Haha, I was just exploring DeviantArt, finding art for the card idea I had in mind, then I saw the astral lion thing, and I thought, "That's perfect for feralitator's set!"
For the Day/Night cycle mechanic, I think it definitely has the potential to be a defining mechanic for a set. I've actually seen this mechanic proposed before in other threads so I'm going to fast-forward through some conversations I had on this subject: 1) The first thing I think of would be spells that have an ability during the day and another during the night. However, this would get really wordy, especially for common. 2) Maybe a new card frame could help separate the abilities in a way that visually replace words, or you could use double-faced cards but that would be super close to Innistrad's werewolves and also it would be very cumbersome to flip them every turn. 3) Hence, I think the best way to handle this mechanic would be to have either a day ability or night ability on each spell, but not both, at least for most of the lower rarity cards. 4) This brings the question of whether there should be a mix of day spells and night spells, or if all spells that care about only one phase of the day should always care about the same by convention. 5) I personally think the answer lies in how contraptions was made. I believe with this mechanic most permanents should enter the battlefield with either a day or night counter on them, and their ability are only enabled during the time of the day you've chosen. This helps create your own sequences of synergies, like contraptions.
That being said, I don't thematically associate the day/night cycle with space, I have to say. You need to be on a rotating planet to have a day/night cycle, there's not such thing in space.
I've actually started to think that maybe there is some primary planet that a fair amount of the smaller characters live it (I don't think that planeswalkers would come to Yungdrotha if they planeswalked directly into outer space, and just died). Of course, that wouldn't mean that other planets aren't here as well, they would just not have as much focus as the primary one. Either that, or there is just a planet where the night and day give creatures living on it some form of strength.
My original plan was for a good amount of cards to have an ability only during one of the two. So, some creature could have +1/+1 while during night turns, but no effect during day turns. In addition, I think that it would be cool if the day side was mostly humans, and the night side was mostly night active animals, like wolves. This could give some werewolf middle ground, where werewolves gain strength from both the day and night. It could definitely be possible for this mechanic to use double-faced cards, or just some ability that depends on what type of turn it is. Either way, I will try to make some idea cards soon to explore the concept.
So I have made two card ideas, one is a normal card, and the other is a modal double-faced card that can transform (I think I heard something about MDFC's not being able to transform, but I think it's fine to bend the rules a little). Yes, the wording needs to be fixed, but I'm looking at how the mechanic should work and be used as a whole. The other thing I'm not sure about is whether the day-night cycle should start on your first turn, or should it start when you play your first Daybreak/Nightfall card? I think it would make more sense to have it as the second option so it feels like it's Yungdrotha exclusive, rather than feeling like it's being integrated into magic as a core mechanic for the rest of time.
I wanted to make a card frame that splits the text box in half, with a day effect on one side, and a night effect on the other, but that would take me probably 30 minutes for a rough draft of a common. You can call me lazy, but I think that this doesn't look so bad.
Overall, this would need work and some balancing changes, but I like the concept of being able to cast a human on day turns, and a werewolf on night turns. Maybe you could cast either side if you don't have a day-night cycle, in which it would start one based on which side you cast (Starts at day for the human side, and at night for the werewolf side). Also, I know that the human side should have werewolf as a creature type, I just forgot at that moment.
In both versions, the reminder text is not telling the player when to switch from day to night and vice-versa, which seems important
I don't think the difference between daybreak and nightfall justifies having two different keywords for it, as it only changes how you start the cycle the first time you play a card with it.
I'm pretty sure you can be more concise and flavourful in the templating of the abilities, here are some examples:
The double-faced version seems to have a lot of built-in issues. First, just explaining how the card is supposed to work takes up the whole rules box which leaves no room for any interesting ability. Second, having the sides be different colours as in your example would allow easy access to off-colours abilities for decks that don't commit to a proper mana base. You would basically be restricted to hybrid effects because of this. And finally, this concept of transforming cards according to day and night is stomping all over Innistrad design space very hard. Even the non-DFC version is borderline, in my opinion.
Last note, this would qualify as an exciting and innovative mechanic, so I'm a bit concerned that it doesn't convey the space theme that much. It's probably going to attract the most attention in your set and be the main point of interest, if the connection to your main theme is tenuous, it will make the set feel about something you didn't mean to.
@ningyounk Fair point, It would definitely be better to have a space-centered mechanic as the exciting mechanic. So, this night and day mechanic won't be used. I don't think that means there won't be sun and moon themes, as they are a major part of space. It just means that there won't be a mechanic about it.
About other possible mechanics:
I like the idea of a meld-like mechanic, but I'm not sure how it could tie into a space-themed set. There could be some form of cosmic power fusing things together, but I'm not sure...
Another option is the planet mechanic that you mentioned earlier. My only hesitation about that one is the need for another whole deck of cards.
I was going to suggest a mechanic that revolves around the command zone, similar to conspiracies, and realized that they would probably be more problematic than companions.
There could be a mechanic that introduces a new zone. I'm not sure what it would be, but I think it could be cool to add another zone.
There could be an exile-matters mechanic. Not like the Eldrazi, who exile your opponent's cards. Rather, I'm thinking of exiling your own cards for some certain use that I'm not sure about.
Lastly, I have a question. What program did you use that allowed you to make custom planechase cards?
Beware, one important thing about the "flashy mechanic" is not to force it too much. Double-faced cards weren't invented because someone asked the question "what if cards were double-faced" but because someone asked "what would be a cool way to show humans transforming into werewolves?"
In the same way, I proposed the Meld idea because I thought it could be a cool way to make the Astrals feel larger than anything before, but I don't think you should start with the question "What can I do with the melding technology" or "What new zone can I invent?" Try to answer the question, "what would be a cool way to represent space?" and see where it leads you. It doesn't have to be crazy if your answer fits the theme perfectly.
For the Planechase frame earlier I used Magic Set Editor 2, but that was just too be a little fancy. You don't have to focus on the frame before you even explore the design space of the mechanic, you can just use any frame to design the early concepts (the usual frame is probably best for simplicity purpose). Then, if you go all the way through set design and decide to keep a similar mechanic after testing it, at the end of it I'm sure myself or anyone else on this forum that can use Photoshop can probably help you build a custom frame specifically for the Planet card type ^^
So, I thought about what exactly represents space, and I noticed that there isn't much in space, other than planets and an empty void.
I thought about the fact that space is fairly empty, and thought about a zone where creatures are technically on the battlefield, but not actually there, similar to phasing. Creatures sent to this zone would temporarily return during combat, then fully return during the end phase.
I thought of another idea for astrals where if one would die, it is exiled instead, and if you cast another Astral spell you may have that spell turn into one of your astrals in exile. However, this seems too strong, and may not accurately represent astrals too well.
However, I think that the planet option might actually be the best. It has a fair amount of potential in terms of how they would function, and would also accurately represent the fact that this is in space. Maybe instead of just planet cards, you could have combinations of two lands, creatures, or other permanents that when you control both, you may meld them into a planet card. That way, there isn't a need for a special planet deck, and things like normal tap lands don't feel like they are boring filler cards in the set.
Another idea that doesn't really say "what represents space", but would be more of a "space-warping" mechanic, could be one where you could somehow swap a spell you control that's on the stack with one you own in exile. Not 100% sure how it would work, but I think it could be a strange and fun mechanic.
About representing space as an in-between zone where creatures are there but aren't really, that was also the starting point of designing Gods in Theros. Funnily enough, the original version had an extra zone called the Nyx where Gods where waiting until they decided it was too complex and ended up with the enchantment-creature design we know now! Exile seems like the perfect zone to represent that, so we're coming back to the original idea for your set: exile and god-like creatures.
For the idea of bending matter so spells change into one another, this is basically a variation on the splice mechanic. It can be really fun, though it's certainly one of the most difficult mechanics to properly balance. At a personal level, I don't associate this kind of mechanics with space though, in gameplay it feels more like a technological Izzet type of mechanic (that was actually the starting point for the Jump-Start mechanic in Guilds of Ravnica, by the way). I'd expect it more in a set full of machines, like Mirrodin or Kaladesh, or maybe some really convoluted arcane magic, on Strixhaven maybe?
About planets, it's also totally possible to have them without the extra deck if you don't feel like it. There are a lot of knobs with this idea, which is why I think it has quite some potential. Just note that it will be more difficult to add planets to a deck as they will be closer to enchantment cards in your deck. Maybe there's a way to change the mechanic to accommodate that? Here's an example of Planet card with a mana cost:
I do think the idea of a Planet deck adds some considerable spice to the concept though, and would really feel like adventuring into space, not knowing what you'll find.
The Planet deck idea definitely would be an interesting concept to look at, but my only concern is that there hasn't been a standard-legal set (That I can think of) that uses a unique type of card outside of the deck. (Technically, companions could count as standard-legal cards used outside of the deck, but I'm thinking of cards like conspiracies and contraptions)
I thought of lands melding together because a planet is basically a bunch of lands put together. Also, if planets were cards that melded together, it would take away the need for a specific extra deck that standard-legal sets don't have. The problem with this idea is that it would require a lot of lands to have a good amount of planet cards, and I don't want this to be a land-matters set like Zendikar.
Maybe instead of going with meld cards, there could be cards that transform into planets after a specific requirement (Like Ixalan's quest lands. I don't think Ixalan was a land-matters set, but they still used lands as areas to explore). That would cut the required number of lands to have a good amount of planets and would take away the need for an extra deck in a standard-legal environment.
I also like the idea of accessing exiled cards in some form. I'm not sure how accessing exiled cards should work, and depending on how it would work, could be problematic with cards like Force of Will. I do know that in order to prevent the re-use of exiled cards over and over, cards should later go into exile face-down. I don't think that there is any way to retrieve face-down exiled cards unless it's from the same card that exiled them (Like Intet, the Dreamer). However, I think that the idea of tapping into power from the unknown void of space could feel very unique and interesting in this set.
On the Planet deck: If you decide to try a side deck mechanic, there will be contraptions as a solid basis for how to handle it, as well as mechanics from other TCG such as Yu-Gi-Oh! ^^ I honestly think it will happen eventually with official MTG, it certainly opens a lot of interesting design space and it's nothing crazy conceptually.
On melding lands: Lands melding together is an interesting idea, I like how it ties the planets to the existing concept of lands in MTG ans basically says "Planets are bigger lands". However, it sounds like something difficult to achieve during a game, a priori, so I'm not sure what kind of effects would be suited for melded planets? Immense creatures are a fitting reward, but finding interesting equivalents for lands will be a challenge. Forgetting about melding them, separating your regular lands into different planets might also be an interesting and flavourful idea! That would most likely lead to a land-matters set though. This is not necessarily a bad thing, it's important to let the mechanics guide you where to their natural conclusions. If you start top-down from the flavour idea of space, you will want to stay open on the mechanical aspect and embrace whatever fits your theme better, even if it's not what you envisioned at the beginning.
On transforming lands into planets: Ixalan used a lot of the available design space on these (there just aren't that many interesting powerful land designs) so how viable that idea is would certainly depend on whether you're able to innovate on what the Planet side would look like mechanically. I'd need a proof-of-concept to be convinced there's enough design space on this one.
On exile-matters: I think there's a decent amount of unexplored design space with exile. I especially liked your original idea where exiled cards got turned face down, it was pretty flavourful. I just think that the cards should turn themselves in order to avoid unwanted interactions. I'm just not sure what turning exiled cards face-down could accomplish that a mechanic like Aftermath could not. Also, you would need to be careful not to make exile into a second graveyard (which WOTC is starting to get dangerously close to when we look at the current state of Standard...).
@ningyounk I guess a planet deck could work, but I feel like a fair amount of cards in the set would have to be dedicated to playing these planet cards, which wouldn't be a bad thing, but I think it would take up much more of the set's card count than a regular mechanic.
For possible exile matters, I wouldn't mind revisiting the idea of my old forgotten mechanic (but with a name change to better fit the space theme). Another idea would be to have a bunch of ways to exile your own cards, then have a mechanic that allows you to cast one spell you own in exile (at random?) until end of turn.
Another idea that I just got for a mystery-type mechanic could be an effect where you shuffle your library, then reveal the top card of your library. Each card that uses this effect could have a unique use for it (such as dealing damage to a creature equal to cmc, exiling the card and being able to play it until the end of your next turn, etc.).
@KorandAngels If there is a good fit for La'ayiv, then sure.
Another idea I just got (inspired by that one variation of starshape) is token spells. I'm thinking that there could be a zone where these tokens would be put into, which would act as your hand for these token spells, so they don't immediately get removed from the game after they are generated. Token spells can't return to that zone after being cast, and once a non-permanent token spell is cast, it is exiled. In short, they would be very fragile spells, but can be cast more frequently, and sometimes more than four times.
I like that concept, it's interesting and seems like it could have a lot of design space. I don't know if it really gives a space vibe, and it comes with built-in complications you'd have to solve — first of which is the memory issue, but I don't think it's impossible to overcome, especially if you use an alternative frame to make things clearer, such as the Adventure frame or a Split frame.
For templating the card, here are examples from Mystery Boosters that show you how to properly create a spell in the game:
I don't believe you need a void zone to do what you're trying to do though, you can probably just create a token spell directly in your hand. So I believe the proper wording would be:
Time Sidewalk seems to indicate that the game would be ok to create cards without using rules text to define them as long as they already exist in the game under that name:
And here's an alternative using an Adventure frame:
So, the idea of token spells was inspired by the Invoke mechanic in Legends of Runeterra. In case you don't play LOR, Invoke allows you to look at three celestial cards (which are basically token cards), and you pick one to add to your hand. (The celestial cards in that game have a much higher power level than what you'd expect from token cards, which I personally saw as a flaw in that mechanic. I'd probably have much smaller token spells (I'm thinking of average cmc 2-3) in order to prevent token spells from being broken.)
I'd say that some special frame for cards that generate token spells could work, but I feel like that would restrict the available space on a card to only generating a token, without having any other abilities (Like some legendary creature that could care about how many times you have cast a specific type of token spell). I'm leaning towards the second version you suggested in terms of formatting, but I think most token spells wouldn't just be token versions of existing cards in order to keep that space-theme.
I'd say that a fair amount of these token spells would be something like this (but balanced properly), where they are fairly basic effects and could be generated by multiple cards:
I only see two problems with these spell tokens right now. The first is the possibility of storm, which I think there could be a way to prevent giving storm decks too much power, such as making sure each spell token has some colored mana in its mana cost. The other problem I see with this is hand shenanigans, such as returning cards from your hand to the top of your library, which is why I first suggested an extra zone. I think the option is to give each token spell some text that prevents you from returning it from your hand to your deck (I think discarding token spells might be fine, but I'm not sure).
I made a possible basic red token spell, and two possible cards to generate the token. I felt like there needed to be a keyword that prevents these spells from ceasing to exist while they are in your hand (Since tokens, in general, cease to exist when you return them to your hand), which is why I came up with Cosmic Tether (We can fix the name later if needed).
So, I've been looking at the mechanics of Kaldheim to see how they click (Since it's a pretty obvious top-down design), in hopes that can help me with creating mechanics for this set (My analysis may not be the best, but I think I understand how each clicks):
Snow: There are two reasons that I see for snow. 1, Kaldheim was originally depicted as a snowy plane. 2, "At least one or two of those realms are winter wonderlands." (Quote from Kaldheim mechanics article)
Sagas: Telling stories through these mechanics.
Changeling: Kaldheim is pretty diverse in tribal, and one of the realms is filled with changelings.
I think the themes that I listed for this set are mostly about Astrals, rather than looking at what all of what Yungdrotha has to offer.
Set summary: Yungdrotha is a space-fantasy-themed set that is almost like its own multiverse. Its nicknames include "Yungdrotha, the Cosmic Plane", and "Yungdrotha, Infinite Possibilities".
Here are some ideas for possible mechanical themes:
Astromancers and Astronomers - Spellcasters using the power of the stars to cast spells and scientists looking at the stars to learn about the mysteries of space.
Meteorites (could be for a mechanic or a singular card) - For a possible mechanical theme, creatures have discovered crystals with mysterious properties inside meteorites, and each type of creature could use these crystals in a unique way.
Sun & Moon - Creatures tap into the power of the sun or moon. (This wouldn't be about night or day, but the mechanical theme here is just about solar and lunar power.)
Warped space - Since Yungdrotha is so large, space and time is warped. As a result, Yungdrotha sometimes bleeds into other planes, giving non-planeswalkers a brief period of time to travel to and from Yungdrotha. I've been thinking that maybe there could be some cards that reference other mechanics, such as the "heroic" cards in Theros Beyond Death. However, in the case that this idea isn't used, the "time and space is unstable" part of Yungdrotha will be scrapped.
If anyone has another idea for what makes Yungdrotha unique, I would be happy to hear them.
I don't think you need to worry too much about token spells breaking Storm archetypes. While they certainly are synergistic, there's nothing incredibly broken about generating one extra spell for the Storm count — this is no... Well, Storm
About the rules aspects:
Don't worry too much about the token spells respecting the rules. By essence, they don't work, so having token spells mean you'll have to change the rules entirely anyways xD
See rules 111.7: A token that’s in a zone other than the battlefield ceases to exist.
This means that you get to create your own set of rules for how token spells act. It's up to you to decide what happens if you would put them into your library. If you don't want that, you can state that they disappear if they change zone unless you've cast them. Another fun alternative would be to decide that non-permanent spells must be represented by physical cards and act as such for the remainder of the game, going into libraries and graveyards and everything. Again, the current rules don't cover all of this, so you're free to do anything you like. Note that an extra zone will not change that, tokens can't exist in an extra zone no more that they can in a hand with current rules anyways.
About Cosmic Thunder:
Your tokens are going to be a part of the rules text of other cards and might be represented by other physical objects without rules text on them. Because of this, I would advice vetoing modal spells or any effect that's more than two lines of text. Just put Shock in your set instead of Cosmic Thunder would be my advice. Naming iconic spells will also have the benefit of tickling players nostalgia as they go "Oh, I know that spell!"
About Kaldheim mechanics:
Oof, you've chosen a very complicated set to analyse. My understanding is that most mechanics in Kaldheim are dictated by surrounding sets. For examples, WOTC said they were lukewarm about having snow on Kaldheim but changed their mind because of how it was received in Modern Horizons. I also assume they needed a land mechanic to synergise with the Zendikar set right before. Similarly, the main reason there are shapeshifters in this set is likely because there's an ongoing tribal plan over several sets surrounding Kaldheim (Zendikar and the upcoming D&D set care about party members, Strixhaven will most likely have a Wizard theme, and the next Innistrad sets will be centred on werewolves and Vampires.) And I definitely suspect Runes are actually a Kaldheim mechanic that is being preemptively planted.
I doubt anyone actually sat down at WOTC one day and went "Vikings like boasting, so we shall have a mechanic that represent boasting." Vikings like a lot of things, but we don't have a mechanic called "Drink beer" in Kaldheim xD What probably happened is that they designed the important mechanics of the set first (stuff like Snow and Changeling) then went "Yeah, all of our mechanics are very control/midrange-oriented and players have too much mana with all the snow-related ramp cards. We need a mechanic for aggro decks that is also a mana sink, we'll see what we'll call it later" and that's how boast was born.
With that in mind, you should probably brainstorm plenty of cards and mechanics before deciding what the mechanical themes are ^^ If you want meteorites, force yourself to design like ten different meteorite cards and see if any of them is interesting.
I'll start, here are some already existing meteorite-related cards for inspiration:
And here are some brainstorming designs of mine on the them of meteorites:
As you see, I don't think there's much design space here, but maybe the mana rock token idea could be a thing that's similar to Eldrazi Scions if you have a giant creature theme.
That would be pretty funny if there was a drink beer mechanic. But I see what you mean about how they design mechanics. I have a few ideas for possible token/token spell synergy mechanics that I'm going to experiment with.
For token spells, I can see why they should be about one line of abilities (I originally made Cosmic Thunder modal because I wasn't sure if 2 damage to players was too much). I think that one token in the set could have more than one line, but it would be only generated by a single legendary creature, so I shouldn't be too much of a problem. In terms of naming, I like the nostalgia naming idea, but I think that it would make sense to slightly change the name, in order to give them that space feel (Things like "Cosmic Shock" or "Stellar Divination"). I'm not sure if you could change "murder" to give it a space-feel, so maybe some have a complete name change.
Here are two possible versions of a mechanic that cares about when you cast a token spell. One has a once per turn clause, the other doesn't.
The other Idea that I have is similar to cards like Irencrag Pyromancer and Jolrael, Mwonvuli Recluse, but instead of specifically drawing cards, it would care about putting cards into your hand instead, which drawing, returning cards to your hand, and creating token spells would all count for.
About Starcast, it seems a little parasitic; You have many options that allow you to care about token spells in a way that creates cross-synergies instead. For instance, caring about casting noncreature spells, the number of spells you cast per turn, the number of cards in your hand, creating tokens, etc. In a set, you want to create as much synergy as possible between the different archetypes. If you create a flashy new mechanic in token spells and you have a keyworded mechanic that cares about creating those specifically, you've used two mechanic slots already for a single strategy in your set.
What would make the set more interesting would be having this for instance:
WU: Token spells matter (no keyword associated) RG: Token creatures matter (no keyword associated) GU: Keyworded mechanic about tokens and token synergies
This way you've used your keywords effectively to create synergy in your set and also make your mechanic more compatible with other existing sets.
Fair point. Of course, I don't think that all archetypes should be about token-related synergies, but I do have some ideas. I'll create some card ideas for each of these later:
WU, UR, or WB - Something related to how many spells you cast that turn. (WU would probably care about token spells, UR would probably care about instants and sorceries, and WB would probably care about your second spell each turn). Each of these is too similar, so I think it would make sense to only choose one. WG or WR - If __ or more creatures have entered the battlefield under your control that turn. (I'm thinking 2 or 3 creatures is fairly reasonable) UB - If 2 or 3 cards have been put into your hand from anywhere that turn. (I say 2 or 3 because I feel like putting cards into your hand from anywhere is easier than just drawing cards, so I have the feeling that it might need to be more) BR - Discard and/or sacrifice strategy? (I would say something about hellbent/heckbent, but that would go directly against a couple of things happening in the set, but I feel like using tokens as some form of payment could be cool)
I have an idea for a token creature spell, but this would mean that some would be created on the battlefield and others would be created in hand, so I'm hesitant on this. The idea was some vanilla 4/4, with an archetype caring about power 4 or greater (probably RG).
Would this make more sense than creating a creature token in hand?:
Nontoken spells could just create these creature tokens, rather than having token spells doing it, but I feel like it would be an interesting way to create larger creature tokens.
Well, I made a card for a possible UB hand size archetype:
And a card for a WR weenies archetype:
I feel like these could make cool token spells and creature token-related archetypes, without the use of some major mechanic. I'm not sure the wording is correct (especially on the UB one), but I like the ideas, and I'll try to make something for the other ideas later.
The spell that creates a creature token is not something unheard of, it has been used before in sets that cared about tokens. Here are two examples, they were meant to synergise with the Populate mechanic:
You also have the option of creating creature spells directly in hand. It could open some interesting design space, though you need to be super careful in making sure the templating is really distinct from the regular creature creation templating:
- Create a 5/5 green Wurm creature token with trample. vs. - Create a 5/5 green creature token card named Wurm that costs 1GGW with flash and trample, then put it into your hand.
About the UB card, the templating indeed sounds a bit shaky, bu we don't have that many existing references so I'm not sure it's possible to do much better. I think the main problem is saying "you put" and "your card", though the alternative would be something like "Whenever a card is put into your hand for the third time each turn", which is even longer. Make sure not all your mechanics work the same by the way. I see you're creating a lot of triggered mechanic (whenever you do this or that) but in this case a threshold might be more adapted. For instance, "As long as you have 7 or more cards in hand" is a tried and approved classic — you can also lower the threshold a bit if needed. On the other hand, generating three cards a turn might be really hard (there's a reason why "Whenever you draw your second card each turn" is a classic archetype but "Whenever you draw your third card each turn" is not.)
MTG Cardsmith Community Forums
Comments
Thanks for the art! I will definitely keep them in my back pocket for possible use.
For the Day/Night cycle mechanic, I think it definitely has the potential to be a defining mechanic for a set. I've actually seen this mechanic proposed before in other threads so I'm going to fast-forward through some conversations I had on this subject:
1) The first thing I think of would be spells that have an ability during the day and another during the night. However, this would get really wordy, especially for common.
2) Maybe a new card frame could help separate the abilities in a way that visually replace words, or you could use double-faced cards but that would be super close to Innistrad's werewolves and also it would be very cumbersome to flip them every turn.
3) Hence, I think the best way to handle this mechanic would be to have either a day ability or night ability on each spell, but not both, at least for most of the lower rarity cards.
4) This brings the question of whether there should be a mix of day spells and night spells, or if all spells that care about only one phase of the day should always care about the same by convention.
5) I personally think the answer lies in how contraptions was made. I believe with this mechanic most permanents should enter the battlefield with either a day or night counter on them, and their ability are only enabled during the time of the day you've chosen. This helps create your own sequences of synergies, like contraptions.
That being said, I don't thematically associate the day/night cycle with space, I have to say. You need to be on a rotating planet to have a day/night cycle, there's not such thing in space.
My original plan was for a good amount of cards to have an ability only during one of the two. So, some creature could have +1/+1 while during night turns, but no effect during day turns. In addition, I think that it would be cool if the day side was mostly humans, and the night side was mostly night active animals, like wolves. This could give some werewolf middle ground, where werewolves gain strength from both the day and night. It could definitely be possible for this mechanic to use double-faced cards, or just some ability that depends on what type of turn it is. Either way, I will try to make some idea cards soon to explore the concept.
I wanted to make a card frame that splits the text box in half, with a day effect on one side, and a night effect on the other, but that would take me probably 30 minutes for a rough draft of a common. You can call me lazy, but I think that this doesn't look so bad.
Overall, this would need work and some balancing changes, but I like the concept of being able to cast a human on day turns, and a werewolf on night turns. Maybe you could cast either side if you don't have a day-night cycle, in which it would start one based on which side you cast (Starts at day for the human side, and at night for the werewolf side). Also, I know that the human side should have werewolf as a creature type, I just forgot at that moment.
In both versions, the reminder text is not telling the player when to switch from day to night and vice-versa, which seems important
I don't think the difference between daybreak and nightfall justifies having two different keywords for it, as it only changes how you start the cycle the first time you play a card with it.
I'm pretty sure you can be more concise and flavourful in the templating of the abilities, here are some examples:
The double-faced version seems to have a lot of built-in issues. First, just explaining how the card is supposed to work takes up the whole rules box which leaves no room for any interesting ability. Second, having the sides be different colours as in your example would allow easy access to off-colours abilities for decks that don't commit to a proper mana base. You would basically be restricted to hybrid effects because of this. And finally, this concept of transforming cards according to day and night is stomping all over Innistrad design space very hard. Even the non-DFC version is borderline, in my opinion.
Last note, this would qualify as an exciting and innovative mechanic, so I'm a bit concerned that it doesn't convey the space theme that much. It's probably going to attract the most attention in your set and be the main point of interest, if the connection to your main theme is tenuous, it will make the set feel about something you didn't mean to.
About other possible mechanics:
Lastly, I have a question. What program did you use that allowed you to make custom planechase cards?
In the same way, I proposed the Meld idea because I thought it could be a cool way to make the Astrals feel larger than anything before, but I don't think you should start with the question "What can I do with the melding technology" or "What new zone can I invent?" Try to answer the question, "what would be a cool way to represent space?" and see where it leads you. It doesn't have to be crazy if your answer fits the theme perfectly.
For the Planechase frame earlier I used Magic Set Editor 2, but that was just too be a little fancy. You don't have to focus on the frame before you even explore the design space of the mechanic, you can just use any frame to design the early concepts (the usual frame is probably best for simplicity purpose). Then, if you go all the way through set design and decide to keep a similar mechanic after testing it, at the end of it I'm sure myself or anyone else on this forum that can use Photoshop can probably help you build a custom frame specifically for the Planet card type ^^
I thought about the fact that space is fairly empty, and thought about a zone where creatures are technically on the battlefield, but not actually there, similar to phasing. Creatures sent to this zone would temporarily return during combat, then fully return during the end phase.
I thought of another idea for astrals where if one would die, it is exiled instead, and if you cast another Astral spell you may have that spell turn into one of your astrals in exile. However, this seems too strong, and may not accurately represent astrals too well.
However, I think that the planet option might actually be the best. It has a fair amount of potential in terms of how they would function, and would also accurately represent the fact that this is in space. Maybe instead of just planet cards, you could have combinations of two lands, creatures, or other permanents that when you control both, you may meld them into a planet card. That way, there isn't a need for a special planet deck, and things like normal tap lands don't feel like they are boring filler cards in the set.
For the idea of bending matter so spells change into one another, this is basically a variation on the splice mechanic. It can be really fun, though it's certainly one of the most difficult mechanics to properly balance. At a personal level, I don't associate this kind of mechanics with space though, in gameplay it feels more like a technological Izzet type of mechanic (that was actually the starting point for the Jump-Start mechanic in Guilds of Ravnica, by the way). I'd expect it more in a set full of machines, like Mirrodin or Kaladesh, or maybe some really convoluted arcane magic, on Strixhaven maybe?
About planets, it's also totally possible to have them without the extra deck if you don't feel like it. There are a lot of knobs with this idea, which is why I think it has quite some potential. Just note that it will be more difficult to add planets to a deck as they will be closer to enchantment cards in your deck. Maybe there's a way to change the mechanic to accommodate that? Here's an example of Planet card with a mana cost:
I do think the idea of a Planet deck adds some considerable spice to the concept though, and would really feel like adventuring into space, not knowing what you'll find.
I thought of lands melding together because a planet is basically a bunch of lands put together. Also, if planets were cards that melded together, it would take away the need for a specific extra deck that standard-legal sets don't have. The problem with this idea is that it would require a lot of lands to have a good amount of planet cards, and I don't want this to be a land-matters set like Zendikar.
Maybe instead of going with meld cards, there could be cards that transform into planets after a specific requirement (Like Ixalan's quest lands. I don't think Ixalan was a land-matters set, but they still used lands as areas to explore). That would cut the required number of lands to have a good amount of planets and would take away the need for an extra deck in a standard-legal environment.
I also like the idea of accessing exiled cards in some form. I'm not sure how accessing exiled cards should work, and depending on how it would work, could be problematic with cards like Force of Will. I do know that in order to prevent the re-use of exiled cards over and over, cards should later go into exile face-down. I don't think that there is any way to retrieve face-down exiled cards unless it's from the same card that exiled them (Like Intet, the Dreamer). However, I think that the idea of tapping into power from the unknown void of space could feel very unique and interesting in this set.
If you decide to try a side deck mechanic, there will be contraptions as a solid basis for how to handle it, as well as mechanics from other TCG such as Yu-Gi-Oh! ^^ I honestly think it will happen eventually with official MTG, it certainly opens a lot of interesting design space and it's nothing crazy conceptually.
On melding lands:
Lands melding together is an interesting idea, I like how it ties the planets to the existing concept of lands in MTG ans basically says "Planets are bigger lands". However, it sounds like something difficult to achieve during a game, a priori, so I'm not sure what kind of effects would be suited for melded planets? Immense creatures are a fitting reward, but finding interesting equivalents for lands will be a challenge. Forgetting about melding them, separating your regular lands into different planets might also be an interesting and flavourful idea! That would most likely lead to a land-matters set though. This is not necessarily a bad thing, it's important to let the mechanics guide you where to their natural conclusions. If you start top-down from the flavour idea of space, you will want to stay open on the mechanical aspect and embrace whatever fits your theme better, even if it's not what you envisioned at the beginning.
On transforming lands into planets:
Ixalan used a lot of the available design space on these (there just aren't that many interesting powerful land designs) so how viable that idea is would certainly depend on whether you're able to innovate on what the Planet side would look like mechanically. I'd need a proof-of-concept to be convinced there's enough design space on this one.
On exile-matters:
I think there's a decent amount of unexplored design space with exile. I especially liked your original idea where exiled cards got turned face down, it was pretty flavourful. I just think that the cards should turn themselves in order to avoid unwanted interactions. I'm just not sure what turning exiled cards face-down could accomplish that a mechanic like Aftermath could not. Also, you would need to be careful not to make exile into a second graveyard (which WOTC is starting to get dangerously close to when we look at the current state of Standard...).
For possible exile matters, I wouldn't mind revisiting the idea of my old forgotten mechanic (but with a name change to better fit the space theme). Another idea would be to have a bunch of ways to exile your own cards, then have a mechanic that allows you to cast one spell you own in exile (at random?) until end of turn.
Another idea that I just got for a mystery-type mechanic could be an effect where you shuffle your library, then reveal the top card of your library. Each card that uses this effect could have a unique use for it (such as dealing damage to a creature equal to cmc, exiling the card and being able to play it until the end of your next turn, etc.).
@KorandAngels If there is a good fit for La'ayiv, then sure.
Yeah, they kinda look bad visually, but I hope you see what I'm thinking of.
The void zone (name pending) would basically be the hand for these token spells.
I like that concept, it's interesting and seems like it could have a lot of design space. I don't know if it really gives a space vibe, and it comes with built-in complications you'd have to solve — first of which is the memory issue, but I don't think it's impossible to overcome, especially if you use an alternative frame to make things clearer, such as the Adventure frame or a Split frame.
For templating the card, here are examples from Mystery Boosters that show you how to properly create a spell in the game:
I don't believe you need a void zone to do what you're trying to do though, you can probably just create a token spell directly in your hand. So I believe the proper wording would be:
Time Sidewalk seems to indicate that the game would be ok to create cards without using rules text to define them as long as they already exist in the game under that name:
And here's an alternative using an Adventure frame:
I'd say that some special frame for cards that generate token spells could work, but I feel like that would restrict the available space on a card to only generating a token, without having any other abilities (Like some legendary creature that could care about how many times you have cast a specific type of token spell). I'm leaning towards the second version you suggested in terms of formatting, but I think most token spells wouldn't just be token versions of existing cards in order to keep that space-theme.
I'd say that a fair amount of these token spells would be something like this (but balanced properly), where they are fairly basic effects and could be generated by multiple cards:
I only see two problems with these spell tokens right now. The first is the possibility of storm, which I think there could be a way to prevent giving storm decks too much power, such as making sure each spell token has some colored mana in its mana cost. The other problem I see with this is hand shenanigans, such as returning cards from your hand to the top of your library, which is why I first suggested an extra zone. I think the option is to give each token spell some text that prevents you from returning it from your hand to your deck (I think discarding token spells might be fine, but I'm not sure).
Kaldheim's theme: Norse Mythology, Vikings, Realms
Mechanics:
I think the themes that I listed for this set are mostly about Astrals, rather than looking at what all of what Yungdrotha has to offer.
Set summary: Yungdrotha is a space-fantasy-themed set that is almost like its own multiverse. Its nicknames include "Yungdrotha, the Cosmic Plane", and "Yungdrotha, Infinite Possibilities".
Here are some ideas for possible mechanical themes:
If anyone has another idea for what makes Yungdrotha unique, I would be happy to hear them.
About the rules aspects:
Don't worry too much about the token spells respecting the rules. By essence, they don't work, so having token spells mean you'll have to change the rules entirely anyways xD
See rules 111.7: A token that’s in a zone other than the battlefield ceases to exist.
This means that you get to create your own set of rules for how token spells act. It's up to you to decide what happens if you would put them into your library. If you don't want that, you can state that they disappear if they change zone unless you've cast them. Another fun alternative would be to decide that non-permanent spells must be represented by physical cards and act as such for the remainder of the game, going into libraries and graveyards and everything. Again, the current rules don't cover all of this, so you're free to do anything you like. Note that an extra zone will not change that, tokens can't exist in an extra zone no more that they can in a hand with current rules anyways.
About Cosmic Thunder:
Your tokens are going to be a part of the rules text of other cards and might be represented by other physical objects without rules text on them. Because of this, I would advice vetoing modal spells or any effect that's more than two lines of text. Just put Shock in your set instead of Cosmic Thunder would be my advice. Naming iconic spells will also have the benefit of tickling players nostalgia as they go "Oh, I know that spell!"
About Kaldheim mechanics:
Oof, you've chosen a very complicated set to analyse. My understanding is that most mechanics in Kaldheim are dictated by surrounding sets. For examples, WOTC said they were lukewarm about having snow on Kaldheim but changed their mind because of how it was received in Modern Horizons. I also assume they needed a land mechanic to synergise with the Zendikar set right before. Similarly, the main reason there are shapeshifters in this set is likely because there's an ongoing tribal plan over several sets surrounding Kaldheim (Zendikar and the upcoming D&D set care about party members, Strixhaven will most likely have a Wizard theme, and the next Innistrad sets will be centred on werewolves and Vampires.) And I definitely suspect Runes are actually a Kaldheim mechanic that is being preemptively planted.
I doubt anyone actually sat down at WOTC one day and went "Vikings like boasting, so we shall have a mechanic that represent boasting." Vikings like a lot of things, but we don't have a mechanic called "Drink beer" in Kaldheim xD What probably happened is that they designed the important mechanics of the set first (stuff like Snow and Changeling) then went "Yeah, all of our mechanics are very control/midrange-oriented and players have too much mana with all the snow-related ramp cards. We need a mechanic for aggro decks that is also a mana sink, we'll see what we'll call it later" and that's how boast was born.
With that in mind, you should probably brainstorm plenty of cards and mechanics before deciding what the mechanical themes are ^^ If you want meteorites, force yourself to design like ten different meteorite cards and see if any of them is interesting.
And here are some brainstorming designs of mine on the them of meteorites:
As you see, I don't think there's much design space here, but maybe the mana rock token idea could be a thing that's similar to Eldrazi Scions if you have a giant creature theme.
For token spells, I can see why they should be about one line of abilities (I originally made Cosmic Thunder modal because I wasn't sure if 2 damage to players was too much). I think that one token in the set could have more than one line, but it would be only generated by a single legendary creature, so I shouldn't be too much of a problem. In terms of naming, I like the nostalgia naming idea, but I think that it would make sense to slightly change the name, in order to give them that space feel (Things like "Cosmic Shock" or "Stellar Divination"). I'm not sure if you could change "murder" to give it a space-feel, so maybe some have a complete name change.
The other Idea that I have is similar to cards like Irencrag Pyromancer and Jolrael, Mwonvuli Recluse, but instead of specifically drawing cards, it would care about putting cards into your hand instead, which drawing, returning cards to your hand, and creating token spells would all count for.
What would make the set more interesting would be having this for instance:
WU: Token spells matter (no keyword associated)
RG: Token creatures matter (no keyword associated)
GU: Keyworded mechanic about tokens and token synergies
This way you've used your keywords effectively to create synergy in your set and also make your mechanic more compatible with other existing sets.
WU, UR, or WB - Something related to how many spells you cast that turn. (WU would probably care about token spells, UR would probably care about instants and sorceries, and WB would probably care about your second spell each turn). Each of these is too similar, so I think it would make sense to only choose one.
WG or WR - If __ or more creatures have entered the battlefield under your control that turn. (I'm thinking 2 or 3 creatures is fairly reasonable)
UB - If 2 or 3 cards have been put into your hand from anywhere that turn. (I say 2 or 3 because I feel like putting cards into your hand from anywhere is easier than just drawing cards, so I have the feeling that it might need to be more)
BR - Discard and/or sacrifice strategy? (I would say something about hellbent/heckbent, but that would go directly against a couple of things happening in the set, but I feel like using tokens as some form of payment could be cool)
I have an idea for a token creature spell, but this would mean that some would be created on the battlefield and others would be created in hand, so I'm hesitant on this. The idea was some vanilla 4/4, with an archetype caring about power 4 or greater (probably RG).
Would this make more sense than creating a creature token in hand?:
Nontoken spells could just create these creature tokens, rather than having token spells doing it, but I feel like it would be an interesting way to create larger creature tokens.
And a card for a WR weenies archetype:
I feel like these could make cool token spells and creature token-related archetypes, without the use of some major mechanic. I'm not sure the wording is correct (especially on the UB one), but I like the ideas, and I'll try to make something for the other ideas later.
You also have the option of creating creature spells directly in hand. It could open some interesting design space, though you need to be super careful in making sure the templating is really distinct from the regular creature creation templating:
- Create a 5/5 green Wurm creature token with trample.
vs.
- Create a 5/5 green creature token card named Wurm that costs 1GGW with flash and trample, then put it into your hand.
About the UB card, the templating indeed sounds a bit shaky, bu we don't have that many existing references so I'm not sure it's possible to do much better. I think the main problem is saying "you put" and "your card", though the alternative would be something like "Whenever a card is put into your hand for the third time each turn", which is even longer. Make sure not all your mechanics work the same by the way. I see you're creating a lot of triggered mechanic (whenever you do this or that) but in this case a threshold might be more adapted. For instance, "As long as you have 7 or more cards in hand" is a tried and approved classic — you can also lower the threshold a bit if needed. On the other hand, generating three cards a turn might be really hard (there's a reason why "Whenever you draw your second card each turn" is a classic archetype but "Whenever you draw your third card each turn" is not.)
___
As a bonus, here's a concept using token spells: