Conversation: Recent Activity
| Conversation: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics |
Recent updates to Conversation: (Generated at 2025-07-08 16:28:28)
| Conversation: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics |
Recent updates to Conversation: (Generated at 2025-07-08 16:28:28)
I know that we haven't met with great success (as in finished) our past community sets, but I thought perhaps we might try again.
I'm not sure. I find Lumithread Field and Zoetic Cavern interesting, but to be honest I've never played with them. I would have to play with spellmorph to know.
Good point, morph doesn't have that much flavour so it usually can fit, but it would have fit less well. Megamorph makes sense.
Which makes me curious again, it did feel like the comp rules changes for fate reforged were enabling spellmorph, possibly deliberately. So, is it still actually impossible in the rules for some reason I can't see? Or is it too complex? (I don't see why.) Or are they saving it for a block (hypothetical or specific) where it fits well. Or is it actually less tactically interesting than morph?
See Asking for Help from Other Users.
I'm considering opening up Anydria as a community set. While I love the concept of it and I frequently have ideas about it, I've realized that I don't have the proper drive and discipline to complete it by myself. I thought perhaps with community involvement I might break that barrier.
Would anyone be interested in participating? I realize that this might lead to significant changes to the set, which is fine. There are very few things that I'd be dead-set against changing.
I wish we had seen spellmorph, but I don't think it fit the flavor of morph in this block.
The name is pretty ridiculous, unless it's a purposeful references to Animorphs, in which case I approve.
I'm torn as to whether I find the tweak intriguing or frustrating. On the one hand, it's a simple, moderately interesting tweak to an existing mechanic. On the other hand, it's just "better" than morph, which annoys me a bit. It's also rather boring.
Formidable is a very nice alternate tweak on Ferocious. Megamorph... in some ways it seems rather dull (the name is utterly naff, and the effect is about as small a tweak on morph as is possible), but it is a clever variation in that it gives you a reason to cast things face-down, while still potentially having reasons to cast them face up too; while also keeping consistency with morph so you can't tell whether something was a morph or a megamorph.
I am still surprised that spellmorph hasn't turned up this block. It seems so natural. Possibly it turns out to be too much of a cost, paying 3 up front and then having to give up your useful 2/2 later to get a spell effect. The spells would have to be pretty expensive / powerful for that to be worth it. Has anyone ever playtested with spellmorph to see if it works?
Oh, and yes, I was too busy looking at Stratus Dancer's mechanics to evaluate it. But I don't know, a 2/1 that can be a counter, and can be a 3/2 flier is certainly good! But Stormfront Pegasus is good for a common, but not really for constructed. I'd like to see a constructed format where 2/1 fliers were relevant, for standard, small creatures probably need to be close to Stratus Dancer to see a lot of play.
Oh wow, I hadn't read the other spoilers yet. I should have expected more returning mechanics -- it makes sense for mechanics which have enough design space for a guild, but maybe not more. But I totally did NOT see that coming!
I love the idea of formidable, especially the "grants trample" one, it makes so much sense for G/r.
Personally I would've been fine with keeping manifest or morph as is. What surprised me the most was actually the return of Rebound. three returning mechanics? now that was a surprise.
Also holy molly that Stratus Dancer is a good card! Blue Stormfront Pegasus with upsides? Geeze!
Fascinated to see what megamorph turned out to be. (Like morph, but a +1/+1 counter when turned face up) Fan design speculation correctly picked up hints it would be a morph or manifest variant, and was on target with what sort of things would work, according to what Rosewater said wizards had tried.
But as with many reveals, wizards answer has interesting game play strategy, but is MUCH simpler rules wise than most things fan designers were considering.
Ah, off-colour activations or other off-colour mana symbols. Fair enough.
@Alex I've always referred to cards like Mardu Hateblade or Desperate Ravings as "monocolor gold". That is they are strictly speaking monocolored, but have multicolored color identity (technically I'd even put things like the Clan runemarks in that category too).
There are ways to make gold creatures more reliable. Morph, Suspend and Dash, for example, can operate with a gold frame and casting cost, but have a hybrid Morph, Suspend or Dash cost. I'm sure one could come up with quite a few more mechanics like that, if you put your noggin to it.
It's kind of cheating, though, and maybe that's good, or maybe not. If the point is to make a set using only straight gold creatures, then... hmm... I guess one option is to make your limited theme not revolve around creatures. Personally, I think that could be really neat. But I also think it's one of the easiest ways to create a complete disaster. Certainly possible, but I'm not sure how off the top of my head.
What do you mean by "gold monocolour"?
But anyway, yeah, it's an intriguing idea. Reminds me a little bit of the Community Set with its "gold versus monocoloured" theme, but this would want factions divided on different lines to that, I think.
Since creatures are the backbone of a Limited deck, I think it makes more sense to have all creatures mono and all spells gold than vice versa. It's still a pretty unusual idea - which is why it's so interesting, of course.
You'd need a compelling reason why the effects were divided that way. Both flavour and something mechanical. Perhaps Shadowmoor-style colour matters.
Thinking about a typical Limited deck of two colours plus splash... The creatures would be just as easy to cast as always. The removal and other spells would be a lot harder to cast... and unless the limited format was unusual, it'd be quite unlikely that all your spells will be in one colour-pair. Say you'd drafted a RBw deck, with lots of R creatures or B creatures, one white bomb... And the spells would be hopefully about half RB, with the rest a mixture of RW, WB, and artifact. (And RBW if there are triple-colour gold cards.)
I suspect the set will need pretty good common mana-fixing. Similar to Khans of Tarkir with its ten common dual lands and five Banners. But that's okay, that's doable.
I didn't know where else to express my excitement, but I felt the need to share it with everyone. I became a Level 1 Judge today! Yay!
Come to think of it, it might be very nice to have a central set for open requests, either its own set, or maybe a separate details page in design challenge linking to request cards in that set or in other sets. Then partly, people can throw up requests without needing the formality of a design challenge, and partly, if we want to stretch our creative muscles, we can go there and browse requests we might have something to submit for.
When ever I need advice/ help on on issue with a card or set of cards I'm working on I tend to go to the MTGSalvation card creation forums. I don't know have many members here also post there so I don't know how much help it would be. I found out about this site somewhere on that one.
I don't think I've actively solicited, but I should be. I can't decide if the mechanics I've come up with are exciting or not.
I even used a smiley and everything....
Anyway. Yeah; in the "Here are some random sets" it might be nice to also have "And here are some requests (random yellow-flagged comments) set designers have made"
Though, if it's not in recent changes, I'll not see it.
Link: Oh, cool! I didn't realise you were soliciting ideas for Anhydria. Point me at something explaining the broad category you're after and I'll see what I can come up with :)
Re ToothyChat: You're all making the mistake of taking Vitenka seriously again... ToothyChat is a browser-based chatroom, like an IRC channel (remember those?). The #elliott channel is on the topic of "games" (board games, video games, and quite a lot of Magic: the Gathering chat). Anyone's welcome, but it's probably not a very conducive venue for making design requests, and certainly not for reaching the majority of Multiverse users, who as demonstrated don't go there much!
On the topic of design challenges: I don't know how many of you follow the Goblin Artisans blog, but they have weekly design challenges and are apparently exploring possibilities for getting more involved in helping each other with our custom designs.
I don't even know what toothychat is, honestly.
I think a place to put requests would be useful, but I don't know who all would use it. I know I would, since I'm struggling with Anydria and I like the idea of just brainstorming for somebody else's set.
@Vitenka: It might be. But I don't really frequent toothychat (or have ever posted there.) There certainly isn't a link to toothychat from multiverse, so I don't know how many MV regulars spend anytime at TC...
I've also thought about sending stuff I've been working on over to Design Challenge, but felt that wasn't a good idea. Specifically, I wanted to send Community Set problems over there. But if people aren't willing/don't have the time/aren't interested in solving the problem at Community Set, then it wouldn't make much sense forcing it upon them at Design Challenge. Maybe this sort of thing is different? Don't know.
I will say that Conversation seems like a good centralized place where we can invite people to come look at requests. I kind of doubt opening another set for 'requests' is wise. One, because people might abuse it, which would lead to people ignoring it. But two: If it isn't abused, then the set would end up getting buried. Maybe I'm wrong. But so far, there's only been two requests for help on conversation (that I can think of.) I'd wait to see if more popped up before separating the pages.
I will say, however, that it would be nice if the Recent Updates page had some sort of color coding, highlighting different events in different colors so problems like this could just pop out. Perhaps a red highlight for when someone is asking for design help. I would think that pick up a lot of attention.
Isn't that what toothychat is for? :)
This is both a request for contributions on a specific topic, and an invitation to discussion on the more general question of how we invite contributions :)
My Code Geass set is in need of mechanics, and I've not come up with anything I'm hugely impressed by so far. So I'd love it if anyone here had suggestions. I'm particularly looking for a keyword mechanic (suitable for common cards) for the Britannian Faction, and another keyword mechanic suitable for commons for the Black Knights Faction. You don't need to know anything about those factions to contribute, except what's in the highlighted yellow comment on each faction's card!
I suspect that many users won't bother to read latest updates on that set, because it's tied to the flavour of a particular fictional setting which many of you here haven't seen (though you should ;) ). So the more general question is: Is there a need for some centralised place where we can invite people to come and look at particular requests we have? Highlighted comments work once people are looking at the cardset, but not if people aren't going to look into the set. Rachael suggested I could hold a Design Challenge on the topic, but that seems a bit self-indulgent and not really within the spirit of the design challenges.