General Vakeztan - A Riptide Lap-Set

[Onderzeeboot]

Vigilance is cool in that you can attack and then after combat can still tame a beast. I think if you want to keep all the abilities, you need to up the rarity or severely lower the toughness, which kinda suck as it then wouldn't be a good attacker anymore. If we're going to design a set by today's standard, of course we need a legendary in each shard. If you make your card a 3/3 for (or 3/4 if you want to push it), I think you've got your shard legendary right there! I would then make a simple uncommon with just vigilance, and not the extra text. Say a 4/4 vigilance for .

Oh, another thing, I don't think we should include allied color cards. Those only go into one of the shard, e.g. only goes into Khunda decks, and in no others. My experience with my own cube has been that it's better to include only the guilds that have overlap with two of the shards. Khans of Tarkir didn't include any allied color cards either for the same reason!

 

[Onderzeeboot]

Art link Bataar

Did anyone of you ever read that article by Rosewater where he talked about how echo was disliked as a mechanic because it was all downside. Wait, I can do better, here's the article! It's actually an article about the legendary supertype, but here's the relevant part (when he's talking about what they don't like about legendaries):

Problem #1 – It's an All-Downside Mechanic

Each year we do market research to see what players thought of the previous year's cards. As part of this study we look at keyword mechanics to get a sense of what was popular and what was unpopular. This data helps us in two ways. First, it specifically lets us know what players think about particular mechanics. This allows us to use data to help decide whether or not we might want to bring that mechanic back. Second, it allows us to see trends.

The following five mechanics did not fare all that well in surveys: Echo, fading, phasing, suspend, and vanishing.

What do these mechanics all have in common? They are what we refer to in R&D as "downside mechanics." That is, they allow a player to get a more powerful spell at a cheaper cost but at the price of something else. Maybe the creature disappears every other turn or just goes away altogether after a few turns or possibly takes multiple turns to even get to the battlefield.

Time has shown that downside mechanics poll poorly. But it doesn't stop there. Not only do downside mechanics fare poorly, so too do most downside cards. The biggest reason upkeep costs, as an example, have dropped off significantly is that players don't like them. There are exceptions, of course—players will accept almost anything if the card is powerful enough—but as a trend, it's clear: most players do not like downside.

So in light of that, why don't we turn Wild into an upside mechanic (for most of the cards, anyway)? Going against the grain when it comes to what players like isn't going to make it easy to sell your mechanic, after all. This also prevents us from having to stat each wild creature with inflated stats to compensate for annoying drawbacks. In addition, I renamed Wild to Untamed and added a number for quicker reference and shorter overall text length. The rename also makes sure the reminder text is more intuitive and I can drop the "and it loses wild". Because you tamed it, it intuitively is no longer untamed (this is of course explained in full in the FAQ and in the rules, reminder text is just a shorthand way to intuitively explain mechanics in a few words, after all).

So, how about some more cards, I'm curious what you think of my changes and designs!



Art link Plaguebeast
Art link Aether-Eyed Pack
Art link Veteran Falconer

Edit: Considering the art, Plaguesteed is probably a better name for the black card, and it's trigger should be moved to another step, probably, so you can tame and trigger it in the same turn.
Also, the white card is missing the word "token". <- Fixed!
I quite like untamed, plenty of design space, fun synergy possibilities. Good work ravnic!

 

[ravnic]

Okay, maybe let's fix the wedge-mechanic before going to the cards, I was a little too impatient.

Oh, another thing, I don't think we should include allied color cards. Those only go into one of the shard, e.g. only goes into Khunda decks, and in no others. My experience with my own cube has been that it's better to include only the guilds that have overlap with two of the shards. Khans of Tarkir didn't include any allied color cards either for the same reason!

I'm on board with this, having ten more mono colored cards seems to bring more options anyway.

So in light of that, why don't we turn Wild into an upside mechanic (for most of the cards, anyway)? Going against the grain when it comes to what players like isn't going to make it easy to sell your mechanic, after all. This also prevents us from having to stat each wild creature with inflated stats to compensate for annoying drawbacks. In addition, I renamed Wild to Untamed and added a number for quicker reference and shorter overall text length. The rename also makes sure the reminder text is more intuitive and I can drop the "and it loses wild". Because you tamed it, it intuitively is no longer untamed (this is of course explained in full in the FAQ and in the rules, reminder text is just a shorthand way to intuitively explain mechanics in a few words, after all).

So, how about some more cards, I'm curious what you think of my changes and designs!

Okay, first, I totally love the design of the veteran falconer, seems like a perfect fit and should make the list.

But to what MaRo says, I don't really agree with that. First, downsides open up a lot of design space and when you can turn downsides into upsides (Bone Shredder + Phyrexian Reclamation), it feels usually great for the player. Drawbacks make you think and it makes me sad, that so many playes seems to not appreciate stuff like that. And having the ability to tap creatures without having them to attack (like the Falconer shows) can be a real upside! I want Magic, that makes people think, sometimes around corners.

Also, the way we tried the thing with the tame/domestication counter on the page before, it resulted in cards that are better than vehicles in at least on way (only need to tap once). I mean, vehicles are popular and they are also just artifact creatures with a downside, technically.

I also feel like, the mechanic was definitely not perfect the way I suggested last, but the upside only way you suggested doesn't seem to make that muih sense, flavorwise, to me. Why would the plaguebeast deal damage to creatures only when it has been domesticated? That feels just as off as the pacifistic variant from before I did. I mean, I am totally in for adding upsides to some, don't get me wrong, but not all-upside.

I have another suggestion. We will find the perfect version! Maybe this is it? It is still a downside mechanic, but it is not that brutal, as in the card is not useless, it just deals a bit of damage to you, because it is wild beast, but it also hurts your opponent. Also, they way it is worded now, it is super clear and short and everything is told in reminder text, for wordy rares.

EDIT: Ignore these, the better version follows further down lol.

Hungry Hippo

Creature - Hippo Beast
Trample
Untamed 3 (At the beginning of your end step, you may tap any number of non-beast creatures with total power 3 or greater. If you do, put a tame counter on this creature. Then, if there is no tame counter on it, it deals 3 damage to you.)
3/4

Bloody Packbeast
Creature - Beast
Untamed 4 (At the beginning of your end step, you may tap any number of non-beast creatures with total power 4 or greater. If you do, put a tame counter on this creature. Then, if there is no tame counter on it, it deals 4 damage to you.)
Bloody Packbeast has lifelink as long as it has a tame counter on it.
4/5

Big Goat
Untamed 2 (At the beginning of your end step, you may tap any number of non-beast creatures with total power 2 or greater. If you do, put a tame counter on this creature. Then, if there is no tame counter on it, it deals 2 damage to you.)
Big Goat has vigilance as long as it has a tame counter on it.
2/4

Alternatively,we could also make it a one time trigger wenn the creatures EtB, it just would feel a little bit off, that you have only one moment to tame the creatures, then the opportunity is gone. Something like this:

Bloody Packbeast
Creature - Beast
Untamed 4 (When this creature enters the battlefield, you may tap any number of non-beast creatures with total power 4 or greater and put a tame counter on it. If you don't it deals 4 damage to you.)
Bloody Packbeast has lifelink as long as it has a tame counter on it.
4/5

It would make it even a little less wordy, but I tend to like the first version a little better. On the other hand, getting P damage every end step if you can't tame it, might be too much actually. Maybe the EtB version is actually better. It is still a drawback that captures the wild temper of the beast, but it is really clear and far less wordy, which allows for more potential upsides. What do you say (and others)?

Yeah, the more I think of it, I think the EtB do it or not leads to the best gameplay so far. I like how we criticize and inspire each other!

 

[ravnic]

Here, I also did a quick proxy to showcase. Considering how wordy this ability is still after all, I think we should settle on this to allow for attached upsides and other abilities.

 

[ravnic]

Thinking about it, we should maybe consider setting the number for untamed independently from the P/T to some degree. I mean, humans also tame and domesticate animals stronger than them. And you don't have to threaten to kill an animal to tame it, just threatening pain is usually enough.

Mean Hyena 1WB
Creature
First Strike
Untamed 2
3/3


This way, we would have the chance to make some french vanilla-esque commons and to have much more room for balancing out certain cards. Also, again, helpful when we add upsides to the tame counter, as it will be more of an actual choice if you tame it with your guys. I mean, you wouldn't take 7 damage from your green 7/7 anyway, so it would've played just as an additional cost.


Black fat Beast 4BB
Creature
Flying, Trample
Untamed 4
7/7

See, that is more of a choice than 7 dmg on EtB would've been. And we can increase the cmcs to reasonable proportions.

 

[ravnic]

Sorry for quadruple post, I'm in a developing rage. Here's another example of what could be a nice, flavorful upside with this mechanic's version:.

https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/cards_ip/1539738445289258.png?t=651816

 

[Onderzeeboot]

Sorry, but I completely disagree with the merits of a drawback only mechanic. There's a reason it polls bad! I firmly believe the way to go is to word it in a way that it can be upside.

Note: My suggestion from above does *not* prevent you from designing some cards with a downside, if that makes you feel clever. I know there are some players who like that style of play, and you are obviously one of them, but in this case it's a minority of the players. We're all pretty invested Magic players here, and I think it's important to realize we're not the norm. Why bother designing a set that doesn't even appeal to the masses. I would want this to rival a WotC-designed set, not step into the same pitfalls they already learned from.

Again, I really dislike inflated stats, and your newest downside-only variant still wants those inflated stats to make up for the downside. So in addition to polling bad with the public, you're warping a healthy distribution of P/T in your set. I'm sorry to say, but this is one mechanic I would fight hard to get axed or changed in the pit, because it goes against what I think a good mechanic should feel like.

Re: flavor. You said yourself that untamed beasts don't do what you want them to do. That's exactly what happens in my variant. The Plaguebeast only starts damaging opposing creatures once you domesticated it, because then it does what you want it to do, you can finally control it. I literally took a leaf from your old ability but turned it around to a way that does support all upside cards.

Once again, my variant does still allows for downside-only designs to appease that small group of Johnny players who want to feel clever building their contraption of doom, as well as overstated monsters with a downside that appeal to Spikes, simply because the power to mana ratio is good.

PS. I would shy away from non-beast, and use non-untamed, just to make the mechanic a little bit more flexible. Plus, this allows you to make tameable non-beasts.

 

[Onderzeeboot]

Sorry for quadruple post, I'm in a developing rage. Here's another example of what could be a nice, flavorful upside with this mechanic's version:.

https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/cards_ip/1539738445289258.png?t=651816

Also, ha, same! Sorry for the negativity, but I see this back and forth as critical during this phase. Nothing personal, but I'ld do a filibuster to prevent a drawback-only mechanics to make it into the list. It's important to note that I'm not against drawback-only designs! These designs do have an audience after all, as you so clearly demonstrate. I just think it shouldn't be a defining feature of one of our backbone draft decks.

Another thing I just realized, is that these designs of you are very feast or famine. Taking your design above, you either have a 3/3 that deals 3 damage to you (which is really mediocre), or you have a 3/3 that doesn't Lightning Bolt your face and can buff into a 6/6 one time. I'm guessing the difference will only grow more pronounced at higher rarities.

 

[Onderzeeboot]

PS. I would shy away from non-beast, and use non-untamed, just to make the mechanic a little bit more flexible. Plus, this allows you to make tameable non-beasts.

The question I asked myself was: "Do you want your tamed beasts to be able to help taming untamed beasts?" For me the answer was yes, because I think it plays better that way. That's another reason I went with non-untamed.

So, anyway... time to put my money where my mouth is! I tweaked the reminder text a bit, time to show off some various possibilities with my variant to prove you can indeed make some downside designs (I'm completely reusing art here on the Plaguesteed!). I think we can tweak the numbers of untamed with a bit of playtesting. Maybe 7 is too much for Plaguesteed, for example, but for flavor reasons one higher than the creature's power feels like a good starting point! As the designs show, with my suggested reminder text you can go either downside, upside, or both! I really believe this design doesn't force our hand as much as your suggestion does ravnic. You can make overstatted monsters with a downside, or you can make creatures that are fine on curve (or even below curve) that get upgraded once you tame them. In my mind this makes this variant much more flexible than your downside-only variant. You can now cater to multiple play styles, making the default design all upside to respect how the average Magic player feels about all downside mechanics, but including some downside designs to appease the Johnnies and Spikes that are looking for either a puzzle to solve or an above the curve monster.



Art link Plaguesteed
Art link Giant Snapper
Art link Griffin Fledgling

 

[sigh]

Have y'all thought about making a set design skeleton?

https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/nuts-bolts-design-skeleton-2010-02-15

If you really start to get into developing a full set, it's a great way to stay organized and have a solid starting point to brainstorm from.

 

[Onderzeeboot]

Thanks for the link sigh, we probably should set up a Google drive-document (or something) for that once we're past the initial brainstorm phase and ready for filling out the set, so we can cooperate on that.

 

[vennythekid]

This is a really cool project! I've always wanted to design my own set, so I'll try to contribute where possible!

Here are some design questions that might help guide the project:

I think it is important if we are trying to make the set play like a Riptide cube, I think we want to design our engine/build-around pieces carefully. One of the marks of the Riptide style are flexible engine pieces center around. Birthing Pod, sac. outlets, etc. I suggest we think about what these set pieces might play like early on.

A second important concept to discuss is access to card advantage, filtering, and consistency. Riptide lists introduced 3+ Brainstorms, Grillo has written a ton on card filtering in his cube as something that makes decks flexible and fun to play. What might that look like in the set?

In a three color set, how are the decks able to deal with the challenge of assembling their colors? In Khans, the workaround was morph, allowing the heavy 3-color commons to impact the board at no matter what. Is there another clever "not right now, but later" mechanic for these gold cards?

 

[Onderzeeboot]

In a three color set, how are the decks able to deal with the challenge of assembling their colors? In Khans, the workaround was morph, allowing the heavy 3-color commons to impact the board at no matter what. Is there another clever "not right now, but later" mechanic for these gold cards?

A guaranteed common fixing land in the 14th common slot goes a long way. Cycling also helps, especially if it's colorless.

 

[vennythekid]

, centered in
Flavor idea: This could be a dwarfish race of artificers who are crusading to reclaim a long lost holy land in Vakeztan.

A mechanic idea I've considered for a long time is that of Equipment tokens.

Artifact Token
Equipped creature gets +1/+0.
Equip 1.

Prepare for Battle 2UW
Sorcery
Scry 2.
Draw 2 Cards.
Mobilize 1: Create an artifact token with Equip 1 and "Equipped creature gets +1/+0".

Forward Garrison 1RW
Enchantment
When ~ enters the battlefield, or whenever you cast an instant or sorcery, Mobilize 1.
(To mobilize, create an artifact token with Equip 1 and "Equipped creature gets +1/+0".)

Dwarfish Squire 2W
Creature
When ~ enters the battlefield, Mobilize 1.
Sacrifice ~: Equipment you control gain Equip: 0 until end of turn.
2/2

Interesting effects that could come along with the equipment:

Dwarfish Bombardment 1R
Enchantment
Sacrifice an artifact: Dwarfish Bombardment deals 1 damage to target creature or player.

Invading General 1UWR
Creature
Whenever a creature you control becomes equipped, you may tap or untap target creature.
3/4

 

[Onderzeeboot]

Huh. That could either be really cool or play really annoying because your opponent has a billion Bone Saws. Hard to judge!

 

[ravnic]

I agree with most what you said Ondee, just super busy today. Will reply in full length tomorrow friends.

 

[Sorrynametaken]

I'm a long time lurker of the forum and this thread caught my eye.
Throwing out some ideas:

For set design purposes, you may want to be careful about having different kinds of counters hanging around, especially on the same type of permanent. I can feel the "board complexity creep" as I speculate on mechanics myself.

centered in Jungle Shaman faction:
Maybe have some kind of "burst" effects that tire out or weaken the creatures afterwords. This could represent a creature entering a heightened "enlightened" state before dropping off the "high." Exert already exists as a mechanic and has been used outside of just on attacks. I see you put +1/+1 counters as a possible theme for GU, so creatures that expend and regain counters could also potentially be used.


Anyway, here's an idea for that faction. To avoid the adding counters to creatures to represent these "burst" effects, perhaps a counter could be added to lands instead to represent the shamans cultivating/growing the drug and making use of the resource. I also like the idea of making them self-contained, but also cross-compatible, so you benefit from having multiple sources.

Using Cultivation counters(not sure about balance, just proof of concept):

Enlightened Dude 2U
Creature - Human Shaman
When ~ enters the battlefield, put a Cultivation counter on a land you control.
3U,remove a Cultivation counter from a land you control: Draw a card.
2/3

Burning Man 3R
Creature - Human Shaman
When ~ enters the battlefield, put a Cultivation counter on a land you control.
4R, remove a Cultivation counter from a land you control: Burning Man deals 2 damage to target creature.
3/2

Elvish Farmer 1G
Creature - Elf Druid
When ~ enters the battlefield, put a Cultivation counter on a land you control.
, remove a Cultivation counter from a land you control: Add ,, or .
2/2

Invoke the Gods 1G
Instant
Target creature gets +3/+3 until end of turn.
You may remove two Cultivation counters from among lands you control, if you do, that creature gains Trample and Deathtouch until end of turn as well.

Too much like energy? Is interaction with lands something you want to have(destroying, "burning" off the counters)? Maybe Cultivation counters could "exert" lands as part of payment(with different balancing, of course)?

 

[ravnic]

Okay, first on our Khunda Tribes mechanic. I'm cool with not giving them a downside mechanic, though I'm pretty confident, that echo and cumulative upkeep polled so bad, because they have literally no reason to be on a card. What gives a creature these abilities, especially echo, flavorwise? They're just an excuse to push stats. Players like me, who are into flavor, like to see drawbacks, when they make sense, flavorwise, and deliver more mechanically than just "let's make the cards better otherwise."

But, back on topic, I agree now, that my latest version of untamed was definitely not perfect, a little closer than before, but still kinda sucky. But I think, you, Ondee, you got it already 99% right with this fella here:

What I want, is a really flavorful mechanic, that capture's the risk of taming the wild, enormous beasts of Vakeztan. I think the best to do this while also providing fun and interesting gameplay, is to add a upside to being tamed AND a downside of being not to most beasts. (By the way, the keyword is not all the faction is about and I think we could get away with making less than 15 untamed beasts and only ~3 at common for complexity reasons). So here is what the mechanic could look like, neutral on itself, really close to Onderzeebot's:

Untamed X (Tap any number of non-beast creatures with total power X or greater: Put a tame counter on this creature. Tame only any time you could cast a sorcery.)

What I changed is the clearer wording for sorcery speed ("as a sorcery" could confuse new player I guess) and I changed back to non-beast, because non-untamed sounds bad, but untamed is a good name, because it makes clear what taming ("tame only any time ..") means exactly.

Then we could create a few cards with only upside (and only downside maybe) where it makes sense, but try to create most with both. The only important thin to me is, that these effects capture the flavor. The Giant Snapper does this perfectly and could be a nice rare just as you did it, Ondee. Here are a few more possibilities with both, up- and downside:

These cards are not actual suggestions, just to showcase the general idea. More effects could possibly be:

Damage to you OR damage to opponent (upkeep, when attacks, ...)
Damage to target you OR opponent controls (upkeep, when attacks, ...)
Damage to you on attack/block OR gains lifelink
Damage to flying/attacking/... creatures you OR opponent controls
You lose life OR you gain life (upkeep, when attacks, ...)
Destroy land/creature/... you control OR opponents control (upkeep, when attacks, ...)
Can't block OR can block additional creature
Shrink each other creature OR pump each other creature

I bet there are even more variations that capture the flavor of the danger of having an untamed beasts AND the upside of having the same beast, tamed fighting on your side.

What do you guys think?

 

[ravnic]

Have y'all thought about making a set design skeleton?

https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/nuts-bolts-design-skeleton-2010-02-15

If you really start to get into developing a full set, it's a great way to stay organized and have a solid starting point to brainstorm from.

That's a great idea, thanks! We should definitely do this after we got the mechanics and core identities of the factions.

, centered in
Flavor idea: This could be a dwarfish race of artificers who are crusading to reclaim a long lost holy land in Vakeztan.

A mechanic idea I've considered for a long time is that of Equipment tokens.

Artifact Token
Equipped creature gets +1/+0.
Equip 1.

Prepare for Battle 2UW
Sorcery
Scry 2.
Draw 2 Cards.
Mobilize 1: Create an artifact token with Equip 1 and "Equipped creature gets +1/+0".

...

Interesting effects that could come along with the equipment:

Dwarfish Bombardment 1R
Enchantment
Sacrifice an artifact: Dwarfish Bombardment deals 1 damage to target creature or player.

Invading General 1UWR
Creature
Whenever a creature you control becomes equipped, you may tap or untap target creature.
3/4

The idea of having this faction focus around blacksmith work and equipments seems like shoe-in for me, really neat idea. I like it more than my invaders-thought from before.

To the ability, I think we could find a better one fitting that theme when discussing that faction. I mean, it would probably get really annoying really quick.

I'm a long time lurker of the forum and this thread caught my eye.
Throwing out some ideas:

For set design purposes, you may want to be careful about having different kinds of counters hanging around, especially on the same type of permanent. I can feel the "board complexity creep" as I speculate on mechanics myself.

centered in Jungle Shaman faction:
Maybe have some kind of "burst" effects that tire out or weaken the creatures afterwords. This could represent a creature entering a heightened "enlightened" state before dropping off the "high." Exert already exists as a mechanic and has been used outside of just on attacks. I see you put +1/+1 counters as a possible theme for GU, so creatures that expend and regain counters could also potentially be used.


Anyway, here's an idea for that faction. To avoid the adding counters to creatures to represent these "burst" effects, perhaps a counter could be added to lands instead to represent the shamans cultivating/growing the drug and making use of the resource. I also like the idea of making them self-contained, but also cross-compatible, so you benefit from having multiple sources.

Using Cultivation counters(not sure about balance, just proof of concept):

Enlightened Dude 2U
Creature - Human Shaman
When ~ enters the battlefield, put a Cultivation counter on a land you control.
3U,remove a Cultivation counter from a land you control: Draw a card.
2/3

Burning Man 3R
Creature - Human Shaman
When ~ enters the battlefield, put a Cultivation counter on a land you control.
4R, remove a Cultivation counter from a land you control: Burning Man deals 2 damage to target creature.
3/2

Elvish Farmer 1G
Creature - Elf Druid
When ~ enters the battlefield, put a Cultivation counter on a land you control.
, remove a Cultivation counter from a land you control: Add ,, or .
2/2

Invoke the Gods 1G
Instant
Target creature gets +3/+3 until end of turn.
You may remove two Cultivation counters from among lands you control, if you do, that creature gains Trample and Deathtouch until end of turn as well.

Too much like energy? Is interaction with lands something you want to have(destroying, "burning" off the counters)? Maybe Cultivation counters could "exert" lands as part of payment(with different balancing, of course)?

That's a sweet way to interact with lands and you're in the right colors. I could definitely see this being great.

The thing is, I've had an idea of making the / Group the Alchemists and they would probably contradict each other a bit. Also, Onderzeebot suggested the swarm mechanic for the Temur-colored tribe. Keep this idea up though, when we're talking about the simic-including wedges and we'll settle for the coolest version.

One thing we should keep an eye out in general, like you mentioned, is to not make the set too complicated. We can probably justify a higher than average complexity, since we're not wizards and we actually don't have to justify anything, but it should still play like an actual (good) set imo.

Maybe we could give (an)other tribe(s) something more simple like:

Weaponsmith (Equipped creatures you control get +1/+1.)


But first, let's finish the savage Khunda Tribes!

 

[Onderzeeboot]

Anyway, here's an idea for that faction. To avoid the adding counters to creatures to represent these "burst" effects, perhaps a counter could be added to lands instead to represent the shamans cultivating/growing the drug and making use of the resource.

Too much like energy? Is interaction with lands something you want to have(destroying, "burning" off the counters)? Maybe Cultivation counters could "exert" lands as part of payment(with different balancing, of course)?

Hey there, welcome long-time lurker! Cool to see you contribute, but... (sorry for the but, I really am, don't let this discourage you!) Counters on lands are actually really annoying to play with, ever played a deck with multiple vivids and Gemstone Mine? I have, and it's a logistical nightmare! Also, you're basically right that it's pretty much energy, but you put the counters on your lands. If we want this mechanic in our set, I think we should just bring back energy.

What I want, is a really flavorful mechanic, that capture's the risk of taming the wild, enormous beasts of Vakeztan. I think the best to do this while also providing fun and interesting gameplay, is to add a upside to being tamed AND a downside of being not to most beasts. (By the way, the keyword is not all the faction is about and I think we could get away with making less than 15 untamed beasts and only ~3 at common for complexity reasons). So here is what the mechanic could look like, neutral on itself, really close to Onderzeebot's:

Untamed X (Tap any number of non-beast creatures with total power X or greater: Put a tame counter on this creature. Tame only any time you could cast a sorcery.)

What I changed is the clearer wording for sorcery speed ("as a sorcery" could confuse new player I guess) and I changed back to non-beast, because non-untamed sounds bad, but untamed is a good name, because it makes clear what taming ("tame only any time ..") means exactly.

What do you guys think?

Cool, we're almost there then! The "as a sorcery" is literally what Wizards of the Coast already uses though.



We should probably rephrase your suggestion to...

Tame X (Tap any number of non-beast creatures with total power X or greater: Put a tame counter on it. Tame only as a sorcery.)

That doesn't prevent you to tap creatures when it isn't tamed though, and doesn't work with a theoretical token-agnostic Melira, Sylvok Outcast... I need to think on this and have no more time to do so atm... aaaaaah!

 

[ravnic]

Oh, didn't know that working thing. Well, I think the Melira-case is irrelevant, but the unlimited tapping ...

Untamed X (Tap any number of non-beast creatures with total power X or greater: Put a tame counter on this creature. Tame only as a sorcery and if this creature has no tame counter on it.)

Better?

 

[Sorrynametaken]

What I changed is the clearer wording for sorcery speed ("as a sorcery" could confuse new player I guess) and I changed back to non-beast, because non-untamed sounds bad, but untamed is a good name, because it makes clear what taming ("tame only any time ..") means exactly.

Could we use "Wild" as a supertype, like "Snow"? Does that have any weird rules baggage to worry about?

I think keeping the Untamed X numbers following a certain pattern(meet or exceed power, pick one) is probably better in terms of grokability.

On the drawbacks/upsides continuum topic:
I think it is better if the abilities mirror each other cleanly OR it simply loses a downside or gains an upside. Obviously rares can get a bit weirder.
Below are some combinations that I feel fit in those colors(DOWNSIDE//UPSIDE)


x//Menace
When this attacks, you lose X life//When this attacks, defending player loses X life
Must attack each turn if able//x (More of a Red ability, but there is a bit of this in Black in Magic's history)
x//Deathtouch


x//Trample
Can't block//Vigilance (You listed this in your examples. I like the "development" flavor here.)

x//Must be blocked if able
x//All creatures able to block this do so (Only one "must block" creature)
When this blocks or becomes blocked, it gets -X/-X until end of turn//When this blocks or becomes blocked, it gets +X/+X until end of turn (Maybe for BLACK???)


Defender//x (flavor- some large beast of burden)
Can't Attack Alone//x (crossover IF go-wide aggro is part of another white faction)
x//Flying (Also in previous posts. Seems like a shoe-in for a common)

 

[Onderzeeboot]

Oh, didn't know that working thing. Well, I think the Melira-case is irrelevant, but the unlimited tapping ...

Untamed X (Tap any number of non-beast creatures with total power X or greater: Put a tame counter on this creature. Tame only as a sorcery and if this creature has no tame counter on it.)

Better?

Could we use "Wild" as a supertype, like "Snow"? Does that have any weird rules baggage to worry about?

I think keeping the Untamed X numbers following a certain pattern(meet or exceed power, pick one) is probably better in terms of grokability.

The keyword should be Tame X, not Untamed X. Otherwise you can't say "tame only as a sorcery", plus you then get to refer to "taming" on other cards. Other than that I believe you have found the correct reminder text. Can't really think of a way to further improve it at the moment.

I think a "wild" supertype could help get across the flavor well. And I do feel you're right that the ability becomes easier to frock if it's following a certain pattern. I suggest we stick to X = the creature's power +1 first, since that mirrors the concept of needing to literally "overpower" it. In a later stadium we can tweak the numbers if that number turns out to be too high or too low.

Tame X (Tap any number of non-beast creatures with total power X or greater: Put a tame counter on this creature. Tame only as a sorcery and if this creature has no tame counter on it.)

 

[ravnic]

The thing with something like a card supertype is, that it seems really odd and over the top to do it in a faction set where it's only relevant for a small portion of cards. It should then be a world thing, but for that, the mechanic seems far too narrow.

I don't love the non-beast clause either, but that is not wordy, clear and appeals to me as logic. The downside of not making untamed non-beasts is a bit annoying, but 90% of the cards we're going to create would be beasts anyway I figured, and the rest could be turned into beasts with adequat artworks.

 

[ravnic]

The keyword should be Tame X, not Untamed X. Otherwise you can't say "tame only as a sorcery", plus you then get to refer to "taming" on other cards. Other than that I believe you have found the correct reminder text. Can't really think of a way to further improve it at the moment.

I think a "wild" supertype could help get across the flavor well. And I do feel you're right that the ability becomes easier to frock if it's following a certain pattern. I suggest we stick to X = the creature's power +1 first, since that mirrors the concept of needing to literally "overpower" it. In a later stadium we can tweak the numbers if that number turns out to be too high or too low.

Tame X (Tap any number of non-beast creatures with total power X or greater: Put a tame counter on this creature. Tame only as a sorcery and if this creature has no tame counter on it.)

You ninja'd me again ... but I agree with everything you said, except I'm not a fan of a supertype for a relatively small mechanic still.