|
Post by jaytreat on Dec 7, 2015 12:23:36 GMT -8
A simpler possibility:
Lawkeeper Elite 1W Creature – Human Soldier 3/1 Mandate—Players must cast at least one spell during their own turn. Those that cannot must reveal their hand at the end of their turn.
Lawkeeper Monk W Creature – Human Monk 1/1 Lifelink Mandate—Artifact creatures must attack if able.
Lawkeeper Inspector 3U Creature – Merfolk Soldier 2/4 Mandate—Players can't cast more than one spell each turn.
Lawkeeper Deputy 3B Creature – Vampire Rogue 3/2 Mandate—At the end of each player's turn, if no damage was dealt that turn, that player loses 2 life.
Lawkeeper Hangman 2B Creature – Vampire Soldier 1/3 Deathtouch Mandate—At the end of each player's turn, if no creatures attacked, that player sacrifices a creature.
|
|
|
Post by radicaljackal on Dec 7, 2015 14:18:57 GMT -8
Lawkeeper Elite is a bit of a problem because there are corner cases where you can draw cards during your endstep without casting a spell and then you can't prove which cards you had during your mainphase. You could have them have to cast or reveal before they can pass priority in their second mainphase, but not at common and I probably still wouldn't at rare.
Lawkeeper Hangman - This gets gross if you have no creatures in play and the ones in your hand don't have haste or flash. Do we just want this to say something like "players must attack with at least one creature if able" I think this could be blue and have the penalty be tapping all their creatures so they can't block.
I understand the mechanical reason but do we have a flavor reason why not attacking is illegal?
|
|
|
Post by nichgrayson on Dec 8, 2015 5:22:43 GMT -8
Mandate is simpler, and the fact that it affects every player sychs up with what some people would expect of a law mechanic. But is it fun? Does it inspire deckbuilding or suggest a draft archetype? The corrupt one-sided laws seem much more compelling and easier to build around.
|
|
|
Post by jaytreat on Dec 8, 2015 10:57:50 GMT -8
I'm not confident mandate is any good, but wanted to keep looking for alternatives. Has anyone playtested law yet?
|
|
|
Post by Inanimate on Dec 8, 2015 16:21:07 GMT -8
Yes, Doombringer has. He left individual card comments in the Multiverse but I'm not sure he's going to write up a complete playtest report.
I've been considering the problem of 'proactive laws' myself. Having "It's against the law to an opponent to not attack with one or more creatures during his or her turn" is good gameplay but ridiculous flavor. For now, I'm working with "It's against the law to attack with exactly one creature" - pushes players towards all-ins.
Here are the laws I've identified as being the most proactive, and thus holding the most potential:
It's against the law for an opponent to attack with exactly one creature. It's against the law for an opponent to cast no spells during his or her turn. It's against the law for an opponent to block CARDNAME.
I've put my playtest designs into the file.
|
|
|
Post by radicaljackal on Dec 9, 2015 8:47:08 GMT -8
This is my first time realizing that unlike most triggered abilities you can break the law and then wipe the board before the end of the turn and not have to pay any of the punishments. I think that is cool.
How do we feel about this at common? (With or without the ability word) It looks different than most but it is simple and wouldn't make sense to have a punishment because it can't be there to enforce it.
Martyr for Justice 1W Creature - Human Soldier Law - When CARDNAME dies, each opponent has broken the law. 2/2
|
|
|
Post by reuben on Dec 9, 2015 18:50:31 GMT -8
I think cards like Martyr of Justice blurs an already complex mechanic while also making developmental issues of being able to more easily control when a law is broken.
|
|
AlexC
New Member
Posts: 16
|
Post by AlexC on Dec 10, 2015 8:35:49 GMT -8
Sorry, Jay, but I don't like Mandate. It loses the fun mix-and-match potential of Justice (any two of a Consul Investigator plus an Aether Inquisitor plus an Extermination Agent all play differently, while pairing up any two Mandate cards don't work differently together to how they do on their own). It deprives the opponent of choices, where Justice always gives the opponent a choice. It feels like a colour-bleed out of white to impose gameplay rules like that, where Justice in black feels corrupt and exploitative but perfectly in-flavour for black. And the restrictions are symmetrical, which Wizards have been moving strongly away from because new players don't like their own cards forcing them to do something they don't want to.
|
|