Starcraft 2 Magic: The Gathering Cards - Page 3

On December 15 2013 20:10 Urth wrote:
I think the idea behind this is nice. It looks like you've taken a lot of time and effort to do this, and it's pretty impressive for a solo effort. Flavor-wise, I think you've done a great job overall. There are some major issues design-wise though. With that in mind, I'll try to keep this post mostly constructive. However, I think you have a lot of issues with formatting, rules, design, and colors.

Note that your download link doesn't work, so I can only comment on what is in your actual post.

I'm going to go over your cards in order.

Zealot: You already explained why it's bad design, so I'm not going to go over it.

Shield has great potential as a keyword though. Keyword mechanics create a sense of unity across cards in a set. Once the idea is grasped for one card, a player will understand it for most of the other cards. If you look at any magic the gathering set, you will see each set has just a few keywords/mechanics used, and those keyword are used across a large number of cards. I think you already know this based on what you've come up with, so why am I saying this? It seems to me like you are missing on a great opportunity for a resonant theme in protoss by not putting more effort into shield. As a whole, your set seems to be overly concentrated on top-down design as well. Overall, I think the set would be better empathizing a select few themes/mechanics. You have done a good job with clock/detect/burrow, and that is by far the best. Structures are poorly implemented, but we'll get to that later.

Imagine shield formatted as the following ability:
Shield X ([cardname] enters the battlefield with X shield counters. If damage would be dealt to [card name], prevent damage equal to the number of shield counters on [card name], then remove that many shield counters. At the beginning of your upkeep, put a shield counter on [card name] if it has less than X shield counters.)

This is more versatile, but the biggest issue is that it is harder to grasp for newer players. There might be an easier way to implement it, I'm not sure. Flavor-wise, I think it works quite well. A straight +0/+1 might be easier, but I think as a whole the set is lacking mechanically.

For example, a zealot might have:
Shield 1 (Zealot enters the battlefield with 1 shield counter. If damage would be dealt to zealot, prevent damage equal to the number of shield counters on zealot, then remove that many shield counters. At the beginning of your upkeep, put a shield counter on zealot if it has less than 1 shield counters.)
and be a 2/2 for 2W or something like that.

Most protoss card would have shield 1 to keep things simple. Something like a nexus, mothership, or archon might have more.

For instance, a archon might have:
Shield 4 (Archon enters the battlefield with 4 shield counters. If damage would be dealt to archon, prevent damage equal to the number of shield counters on archon, then remove that many shield counters. At the beginning of your upkeep, put a shield counter on archon if it has less than 4 shield counters.)
and be a 5/1 creature.

The biggest issue is complexity. Also, it might be hard to balance as all protoss permanents would want the shield ability flavor-wise. This leaves less room for other mechanics and rules texts on common cards if you are designing your set seriously. Additionally, it would mean no vanilla creatures in protoss. Not sure if you really care about that though. It also requires protoss permanents to cost more to balance out for having shield. This somewhat fits flavorwise as protoss units are generally more expensive and more technologically advanced.

Overall, what I did for shield wouldn't ever be made due to it being too complex/time consuming. Something simpler as a mechanic would still be good though, perhaps as an activated ability, formatted as follows:
1: Shield X (Prevent the next X damage that would be dealt to [cardname] this turn. This ability can only be used once a turn.)

e.g., for a zealot might have:
1: Shield 1 (Prevent the next 1 damage that would be dealt to zealot this turn. This ability can only be used once a turn.)
and be a 2/2

while an archon could have
1: Shield 4 (Prevent the next 4 damage that would be dealt to archon this turn. This ability can only be used once a turn.)
and be a 5/1

Phoenix
Sorry for getting off on a tangent, moving on, we get to the phoenix. I know you used that as a "mistake" card, but the idea is good once again. Of course it should read "phoenix can only block creatures with flying" (like in vaporkin and similar creatures) and it should be "tap target non-flying creature." You might even add "destroy that creature if it's toughness is 1" to the second ability to represent phoenix attacking it, though that is probably unnecessary and extremely inelegant.

Structures
Eh, I get what you are trying to do mechanically here, but the whole thing is really poorly implemented. It doesn't serve a strong purpose mechanics-wise or flavor-wise. Additionally, it's a rules nightmare to implement a new card type that isn't a creature, but can block, and can be attacked. I can't imagine WotC getting behind something like that. Planeswalkers were an exception, you don't just make new card types for such a weak concept (no offense). I don't understand why you can block with buildings either btw.

I don't have a fix suggestion either, sorry. Maybe someone else will come up with something.The concept of structures is good though flavor-wise. Your execution just needs work.

Color wheel
Going through, the next few cards, there are tons of problems color-wise.

I understand the desire to limit each race to three colors, so that you can play each race independently. However, this is a terrible, terrible (damage) design decision. There are not enough cards in each color to justify the cycle you are trying even with your primary, secondary, tertiary color idea. Additionally, you completely ignore the color pie with several of your cards. It would be far better to construct it with some sort of limited drafting in mind as well, with a few mechanics in only a few colors. This will restrict players from doing too much race-crossing. For instance, shield could only be in W or G. Cloak could require U or G. Transform/flip cards (e.g. helion, viking, orbital?, planetary?) could be restricted to certain colors as well. The same could be true for morphing cards (e.g. baneling, broodlord). Even detection can be limited if you so choose.

I do agree that protoss is best represent by esper (WUB) and zerg is best represented by jund (GRB) for what it's worth. Terran is not really dega (WRB), but whatever. The real problem, again, is you don't have a complete cycle to use like you would in most normal set. Ravnica had the 10 guilds and alara had the 5 shards. Sets like Innistrad had tribes with werewolves (GR), humans (WG), zombies (UB), vampires (BR), spirits (UW). Despite this, you are trying to make a cycle. You do realize that not every set has to have a cycle though. In the latest block theros for instance, there are six main mechanics/themes: Heroic, Enchantments, Bestow, Devotion/Gods, Monstrosity, Scry. Enchantments, bestow, heroic, scry, and monstrosity are found in every color. Devotion/gods encourages mono-color. There are mild multi-color themes, but otherwise it's not too significant. As a set, it works extremely well without some sort of color cycle.

The problem with what you are doing is you are pigeonholing the entire race into 3 shards, and that just isn't doable without seriously messing up the color pie. You are seriously restricting what is possible by limiting each race to 3 colors. IMO, It would be much better to focus on designing good mechanics/themes first, and have those only in certain colors. This does mean you have to tighten up your mechanics/themes though. I realize this would entail a serious overhaul, and that's probably not something you want to do.

I did read what you wrote on colors, and I have a feeling that you are just going to ignore me. I think reading about the color-pie will be helpful for you regardless. It is a shame that you designed the whole thing with such a lack of regard for the color-pie, as that will keep any potential of this being a decent set away. I am going to point out color problems, though you are free to ignore it, as it's probably too late now.

Sentry
Forcefield is best represented by the magic ability detain imo. That being said, you don't want to go back to an old mechanic just for 1 card. What you have is OK, but why not just "tap target creature," as sentries can be used offensively and defensively. I would also reconsider your stance on giving reach to all the starcraft units that can hit air. Blue does not get reach. White very rarely gets reach, and it certainly wouldn't be for a case like this. Being a 1/1 reach is also really bad design-wise.

I'd personally drop reach, as I believe your idea of matching reach to units that can attack air in game is silly. It might be nice flavor, but it is very weak design. Additionally, even for flavor, when you think of sentries, their ability to attack air is not very significant.

Cloak, Burrow, and Detection
As I said before, I think this is brilliant. Note that you don't need the "other than detection" in the rules text of cloak, as detection does not target. Your work around for burrow is also very simple and elegant.

Ghost
It makes sense flavorwise, but mechanically there is too much going on. Also, it's a total nightmare in limited. I know you don't care about rarity, but as you have it, it's definitely rare lol. Cloak should probably require U to activate instead. The ghost is hard to do because it has so many abilities in-game. Also, there is no way a mono black creature randomly has reach. You could make the cloak cost G instead to remedy this. Personally I'd just drop reach though, as once again, the ability to hit air is not significant flavor-wise. Oh, also, it needs to read "Ghost deals 2 damage to...[]"

Dark Templar
This is mostly fine. I see no reason for the rules text aside from cloak. At best, killing psionic units is extremely weak flavor-wise. Costing 2UB is better if you decide to follow the color pie.

Overseer
The last ability is excellent! This is not red at all though. Having supply units generate mana is questionable flavor-wise also, but I'll go with it. The fact that it flies is not significant at all. Give it reach instead, and make the card green. That fits with the color pie and goes with the mana generation. The activated ability should require W instead of R.

warpgate
This is great flavor-wise, simple to grasp, and similar to another card. I like this card.

feedback
fine, not sure about casting cost, good flavor

stimpack
should be WR or RG, good idea though, strong flavor

nuclear strike
great

workers
great

burrowing claws
great

hatchery
great

reaper
great

widow mine
great, minor color issues if you ever decide to fix, good flavor, needs to read "widow mine deals 2 damage to....[]"

viking
You can't have costs for both sides of the flip, might as well start it off in fighter mode. The stats would make more sense as a 3/2 in the air, and 2/2 on the ground flavor-wise. That is terrible design-wise though. It's probably best to keep the stats as is, but instead of first strike give it:
"Whenever viking-fighter mode blocks a creature, viking-fighter mode deals 2 damage to that creature"

thor
fine

Battlecruiser
fine

raynor
fine...

tech lab
fine....

The last few were fine, though bland.

emp
fine...
No reason to just target one unit flavor-wise. Is the damage to artifacts supposed to represent something also? I get that most of your mechanical units are artifacts, but I don't really understand this part flavor-wise.

If you were to go with shield, you could do something like "Target opponent's creatures' activated abilities cannot be activated. Damage cannot be prevented this turn."

The first part represents the mana drain, and the second part represents the shield drain. Of course, your opponent can use activated abilities in response while emp is on the stack (due to super gosu micro reflexes)

Korhal
I like this a lot

Stalker
very good as well

oracle
I like this too

immortal
another good one

carrier
already been said, but doesn't work, the change is easy though

mothership
nice

zeratul
color issues

templar archives
ok

halluc
good

shakuras
great

zergling
great

mutalisk
should be B, not R

swarm host
great!!!

ultralisk
good

broodlord
good

kerrigan
good, colorpie issues with cloak, also should read "kerrigan deals x...[]"

creep
I prefer haste to first strike

neural
colorpie issue

zerus
good, although much better than the other lands if you take past sets into account

xel naga tower
good

artifact
good

I got bored towards the end, sorry if my comments aren't the most helpful. There are tons of problems with color. The biggest issue is still that you focused too much on top-down design rather than starting with a few mechanics and thinking more seriously about color distribution. Though that makes sense with your concept, you had the potential to create an actual serious set. Overall, you did well though. I really hope this post doesn't sound too negative or anything, as I liked it. You captured the flavor well. Some of the formatting and concepts needed work, but I feel like I understood most of your ideas.