Welcome to the latest installment of You're a Designer, Harry! Last time, we talked in detail about the inclusion of a vanilla faction in the set and the implications of doing so along with the reasons why we should do so. Today, we'll be talking about its neighboring faction, the nonwhite faction. More specifically, about three different possible mechanics in detail.
Some of you may know Jules Robins as @JulesRobins from Twitter, as Jules Robins on Quiet Speculation, or as Jules Robins when he comments frequently on this design column. Well, I met up with him in-person recently, and we talked design. It was pretty much a syncing up of the latest design efforts on the set, and we last left off in our conversation (we ran out of time!) of wanting to playtest Lurk.
Robin's in the Batcave
For those of you who have been following this column for a while, you may remember that Lurk is a mechanic proposed by Chah (@ChahMTG2) for the nonwhite faction. And there were two different versions of it. You can see his original submission of Lurk cards here. Now, let's go over again how these two Lurks work (Note: I've modified Chah's original lurk in the following two versions' wordings):
Lurk {COST} (You may pay {INSERT NUMBER HERE} to exile this face down under a permanent you control. Put it onto the battlefield face up any time by tapping the permanent it's under while it is untapped and paying the lurk cost.)
Examples:
The above version of lurk functions very much like morph. There's a lurk cost to pay for putting it onto the battlefield face up, and then there's an initial cost to pay to make it lurk under a permanent in the first place. This is just like how you must pay {3} to put a card with morph from your hand onto the battlefield. Above, I labeled it with "INSERT NUMBER HERE" since that cost is to be determined from playtesting. I'd imagine it to be costing less than {3} since both mechanics have a vulnerable drawback (a 2 toughness on a morph creature and the only way to bring a card out of lurking is to tap the permanent it's lurking under). So, {1} or {2}, but {0} seems not so bueno.
Ah, speaking of which: I've been stubborn with not letting go of morph as an option for the nonwhite faction for a while now (Thinking, "There's just gotta be a way! I just haven't thought of it, yet!"). That is, up until recently. After doing some more figuring regarding the vanilla faction, it dawned on me that if the vanilla faction will indeed exist, that morph cannot coexist with it. This is because the color that's not included in the vanilla faction will have to have each of its creatures with an ability. And when a morph card is face down, it has no abilities! So, it's one or the other. I'd say that the vanilla faction is a much better choice for the set rather than bringing back something that's been done more than once in Magic blocks.
Anyway, the second version of lurk is as follows:
Lurk {COST} (You may pay this card's lurk cost and exile this under a permanent. When the permanent it's lurking under leaves the battlefield, put this onto the battlefield.)
Examples:
Ah, much cleaner. And less feeling-like-this-faction-is-one-that-lives-among-the-underground-darkness. Well, shoot. Also, this means that lurking under lands is highly undesirable, and, to a lesser extent, artifacts and enchantments. Well, unless the environment is designed to accommodate lurk specifically by including more land/artifact/enchantment destruction. ...Ew. Or more sacrifices that way. Or flicker effects! ...But, wait, that's a white effect, and what is that doing in a nonwhite faction. Now, this is just a mess. Thus, let's just go with the first version of lurk, if anything.
However, I realize that the way I worded the first version of lurk is quite messy. I was trying to effectively do this: "{COST}, {T}: Put the card lurking under this onto the battlefield face up." Well, that just looks weird. Let's see it as the whole ability:
Lurk {COST} (You may pay {INSERT NUMBER HERE} to exile this face down under a permanent you control. That permanent gains, "{COST}, {T}: Put the card lurking under this onto the battlefield face up.")
Example:
Well, what do you think? The text is shorter; and, like the first version ...of the first version, it gives purpose to lurking under permanents. It makes use of them as a cost for coming out of their lurking mode. It also gives a reason for why you're choosing a particular permanent because of the tap symbol in the cost. And it's definitely much better than waiting for a permanent to leave the battlefield, especially when it came to noncreatures. Looks good a possibility.
In Design Space, No One Can Hear You Scream
As for other possibilities in terms of mechanics for the nonwhite faction? Let's talk mechanics besides morph that we could bring back that would fit nonwhite's flavor.
First off, regular readers of Mark Rosewater would know now that modern design calls for each large set to bring back an old mechanic as part of their efforts to keep up Magic's longevity. The same goes for modern Core Set design as we can see with scry in M11 and bloodthirst in M12. The reason for this is that Magic only has so much design space, and when a new mechanic such as a keyword or an ability word is introduced, there's a certain amount of design space associated with it. It's the Magic designer's responsibility to make use of all of that design space, but one issue is that a single block, most of the time, does not provide enough card slots for that design space to be used up. That's why we gotta save those keywords for blocks/sets to be designed in the future.
For example, splice only interacted with Arcane cards during Kamigawa block. There's potential for splicing onto Goblin or Equipment! ...So, someday, when it makes sense with the block/set to bring it back, splice will be back.
Now, for the possible mechanics we could bring back for the nonwhite faction: Prowl and Hideaway.
Swords to Prowl
Prowl would be a strong choice because of how it depend upon the creature type. This makes the vanilla faction more relevant. It also "feels" like it would make sense in the nonwhite faction because of how beings in the darkness can be, all, prowling. You know? However, one issue: What creature type(s)?
Morningtide had it right with tying all prowl cards to the creature type Rogue. Otherwise, it'd be kinda sad to have some cards work only for part of your prowl cards while other cards would work for your other prowl type of cards. But, this is a four-color faction all about not being white. So, what creature type doesn't appear in white that appears in the rest of the four colors? And what would make sense for the flavor of the faction? Mutants tend to not be white, but what the heck are they doing being mutants for this faction? And Goblins usually don't appear in blue while Vedalken are never green. The answer? Come up with a new race.
This actually goes back to Chah's lurk mechanic proposal again. He proposed introducing a new race of people that exist in this underground faction. And I think that would be a great idea. The flavor of the faction, currently, says that the denizens of this faction moved underground to avoid becoming blinded only to have evolved away their sense of sight because of living in the darkness (to which they move back up to the surface as blind creatures). And, because I wouldn't know what this race would be named, yet (just like with the names of the factions themselves); I'll just call this race Fel, at least, for now. The Fel was named by Chah as seen on his lurk cards.
Another issue would be noncreature cards with prowl. Prowl works by drawing upon the existing creature types of the card. But, that would limit prowl to just creatures, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Unearth, devour, and bloodthirst only appeared on creature cards, for example. So, this can be O.K., but it raises the question of whether we want to involve tribal to enable noncreatures to use prowl.
Currently, I'm voting to go as clean as possible and not bring back tribal. I believe we can do without it and still create interesting cards. We can still design cards that interact with prowl without having to use prowl itself. At least, this is my belief. Here are some sample cards:
...Something like that. There's lots of room to play around in with prowl in terms of costing and effects tied with prowl. I mean, for goodness' sake, there were only a handful of cards designed with prowl in Morningtide!
Hideaway-lchemist
The other mechanic I've thought of possibly bringing back is hideaway. Really, Hideaway is not complex, has practically 100% room to grow, and the face down nature along with the name is strong with the flavor of the nonwhite faction. The thing is, though, is that using hideaway means we need a way to use the face down exiled card that is consistent with all the commons, at the very least. We wouldn't want a hideaway card triggering off of lifegain and another hideaway card that is tied to an activated ability that can only be activated during the upkeep. Or whatever. Nay!
The first thing that popped into my head, probably because of the recent playing with bloodthirst, is a bloodthirst-style trigger. You would be able to play the hideaway'd card only when a creature you control has dealt combat damage to an opponent. Pretty solid trigger, I'd say.
Here's why: It encourages combat. That's always good. It makes it so that the opponent has some interaction with the mechanic, which is great. And it also makes hideaway not TOO good in that a hideaway-caring creature doesn't always have the luxury of being able to get through to the opponent, either with itself or another creature. Lastly, getting a benefit when hurting the opponent is very black.
Speaking of color flavor, the random-ness of only being able to choose from the top four is quite red. Red and black are the two central colors to the faction. Aha! And hideaway matches up flavorfully! Hoo wee. Exciting.
What's even more exciting is how much synergy it has with the rest of the set's mechanics. Well, most likely. The nonred faction will most likely care about the top of the library. Aha! The due library manipulation will help hideaway (perhaps). Also, the nongreen faction being able flying means evasion which means getting through to deal damage. Woo, trigger (assuming we go with that trigger)! Lastly, vanilla creatures + hideaway could put your opponent into a pickle when they'd rather not block that huge power/toughness creature yet not want you to trigger all your hideaway cards.
So, it'd look something like this:
Hideaway (This permanent enters the battlefield tapped. When it does, look at the top four cards of your library, exile one face down, then put the rest on the bottom of your library.)
You may play cards exiled with CARDNAME as long as an opponent was dealt combat damage this turn.
You may play cards exiled with CARDNAME as long as an opponent was dealt combat damage this turn.
Anyway, what are some other fair ways to be able to interact with your newly-gained face down exiled card? Should you be able to play the card right away? Is the above implementation not exciting enough (the interaction in combat then being able to play a card [pay for its mana cost in its entirety, mind you])?
Perhaps there can be some variation on the condition, but there will still be something that is the same about it across all implementations of hideaway. For example:
Hideaway (This permanent enters the battlefield tapped. When it does, look at the top four cards of your library, exile one face down, then put the rest on the bottom of your library.)
You may play cards exiled with CARDNAME as long as a(n) {permanent type} entered the battlefield this turn.
You may play cards exiled with CARDNAME as long as a(n) {permanent type} entered the battlefield this turn.
(Of course, this particular implementation of hideaway could be very bad since it costs mana to cast nonlands, and that would mean casting nonland cards that are hidden away with not all of your mana available.)
You get the picture. The thing is, there's so much you can do for a condition, that it's hard to pick what really should be the common condition for the hideaway faction.
Lastly, we may want to modify hideaway to be "Hideaway X" so that there would be more versatility to the mechanic. Right now, the mechanic has two values that the number in "Hideaway X" could be referring two. One is the amount of cards you exile face down. The other is the number of cards you look at from the top of your library. So, here are two possibilities:
Hideaway 2 (This permanent enters the battlefield tapped. When it does, look at the top four cards of your library, exile two face down, then put the rest on the bottom of your library.)
Hideaway 2 (This permanent enters the battlefield tapped. When it does, look at the top two cards of your library, exile one face down, then put the rest on the bottom of your library.)
Say, Gee, What's your Diagnosis?
And with that said, it's time to wrap it up. So, here are the deliverables:
- Should we keep lurk? If so, what version of lurk should we go with?
- Should we go with prowl? If so, should we use tribal? Either way, what's the best way to make prowl work in the nonwhite faction? A new creature type? What about an existing one?
- Should we go with hideaway? If so, what's the best condition for hideaway cards to interact with? Should we modify hideaway ("Hideaway {NUMBER}")to be more versatile?
- What other existing mechanic should we bring back instead of prowl or hideaway?
Leave your thoughts, suggestions, etc. in a comment below! Thanks a lot for reading, and we'll see you next time (or sooner, if you catch me on twitter)!
Cheers,
Bradley Rose
Twitter: @bradleyrose
Twitter: @bradleyrose
No comments:
Post a Comment