has changed over the past decade and what factor NWO played in that design philosophy.
From my perspective dual land cycles that exist purely for mana generation don't belong at rare. I'm a big fan of the dedicated land slot that may be not just a basic land but also a common dual land.
With that logic theses cards also don't eat into common slots.
Taplands/Gainlands are my default. I could see SNC taplands with boardcycling easily.
There is value in some completed cycles we're getting recently e. g. Viridescent Bog. There's also value in just taplands with nonbasic land types.
I don't know if WotC have read this thread, or someone passed it along. Certainly some suggestions here have been accepted into official cards.
More and more lands, even duals, now printed with land types, including basic types and new land types.
Traditionally large sets reserved 10 rare slots just for dual lands for every color pair. Some sets also reserve as much at common or uncommon lands. That's a huge waste of space, and unexciting.
I like the new "choose a color" lands, such as Citadel Gate. Players still get sufficient -- arguably even better -- mana fixing from 5 choose-lands as from 10 traditional lands. This saves 5 slots in a set. Which could be used for another cycle of 5 lands, or spells, etc.
From personal experience, my set Raiders of Tsinbork originally slated a cycle of 10 morph-lands. After I discovered the choose-lands, I converted my lands likewise; now they are 5 morph-choose-lands. Subsequently wisely used 5 free slots for more interesting spells pertaining to the set's themes and mechanics, or filled with spells to flesh out the colors.
A major way to make Magic more accessible to new players (and to retain old players) is to restructure the template of rules text. Simplify the language, as suggested in the other topic. Cards and effects will be easier to grok when the language used is likewise easy to grasp.
I don't often play draft. But that could be due to two reasons.
NWO cards are boring.
NWO makes one feel powerless.
I occasionally check out new official sets and mechanics by drafting. But official sets exert the two issues aforementioned, and never draft them again.
My set Raiders of Tsinbork is the first true set I (nearly) completed to be drafted (on MTG Forge). It is definitely more complex at the commons, but (personally) feel more fun, exciting, empowering. Obviously I need to draft it many times to playtest any major issues; yet never found it boring. It's more fun to draft commons that are worth higher potential all around.
I advocate for more natural, simpler speech, and less obtuse, legalese, long-winded speech. Shorter sentences read faster (and less annoying), thus players spend more time strategizing than trying to parse unnecessarily long sentences and paragraphs.
Use shorter, simpler words:
Get rid of "At the beginning of... " just say "At your upkeep, " and clarify that in comprehensive rules.
Replace card names in rules text box (except rare cases that search for cards by name) with 'this', 'this creature', 'this spell', 'this card':
More keyword actions to replace common effects. Especially effects on long sentences that differ only by one word at the end of the sentence.
Compare:
Here one has to read nine (9) words into the sentence to find the difference. It's time consuming and confusing.
Hence replace these common effects with simple keyword actions. (In these cases, I chose "retrieve" and "deploy".) Compare:
The differences between these two effects are immediately noticeable. This is extremely helpful during gameplay and Deckbuilding. Not only the sentences are immediately distinct, but also much easier to search for cards by their effects.
For that matter, 'return to hand' definitely needs to be keyworded. I prefer 'withdraw'. also 'Tap an untapped friendly permanent' should be keyworded (such as 'exhaust a creature: '). Both simplifications would make such costs easier to read and understand.
Looking at cards in library can be simplified.
Why are do they frequently use phrases that already have keyword actions? Like 'put into your hand' or 'put into graveyard from library'. Just say 'draw' or 'mill'.
As for token creation, I personally use "tokenize" keyword action.
Ex.
Use active voice. Let zones and abilities be proactive. Replace garrulous text that sounds like reminder text. Avoid using 'then'.
Common activated ability restrictions come before the cost: