Matador's Trick should probably say '...creature your opponents control' so it's better in 2HG. Overload had this problem. This could also cost .
Wintersmith should read 'Until end of turn, target gains...'. It's also very underpowered. Make it 2 to a creature or player.
Befuddle is probably better as , draw two, discard two. 5 cost counters are hard to justify using.
Impulsive Divination is interesting, but seems like an unnecessary effect to introduce. Stick with regular card draw OR impulsive draw.
1) Too general in use, chroma counted mana on cards in different places, meaning it's harder to build with.
2) Always linear due to keep consistent enough, but devotion is more flexible in this way.
3) Lack of flavour
4) Conservatively developed (not applicable to the mechanic itself)
I understand deidarakoon, the argument I am making is that your adapt monstrosity is too close to normal monstrosity. I was saying that IMO devotion is an improvement, a reworking of chroma whereas your suggestion lacks such a justification for it's similarities. It is does nothing to improve monstrosity so it shouldn't replace it and it does nothing to stand out on it's own.
I am however in favour of using your third suggestion (the additional cost=counter).
@Legend.
I disagree with your assessment of Devotion. I would have supported devotion had someone here proposed it given it has legitimate reasons being being a remake. Not only is devotion basically a chroma replacement, meaning chroma is very unlikely to return ever, but it's also improving on the mechanic and making it more suitable to the setting. The 'adapt' monstrosity variant only makes an existing mechanic that doesn't need to be replaced more suitable for a setting. That's not anywhere near the advantages of devotion vs chroma problem. I have no hesitation with supporting remade mechanics, returning mechanics and reprints but simple rehashes have no place in design. I'll put it out to example that I consider undying (e.g. Young Wolf) to be borderline in this way, it's only just manages to be acceptable in it's differences to persist (e.g. Kitchen Finks) to me at least.
You can't have it both ways. You can't argue that a rare won't keep something from being oppressive yet argue that it will ruin limited. Because it is a rare, it will only come up occasionally and when it does it can be dealt with. Removal isn't common but I wouldn't say it is 'very rare', there's no way that you can't have at least SOME removal to play against this card if it's problematic, main or in the board.
Every single set has hate against it's main theme. Not necessarily in a blatant and stand-out way like with the examples you listed, but purely through things like artifact, enchantment and land destruction. More often than not, set themes can be fought using commons (e.g. Fade into Antiquity), a single rare is hardly much of a risk unless a theme is very fragile. Instead it will simply provide a safety mechanism against themes that can be become very dominant and allow for some interesting meta about how valuable such hate it is. Sure, it is good to be careful not too put something like this at common, likely at uncommon as well, and not in any sizeable amount, but it seems like an overreaction to think it will do much harm as opposed to the good.
I don't agree with you there. I think a "balanced" wedge flavor, as opposed to ones heavily leaning on one of the allied colors in them (which resulted in a number of oddbal designs that didn't fit one of the color), is an interesting (if very difficult) challenge to tackle. What will make or break this concept is finding the right mechanic.
Personally I really liked the UWR description we have here, though I'm at a bit of a loss as to the mechanic that might come out of such a world. A bolster variant that puts counters on a random creature you control (as opposed to the smallest) is the closest I got.
I said "think of it not as the three colours combined but as something more flavour-based, find a sense of what the factions and the world want to be and design the rest around that." I was not saying anything about colour balance or mechanics or anything like that, but recommending the right mindset to design them and design 'lens' to evaluate them. One of the often overlooked aspects of design is not what you do but how you do it, developing the right skills is crucial to being a good designer, not just logistics.
There's nothing wrong with reusing designs. Take for example my own set, Runin. It has a returning mechanic (Reinforce) and plenty of reprints. The issue is with creating a new mechanic that's so like a previous mechanic that it might as well be it. The only reason to change is for novelty and to make it appropriate for the Simic (because 'Monstrosity' isn't a good Simic name and it's a bit Gruul in effect as well).
The first adapt suggestion is acceptable by me, it's not the perfect mechanic, but it would do. The second suggestion is too lose.
And such, another trend (after archetype overviews) is born.
-
Midnight Howling, Manifest the Depths and Foretold Heroics seem quite strong so I would keep an eye on them.
Realm of the Mori is interesting.
EDIT: Dreamscape Adept may be fair as a 3/3 considering Aven Surveyor has flying AND is modal. Dreamwalk is difficult to evaluate without a good knowledge of how the set plays.
@deidarakoon
Not everyone cares much about how well the set plays. Plenty of casual players never play limited or constructed games and other players like homebrew formats or just playing for the fun of it. Using an uninspired mechanic is not going to appeal at all to many of those players and many players (like me) who like to see creative designs. If a monstrosity variant works so well, then why not use actual monstrosity? If that doesn't work, don't use a variant just so you can make it fit. What is the point of custom card creation if not to be creative? The majority of sets here barely ever get played, so why rush to fill it out rather than take time to look for a more interesting option? The greatest advantage of custom design is a lack of true limits, even without the funding and resources of R&D, you literally have as long as you want to work things out in whatever way you want. This considered, custom design should be less conservative than practical design not more.
-
Adapt suggestion 1: Not bad, but a bit forced perhaps. Could see this being a guild mechanic, but it wouldn't support it as a more major set mechanic.
Adapt suggestion 2: Seems like it would cause confusion over how it works (what is consistent and what isn't) and more importantly it relies on the opponent, which is normally a mistake.
I understand that yes, white isn't supposed to get good card draw, and yes, MotM is a heavy bend. But it's not unreasonable to print the occassional heavy bend if it is for a good reason. The foundation of all these colour pie issues is that the normal colour pie is simply not balanced in commander, where late game is later. This considered, it's difficult to balance colours in commander without breaking standard formats. There are two distinct ways to bypass this imbalance effectively: use effects that play slightly differently in commander (impulsive draw encourages cheap spells more outside of commander than in it), or use the occasional heavier bend. I am not suggesting white should get frequent card draw spells or that white should have linear draw like Divination, only that the very occasional MotM like card could be good for the game overall. It would of course be necessary to consider eternal formats, but vintage and legacy are already leaning blue so as long as such cards are kept in check it shouldn't cause any real problems.
@doombringer
Considering the aforementioned Mentor of the Meek, we can gather that at least white is capable of very occasionally having CA engines that tie in colour. Luckily, Commander is both an eternal format (meaning every one counts) and can have cards printed for it that won't impact standard. I would be in favour of printing a few (only a few) such cards over the years to support commander. CA is such a crucial and fundamental part of the game (unlike enchantment removal) that it is a little easier to justify than other bends of a similar nature.
Lucidity Guardian - Nice card... But I don't think it should appear in same set as Premonition, in my opinion it's not very good idea to have so efficient hate against one of your main themes or mechanics in your set... It's obviously good thing to have something like this in Standard, but it can lead to some very bad moments in limited.
But it is very fragile, it dies to pretty much anything. Counter cards like this are a good thing, we see them all the time in sets. They are valuable developmentally in both limited and constructed as a way of keeping certain themes from being oppressive. As long as this is mostly a one-off it's good that it does. It is also a rare so it couldn't be any safer without being inefficient at do it's job in set.
Wintersmith should read 'Until end of turn, target gains...'. It's also very underpowered. Make it 2 to a creature or player.
Befuddle is probably better as
Impulsive Divination is interesting, but seems like an unnecessary effect to introduce. Stick with regular card draw OR impulsive draw.
2) Always linear due to keep consistent enough, but devotion is more flexible in this way.
3) Lack of flavour
4) Conservatively developed (not applicable to the mechanic itself)
I am however in favour of using your third suggestion (the additional cost=counter).
I disagree with your assessment of Devotion. I would have supported devotion had someone here proposed it given it has legitimate reasons being being a remake. Not only is devotion basically a chroma replacement, meaning chroma is very unlikely to return ever, but it's also improving on the mechanic and making it more suitable to the setting. The 'adapt' monstrosity variant only makes an existing mechanic that doesn't need to be replaced more suitable for a setting. That's not anywhere near the advantages of devotion vs chroma problem. I have no hesitation with supporting remade mechanics, returning mechanics and reprints but simple rehashes have no place in design. I'll put it out to example that I consider undying (e.g. Young Wolf) to be borderline in this way, it's only just manages to be acceptable in it's differences to persist (e.g. Kitchen Finks) to me at least.
Every single set has hate against it's main theme. Not necessarily in a blatant and stand-out way like with the examples you listed, but purely through things like artifact, enchantment and land destruction. More often than not, set themes can be fought using commons (e.g. Fade into Antiquity), a single rare is hardly much of a risk unless a theme is very fragile. Instead it will simply provide a safety mechanism against themes that can be become very dominant and allow for some interesting meta about how valuable such hate it is. Sure, it is good to be careful not too put something like this at common, likely at uncommon as well, and not in any sizeable amount, but it seems like an overreaction to think it will do much harm as opposed to the good.
I said "think of it not as the three colours combined but as something more flavour-based, find a sense of what the factions and the world want to be and design the rest around that." I was not saying anything about colour balance or mechanics or anything like that, but recommending the right mindset to design them and design 'lens' to evaluate them. One of the often overlooked aspects of design is not what you do but how you do it, developing the right skills is crucial to being a good designer, not just logistics.
The first adapt suggestion is acceptable by me, it's not the perfect mechanic, but it would do. The second suggestion is too lose.
Well, we are on topic
-
Midnight Howling, Manifest the Depths and Foretold Heroics seem quite strong so I would keep an eye on them.
Realm of the Mori is interesting.
EDIT: Dreamscape Adept may be fair as a 3/3 considering Aven Surveyor has flying AND is modal. Dreamwalk is difficult to evaluate without a good knowledge of how the set plays.
Not everyone cares much about how well the set plays. Plenty of casual players never play limited or constructed games and other players like homebrew formats or just playing for the fun of it. Using an uninspired mechanic is not going to appeal at all to many of those players and many players (like me) who like to see creative designs. If a monstrosity variant works so well, then why not use actual monstrosity? If that doesn't work, don't use a variant just so you can make it fit. What is the point of custom card creation if not to be creative? The majority of sets here barely ever get played, so why rush to fill it out rather than take time to look for a more interesting option? The greatest advantage of custom design is a lack of true limits, even without the funding and resources of R&D, you literally have as long as you want to work things out in whatever way you want. This considered, custom design should be less conservative than practical design not more.
-
Adapt suggestion 1: Not bad, but a bit forced perhaps. Could see this being a guild mechanic, but it wouldn't support it as a more major set mechanic.
Adapt suggestion 2: Seems like it would cause confusion over how it works (what is consistent and what isn't) and more importantly it relies on the opponent, which is normally a mistake.
Considering the aforementioned Mentor of the Meek, we can gather that at least white is capable of very occasionally having CA engines that tie in colour. Luckily, Commander is both an eternal format (meaning every one counts) and can have cards printed for it that won't impact standard. I would be in favour of printing a few (only a few) such cards over the years to support commander. CA is such a crucial and fundamental part of the game (unlike enchantment removal) that it is a little easier to justify than other bends of a similar nature.
'Adapt' isn't really any different from Monstrosity. Just slightly adjusting an existing mechanic is not a good idea for a new one.
But it is very fragile, it dies to pretty much anything. Counter cards like this are a good thing, we see them all the time in sets. They are valuable developmentally in both limited and constructed as a way of keeping certain themes from being oppressive. As long as this is mostly a one-off it's good that it does. It is also a rare so it couldn't be any safer without being inefficient at do it's job in set.