Desert Frontier: Recent Activity
| Desert Frontier: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics | Skeleton | Mechanical Themes | Creative Themes | TODO |
Recent updates to Desert Frontier: (Generated at 2025-04-30 15:06:04)
Page 1 - Older activity
Page 1 - Older activity
Erupt could probably have been dash. Except that doesn't feel quite right either. Maybe give a +N/+N bonus when you erupt?
@amuseum You're probably right, but what do you mean? (I've not played netrunner yet, and don't even know whether guardians is a game or a card type...?)
now it seems like a poor mans netrunner or guardians.
The playtest rules implicitly had two subtypes (I just didn't call them subtypes until I knew if that would be more or less confusing, it now seems I should have gone ahead and printed that, since most people seem to expect it). I think that's an absolute minimum necessary, since attacking in an opponent's Viashino Encampment is confusing whether or not it's ambiguous or broken.
I hoped to play a game with several terrains out at the same time and see whether the "multiple attacking/defending terrains" was a problem, and whether "multiple defensive terrains, one good, one weak" was a problem before fixing the rules further.
But for now, I'll assume two terrain subtypes, which hopefully removes the ambiguity, and wait and see if multiple defensive terrains feels right or not.
That does sound rather cool :)
One simple fix to the issue is to give terrains subtypes for "Attacking" and "Defending", which lets you clarify the rules to be "When you attack, you may assign up to one attacking creature to each Attacking terrain you control; you must assign (at least?) one attacking creature to each Defending terrain defending player controls".
Yeah, I toyed with the idea of terrains slotting together and couldn't quite get it to work, but it would be very cool if it did. If the current rules still seem problematic, I want to revisit it.
Is it possible to hook terrains together like lego pieces? For example, if my opponent played Feastground, could I say "Fine. On my turn, I cast Ambush Grounds and attach it to Feastground. When you attack through your Feastground, you always come out through my Ambush Grounds, and when I attack through my Ambush Grounds, I always come out through your Feastgrounds."
That way, you can make negative effect terrains, because you use them to make your opponent's positive effect terrains worse (if your opponent doesn't use terrains, all the better). It also cuts down on the total number of terrains you can attack through during a single combat, which you've already mentioned, can be problematic. The only downside I can see is one of timing: the first person to play a terrain could be setting themselves up. That might be fine, though, if the terrains are designed right.
Oh, and then there's the confusion issue in multiplayer games. Feastground might have three other terrains attached to it, one for each player. Go left from the Feastground, and you get to Billy's ambush ground. Go right, and you end up in Patty's Sewer Network. Confusing, yes. It also sounds fun, though, so maybe?
What you just said is right, but it seems like a problem with any good defensive terrain, not just this one.
I recognised that problem when I was trying to come up with the rules, and if it couldn't be fixed, I assumed terrains wouldn't work.
This is why I floated the idea that defending player chose which terrains to "block" with, since then you can always activate your strongest terrain only if you want. I thought that could be made intuitive with the right wording, and if not, I hoped to suggest something else similar. But if not, it may well torpedo the whole idea.
But do you think that's right, or do you think it's just the "ambush grounds" design that's problematic? (I've not played with them either, except on friday when defensive terrains didn't come up until too late.)
Yep, judging by murder instant-speed would probably be acceptable, but I intended this to be a reprint, and I'm glad to power down the common removal a little.
As we noted in the playtest, this should probably be a sorcery :3
Theorycrafting, it seems like this is going to be a Seal of Rebuke that also says "You can't cast other (defensive) terrains". If attackers can choose to attack you through your Pre-battle Feastground rather than through this (so it effectively says "You can't cast any other terrains", that's quite a drawback in the set, while being no drawback at all in casual decks where this is the only terrain.
All of which is to say, I have a feeling this design has problems. But this is all tentative until I've played with it.
Played one playtest game with this. It turned out to be pretty strong - it's like a Bonesplitter with free equip - but of course it doesn't stack with other terrains, so when both this and Pre-battle Feastground were out then the same creature couldn't get both bonuses.
Still might need to be 3 mana though.
If it helps, then definitely, but I'm not sure if it's necessary or not -- eg. if terrains say "a creature you control attacking in ~ gets +2/+0" or "a creature attacking you in ~ gets -2/-0" they will presumably get the idea and expect the former to affect their attack and the other to affect their defence. I want to try it and see what feels intuitive, and then try to make the rules match that, whether that's officially having two sorts of terrain, or spelling out "a creature must/may attack in this", or allowing players to specify which sorts of terrain are "active" (like choosing which creatures to block with).
could you label them so that rather than just being a terrain they would have subtypes ? i.e.
Terrain - Defensive & Terrain - Offensive (or Assault or something like it) ?
Just so it is clear to players?
Details page creation ought to work now.
Brief playtest. Nothing stands out as especially good or bad, but sandwurms and terrains came up only briefly.
As expected beneficial terrains were very strong, like equipment without an equip cost. That's fine, I want to know if they're fun (answer: not sure), they can easily be toned down. Defensive terrains didn't come up.
All the showdown cards are too wordy. I need to fix that, or accept it's unusable. But I want to test them first.
It's not ideal for blue that you have to attack before finding out if it's unblockable. But it tones it down for common, works with the flavour, makes showdown more exciting, and will often be reasonably good either way.
There's probably much too much showdown at common, it will get annoying faster than clash as you constantly have to decide. But I want to try it and then tone it down, rather than having too little and not notice.
I'm not sure if this is a good design, but I like the card.
I'm not sure whether I can make the land destruction hit terrains. I'll first see if terrains should be a land type or not, and if not, if I can tweak the destruction to matter.
I've toned down the token making a lot as it's not as important in wild west as it was on a colony world (frontier world), and nantuko look odd as tokens. But presumably there'll be some. It's a shame these are soldiers for this card, but they need some race that can be constant across the set.
Random reprint to round out small green creatures. Reasonably appropriate, could pick something more specifically wild-west if I want.
I wasn't sure about wurms in non-red at common. I made as many vanilla wurms as possible. I think "throw a chunky-bottomed but doomed creature into the trenches" fits black, as it gets a small amount of haste. And black is lucky to get any large creature at all, so can't complain about paying six for it :)
This is normally Mogg Fanatic but I like the way it can be implemented with fight, with a relevant flavour.
Appropriate reprint. I never play with targeted discard much; this probably isn't that good a design (it often won't do enough, or victim will mistakenly reveal all their land) and may be too choice-intensive at common. But provides interesting bluffing opportunities, and appropriate flavour.
I have too much flier-hate at the moment. Oh, well. This one can easily change, but I like the card in abstract. I need to be focused on "which cards should be good", not just "which cards I like".