Sidenote: Please don't reply to your own comments, especially on your own thread, when you can just edit you last comment. While not your intention, it is a problem where people will just incessantly post on their own threads to bump them up the forum when people aren't paying attention to them.
As you said, bumping the thread wasn't my attention. I didn't edit my last comment because that was a reply to Pokerkingdave only. In hindsight,I probably should have just edited my first post. My bad.
So, to what I was talking about earlier, tying the number of tokens to toughness is almost never different than just assigning a value because toughness doesn't change in the graveyard (with rare exceptions to specific card templates).
True, tying the token value to toughness doesn't do much mechanically; it's mostly a thematic choice, so it may not be worth the extra text as you say.
Secondly, the cost of your tokens isn't a linear scale, especially if they have flying - Creating 3 1/1 flyers is significantly stronger than making 2, etc. and it isn't costing you card advantage since this is a graveyard activation. You will rarely want a number higher than 2 off one of these activations and often just 1 will be more balanced even if the creature is a 1/4 or something.
At this point it may be useful to compare Invoke to Afterlife, which didn't require an activation cost for the token creation, but typically had the cost stapled up front on the initial mana value. It seems like I could at least get away with the initial creature being aggressively costed if the token generation costs mana. But either way, I agree that there should be, at most, only a couple cards that could produce 3 tokens.
After mulling it over some more, I realized I was being too conservative with the activation cost to token quality ratio. Going with the precedent of cards like Dauntless Cathar, I've changed the tokens to 1/1 flyers. I still want to keep the toughness focus to preserve the Abzan feel, and to differentiate Invoke from cards like Dauntless Cathar, so I've reworked the mechanic to the following:
Invoke [Cost] ([Cost], Exile this card from your graveyard: Create a number of black and white 1/1 Spirit creature tokens with flying equal to half this card’s toughness, rounded up. Invoke only as a sorcery.)
Currently, I'm aiming to keep the activation cost roughly equal to even toughness creatures, and 1 mana higher than odd toughness creatures.
There will be some exile matters cards in the set, and possibly in Abzan colors. That will depend on the Mardu mechanic I end up with, which I've been debating between exile matters for them, or token matters. Either way, both clans will have synergy with each other.
I meant exile the creature and create one 1/1 token.
Ok, that helps make sense of your other suggestion too. My concern is that while it would be easier to balance this way, it doesn't allow for enough variability on cards with the mechanic. Having different costs and values keeps things interesting.
The power marker on scavenge created a lot of unnecessary complexity for how it was used in RTR block.
I didn't play any RTR limtied, so I didn't have any insight on the balance issues there. Thanks for the info. In the case of Invoke, I had the ability tied to toughness since that's a theme for Abzan, and I'm aware that if I were to keep it that way that I would have be very careful about the toughness to cost activation ratio. While it would be a little sad to lose the connection to toughness, it does seem like it would be worth it in order to lower activation costs.
if you keep it a static amount of tokens, you can use some design space to give them abilities or have an anthem like intangible virtue, but only adjust the power, etc..
I'm not sure what you mean. The invoke cards already exile themselves from the grave to create a token.
As to your other suggestion, yeah I definitely plan on having token payoff motifs in those colors. I'll have to be careful about how much support there is though, because that would still be a part of the balancing issue for the activation cost of the mechanic, as well as how many tokens I can produce. Anthems seem a little dangerous here.
I'm considering modifying the Abzan mechanic from my custom set, and so far have come up with the following alternative:
Invoke [Cost] ([Cost], Exile this card from your graveyard: Create a number of black 1/1 Spirit creature tokens with “This creature can’t block” equal to this card’s toughness. Invoke only as a sorcery.)
Obviously this is similar to Scavenge, which is an ability that WotC seems to have had difficulty balancing in the past. So the main kind of feedback I'm looking for at this point comes down to managing the power level (although I"m open to other comments and suggestions as well). I included "Can't block" on the tokens so that they can't gum up the board too much (especially in limited). I'm also considering the option of giving the tokens "When this attacks, sacrifice it at the end of combat," effectively giving the tokens decayed without using that keyword. Ultimately, the goal is to find a balance where the mechanic is still impactful without requiring an obscenely high mana cost for activation.
Edit: I realized after I posted here that this threat was almost a year old. My b.
No worries about "necroing" this thread. I haven't worked on this set for awhile, but recently I've been considering what tweaks and improvements I could make to the current mechanics and cycles, so I may start tinkering again soon.
I like your suggestion regarding Mastery. As you said, it would open up some interesting design space. My only concern is that the set as a whole isn't very tribal, and it might feel weird only having one faction in a set that cares about creature types. Nonetheless, it's an idea I'll try on for size when I get around to making new adjustments to the set.
Getting a massive butt during your own turn is only marginally useful, so the real question is, "how can I abuse this toughness boost?". High Alert, Huatli, the Sun's Heart and Assault Formation are the obvious choice, and suddenly dropping an army of 5/5s should not be underestimated. Loxodon Lifechanter and Angelic Chorus can skyrocket your life total to massive numbers...
A token/toughness matters/life gain deck? Sounds janky on paper, but I actually like where this is going. As far as potential partners go, Ikra Shidiqi, the Usurper really stands out. This could allow you to run Doran, the Siege Tower instead of High Alert. Also, if Prava of the Steel Legion is the only way you buff the actual power of your tokens, you could also run Sidar Kondo of Jamuraa in the 99 to sneak that combat damage in. Then include some lifegain payoffs such as Sanguine Bond and call it a day.
This deck would still be pretty reliant on specific pieces to work, but green/black card draw and tutors could get them more consistently, and the level of recursion in these colors could also get those pieces back if removed. Who knows, maybe this deck wouldn't be half bad...
I'll definitely include the tapped and attacking clause. I don't want them to have pseudo-vigilance. I appreciate the tips you have about the ability costs as well. That's something I was just thinking about. The difference here though is that you are also returning a creature you control to hand, which is is a tempo loss that morph doesn't have associated with it. On the other hand, it can lead to abusing Etb's as a potential upside down the road, as you suggested. That also includes returning other ambusher's to hand. Yeah, this is gonna be tricky to balance...
Calling all rules experts! Is the following mechanic - or at least something like it - possible?
Ambush ([Cost], return a creature you control that's blocked or blocking to your hand. Put [this creature] from your hand onto the battlefield blocked by or blocking the same creature the opponent controls).
Ok, so I came on here to ask a question about my own Wedge themed set (Eventually I hope to do my own version of a return to Tarkir, maybe one day), got distracted by your set because I love Khans of Tarkir (My favorite set to date) and I was overlooking some of yours, and I noticed something...we both used the exact same Jeskai mechanic Mastery...literally same name and everything, just found that absolutely hilarious. BTW love the custom mechanics!
Yeah, Khans of Tarkir is definitely my favorite set as well. And it's pretty wild that we came up with the exact same mechanic and name! What are the odds?! And thanks for the positive feedback on the mechanics.
Btw, did you have a question you wanted to ask about your wedge set? Also, I'm interested in what you've come up with so far for your own Tarkir set. PM me if your interested in sharing.
1. Renown was the perfect example to help with templating for Mastery. Looking over examples of Renown even showed me that I could refer to Mastery directly, which allowed me to modify Lotus Eye Visionary and Wisdom of the Masters. I've also changed the other three mechanics to be ability words as you suggested.
2. I'm glad you like Resurface. It definitely seems like a fun mechanic. Good catch on the danger of instant speed graveyard removal being able to hose the mechanic too much. I've updated it as a result. As far as allowing the mechanic to put the card directly into hand, that seems a little overpowered to me. The mechanic is intended to filter your draw for the turn (like dredge did), not draw extra cards. The extra costs (and lower mill amounts) are simply to prevent the mechanic from being as broken as dredge was. It seems hard to balance Resurface in a vacuum though, so if/when I get around to testing it'll be interesting to see if I'm playing it too cautiously right now.
3. I agree that the Dragonlords are going to need a rework at some point. Rather than hosing a particular color, I may have them hose the clan's mechanic in some way. For instance, Atarka would punish etbs to make life difficult for the Temur players. If I go this route, I might limit the negative effect to only impact your opponents, so if someone wanted to play Atarka in their own Temur deck it wouldn't hurt them as well. The problem is that this approach doesn't work as well thematically. It would definitely play better though.
Lol, yeah, it's taken a few iterations. But now it feels like I'm ready to get to the design stage for cards and see how well the mechanics actually pan out. If all goes well, the majority of feedback going forward can be geared toward templating and power balance suggestions.
I like this. My only concern is that it might not feel blue enough for a blue-centred Temur, at least in its similarity to the previous Temur theme. But that's fairly subjective and does depend somewhat on execution.
Agreed. I'll be shifting the weight of the ETB effects a little more heavily to the blue end of the spectrum to compensate. I also plan on including bounce and flicker support for more of that blue feel.
Ooh, that's a cool idea. Reminds me of Monstrosity and Ascend. I suggest templating it as such.
Mastery (When you cast your second non-creature spell each turn, if this creature hasn’t attained mastery, put a +1/+1 counter on it. It attains mastery)
& Optional bonus text: When (this creature) attains mastery/As long as (this creature) has attained mastery.
This means you can tuck away the mechanic text in a keyword and separate the unique effects, as well as give you more flexibility in what bonus effects you give without making the mechanic more confusing.
Maybe add a variable number for the +1/+1 counters as well? Depending on what sort of/how many bonus effects you want to do with the mechanic as to whether the extra flexibility or simplicity is better.
Thanks for pushing me on the DFC front. I was worried that I wouldn't be able to create the kinds of card designs I wanted to without it, but Mastery is proving to work well so far. And yes, your templating definitely feels cleaner. It's a little wordier, but that may be necessary for sake of clarity. Also, I hadn't thought about using multiple counters yet, but I'll keep that in mind as an option when simplicity seems called for.
As you said, bumping the thread wasn't my attention. I didn't edit my last comment because that was a reply to Pokerkingdave only. In hindsight,I probably should have just edited my first post. My bad.
True, tying the token value to toughness doesn't do much mechanically; it's mostly a thematic choice, so it may not be worth the extra text as you say.
At this point it may be useful to compare Invoke to Afterlife, which didn't require an activation cost for the token creation, but typically had the cost stapled up front on the initial mana value. It seems like I could at least get away with the initial creature being aggressively costed if the token generation costs mana. But either way, I agree that there should be, at most, only a couple cards that could produce 3 tokens.
Invoke [Cost] ([Cost], Exile this card from your graveyard: Create a number of black and white 1/1 Spirit creature tokens with flying equal to half this card’s toughness, rounded up. Invoke only as a sorcery.)
Currently, I'm aiming to keep the activation cost roughly equal to even toughness creatures, and 1 mana higher than odd toughness creatures.
There will be some exile matters cards in the set, and possibly in Abzan colors. That will depend on the Mardu mechanic I end up with, which I've been debating between exile matters for them, or token matters. Either way, both clans will have synergy with each other.
Ok, that helps make sense of your other suggestion too. My concern is that while it would be easier to balance this way, it doesn't allow for enough variability on cards with the mechanic. Having different costs and values keeps things interesting.
I didn't play any RTR limtied, so I didn't have any insight on the balance issues there. Thanks for the info. In the case of Invoke, I had the ability tied to toughness since that's a theme for Abzan, and I'm aware that if I were to keep it that way that I would have be very careful about the toughness to cost activation ratio. While it would be a little sad to lose the connection to toughness, it does seem like it would be worth it in order to lower activation costs.
Which version of the tokens are you referring to with this example: the one's that just can't block, or the ones with "decayed?"
I'm not sure what you mean. The invoke cards already exile themselves from the grave to create a token.
As to your other suggestion, yeah I definitely plan on having token payoff motifs in those colors. I'll have to be careful about how much support there is though, because that would still be a part of the balancing issue for the activation cost of the mechanic, as well as how many tokens I can produce. Anthems seem a little dangerous here.
Invoke [Cost] ([Cost], Exile this card from your graveyard: Create a number of black 1/1 Spirit creature tokens with “This creature can’t block” equal to this card’s toughness. Invoke only as a sorcery.)
Obviously this is similar to Scavenge, which is an ability that WotC seems to have had difficulty balancing in the past. So the main kind of feedback I'm looking for at this point comes down to managing the power level (although I"m open to other comments and suggestions as well). I included "Can't block" on the tokens so that they can't gum up the board too much (especially in limited). I'm also considering the option of giving the tokens "When this attacks, sacrifice it at the end of combat," effectively giving the tokens decayed without using that keyword. Ultimately, the goal is to find a balance where the mechanic is still impactful without requiring an obscenely high mana cost for activation.
No worries about "necroing" this thread. I haven't worked on this set for awhile, but recently I've been considering what tweaks and improvements I could make to the current mechanics and cycles, so I may start tinkering again soon.
I like your suggestion regarding Mastery. As you said, it would open up some interesting design space. My only concern is that the set as a whole isn't very tribal, and it might feel weird only having one faction in a set that cares about creature types. Nonetheless, it's an idea I'll try on for size when I get around to making new adjustments to the set.
A token/toughness matters/life gain deck? Sounds janky on paper, but I actually like where this is going. As far as potential partners go, Ikra Shidiqi, the Usurper really stands out. This could allow you to run Doran, the Siege Tower instead of High Alert. Also, if Prava of the Steel Legion is the only way you buff the actual power of your tokens, you could also run Sidar Kondo of Jamuraa in the 99 to sneak that combat damage in. Then include some lifegain payoffs such as Sanguine Bond and call it a day.
This deck would still be pretty reliant on specific pieces to work, but green/black card draw and tutors could get them more consistently, and the level of recursion in these colors could also get those pieces back if removed. Who knows, maybe this deck wouldn't be half bad...
@rowanalpha
I'll definitely include the tapped and attacking clause. I don't want them to have pseudo-vigilance. I appreciate the tips you have about the ability costs as well. That's something I was just thinking about. The difference here though is that you are also returning a creature you control to hand, which is is a tempo loss that morph doesn't have associated with it. On the other hand, it can lead to abusing Etb's as a potential upside down the road, as you suggested. That also includes returning other ambusher's to hand. Yeah, this is gonna be tricky to balance...
Ambush ([Cost], return a creature you control that's blocked or blocking to your hand. Put [this creature] from your hand onto the battlefield blocked by or blocking the same creature the opponent controls).
I'm open to feedback regarding the Endure mechanic for the Abzan and the Resound mechanic for Temur.
Yeah, Khans of Tarkir is definitely my favorite set as well. And it's pretty wild that we came up with the exact same mechanic and name! What are the odds?! And thanks for the positive feedback on the mechanics.
Btw, did you have a question you wanted to ask about your wedge set? Also, I'm interested in what you've come up with so far for your own Tarkir set. PM me if your interested in sharing.
2. I'm glad you like Resurface. It definitely seems like a fun mechanic. Good catch on the danger of instant speed graveyard removal being able to hose the mechanic too much. I've updated it as a result. As far as allowing the mechanic to put the card directly into hand, that seems a little overpowered to me. The mechanic is intended to filter your draw for the turn (like dredge did), not draw extra cards. The extra costs (and lower mill amounts) are simply to prevent the mechanic from being as broken as dredge was. It seems hard to balance Resurface in a vacuum though, so if/when I get around to testing it'll be interesting to see if I'm playing it too cautiously right now.
3. I agree that the Dragonlords are going to need a rework at some point. Rather than hosing a particular color, I may have them hose the clan's mechanic in some way. For instance, Atarka would punish etbs to make life difficult for the Temur players. If I go this route, I might limit the negative effect to only impact your opponents, so if someone wanted to play Atarka in their own Temur deck it wouldn't hurt them as well. The problem is that this approach doesn't work as well thematically. It would definitely play better though.
Thanks for the feedback!
Edit: Did a quick update of the Dragonlords.
Lol, yeah, it's taken a few iterations. But now it feels like I'm ready to get to the design stage for cards and see how well the mechanics actually pan out. If all goes well, the majority of feedback going forward can be geared toward templating and power balance suggestions.
Agreed. I'll be shifting the weight of the ETB effects a little more heavily to the blue end of the spectrum to compensate. I also plan on including bounce and flicker support for more of that blue feel.
Thanks for pushing me on the DFC front. I was worried that I wouldn't be able to create the kinds of card designs I wanted to without it, but Mastery is proving to work well so far. And yes, your templating definitely feels cleaner. It's a little wordier, but that may be necessary for sake of clarity. Also, I hadn't thought about using multiple counters yet, but I'll keep that in mind as an option when simplicity seems called for.