[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 2025-05-01 06:10:39)
| [Democracy: Bottom-up Set]: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
Recent updates to [Democracy: Bottom-up Set]: (Generated at 2025-05-01 06:10:39)
change Challenge to Completion to better match other terms
yea with so many face down cards, it'll be hard to sort out which is which. besides, a face-down enchantment that does nothing? another besides, everyone knows it's a hidden agenda, just not the specifics. so not very hidden at all.
If all face down cards are 2/2 creatures, we can probably get away with fewer actual creature cards, and replace them with more enchantments and spells, both with morph.
If the hidden agenda is an Aura, then there should be extra rules to allow it to be attached elsewhere as it is turned face-up.
easy fix: make it legendary so you only have one copy in play at a time.
Mmm, I like the idea of easy quests. I dislike them being ridiculous parodies - that's gonna make people hate them. But the actuality of this (roughly "Kill three things in combat") with a reward that is small but not too bad; seems ok.
People do keep proposing things like "arrives" for "enters the battlefield", but I don't think any of the proposals I've seen are clear enough to be understood by the majority of casual players.
On the topic of this card, I do love the idea of common quests parodying the ridiculous early missions you get in MMORPGs.
Hmm; wording it this way feels more natural that it should enter play with 3 tokens, and remove them to mark completion.
Which has the advantage of being able to see at a glance how close quests are to completion; but has an up-front cost and removing counters feels like a cost, rather than a reward.
Don't think defeated is strictly needed; but I do like it, those words are common enough to need shortening the way RFG was. (And why hasn't UEOT and ETB had it?)
I certainly think a set should contain no more than one of morph (face-down cards are 2/2 colourless creatures), earthform (face-down cards are lands with "
: Add 
"), or agenda (face-down cards are enchantments). There's another variation on hidden agendas where some cards can be exiled face-down, and then cast when a certain condition is met; this also shouldn't be in the same set as any of those, because game tables don't have a separate spot for "exiled cards".
I definitely support face-down cards being used as a means to work towards quests.
Difficulty of deciding on the numbers aside; I think this is a reasonably nice way of doing victory-point quests, without actually doing them.
Make it uncommon so that it's something players will actually see relatively often, and ship it. (Maybe say "When you put a quest counter on an incomplete quest"?) And, uh, as amuseum says this also goes kinda bad if you have multiple copies of it, they'll trigger off each other and gain counters at stupid rate. Easy enough to fix, but blegh words words words.
Hmm. More precisely, "is defeated by X" means "dies and X dealt damage to it this turn"? Yeah, I could buy that. Makes the wording of Sengir Vampire abilities a bit nicer. That's not enough motivation on its own, of course, but I imagine Boss Fights would make use of the term too.
Hmm. I guess it depends whether we'd be proposing errata to add the Quest subtype to the old quests or not...
Makes sense, if you ask me - if we're gonna address spellmorph anyway.
Would be better for it to be face-down as a 2/2 creature - otherwise it's hard to see which is what - especially if there are normal morphs in set.
And I really want one of these to have the condition "Have 3 +1/+1 counters on it"
Rules arguments are sure to abound on the turning face up; but I like it, and I like the name for it. The spellmorph name would be more general and likely to be used later, though.
Agendas - some musings.
Kill Three Rats demonstrates some new mechanics and terminology.
These could be part of the control theme:
I got it. The flavor shall be MMO parody. I assume most/all of us has played some MMOs before (or still play.) I'm not just talking about WOW here, even though I know they made both an MMO and CCG. I haven't played the CCG but I've some idea of how it works. Nevertheless, this is not WOW style CCG; it's Magic style MMO.
Anyway, what connected me to MMO was that we have Quests and possibly Tribal. The tribes here represent the main races and classes found in most MMOs / RPGs. Naturally they join together to form parties and go on quests. I know, I know, it sounds a lot like Zendikar on the surface. But obviously the mechanical focus is very different than Zendikar, which had landfall and generic ally subtype. We won't have Ally; instead, the popular creature types come to the forefront. It's like an MMO where you choose your toon's race and class. Each race and class has their own special abilities and perks. Tribal spells related to the races and classes seem a good fit; but some of you may have reservations about using Tribal card type.
So then a party of creatures may venture on Quests. Some are cheesy generic quests, and some are difficult raids and possibly PVP skirmishes and sieges and such. Naturally we represent them on the Quests cards in some form of hardship and rewards.
Then morph represents the NPCs / mobs that we find in MMOs. Sort of like random encounters. You don't always know what will spawn.
The funny thing is, this isn't that hard to do with some Zendikar Quests. Just don't sacrifice them... let the counters build on a card like Quest for Ancient Secrets. Leave that, and a few easy to achieve landfall quests, and you'll be at 20 in no time.
Quest for questing? Everquest
hmm, an easy(?) combo win with two of these out and another quest.
I think it's fine to suggest ideas, because often that lead to good ideas for mechanics, but we shouldn't decide anything until after we've an idea which mechanical themes we're doing.
Feel free to propose any of the ideas in Discussion: Quest Mechanic or any more you can think of.
I propose that the ideas phase should close on Saturday 5th April, and then a period of voting on Sunday and Monday for the favourite ideas.
Ok - I agree that we need some flavour voting, but after working through the mechanics.
I'm going to post a Request thread for Quests (I can be persuaded to run multiple Request threads per theme if people want).
As long as it's on the battlefield face-down, it'll be on the battlefield even as you turn it face-up to reveal that you're casting it. So why even avoid it?
Just make a SBA for such an occasion it sticks around. Even if it's not because of morph (such as some weird spell that puts a card face down on the battlefield), the comprules need to be more explicit about it anyway. But obviously it hasn't happened yet. That's why there's so much confusion. People (rules makers) keep avoiding the issue, instead of making sensible rules to clarify what happens in such a case.
So we're just helping it along. Morph is one reason, but not the only reason the SBA should exist. It would allow other mechanics and spells to put spells in play and open up design space, without the need to argue about unexplained or unusual interactions.
In short, this SBA should already exist in the comprules, as it deals with all intended and unintended effects and side effects. Wizards don't make new mechanics and gives up just because it doesn't work with existing rules. They change the rules so the mechanics work as intended. Otherwise DFCs would never see the light of day. So that's what we're doing here. We can make face-up spells work with a simple SBA and a new keyword that gets around that SBA under specific conditions. Meanwhile a whole new huge area of design has been opened up with this simple SBA.