Soradyne Laboratories v1.2: Recent Activity
| Soradyne Laboratories v1.2: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics | Skeleton |
Recent updates to Soradyne Laboratories v1.2: (Generated at 2025-08-18 17:28:25)
Spine of Ish Sah says
. And yes, destroying Equipment has been allowed on artifacts: Manriki-Gusari, IIRC.
It would be the first common with such an ability, as things like Sylvok Replica and the like are ostensibly colored.
Flavorwise, it might be more interesting at Uncommon as:
Recall Drone
3
Artifact Creature - Construct
Morph
Whenever Recall Drone or another permanent you control is turned face up, return target Equipment or Aura to its owner's hand.
2/2
Of course, you could just change the first design to destroy Equipment instead of Artifacts and I think it'd be much more defensible as a flavor-based color-pie fudging.
Yeah, they're annoyingly persistent in not letting you do that. I wonder how much it would have to cost to become allowed.
Taking something like Desert Twister as an example for stretching destruction out of colour; you can presumably be allowed to do it for 8.
Also, given the name I wonder if it mightn't be better as "return to owners hand", which is usually a cheaper effect, too.
Nope, I was wrong. This'll be getting an edit once I'm logged in.
On what is effectively a five-mana artifact. I don't believe this is the first time it's been done, but I could be wrong.
Wow. Aura destruction in red, and artifact destruction in blue. Brave.
I agree the wording "unblocked attacker" would be ideal, if the rules got a tweak to say that attackers only count as blocked or unblocked until they've dealt all their combat damage. There might be some niggly details to work out, or unintended consequences for a few random cards though.
So after looking at a complexity consideraton from Houlding and talking it over with Bombshell and some others, I’ve decided I’ll be taking nearly all of the Morph out of Soradyne Laboratories and moving it off to the second set, “Door 47” (which will probably begin posting as Soradyne is closing in on completion.
In order to keep some element of Morph in the set — so that novice players can get acclimated to the mechanic — my plan is to create a small number of artifact creatures with “unmorph” abilities that serve more utilitarian functions than combat-based roles. This should give players a little more “surprise” in their cards without creating frustrating blocking decisions. Recall Drone is the first of those creatures, and at least two more or on the way.
Thanks. And oops, sorry! No not sarcastic at all, but I guess we were slightly at cross purposes. I knew Alex's wording worked rules-wise, so I assumed you'd changed it because you thought the version you used sounded better; I hadn't realised you weren't sure it worked rules-wise and thought you were looking for a wording that worked better than that, rather than looking for one that good.
And when I first heard this version of feint (not that I've been following very closely), I thought it was a good option to tweak the official rules for feint so it says (however that is expressed) that you can only do it between blockers being declared and combat damage, and that that's how everyone would expect it to work, so it's not necessary to put the details in reminder text.
But I'd thought you'd considered that and rejected it. So when you suggested a tweak to the rules, I assumed you meant to tweak the rules so creatures stop being unblocked after combat damage, which I did (and still do) think is a good idea. Because then you can use the simplest possible reminder text ("...if you remove an unblocked attacker you control from combat") and it will mean exactly what it sounds like it means, so both beginners and rules-pedants can be happy with it.
I agree "during the declare blockers step" works equally well rules-wise, but I think the version that has fewer words of reminder text is better, because I think people will understand what it means. (You could always add a second sentence reminding that it has to be after blockers are declared and before combat if you think that helps, but I think it's still better to have the first sentence as free of subclauses as possible.)
But I also agree that by this point it's clear it will work somehow, even if we're still talking about the details, so you can decide the exact wording at your leisure if you want to.
Right, it's a very precarious thing to balance, as Morph is one of those mechanics that depends on density in order to actually have a reason to exist. Without that particular density, there's little that's actually hidden, as people will only ever play the best Morphs that are in their colors.
And once you add Feint to the mix, where people are incentivised to bluff bad attacks in order to get their opponent to let some crappy 1/1 through, you've got this whole insane web of reactions that can be intimidating.
Okay, this absolutely gives me things I can address in design.
One of the game designers I work with took a look at your scenario with me. We think we have a way to significantly reduce the number of Morphers in the set without completely nerfing them as a theme. I don't want to see them go away entirely, because they illustrate intrigue, suspicion, and suspense so well, but I can see where that much hidden information will make a freshman player's head spin and possibly feel like a trap.
This is all something that, as with most stuff, can really just sit on the back-burner until you've dug into some playtesting. But beyond the complexity concern (that I'll further elaborate on with a hypothetical scenario), I was also thinking about how modern middle sets have failed to capitalize on the strengths of the first set. Conflux, Worldwake, and Mirrodin Besieged are mediocre in many respects, each seemingly afraid of draining the well of what made the first set so enticing, demonstrating some of the most dry and unexciting mechanical concepts this side of Mercadian Masques. As such, an exercise in building on the lessons of real world mistakes might be to flesh out the Feint/Morph relationship, but then push one of them into the second set.
Now, for an example of an all-common "brain-freeze" scenario:
Player 1 has a board of — Face-down (((Unsettled Bones))), (((Coal Road Pathtracker))), and face-up (((Outraged Torchmage))) with Swamp, Swamp, Mountain, Mountain, Mountain untapped and Firebomb and Tie Up Loose Ends in hand.
Player 2 has a board of — Face-down (((Debronian Skyguard))) and a Phytomancer with Plains, Forest, Forest untapped and (((Calming Presence))), (((Draw Support))), and (((Soradyne Advocate))) in hand.
The amount of totally reasonable things that player 1 has to account for in calculating whether to attack is CRAZY, and the same goes for player 2 with blocking decisions. It's exceptionally skill-intensive, and thus very enticing to the experience player, but I can see it resulting in a lot of relatively mundane feel-bad moments for the inexperienced.
Houlding- I see where your concerns are coming from. I've read the article you posted, and yeah, it feels like Loucks was putting a TON of stuff into his design space. I counted four keywords including morph. There were a bunch of other design gimmicks (including a one-off hybrid), and as a result it did feel a bit over complicated.
Looking at SOR, I also have four key mechanics: Morph, Feint, Mindstrike, and Evidence. Going strictly on numbers, SOR is as complex as Loucks's set. I do feel though (based on admittedly small comparative pool) that SOR is a bit more constrained in the way it uses these mechanics. Three of the SOR mechanics are tied to creatures, and the fourth (Evidence) has very few new mechanical "gears" behind how it works.
I don't know. You're able to see things from the outside in a way I can't. At the same time, I really do believe that my use of these mechanics and themes is done in a way that shouldn't confuse an typical or even starting player.
This is SFletcher posting as a "visitor". (Yes, Alex, I forgot my login and password. Again. I can post from home, where my browser just stays perpetually logged in, but since upgrading my iPhone, the phone browser logged out and I'm too dumb to just write my login down somewhere. Like you suggested.)
At any rate, Jack V, I think I understand what you're saying (assuming there's no sarcasm there), but I suspect your wording got garbled. What I was proposing as far as rules changes go is simply defining a point, or last window of opportunity, between when blockers are declared and when damage is dealt.
I've looked into the Declare Blockers step again though, and I noticed this time that there's one small detail that very much works in my favor:
509.1. First, the defending player declares blockers. This turn-based action doesn't use the stack.
This means that once you're into the Declare Blockers step, the first thing that happens is the actual declaration of blockers, no exceptions. So I Feint says it happens during the Declare Blockers step, it has to happen between the determination of blockers and when damage is dealt. The wording Alex proposed (before I adjusted it to be at the end of the step) was 100% accurate to my intent.
Alex wins.
A broader topic I've been meaning to bring up —
Is there room in the first set of a block to support both Feint and Morph?
I was thinking about how they're each rooted in concepts of subterfuge and surprise, allowing players to use their mana in creative ways and circumvent certain timing restrictions. There's a lot of exciting synergy, such that I don't doubt they belong in the same block, but I was re-reading the commentary on Jon Loucks' GDS2 submission and felt like many of the concerns expressed there could be applied here.
Appearing simultaneously alongside Evidence, the three mechanics could add up to a sum of such extreme "fiddliness" that your average player would just concede out of frustration after failing to see a line of play through a field of hidden information and graveyard triggers.
"the whole thing works with a fairly minor adjustment to the comprehensive rules"
Oh yes, good idea. It would be easy to tweak the rules so attackers don't count as blocked or unblocked after combat damage has happened, and AFAIK that wouldn't break anything, in which case the reminder could simply go back to "You may cast this for its feint cost if you remove an unblocked attacker you control from combat", which I still think people will EXPECT to work the way it actually does, but now would work that way in the comprehensive rules as well. I'd definitely vote for that (and to avoid "at the end of" which specifically doesn't work) but I agree you don't need to decide now.
Houlding— I get what you’re saying, but this seems to me to be the most direct and succinct way of saying when the ability is supposed to be used, and it captures the flavor of the ability perfectly. I think this is another one that falls into that Matt Tabak category, where the whole thing works with a fairly minor adjustment to the comprehensive rules (if it’s needed at all). I’m going to leave it this way for now.
Side note, my wife and I are going on the Magic Cruise this upcoming summer. Since I’ll have something of a captive audience including R&D members, I’m planning on bringing a mocked-up, playable/draftable set of SOR with me. They’re not technically allowed to look, but I know firsthand it’s happened before. I may be able to get some definitive takes on the viability of the way to make Feint work there.
I don't think there is an "end of declare blockers step". I think you'd have to use a modification of the Flash Foliage/Trap Runner/Curtain of Light text:
"You may cast this during combat after blockers have been declared for its feint cost if you remove an unblocked attacker you control from combat."
That could really use some commas, but I'm not sure how that might impact the actual rules behind "intervening if clauses" and whatnot.
I like that. I’ve amended it slightly (end of step), but put it in place.
How about "You may cast this during the declare blockers step for its feint cost if you remove an unblocked attacker you control from combat"?
I’m actually okay with that. My bigger concern was people sending in creatures, allowing them to hit, then Feinting with no discernable drawback or decision to be made. Even if they pull a creature out of combat before blockers are declared, they still had to choose to commit a creature to the cause.
If there’s a way to really restrict it to an unblocked creature after blockers are declared but before damage is dealt — with lest text — then I’m interested in that. The wording is brutal though.
V: That's right.
This has probably already been covered, but attackers before blockers are declared aren't blocked, but aren't unblocked either, right?