Oh no... He's Actually Trying This Time! (Ignisp 1.1 Pre-Set Feedback)
This page is regularly updated. Please check back for the latest updates and surveys.
Scroll down if you don't have time to read
Hello everyone! With my new job, I'm much shorter on time to spend, but I actually have the money to get back into Magic for good. Speaking of which, I plan on making a set feasibly playable in standard, and instead of returning to host more contests to be abandoned, I'm actually taking a step back to build a new set from the ground up.
With the current state of standard (idk what's going on anymore), I figured that before I go too crazy, I should see what people have to say. Main thing is, my next set, Ignisp, focuses on a plane where planeswalkers are one to a thousand instead of one in a million, so it's pretty common that average men and women living normal lives actually have a spark that will never be ignited. Conviniently, War of the Spark also focused heavily on planeswalkers, so even though I have a game plan already (and trust me, it's not War of the Spark 2.0) I want to get some feedback and help.
TL;DR: As time goes on, I'll use this discussion as a place to post pools and whatnot for my new set. My goal is to work actively with the community to bring my idea to life, and make this set on-par with a WotC release. Thank you in advance. Let's make it happen!
Current Request: I have the first survey up! You can submit responses by clicking the link below. Note: Requires a Google Account. Limit one response per person, but you may come back and edit your response later.
Take the survey here.
Also, I had a quick and simple idea for a mechanic.
Sparktouch (Whenever this creature deals damage to a planeswalker, destroy that planeswalker.)
Scroll down if you don't have time to read
Hello everyone! With my new job, I'm much shorter on time to spend, but I actually have the money to get back into Magic for good. Speaking of which, I plan on making a set feasibly playable in standard, and instead of returning to host more contests to be abandoned, I'm actually taking a step back to build a new set from the ground up.
With the current state of standard (idk what's going on anymore), I figured that before I go too crazy, I should see what people have to say. Main thing is, my next set, Ignisp, focuses on a plane where planeswalkers are one to a thousand instead of one in a million, so it's pretty common that average men and women living normal lives actually have a spark that will never be ignited. Conviniently, War of the Spark also focused heavily on planeswalkers, so even though I have a game plan already (and trust me, it's not War of the Spark 2.0) I want to get some feedback and help.
TL;DR: As time goes on, I'll use this discussion as a place to post pools and whatnot for my new set. My goal is to work actively with the community to bring my idea to life, and make this set on-par with a WotC release. Thank you in advance. Let's make it happen!
Current Request: I have the first survey up! You can submit responses by clicking the link below. Note: Requires a Google Account. Limit one response per person, but you may come back and edit your response later.
Take the survey here.
Also, I had a quick and simple idea for a mechanic.
Sparktouch (Whenever this creature deals damage to a planeswalker, destroy that planeswalker.)
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Anyways, thank you in advance.
On the subject of the set plan, making creatures with loyalty counters seems like it'd be really hard to pull off. I'm not sure how you'd be planning to format it / generally make it work, but I guess it'll be interesting to see.
The planeswalkers in WAR are pretty much excellent. They add an extra level of thinking to an average game where you have to consider the static effects of planeswalkers, and can react to them more than you could an enchantment (on average) which allows for them to be more interesting in that regard. The God-Eternals are probably overboard (Black is the only one that I've not seen get a ton of play). Amass hasn't really been able to do much in constructed, and probably doesn't really have a chance to at least until the next set if not rotation.
As for your plans, the only thing I'll really say right now is that I believe rules-wise only planeswalkers can actually have loyalty counters on them. But there's still a ton of design space around adding and removing, and triggered abilities related to them being added or removed, and things that care how many loyalty abilities a walker has, etc.
Hope that helps!
WAR is one of my favorite sets of all time, because of a few reasons:
1. It would have been very hard to screw up Gatewatch: Endgame, and they didn't
2. rAvNicA
3. It added a new depth to planeswalkers with the uncommon-rarity "doomed to die" models that are great in combos.
4. It is from the WAR booster packs and boxes that I forged "Millwatch Magnum", the deck from my arsenal I consider to be the best at the moment.
P.S. : And yes, I'm the type of players that gives pet names to all their decks
I give pet names too!
The plainswalkers themselves are good, I didn't really see any way to deal with them outside of attacking them.
Also, I give pet names to my decks (persistent petitioners = the telemarketer deck) but not often.
Also, as far as ways to deal with walkers outside of combat, there were considerably more ways than usual to, it was something they made sure to include more of. Not all of it is "good" because limited, but eh.
Ignite [n] (This creature is a Planeswalker in addition to its other types. Its starting loyalty is [n].)
Activated version: [cost]: Ignite [n] (If this creature is not a Planeswalker, it becomes a Planeswalker in addition to its other types. Its starting loyalty is [n].)
I'd still be of the opinion that you'd have to make walkers and give them passive "this is also a creature / whatever else all of the time".
Gideon's always have a clause saying to prevent damage to them while their creatures. So you never have to worry about the loyalty counters then. Without a clause like that, it seems fairly straight forward that a creature planeswalker that receives combat damage would lose counters. Does it add another level to think about for combat? Sure. Is it a "real pain in terms of logic"? I'm not sure. That's something that making a couple mock cards with the concept and playtesting would probably have to sort out honestly. The worst part of it is really just that with all the gideons we've had, people are use to not having to think about that. But as long as it's communicated well enough the difference I'd like to imagine it would be fine.
The dangerous complexity of having creatures with loyalty abilities is that players intrinsically don't understand how they work (or don't work) together. Sarkhan the Masterless embodied this well. Its +1 ability made your planeswalkers creatures instead of planeswalkers but players were/are perpetually confused about whether or not they can activate their abilities or lose loyalty.
In summary, a non-'walker creature with loyalty abilities can activate them - they're not intrinsically tied to being a planeswalker - but they don't lose loyalty counters when they're dealt damage - that is linked to being a 'walker. If a creature becomes both a creature and a planeswalker like in your proposed mechanic, it would have two different ways to die, both by being dealt greater damage than its toughness and having no loyalty counters on it. This can be tough to track but it's mostly strange gameplay-wise. You can't attack an opponent's creature directly, but if they're planeswalkers and creatures indefinitely, you can, but their loyalty and toughness both impact its longevity differently.
If you're committed to this ability, the activated version is the cleanest.
Ignite N [cost] (If this creature isn't a planeswalker, put N loyalty counters on it and it becomes a legendary planeswalker in addition to its other types.)
Notably, this doesn't prevent it from using any loyalty abilities that are printed on it.
tl;dr - It's really complicated, doesn't play as well as you might expect and doesn't make sense to most players.
Anyways, I have the first survey up! You can submit responses by clicking the link below. Note: Requires a Google Account. Limit one response per person, but you may come back and edit your response later.
Take the survey here.
In the meantime, I made another minor update (added a question on creature planeswalker mechanic preference).
Note: You don’t have to redo the entire survey. You can edit your response by going back into the survey
Sparktouch (Whenever this creature deals damage to a planeswalker, destroy that planeswalker.)
Great guard (This creature can block creatures as if the attacking creature didn't have intimidate, fear, or menace. The attacking creature assigns all of its damage to this creature.)
When (this creature) dies, [if criteria is met], you may carry on its legacy.(Exile it, then put it onto the battlefield in its Legacy form.)
What do I intend to do with this? As they say, heroes never die. Even when a creature with a legacy kicks the big one, their spirit lives on to inspire the masses. Take for example this prototype. Kaze was a brave warrior whose awe inspiring speed gave those around him the courage to charge into the fray. His death inspired warriors to rise up and take his place. While no one could replace him, his memory lives on in the spirit of the warrior’s charge,
Casting Side
Kaze, Swift Inspirator
Legendary Creature - Human Samurai 3/3
When Kaze dies, if it attacked, you may carry on its Legacy.
Creatures you control have haste.
Legacy
Kaze’s Legacy
Legendary Legacy
At the beginning of combat on your turn, you may choose a player. If that player controls less creatures than you, creatures you control gain haste until end of turn and must attack that player this turn if able.
Legacies are a new card type, thanks to the new Custom Type option. Like Emblems, they grant permanent benefits that don’t go away. However, you will lose the creature if you carry on its Legacy.
Also, to prevent chaos, Legacies are legendary, so you cannot control two of the same one.