Face-down Mechanics

[traceurling]

Mainly itll be "activating stimulus" and "result"...
Triggers:
-something dies
-a spell is cast
-after a certain amount of turns
-a creature is played
-a permanent is placed
-click to flip over
-more

Results
-something dies/is destroyed
-quana drain/scramble
-heal
-cast a creature
-cast a spell
-poison
-more

[OdinVanguard]

hrrrm...
'Fused' mechanic could be merged with the 'face-down' mechanic for ease of building, and then, we could introduce...maybe three or so creatures that all have the cloaking ability...
but an issue comes to mind-what does face-down as a mechanic DO, besides leave the opponent guessing as far as creatures go?
I mean, assume I've got an artic squid out and the quanta to feed it, and my opponent plays a face-down creature. why should I not just freeze-lock it, outside of there being heavier hitter on his field?
...They're going to need to be very damaging, or have an effect that makes them worth killng.
I'm thinking mix it up.
First off, the 'Fused mechanic to prevent quanta watching being a giveaway.
As for what kinds...A  creature that gives counts for two deaths when it dies (it's a trap!) another creature that does damage when killed, another variation that does spell damage when killed at the cost of weaker attack power than the one that does normal damage, and a few nasty variations, like one that applies poison, one that drains quanta and damages.
That sound good to you guys?

Another couple of very useful option / card mechanic would be one that allows you to shuffles the locations of facedown cards.

I.e. suppose you play a 2 squids facedown and then another 2 trap creatures face down that zap opponent if killed.
The opponent is observant and can figure out which ones is a squids and that the others are traps.
You then play a spell or effect that shuffles their locations with one another randomly.

Now the opponent is left with a decision: Shoot one and hope they hit a squid and not a trap, or hold off till they can figure out which is which somehow, thereby giving squids a chance to work.

[nerd1]

a solution to this would be to give some monsters a ~10% chance to auto-cloak for one turn. Instead of this bieng on an inclusion basis, it's on an exclusion basis- as long as a card ins't OP, it can auto-cloak. This could be used as a stopgap measure when something screws up the metagame.
Aternatively, you could cast a spell that automatically cloaks the next 2 monsters you play. Wait, actually, I'm going to see about making that.

[Drake_XIV]

Trigger Cloak conditions are perhaps the closest that it could be.

e.g.  This card is cloaked until your opponent plays a creature. When this card is no longer cloaked, you must destroy a target creature.

[nerd1]

Trigger Cloak conditions are perhaps the closest that it could be.

e.g.  This card is cloaked until your opponent plays a creature. When this card is no longer cloaked, you must destroy a target creature.

I agree with the flip effect condition.
possibly, a card might come out cloaked, and while targeting it removes the cloak, it also causes the effect to go off.
possibly, the text would read like this:

"This card enters play cloaked. If targeted, this card looses its cloak, and is unaffected by the targeted card. When this card looses its cloak, deal 12 damage to the opposing player."

[Drake_XIV]

The idea was to enable a variety of conditions for uncloaking.

[nerd1]

The idea was to enable a variety of conditions for uncloaking.

I know- I was just demonstrating the targeting condition as an example. I personally like the idea of cloaks as a one-off shield to a creature.

[furballdn]

Let's not make this into YGO please. EtG has it's own charm, and one thing about it is that it differs from some of the other big card games. I don't know about magic, but it's much different from YGO in that it uses quanta, no sacrifices, no creature to creature combat, and no traps; the last point makes the game have a unique and calm feeling when it's a player's turn as they know they are safe. This is also the reason that EtG doesn't utilize a graveyard.

The only way this concept could be done and done well was if a large amount of it got added into the game, but if more cards and mechanics are to be implemented, I can think of hundreds of others that would benefit the game more.

[traceurling]

Idk about you but when it's my turn I'm scared as hell playing my creatures cuz I'm like should I try to bait out their cc first or just go for it as well as skull shield thorn carapace trolling and same thug abut baiting pc...

[OdinVanguard]

Let's not make this into YGO please. EtG has it's own charm, and one thing about it is that it differs from some of the other big card games. I don't know about magic, but it's much different from YGO in that it uses quanta, no sacrifices, no creature to creature combat, and no traps; the last point makes the game have a unique and calm feeling when it's a player's turn as they know they are safe. This is also the reason that EtG doesn't utilize a graveyard.

The only way this concept could be done and done well was if a large amount of it got added into the game, but if more cards and mechanics are to be implemented, I can think of hundreds of others that would benefit the game more.

This also depends on how traps are implemented.

YGO made trap triggers for just about any and every effect type possible. So I do agree, it goes a little overboard there. It doesn't mean the concept can't be adapted uniquely here.

I see no problem with making trap cards that trigger against the opponent using single target effects that target something that isn't theirs.

Players are still "safe" on their own turn. Its their choice whether to target something owned by the opponent or not.

If they do so and get burned by a trap, its their own fault targeting something that isn't theirs without knowing what it was first.

A great example would be allowing a player to play a voodoo doll facedown... If your opponent shoots it with an ice bolt and consequently takes damage and freezes their own weapon, then they'll think twice about firing at facedown cards without knowing what's there...
In fact, that would actually be a good way to get the voodoo mechanic to see a bit more use outside of very specially designed decks.

I.e. I think traps should be just fine as a "defensive" mechanism.

On the other hand, making traps that trigger if opponent plays a creature to their own field, casts a healing spell on their own creatures, etc. Would be much more invasive...

Personally, I wouldn't really mind too much since it adds a much more cereberal element rather than the very simplistic shotgun style play. But I can also see how some may dislike that as well.

So using traps with "offensive" mechanisms may detract from the current overall feel of the game for some players.

[Jyiber]

I agree that the only way to add this feature would be to add alot of it, including several way to diffuse them.

The card being played would have to be face down when played from hand to make it a "real" trap, jokes on trap users facing a Precog deck.

Another dead give away would be the cost of the trap, for keen experienced players could guess the trap based on cost and element. If you've ever read the Art of War, then the point of a trap is null and void if your opponent knows what it is. That said, deception could be a cool mechanic to use for PvP in particular.

The traps in question would probably mostly take the form of 1-turn Permanents, right? Or would become a whole new class of card?

[Zaealix]

We already came up with a method to deal with cost reading- making the cards 'fused'-cost  (takes from any quanta pool, but only the one pool, so as to prevent element reading.) so as to prevent the use of cost reading to divine what it is beforehand.
I'm also kind of against the idea of not letting traps be seen while in the hand-That alone used to be precog's only function, and it was all but useless in for deckbuilding like that. That's why the current model also lets you draw a card in addition, if I'm right.