[Democracy: Bottom-up Set]: Recent Activity
| [Democracy: Bottom-up Set]: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
Recent updates to [Democracy: Bottom-up Set]: (Generated at 2026-02-01 12:02:50)
| [Democracy: Bottom-up Set]: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
Recent updates to [Democracy: Bottom-up Set]: (Generated at 2026-02-01 12:02:50)
Mmm, it seems the problem is that amuseum has lots of ideas, but nobody else is especially enthusiastic about them, and nor is anyone contributing much by way of alternative suggestions.
On the other hand, I'm planning to be doing more on the first Community Set when I get back from holiday; so it may be that things will pick up a bit in a week or two.
Insufficient suggestions to vote on.
No votes? I'm almost ready to call this experiment dead, at this rate :(
Possibly not "quest-y" enough? This doesn't feel like you're striving towards something.
I know it uses counters, but how about "At the beginning of your upkeep, if you have exactly seven cards in hand, put a quest counter on this, then draw a card for each quest counter on it". It feels like it's getting more awesome over time.
Hee. The old Magus of the Library / Scroll of Origins situation.
Cards that ask you to meet a specific criterion could feel like quests, with a bit of work, yeah.
using quest counters is a limitation. 1) it takes up a lot of rules text. 2) use a lot of counters.
so make quests that feel like quests without using counters. this will also allow more quest varieties. for example, see Counterless Quest Static & Counterless Quest Activated & Counterless Quest Trigger
I rather liked amuseum's proposal for adventuring-party classes, and perhaps races, too. It's not such a concern that the flavour is similar to Zendikar because the particular implementation is very different.
How about tribal hate? That's been seen a bit; but is a lot more present in fantasy sources than in M:tG. Tribal cards that have mechanics to not play nicely if you're also using another tribe, that get bonuses against opponents with that tribe.
Probably too narrow and parasitic, though.
I think I'll put this request on ice for a little until we have consensus on a direction to go in.
Perhaps we could do some sort of "awakening" mechanic; quests, but when you have enough quest counters the card stops being an enchantment and starts being an awesome creature instead?
EDIT: See Quest of Giant; it's a bit texty though.
I think the Boss cards Multiverse has already seen, such as Mercurial Firelord, are a great implementation of that kind of quest. They don't really suffer from "don't cast it unless you have the answer in hand" because the "answer" is attacking with creatures.
I don't mind either way about the MMORPG flavour, but it seems like it's unpopular, so maybe it might be worth partially backing away from that to find a flavour with appeal to more of the people here.
I think if you phrase "raid quests" as "Boss creatures" that'll make a bit more sense. It's like creature cards being viewed as "summon spells"; in the end Wizards updated them to just be creature cards. Longtime Multiverse users are already familiar with Boss cards that work the way you describe, such as Mercurial Firelord, from the Design Challenge set; I think a "control-matters" set like this one is a great place to introduce the Boss type.
I think the ideas you describe, such as searching up two basics in exchange for a 3/3 (either way round), are pretty interesting and plausible.
but this is not the only card that can steal. the oppnent has his own spells to get his creature back. i guess we have to playtest the whole control theme to see the hot potato effects in action.
but we were looking to have hot potatoes to give them; so it's potentially two for one and continuing damage. Not to mention the possibilities in giving them stuff that's already about to die, etc.
i figure it's card disadvantage--you trade 2 for 1 of theirs--so it should be okay at common. whereas the uncommon ones can be used repeatedly, but those card types are less relevant compared to the common ones: creatures for limited, and enchantments because of swapping quests.
well i'm trying to give each race an identity on the control theme. until someone comes forth with a "control" mechanic. in comparison, the morph cycle would be as you like it, since everyone will have morph.
If ignite turns out to be the Dwarves new keyword, then it would appear on more than one card. If many permanents get ignited, the damage could stack up pretty nicely. At least you still have a body, unlike Psychic Venom.
The reminder text is for the new keyword action "ignite". It's granting the permanent that ability, hence the whole ability in quotes. That's why it still burns even if Fireheart is gone. We could rephrase it for the reminder text and then state the actual rules elsewhere.
Twenty subtle variations on a mechanic is a lot less nice-feeling to me than a single strong identity mechanic would be.