@TurboJustice.
The face-down in exile version is much better. In fact, I have a mechanic idea that does this.
Rift (cost) ( , Exile this card from your hand face down: You may cast it for it's Rift cost as long as it remains exiled this way. )
(the cost is constant to stop your opponent figuring out which one it is, like with morph)
Feel free to use it if you want (please provide credit if you do.)
The morph overlays are unique, they don't correspond with any rules-relevant game elements. My argument isn't that any other version in particular is better, but simply I don't think this version is suitable. It kinda works, but it's really not great.
How would I break it? Using an axe .
On an actually serious note, how do you not break this? There isn't really anything to break, it's just plain broken intrinsically at this costing at least.
@DashPrague515.
Your suggestion for design 5's cost is not constructed playable, compare Mantis Rider.
On that note, this card is unsuitble for constructed play as described. It's too simple for rare and would be too powerful at constructed levels for uncommon.
No, not to any argument over memory issues, only to those where the mechanic would be a big component of a set, and where the solution has already been implemented successfully. I don't think they 'shifted their burden to the player' when they made morph/manifest reminders, they just occupied the set's complexity allotment on that particular mechanic, because the pros outweighed the cons. And maybe, maybe here the cons outweigh the pros, but I want to quote Maro on saying "first, let's try if its fun to play, then we should worry if we can make it work."
I don't see what this mechanic does that can't be done using morph creatures with a spell-effect attached. And on that note...
I still don't buy the eternal formats argument, you just don't see that many morphs, its unlikely you would see many secrets here too, and then in the very unlikely case you build a deck that does include both sets of cards (cause there is no confusion across boards), prepare for it, or write on some pieces of paper. Really, the same thing could be said about counters (+1/+1 / -1/-1 / charge / loyalty / level / fate / etc? how is a player supposed to keep track? except its mostly a non-issue in actual gameplay, because they contain them in different sets) maybe if I had said "with a blue-secret counter on it" it would have been seen better?
Casual games compose a very large component of magic games, and you can never control them. And many players don't know the rules surrounding face-down creatures. The rules say if a permanent is turned face-down one by any effect that doesn't specifiy what happens, it becomes a 2/2 creature. Therefore, the same thing would happen to a face-down secret when it's turned 'face-down', and nothing would visually change, unless you put a rule preventing this which would further muddle the waters of these rules.
The potential risk of great confusion here could be done, but this mechanic does a poor job of justifying it.
Design 1 should be about 7 or 8 at mythic rare, in which case it should have an additional ability. On this note, I disagree with Jaxck in that this could be printed on a big bomb-y mythic rare like Craterhoof Behemoth.
Design 2 is unprintable, it's too powerful to cost effectively, increase the number of permanents required.
Design 3 is 4 mana worth.
Design 4 is clunky and enables only combo decks, I don't like it.
Design 5 could be a 4 mana uncommon.
Design 6 is unprintable, a la Upheaval.
Design 7 is about 3 mana worth.
@Thought Criminal.
The percentage of players who are bored by factions, multicolour with wedges, dragons AND time travel is very small. There is a lot interesting things going on. On the other hand, 'Return to Return to Ravnica' has only one thing: refresh of the same thing. It's bad design to do the exact same thing except change around the elements a bit. It's like a B-movie sequel. You need to change something at a macro-level. One of the major complaints against RTR was the same thing, some players wanted something newer. You can't get away with doing it again.
If changing something won't work, that doesn't justify doing it without changing anything. That's completely unrelated to the issue. Besides, things could easily be changed. The trick would be changing the guilds/world and keeping it the same in the right ways for each. You can very well do new guild mechanics, that wasn't what I was saying, what I was saying was you shouldn't do guild mechanics that match the same guilds or world as before. Something else has to change.
Overall, even if doing 'Return to Return to Ravnica' would be successful, I wouldn't be very interesting in doing so. There's no challenge to it, no artistic merit or creativity beyond minimal components. The end-goal of CCC for me at least, is to actually accomplish something that feels like an achievement.
You can use the 'As a long as it has a +1/+1 counter on it' text without worrying about counter removal. You can control whether there is any counter removal in you sets. As for eternal formats, it is more important that you avoid the memory issues, as it could leading to cheating-related issues in tournaments.
@CommanderZ
I am considering immediate changes for Sylvan Rally.
Stormsea Gale is pretty efficient for blue, yes, but it is uncommon, so it can be pushed a bit more for limited. As I have said, this could easily change.
@Legend
See GW Reinforce
Warden Tree Oak has had hexproof removed after consideration.
Worldtree Aven is updated.
About Stormsea Gale, 4 counters for three isn't very good. Consider Hunger of the Howlpack. It could be changed for power-level concerns still.
Sylvan Rally is comparable to many cards, it could be a little stronger, we'll see based on testing.
Frontier Ranger may change.
This archetype is looser defined because these archetypes were present from the start, I have always had a rough idea of some of the colour distribution, but actually defining archetypes is very much only just beginning.
@Doombringer.
The problem is most of the methods that would be used have associations with additional rules-relevancy, meaning players could easily be confused. I don't like the idea of using game aspects without actually using them.
The face-down in exile version is much better. In fact, I have a mechanic idea that does this.
Rift (cost) (
(the
Feel free to use it if you want (please provide credit if you do.)
On an actually serious note, how do you not break this? There isn't really anything to break, it's just plain broken intrinsically at this costing at least.
Monstrous normally only has a one-off effect. It's even more unlikely to matter, so less important. This mechanic will always have this issue.
Your suggestion for design 5's cost is not constructed playable, compare Mantis Rider.
On that note, this card is unsuitble for constructed play as described. It's too simple for rare and would be too powerful at constructed levels for uncommon.
I don't see what this mechanic does that can't be done using morph creatures with a spell-effect attached. And on that note...
Casual games compose a very large component of magic games, and you can never control them. And many players don't know the rules surrounding face-down creatures. The rules say if a permanent is turned face-down one by any effect that doesn't specifiy what happens, it becomes a 2/2 creature. Therefore, the same thing would happen to a face-down secret when it's turned 'face-down', and nothing would visually change, unless you put a rule preventing this which would further muddle the waters of these rules.
The potential risk of great confusion here could be done, but this mechanic does a poor job of justifying it.
Design 2 is unprintable, it's too powerful to cost effectively, increase the number of permanents required.
Design 3 is 4 mana worth.
Design 4 is clunky and enables only combo decks, I don't like it.
Design 5 could be a 4 mana uncommon.
Design 6 is unprintable, a la Upheaval.
Design 7 is about 3 mana worth.
The percentage of players who are bored by factions, multicolour with wedges, dragons AND time travel is very small. There is a lot interesting things going on. On the other hand, 'Return to Return to Ravnica' has only one thing: refresh of the same thing. It's bad design to do the exact same thing except change around the elements a bit. It's like a B-movie sequel. You need to change something at a macro-level. One of the major complaints against RTR was the same thing, some players wanted something newer. You can't get away with doing it again.
If changing something won't work, that doesn't justify doing it without changing anything. That's completely unrelated to the issue. Besides, things could easily be changed. The trick would be changing the guilds/world and keeping it the same in the right ways for each. You can very well do new guild mechanics, that wasn't what I was saying, what I was saying was you shouldn't do guild mechanics that match the same guilds or world as before. Something else has to change.
Overall, even if doing 'Return to Return to Ravnica' would be successful, I wouldn't be very interesting in doing so. There's no challenge to it, no artistic merit or creativity beyond minimal components. The end-goal of CCC for me at least, is to actually accomplish something that feels like an achievement.
Your suggestion uses a double-faced card, without actually defining it as such within the rules. That's confusing.
I am considering immediate changes for Sylvan Rally.
Stormsea Gale is pretty efficient for blue, yes, but it is uncommon, so it can be pushed a bit more for limited. As I have said, this could easily change.
@Legend
See GW Reinforce
Worldtree Aven is updated.
About Stormsea Gale, 4 counters for three isn't very good. Consider Hunger of the Howlpack. It could be changed for power-level concerns still.
Sylvan Rally is comparable to many cards, it could be a little stronger, we'll see based on testing.
Frontier Ranger may change.
This archetype is looser defined because these archetypes were present from the start, I have always had a rough idea of some of the colour distribution, but actually defining archetypes is very much only just beginning.
The problem is most of the methods that would be used have associations with additional rules-relevancy, meaning players could easily be confused. I don't like the idea of using game aspects without actually using them.