Metadesign Collaborative: Recent Activity
| Metadesign Collaborative: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics |
Recent updates to Metadesign Collaborative: (Generated at 2026-03-03 17:39:10)
| Metadesign Collaborative: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics |
Recent updates to Metadesign Collaborative: (Generated at 2026-03-03 17:39:10)
Can Magic work with the additional of spatial dimensions?
Magic is dimensionless: it doesn't take into account physical spatial dimensions (1d, 2d, 3d). Thus no additional strategies and thinking towards movements and proximity.
Many other games do consider the spatial dimensions, and usually base entire rules and victory conditions around it. Such as Netrunner, Shadowfist, Legend of Five Rings, Guardians. Shadowfist centers on Sites, Netrunner on servers and ICE, L5R has provinces, Guardians you control terrains.
Let's mention the features of spatial gameplay.
Location. Other cards are deployed on or around these locations.
Movement. Sometimes objects can move between locations.
Combat. Usually players vie for control of locations. They can be directly attacked and defended.
Victory. Some games let you win the game based on how many locations you control, destroyed, or other relations to locations.
However, Magic being designed as dimensionless from the beginning, and now entering its 25th year, would it be possible to add such a feature? If so, how much could it change the nature of this game? For backwards compatibility, spatial strategies preferably are optional.
Oh, those are indeed cool things blue could do.
But sometimes you just want the brute-force "No." option.
@SecretInfiltrator: I had considered that wording, and I like it, but I was unsure about the reception. I thought blue manipulating the spell in other ways (like I listed above) would go over better. Ha!
Just linking to an old discussion on some ideas I put forward: Here.
Also I'll put forward (for the Nth time) the wording "Cancel target spell." for Cancel.
I'm saying you could replace Counterspell with "Destroy target spell". Which works, does the same thing, and makes sense without needing specific terminology. But would be horrible because new players would expect it to work on "Spells in play" i.e. permanents.
@Vitenka: I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I imagine something like this:
> NuMagic
> Instant
> Change the text on target instant or sorcery spell to say, "Target opponent draws a card."
Or something like:
> ManaSap
> Instant
> Target spell loses all text and has "Tap two target uptapped lands you control."
"Destroy target spell"
Too confusing for new players though. The spell/Permanent distinction is, frankly, horrible already.
IMHO, the word 'counter' while intuitive is also messy because there are also 'counters' which are entirely different despite being so similar.
Also, if we look at the history of 'counter-spells' in popular culture, we can trace it back to DnD and the works of fantasy that inspired it, and in those works a 'counter spell' was just that: a spell which specifically undid, negated, or cancelled the effects of another spell. By that logic Doom Blade is very much a counter-spell - it counters your enemy's summons. Demystify is very much a counter-spell - it counters your enemy's enchantments. Unsummon is a counter-spell!
IMO, the phrase 'counter target X' should be entirely replaced with blue doing other forms of card manipulation. Putting spells back in their owners hand, sapping the mana out of their mana pool, putting spells back in their owners libraries, blanking cards or replacing card text entirely.
DFCs can represent any kind of change. I'm long-term working on a new set that uses DFCs to show the transformation between Lorwyn/Shadowmoor - including double-faced supplemental card types e. g. vanguards, schemes, planar cards.
A similar thing could be done for Planar Chaos's "alternate present" theme. What if instead of colorshifting you present alternative versions by having tha alternate on the reverse?
There are many themes of transformation that have used other mechanics in the past - many of them using counters e. g. renown.
In fact thematically the exploration DFCs of Ixalan are reminiscent of Zendikar's quests (not by coincidence since Ixalan is a stand-in for Zendikar's adventure world while the later plane rebuilds) and in a similar fashion you can build upon other existing mechanics.
Ha! "Don't see much other space". You're funny :)
Check out Mirroria, a custom cardset consisting of entirely DFCs. Not very sensible in the real world, but in custom cardset world, wow, it's such an amazing exploration of a vast number of different ways to use DFCs. Many of them are "past to future", but that's an overly general category - it includes the Origins planeswalkers and the Ixalan explorations.
I have some opinions about the logistical issues of real-life DFCs (I make it more like 15 logistical issues all told). But I can't deny they're one of the most insanely large veins of design space discovered in the past 10 years.
Double-faced cards come with two logistical limitations that custom designers may or may not ignore when designing their cards:
Constantly flipping back and forth is tiring and tedious. Transform cards should only transform once in a while, or only once at all.
Not as much of an issue now, but DFCs should be used in batches due to printing issues and due to the fact that you've gotta print a checklist card for each set that has them.
They also come with a rules limitation in that the back side cannot use an existing name of a card currently in print. This reduces the shenanigans where you get multiple creatures turning into the same end result.
Thematically, I feel like a lot of people have used it in custom sets to represent Past -> Future, which I think is a fairly logical step. Aside from the occasional flavorful design here and there, I don't see much else thematic space that you can shove DFCs into that isn't already covered by Innistrad, Magic Origins, and Ixalan.
The core concept of double-faced cards is transforming from the front face to the back face.
Innistrad introduced DFCs with mainly creatures changing forms from day mode to night mode.
Magic Origins told the stories of Planeswalkers gaining their sparks, starting as creatures and becoming PWs.
In Ixalan, the front side is the journey and the back side is the destination.
"You're losing one victory type and gaining another, so there is no loss."
Missing the point. It was pretty clear from the start that this conversation was about replacing what occurs when a player draws from an empty library, so parity of victory conditions was already implied. Also, I don't think anyone actually cares about the exact count of the win conditions in the game outside of the context of how the game plays out strategically. Even exchanging equally, there still is a loss, just one that comes with a gain. Magic is a game played by a people with a wide diversity of preferences and playstyles, and any changes of this nature come with an inherent negative baggage. Creating a change that adds strategic depth doesn't remove the negative baggage, it justifies it. Granted, this is implied for any such change, but the reason I mention it at all was because you tried to totally hand-wave it away (spinning as a net positive on its own, no less.)
"As proposed, new victory removes need for stalling between two control decks."
You need to explain this better, because it doesn't seem like a single other person in this thread understood what you were going for here. As I see it, it doesn't remove the need for stalling, it removes a need for explicit finishers because stalling out is the finisher.
Third block:
Control - Sure. Either explicit finishers are still needed in control, or they're not, in which case we get back to the point above. Combo - This point wasn't about milling at all, it was about drawing out. I'll cede this point since it is in fact not relevant to most combo decks currently in existence.
Fourth block:
1&2: With the exception of constant searching or revealing of libraries, you can only really interact with the library as unknown cards, which is the difference from the graveyard. Well, there are interesting ways around this I can think of that might be worth exploring, with some information known by only one player. I think some proof-of-concept designs would have helped the initial discussion here.
3: Fair enough.
Moot. You're losing one victory type and gaining another, so there is no loss. Second there will still be cards that mill, but now they actually matter.
Moot. Stalling is already present in Magic. It's enabled by control deck archetype, regardless of victory type. As proposed, new victory removes need for stalling between two control decks.
Moot. Finishers and combos are anything provided by designers. There is nothing in new victory type that dictates what can or can't be finishers or combos.
State the percentage of combo decks that must rely on milling to win. At best, most combos splash a single mill card as back up. Wow interesting and crucial, mill is.
Moot.
So my original opinion on this idea when this thread was first created was that it was something mildly interesting to think about, but probably with too little merit to be seriously considered. After reading amuseum's comments though, I've come to the conclusion that this is an absolutely terrible idea.
It does a few things (just from his comments):
-Kills off mill; removing an entire element of the game, which, as far as I know, was never a balance issue and is moderately popular in casual play
-Apparently focusing more design space on making the game stall out more, seeing as this is supposed to be a main win condition alongside damage
-Allows control to not have finishers, meaning control mirrors are now who can count to 60 (or 48) faster, with some cards making that count go faster or slower -> By extension, combo decks now have less interesting victory conditions as well.
-Encourages card designs that send things into the library instead of the graveyard, decreasing interactivity as the only way you can interact with cards in your deck is to draw them
Huh; Phenax was "mill for 14" which is a pretty short clock to put them on. And fairly hard to get rid of too. I guess it was pricey though, and, well, if you have lots of power of creatures why not win that way?
To be fair, I heard Phenax, God of Deception was unplayable, as someone I know tried very hard to make a mill deck based around him work in standard and failed miserably. Sphinx's Tutelage on the other hand was used in a deck that was at least somewhat popular and capable of winning during a point when it was in standard.
Well, they rarely make it viable. There was that one mythic god; I guess.
Self-mill as a win condition is literally the opposite of interactive. It discourages interaction completely. It makes interacting with the board unnecessary, and does nothing to your opponent.
What makes you say that R&D hates mill? Did I miss that article somewhere?
infinitely more exciting and interactive than "Target player puts the top two cards of his or her library into his or her graveyard."
I just don't find this idea suited to introduction into a game that's so established. And, to build off of what Alex said, creating a (baked-in) win condition rather than a loss condition inherently decreases player interaction.
I'm curious as to how card draw provides "excitement and interaction". At the moment effects that just durdle around preventing damage and drawing cards feel rather non-interactive. If you have ideas for ways to make it more interactive, those could definitely be interesting.
There are plenty of card games that use the cards in the library as a life total - life loss equals milling, life gain equals returning cards to the library etc.
So for those games there also is already no "arbitrary external value like life total or counters", so clearly winning by emptying your library is not a prerequisite to turn away from "arbitrary external value like life total or counters".
As I understand it your new win condition wouldn't replace life totals and poison counters, but just turn milling from a loss condition to a win condition, right?
So a lot of what you say seems to be arguing right past the proposal, or better: perpendicular to it.
For what it's worth during the recent Pro Tour multiple players with a stable life total conceded to the threat of being milled rather to the threat of counters or lethal loss of life.
This shift in rules would have a clear influence on graveyard strategies. Progressing to your goal also would fuel e. g. delirium and flashback. Dredge would be wonderful.
There is one big positive to this change (if we assume it also comes with this win condition being supported more than mill as you suggest - though I don't think that's a given): A win condition has the advantage over a loss condition when you consider player elimination (in multiplayer) an issue. Players are not left by the sideline watching if the game immediately ends as soon as one player reached their goal.
As a card game, this is rightfully a victory that relies on cards, not some arbitrary external value like life total or counters. that is, the means and ends are self inclusive. you don't need to bring tools to track who's winning or try to keep numbers in your memory that change so often.
I always wanted to reduce deck size anyway. something like minimum 48 card decks and maximum 3 of any non basic land.
Current control matchups are boring because their strategy and win con are diametrically opposed. control wants to draw a bunch of cards, but that doesn't help them win directly. instead they have to wait until the board is clear so they can drop a fatty safely, who then wins via combat damage.
with the new rule, control players now have a goal that aligns with their MO. players have to be aware of how many cards opponents are drawing. they can try to outdraw, or put cards back to opponent's deck to slow them down.
on that note, more effects that return stuff to library, to combat this victory condition. instead of discard to grave, put card on bottom of library. instead of exiling cards in grave, return them to bottom of library.
some self mill effects might change to put cards on the bottom of the deck. to keep library size same. depending on the effects desired and color pie. self mill to grave might be okay at one or two cards. anything bigger cycles to bottom of library.
so called winning by milling in Magic is only interesting because it's a novelty, rarely done. fans of milling like it just because It's different from the norm. is that really something worth keeping? Wizards barely gives it any support.
so flip it around and make library-based victory proactive. this coincides with Civilization set themes. major factor of Civ games is research and tech. you strive to outtech opponents. at the end when you've researched all the techs, you get satisfaction. this new win con provides similar goal, excitement, and interaction.
Aye.
Leveler, Doomsday, Mirror of Fate, Paradigm Shift, Inverter of Truth and such would have to all be banned.
It's too late into the game to change sometimes that has historically been a loss into a win. Perhaps you could design a new name that incorporates this strategy.
If this is just meant to be a new, constant, alternate win condition, why choose to alienate and push way the fans who enjoy milling their opponent?
Card draw is already desirable - this makes it even more so.
It makes "play or draw" a more interesting choice. Though it also makes being first in multiplayer even better. Ground-stalls are promoted.
I think decks would also need to be smaller. Drawing 60 cards, let alone 100, takes ages. Especially in organised play environments, this would lead to more cancelled matches due to timeout rather than actually winning this way.
But mainly - playing against a stall deck is really boring. People tend to fold if an opponent gets a statis lockdown already.
The good things it would do - a stasis deck no longer needs a win condition. A game that ground-stalls out now has a clear winner, with a primary win condition rather than "Oh, I guess it's you".
It makes walls (literal and otherwise) more desirable; and makes deliberately locking up the board a viable tactic rather than just annoying.
Self mill being viable means graveyard stuff is much more important. Kinda the opposite of how sets usually get to that conclusion. Beware flashback and dredge-like effects. Although dredge is now amusingly more expensive.
Yeah; I figure you could do a game like this. But you'll get some number of games where both players aim for a stall, which would make creature combat kinda ritualistic and - well, kinda pointless.
Oh! And it wouldn't be fun to watch. At all.
This is for the main game, not just single card. Metadesign is meant for sweeping changes to the game.
A new state based effect says you win if your library is empty. This lets pacifist decks to race against damage based decks -- including creature combat.
The game will then have to support two main win cons. Pacifist strategies and deck archetypes will need to get equal and fair attenton as offensive strategies.
Funny story about Dash Hopes: friend of mine tried running it in his Phage the Untouchable commander deck as a way to get her into the graveyard. I'm not quite sure how he thought the card worked, but it was a lot of fun paying five life to let him die to his own commander.