Why add the lands part? That just makes it weirder.
My suggestion:
Impulse (Every three cards you exile from the top of your library pays for )
Might be cleaner as:
Impulse- (When this creature enters the battlefield/as an additional cost to cast this spell) you may exile the top (number) cards of your library. If you do, (effect)
Or like exploit
Impulse N (When this creature enters the battlefield, you may exile the top N cards of your library.)
When (this creature) impulses...
-
About the name, something like 'energize' or 'critical' could be better, but it depends on what set this would be in of course.
Rift is currently leaning towards being sorcery speed so the cards are costed as such. If it was to be instant speed, Sudden Denial would be moved to a rift cost of . Also, a 3 mana hard counter that can't be discarded wouldn't be OP, compared to Dissolve and Dissipate.
Still very awkwardly worded and the 'fuel' supertype is unnecessary. Keep it simple, adding parasitism doesn't make it interesting, you can encourage a linear strategy without being blatant.
If you want to use it as a cost, you are encroaching on delve more by being more general. At this point, honestly, it seems like there's not much point behind this mechanic. What are you trying to do with it? Why should it exist when delve already does? What is the context for this mechanic?
If it were to be a standalone keyword, which, I agree, it should be, it would be better worded (based on mechanic conventions) as:
Pyre N (You may cast this card from your graveyard if you exile N (colour) cards from your graveyard.)
I removed the pyre cards matter from my suggestion for two reasons, the parasitism (not very, but far from nothing) and complexity related to the comment I made previously, and because it is difficult to word neatly while still following formatting and functional conventions of mechanics. The current version is very simply unacceptable in this regard unless JuanCu chooses to ignore this design rule (which I can respect, there's nothing wrong with doing what you want here as long as you know exactly what you are doing).
Rift has two stages: one, the card is always exiled face down for the cost of (similar to Morph) , and two, the card is cast for an alternate cost (as opposed to an additional cost) as indicated on the card (the rift cost).
About Sudden Denial balancing, as much as I am happy to receive anecdotal balancing feedback, this is entirely a development matter. No amount of discussion will compensate for a lack of playtesting, so I will always wait for the later unless I personally feel unhappy with it. You make a fair point, and it is noted.
Also, what do you think about the questions I posed?
The thing about fake themes is that a lot of themes that at first seem fake, with the help of a good flavor team, can be made not-fake, so long as they actually play together well, even if they dont actually play off of the same thing, if that makes any sense. So I get that a lot of the set doesnt directly play into the CMC theme, and that is because the CMC theme is fairly limited, and instead I play off of number of creatures etc, but I dont see that as necessarily a problem in and of itself.
Thats why I think the less than 3CMC vs. more than 3CMC theme is of more import than the actual general CMC theme itself. So long as those two sides have distinct playstyles and are interesting, I think the set could be a success. Not saying Ive got the sides right, but I think at that central idea is at least valid. I'm most worried about the side of the elites, to be honest.
Creative isn't relevant to how good a design is. It doesn't matter how awesome the storyline and world is, a bad design is bad. Design incorporates creative, but don't let that fool you into thinking that creative elements in design are not part of the design. The point, to me at least is not about you sticking to your CMC theme, that's not the point at all. The point is that core of your design doesn't seem very developed, if I am correct, everything is going to work fine until things have to start being ironed out and finalised, when you will realise you don't have enough development of your theme to make things work.
In order to fix this potential problem, I would sit down and really break down your set: What is the most essential idea that drives your set? Is that an interesting idea? Or are you trying to make an interesting set out of a boring idea? What themes are their to represent your basis idea (as many as you can think of)? Is there ways you can expand change your basis idea to allow for more themes to draw from? Is their enough diversity in your themes to create an interesting strategical environment (especially for experienced players)?
Those are the question you need to ask when creating a set, it's the same sort of questions I ask myself, especially when I am having doubts.
Think about things, explore possibilities, take your time. If something isn't quite working, don't give up on it or try to use it anyway, work with it.
Good luck
Forgotten Secrets ( )
Sorcery (U)
You draw two cards and lose 2 life.
Rift ( )
If you cast Forgotten Secrets for it’s rift cost, you draw three cards and lose 3 life instead.
Swath of Flame ( )
Instant (U)
Swath of Flame can’t be countered.
Swath of Flame deals 3 damage to target creature.
Rift ( )
Time of Forthcoming ( )
Instant (R)
Search your library for a creature card, reveal it, and put it into your hand. Then shuffle your library.
Rift ( )
if you cast Time of Forthcoming for it’s rift cost, put that creature card onto the battlefield instead.
Pyre is currently too complex. 'If you also exile two red cards or a card with pyre from your graveyard for each { } you pay' is too much. Remove the 'or a card with pyre' and this is more to standard.
-
In general, this mechanic seems somewhat overly familiar and seems developmentally problematic in costing correctly. I don't think it's very good.
Irresponsible Archaelogy - I don't think this card is good idea - Reconstruction definitely isn't blue effect nowadays... Also I'm sure that this card still needs to be an uncommon, even in right colors.
I wouldn't be so sure about Reconstruction. Blue can return spells (Pull from the Deep) and can care about artifacts (Chief Engineer) so it seems likely that blue would also be able to do artifacts from graveyard. I'm going to ask MaRo about this because now I need to know for sure.
Zero-Sum Knowledge- I wouldn't go with the random discard suggestion. The most limiting, and by extension most important factor here is rarity. Random discard is significantly more punishing than normal, such that it should rarely appear at common. A three mana efficient version is pushing it. I might be acceptable, seeing as it is worse in larger number particularly. The most important question, rather than simply evaluating the card as-is, is the set. It's a lot easier to balance cards in context, which can provide easier answers through clear need to be weaker or stronger based purely on role in set. Balancing the card then becomes not how powerful should it be, but how powerful it can be.
House Advantage- Probably better suited to be an uncommon so it's easier to balance. 'Fatesealing' a player is potentially quite damaging to player's experiences, hence why the eponymous mechanic has yet to appear since it' conception. Being at uncommon would reduce such concerns significantly.
Acrid Attrition- Could theoretically be fair as , but again, the set context is the deciding factor, especially in a case like this where either option is acceptable and it's a matter of which is best. You may want to use the 'Choose one or both' template to enable casting without both targets, but the current way is simpler.
Sleeper's Intelligence- Fine, if a little boring, but it is a common.
The "Fake Theme Trap" is where a designer builds around a theme without a proper design goal and fully established gameplay ideas. Where mechanics and cards don't tie together in a comprehensive and/or satisfying way. Basically, as the name suggests, it's having a theme that isn't a proper theme. That's the gist of it at least, it's a complex idea.
EDIT: The way to solve this problem is to develop the set's basis. Find the innermost core of the design and explore what that means about the rest of it. Flesh out several themes in a variety of ways, both mechanically and flavourfully.
You have five mechanic in green alone, that's a bit much isn't it. You need more room to expand on the individual mechanics in a colour and spreading them out more also reduces new player's exposure to new mechanics to learn over time. Agree with Doombringer on pretty much everything he said as well. Also, why is there only 9 cards? Is this a small set or is there a lot of multicolour...?
No. That's very inelegant.
Why add the lands part? That just makes it weirder.
My suggestion:
Impulse (Every three cards you exile from the top of your library pays for
Might be cleaner as:
Impulse- (When this creature enters the battlefield/as an additional cost to cast this spell) you may exile the top (number) cards of your library. If you do, (effect)
Or like exploit
Impulse N (When this creature enters the battlefield, you may exile the top N cards of your library.)
When (this creature) impulses...
-
About the name, something like 'energize' or 'critical' could be better, but it depends on what set this would be in of course.
If you want to use it as a cost, you are encroaching on delve more by being more general. At this point, honestly, it seems like there's not much point behind this mechanic. What are you trying to do with it? Why should it exist when delve already does? What is the context for this mechanic?
If it were to be a standalone keyword, which, I agree, it should be, it would be better worded (based on mechanic conventions) as:
Pyre N (You may cast this card from your graveyard if you exile N (colour) cards from your graveyard.)
I removed the pyre cards matter from my suggestion for two reasons, the parasitism (not very, but far from nothing) and complexity related to the comment I made previously, and because it is difficult to word neatly while still following formatting and functional conventions of mechanics. The current version is very simply unacceptable in this regard unless JuanCu chooses to ignore this design rule (which I can respect, there's nothing wrong with doing what you want here as long as you know exactly what you are doing).
About Sudden Denial balancing, as much as I am happy to receive anecdotal balancing feedback, this is entirely a development matter. No amount of discussion will compensate for a lack of playtesting, so I will always wait for the later unless I personally feel unhappy with it. You make a fair point, and it is noted.
Also, what do you think about the questions I posed?
Creative isn't relevant to how good a design is. It doesn't matter how awesome the storyline and world is, a bad design is bad. Design incorporates creative, but don't let that fool you into thinking that creative elements in design are not part of the design. The point, to me at least is not about you sticking to your CMC theme, that's not the point at all. The point is that core of your design doesn't seem very developed, if I am correct, everything is going to work fine until things have to start being ironed out and finalised, when you will realise you don't have enough development of your theme to make things work.
In order to fix this potential problem, I would sit down and really break down your set: What is the most essential idea that drives your set? Is that an interesting idea? Or are you trying to make an interesting set out of a boring idea? What themes are their to represent your basis idea (as many as you can think of)? Is there ways you can expand change your basis idea to allow for more themes to draw from? Is their enough diversity in your themes to create an interesting strategical environment (especially for experienced players)?
Those are the question you need to ask when creating a set, it's the same sort of questions I ask myself, especially when I am having doubts.
Think about things, explore possibilities, take your time. If something isn't quite working, don't give up on it or try to use it anyway, work with it.
Good luck
Forgotten Secrets (
Sorcery (U)
You draw two cards and lose 2 life.
Rift (
If you cast Forgotten Secrets for it’s rift cost, you draw three cards and lose 3 life instead.
Swath of Flame (
Instant (U)
Swath of Flame can’t be countered.
Swath of Flame deals 3 damage to target creature.
Rift (
Time of Forthcoming (
Instant (R)
Search your library for a creature card, reveal it, and put it into your hand. Then shuffle your library.
Rift (
if you cast Time of Forthcoming for it’s rift cost, put that creature card onto the battlefield instead.
-
In general, this mechanic seems somewhat overly familiar and seems developmentally problematic in costing correctly. I don't think it's very good.
I wouldn't be so sure about Reconstruction. Blue can return spells (Pull from the Deep) and can care about artifacts (Chief Engineer) so it seems likely that blue would also be able to do artifacts from graveyard. I'm going to ask MaRo about this because now I need to know for sure.
House Advantage- Probably better suited to be an uncommon so it's easier to balance. 'Fatesealing' a player is potentially quite damaging to player's experiences, hence why the eponymous mechanic has yet to appear since it' conception. Being at uncommon would reduce such concerns significantly.
Acrid Attrition- Could theoretically be fair as
Sleeper's Intelligence- Fine, if a little boring, but it is a common.
EDIT: The way to solve this problem is to develop the set's basis. Find the innermost core of the design and explore what that means about the rest of it. Flesh out several themes in a variety of ways, both mechanically and flavourfully.