|
|
Post by droqen on Oct 9, 2015 10:39:29 GMT -8
Justice — Cards with justice first declare that something your opponent could do is 'against the law' - the specific 'something' depends on the card. At the beginning of each upkeep, if an opponent broke the law last turn, each card triggers its justice effect. Here is the previous discussion thread for Justice.Use this topic for talking about Justice or mechanics to represent the Consul in general. If you have a concern that you feel warrants a new thread - for example, one that involves multiple mechanics at once, or is particularly noteworthy such as proposing a significantly different version of the mechanic - make a new thread for it. Otherwise, please use this thread. Justice is meant to represent an oppressive and dominating government and aristocracy. Current discussion is about whether Justice cards at common should all have the same 'law' or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by nichgrayson on Oct 21, 2015 8:31:55 GMT -8
I am in favor of having one Law at common. And between Mecha and Revolution, I think I found an interesting one...
Border Captain (COM)
1W
Creature - Human Soldier
3/1
Law - Transforming permanents is against the law.
At the beginning of each upkeep, if an opponent broke the law last turn, put a +1/+1 counter on Border Captain.
Consul Magehunter (COM)
2B
Creature - Human Soldier
2/3
Law - Transforming permanents is against the law.
At the beginning of each upkeep, if an opponent broke the law last turn, put a +1/+1 counter on Consul Magehunter.
Demagogue (COM)
W
Creature - Human Advisor
1/2
Law - Transforming permanents is against the law.
At the beginning of each upkeep, if an opponent broke the law last turn, you may pay 1. If you do, put a 1/1 colorless Thopter creature token onto the battlefield.
Production Foreman (COM)
2U
Creature - Human Artificer
2/2
Law - Transforming permanents is against the law.
At the beginning of each upkeep, if an opponent broke the law last turn, you may pay 1. If you do, put a 1/1 colorless Thopter creature token onto the battlefield.
Mindwiper Agent (COM)
3U
Creature - Human Artificer
2/4
Law - Transforming permanents is against the law.
At the beginning of each upkeep, if an opponent broke the law last turn, each opponent puts the top three cards of his or her library into his or her graveyard.
Consul Interrogator (COM)
2B
Creature - Human Rogue
3/2
Law - Transforming permanents is against the law.
At the beginning of each upkeep, if an opponent broke the law last turn, each opponent puts the top three cards of his or her library into his or her graveyard.
This law may seem too parasitic, but for the most part the commons would only matter for Limited. And we can make more modular ones at Uncommon, Rare and Mythic Rare. Also, you probably hate the milling effect on the Black and Blue cards. But I was trying to create some quick draft strategies. Having 1 Law and 3 effects seems a great way to cut complexity for this mechanic at Common.
|
|
|
|
Post by reuben on Oct 21, 2015 15:40:28 GMT -8
My issue is that its so parasitic compared to other potential laws. Outside of this set and innistrad it would never trigger.
This seems like a better idea for a single card.
|
|
|
|
Post by Inanimate on Oct 21, 2015 15:42:38 GMT -8
I feel like discouraging an action that people are excited to take is a problem. I liked the suggestion of finding a simple universal action. "Blocking" was a good one as it accelerated the game, and was something you HAD to do at some point. (On the other hand, making "attacking" against the law slows the game down and you never HAVE to attack, so it's a poor choice.)
I really like the effects you chose and how you distributed them. I think that's actually the perfect distribution. Wonderful choices and keen designer sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by nichgrayson on Oct 21, 2015 16:55:24 GMT -8
reuben: I don't know if the Justice mechanic at common needs to have use outside Limited or Standard. Is that something we're striving for? Any format with Tesla will have constructed DFC cards, and possibly whole decks based on flipping cards, so there is potential for a common with this Law to play a role in Standard. Inanimate: That instinct is understandable, but "Transforming permanents is against the law" could prove very fun. As with Innistrad, I imagine DFC's will pull a lot of focus in the set. They're exciting, fun to play, etc. They will probably rule Limited. Consider if The Consul has Mecha, and the rebels have Reuben's Revolution. Or whatever. This pitch presupposes both sides have DFC. That's the mix I like. Anyway, Mecha don't flip often in a game, but are powerful when they do. Players are going to play them regardless of whether they allow an opponent to gain +1/+1 counters or thopters or trigger a mill. And because of the one-sidedness of the mechanic, you can play Mecha AND Justice cards yourself without an issue. On the other side, Revolution cards clear a hurdle to flip and then every card with the mechanic after that come into play and flip. That's a lot of transform actions. Players are going to have a very strong incentive to get their DFC's flipping, so these Justice cards will be a strong target for removal, and trades in combat. At that point, hello, we're telling the story of the conflict via game play. These common laws give bonuses, but it's not harsh. It seems manageable and allows for fun.
|
|
|
|
Post by Inanimate on Oct 22, 2015 8:09:29 GMT -8
It's not about whether you choose to keep playing the mechanic or not, it's about the negativity that would surround what should be an exciting and all-upside action. We do want our gameplay to tell a story, but we also want it to remain fun and as positive as possible for both players.
|
|
|
|
Post by reuben on Oct 22, 2015 17:24:36 GMT -8
Also note that we are not guaranteed to use all these transform mechanics in the final product. I suspect that once we discover which is playing best that the rest will be cut.
|
|
|
|
Post by nichgrayson on Nov 5, 2015 12:57:07 GMT -8
I am playtesting a common pool with both Mecha in UBR and Revolution in RGW, so there are a lot of Transformation triggers. Here's what I'm going to test out (it's almost exactly what I first proposed):
Border Captain
1W
Creature — Human Soldier
3/1
Law — Transforming permanents is against the law.
At the beginning of each upkeep, if an opponent broke the law last turn, put a +1/+1 counter on Border Captain.
Demagogue
W
Creature — Human Advisor
1/2
Law — Transforming permanents is against the law.
At the beginning of each upkeep, if an opponent broke the law last turn, you may pay 1. If you do, put a 1/1 colorless Thopter creature token with flying onto the battlefield.
Production Foreman
2U
Creature — Human Artificer
2/2
Law — Transforming permanents is against the law.
At the beginning of each upkeep, if an opponent broke the law last turn, you may pay 1. If you do, put a 1/1 colorless Thopter creature token with flying onto the battlefield.
Mindwiper Agent
3U
Creature — Merfolk Rogue
2/4
Law — Transforming permanents is against the law.
At the beginning of each upkeep, if an opponent broke the law last turn, each opponent puts the top three cards of his or her library into his or her graveyard.
Consul Interrogator
2B
Creature — Vampire Rogue
3/2
Law — Transforming permanents is against the law.
At the beginning of each upkeep, if an opponent broke the law last turn, each opponent puts the top three cards of his or her library into his or her graveyard.
Consul Magehunter
2B
Creature — Vampire Soldier
2/3
Law — Transforming permanents is against the law.
At the beginning of each upkeep, if an opponent broke the law last turn, put a +1/+1 counter on Consul Magehunter.
Surveillance Monitor
2
Artifact
Law — Transforming permanents is against the law.
At the beginning of each upkeep, if an opponent broke the law last turn, scry 1.
|
|
|
|
Post by Inanimate on Nov 5, 2015 13:10:18 GMT -8
Surveillance Monitor seems really weak. Also, do note that a lot of the fun of Laws is that there were different laws, so the more cards you had that made laws, the more your triggers went off. If all the common cards share the same law, it's almost pointless to phrase it with the 'law' mechanic, isn't it?
|
|
|
|
Post by nichgrayson on Nov 5, 2015 15:34:16 GMT -8
Surveillance Monitor is weak. I want to see how Law plays on a card that's harder to destroy than a creature. So I chose an innocuous effect.
Also, creating a web of laws is fun. I'm sure we'll test that. This playtest pool has 15 DFC spread across all 5 colors and in artifact. I wanted to cut complexity and see how a griefer mechanic like this works when the trigger is almost always going to happen. Does it feel unfun? Does it feel fair? Is it fun to play with? Having one trigger will help me collect that info. Phrasing it as a mechanic when all the common triggers are the same should be fine once it's in a context of a full set where triggers are different at higher rarities. Like how all the common Quests in original Zendikar block triggered off landfall.
|
|
|
|
Post by Inanimate on Nov 5, 2015 17:42:14 GMT -8
There's a large difference between "one trigger that occurs often" and "many different triggers that occur occasionally". In the first, one card alone will trigger as often as all the cards together. In the second, the more cards you have the more likely it is any will trigger. I'm sure you're aware of this, but it's an important note and one reason I think testing a variety of Laws is important.
The mechanics I have earmarked for a playtest (as soon as I'm done with midterms and projects) includes Laws for this reason. I want to test as many variations as possible, and I think it's best to start with high-variety and work downwards.
|
|
AlexC
New Member
Posts: 16 
|
Post by AlexC on Nov 17, 2015 3:52:37 GMT -8
The whole appeal in the Justice concept is to have a web of different triggers. I think it's okay if all the comons in a given colour all have the same trigger, as long as the uncommons and rares add enough variety, but I don't like the idea of just one law across all commons. That makes most Limited games lose the heart of what made Justice so appealing.
|
|
|
|
Post by nichgrayson on Nov 17, 2015 7:59:37 GMT -8
I've made changes for my next playtest where the laws are all different, but the reward is the same. I assume it will be wildly popular. As popular as AEtherstudy was.
Lawkeeper Elite
1W
Creature – Human Soldier
3/1
Law—Putting one or more +1/+1 counters on a creature is against the law.
At the beginning of each upkeep, if an opponent broke the law last turn, put a +1/+1 counter on Lawkeeper Elite.
Lawkeeper Monk
W
Creature – Human Monk
1/1
Lifelink
Law—Attacking with artifact creatures is against the law.
At the beginning of each upkeep, if an opponent broke the law last turn, put a +1/+1 counter on Lawkeeper Monk.
Lawkeeper Inspector
3U
Creature – Merfolk Soldier
2/4
Law—Casting more than one spell each turn is against the law.
At the beginning of each upkeep, if an opponent broke the law last turn, put a +1/+1 counter on Lawkeeper Inspector.
Lawkeeper Aerialist
3U
Creature – Merfolk Artificer
2/2
Flying
Law—Transforming a spell or permanent is against the law.
At the beginning of each upkeep, if an opponent broke the law last turn, put a +1/+1 counter on Lawkeeper Aerialist.
Lawkeeper Deputy
3B
Creature – Vampire Rogue
3/2
Law—Gaining 1 or more life a turn is against the law.
At the beginning of each upkeep, if an opponent broke the law last turn, put a +1/+1 counter on Lawkeeper Deputy.
Lawkeeper Hangman
2B
Creature – Vampire Soldier
1/3
Deathtouch
Law—Sacrificing permanents is against the law.
At the beginning of each upkeep, if an opponent broke the law last turn, put a +1/+1 counter on Lawkeeper Hangman.
Surveillance Monitor
2
Artifact
Law—Attacking you is against the law.
At the beginning of each upkeep, if an opponent broke the law last turn, scry 1.
|
|
|
|
Post by radicaljackal on Nov 17, 2015 10:35:13 GMT -8
Like Inanimate has said, laws about blocking "Break the law or get hit in the face" seem a lot more fun than laws about attacking "You could get some damage through but my lifelink creature will get bigger". What kinds of non-Law cards do you see going well in a Law deck? Could we make an aggressive UW archetype? I am seeing lots of attacking tokens and bounce and then some evasive creatures that get bigger when the opponent blocks or replays their hand in one turn. Then we could have a more controlling UB archetype. A few good blockers and laws about attacking with more than 3 creatures, edicts and laws about sacrifice. (I don't know control very well) It is hard to build a web of laws when the deck is about keeping permanents off the board.
How do we feel about laws about bad things happening? Do we want to be able to include cards that make the opponent break the law or are we just making a lot of laws and hoping the opponent breaks one? I'm thinking something like "discarding cards is against the law". I think it is probably better game play but might be missing the flavor of the mechanic, unless that is the flavor we want for black laws.
|
|
AlexC
New Member
Posts: 16
|
Post by AlexC on Nov 17, 2015 17:18:27 GMT -8
I definitely like Nich's new set of cards. The common trigger should help them work at common, while the varying laws allow any two of them to both trigger each other whenever either law is broken. I'm amused that a Lawkeeper Elite on each side will keep triggering each other back and forth  However I suspect radicaljackal is right that the anti-attacking laws probably aren't going to be good for gameplay. I appreciate Surveillance Monitor deliberately has a very weak trigger on its own, but with any other one it becomes more of a problem. The rest look great though. |
|
|
|
Post by Inanimate on Nov 29, 2015 12:11:53 GMT -8
radicaljackal: Laws about 'bad things' happening would fit well in black at higher rarities, to represent an abusive and malevolent justice system. Stuff like miscarriages of justice, police brutality, and being arrested for trumped-up charges. Stuff like that.
I agree that the cards need to promote momentum, not discourage it. One or two triggers like that are fine at higher rarities, perhaps, but definitely not at common.
|
|
|
|
Post by reuben on Nov 30, 2015 20:04:23 GMT -8
www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/creativity/custom-card-creation/650622-tesla-assorted-u-w-cardsSilvercut suggested alternate wording to help clear up a lot of the confusion that some cards create when referring to certain players: So currently we have the following very confusing card: Casting a spell that targets a creature you don’t control is against the law. Justice – At the beginning of your upkeep, if an opponent broke the law since the beginning of your last turn, District Enforcer gets +2/+2 until end of turn. While silvercut suggests it be changed to: It is against the law for a player to cast a spell that targets a creature he or she does not control. Justice -- At the beginning of your upkeep, if an opponent broke any laws since your last upkeep, District Enforcer gets +2/+2 until end of turn. Thoughts about this before I apply it to all cards in the magicmultiverse file?
|
|
|
|
Post by radicaljackal on Dec 1, 2015 7:45:15 GMT -8
The second one is much clearer.
|
|
AlexC
New Member
Posts: 16
|
Post by AlexC on Dec 2, 2015 5:46:03 GMT -8
Oh yes, that new version is much better. (The law trigger. I don't mind either way on the "beginning of your last turn / your last upkeep" issue. The latter has a problem, I think, in that if they cast spells during your upkeep but after the law trigger has happened, they get away without punishment.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Inanimate on Dec 6, 2015 14:40:08 GMT -8
I'm experimenting in my playtest with Justice as WB primary, U secondary. Black needed more mechanics, and after thinking critically about Justice, I think it's a far better fit in black than white. One, black often likes 'punishing' its opponents for actions - two, 'corrupt' justice makes more sense in black - and three, black has a lot of good 'Justice' effects that truly feel like punishing the opponent, while it seemed blue's 'Justice' effects rarely felt like an actual punishment.
I'll see how it plays out and whether I can make enough solid Justice designs for black/white along my imagined lines. Blue still will get two Justice cards at common in my playtest.
|
|
