[Community Project] Implementing Field Manipulation series into Cygnia

[AD TienzuStorm]

2) How far are we going and where are we stopping?

I know you've probably elaborated quite a bit on this, and I'm probably just being stupid and not realizing it, but could you elaborate on this?

Also, as far as I can tell, I think there really aren't that many limitations that we need to keep in mind. Just:

- No cards that have a mechanic like Flooding since it would partly rely on the opponent having FM cards of their own to not be OP
- No cards in Water to create the possibility of single element instakill of any targetable creature (besides Water ones, but that's not the point)

I mean, are there really any more besides obvious ones?

[OldTrees]

2) How far are we going and where are we stopping?

I know you've probably elaborated quite a bit on this, and I'm probably just being stupid and not realizing it, but could you elaborate on this?

Also, as far as I can tell, I think there really aren't that many limitations that we need to keep in mind. Just:

- No cards that have a mechanic like Flooding since it would partly rely on the opponent having FM cards of their own to not be OP
- No cards in Water to create the possibility of single element instakill of any targetable creature (besides Water ones, but that's not the point)

I mean, are there really any more besides obvious ones?

The major limitation is "creatures do not move on their own, yet". This severely restricts hostile field manipulation(since card taxes are bad) unless we change creature mobility. Both sides have merits but we would need to decide on how far we want to go on this(including the option of status quo).

Flooding is related and will be similarly restrictive but less so than the general problem. It is more an example of how restrictive we would have to be if we avoid changing creatures.


There are other decisions to make as well(like how many effects can a tile have, and do we add more passives to existing creatures)

A different way of saying the same thing:

Field Manipulation is a new kind* of threat(what I will be talking about) and a new kind of boon(we can gloss past this for now). Unlike most existing threats, there is almost no way to combat this threat without reserving space for the boon half in your deck. we can choose to add this kind of threat(and thus require most decks have a way of dealing with it) or we can choose not to add this kind of threat. If we add this kind of threat, we can either just accept the card taxes(most decks would need field manipulation cards) or we can spread small countermeasures among a large number of existing cards(creating an alternative but weaker counter to this new threat).

Technically it is many different overlapping kinds of threats. We will see more as we go along. For now we see "move or be rendered irrelevant(flooded tiles, lava tiles, buried tiles, pacifism auras, grouped and fireball'd)". However there will also be other things like "killed by creatures/permanents/tiles I can't destroy since they are on my side".

[AD TienzuStorm]

Perhaps refrain from hard control cards in this series? That would remove the whole "you must have some FM cards in your deck to stay viable" thing, and instead FM could be taken in a direction of how the Life element works as a whole: worry about your own creatures and basically ignore the opponent (although obviously, there'll likely be some soft control since many FM ideas tend to go towards control anyways).

[OldTrees]

Perhaps refrain from hard control cards in this series? That would remove the whole "you must have some FM cards in your deck to stay viable" thing, and instead FM could be taken in a direction of how the Life element works as a whole: worry about your own creatures and basically ignore the opponent (although obviously, there'll likely be some soft control since many FM ideas tend to go towards control anyways).

The difference between Hard and Soft control(assuming you are referring to more than just mitigation effects) only matters when your opponent has access to the reversal effects. The reason both Hard/Soft CC can exist is that all decks can indirectly combat it. Hard/Soft Field Control does not have a indirect counter(besides adoption) yet.

So we have 3 2 kinds of options(2 since I am ignoring the "have card taxes" option). Either we can greatly restrict our design of this set, or we have to change the default creature's abilities. Both are valid options, but it is an choice/decision that will have to be made (and to that end we need people to actually voice their opinion).

[OdinVanguard]

One simple way to introduce creature mobility would be to have a low cost permanent that allowed players to choose the slot their creature(s) enter play in.
Its relatively cantrip / trick like in terms of the current meta, so it wouldn't be disruptive, but could be quite a useful utility for other field manipulation cards. As a card it could also provide some moderate protection for non-field centric decks without adding a heavy "card tax" to do so.

Another useful ability to start with would be creatures that can move to a chosen slot and swap positions with the current occupant if one is present. If this ability is repeatable (a. la. rustler's photosynthesis ability) then a single slot swapper and a single "play creature to slot" permanent would be everything a deck would need to deftly make use of field based effects by optimizing their own creatures' positions on the field.

Spoiler for Examples:

[AD TienzuStorm]

One simple way to introduce creature mobility would be to have a low cost permanent that allowed players to choose the slot their creature(s) enter play in.
Its relatively cantrip / trick like in terms of the current meta, so it wouldn't be disruptive, but could be quite a useful utility for other field manipulation cards. As a card it could also provide some moderate protection for non-field centric decks without adding a heavy "card tax" to do so.

I think this could be optimized to be a really central card for this series. Perhaps we could make it so that it affects the entire field but also make it so that it's one of the main cards to combo with in the FM design (similar to how Schrodinger's Cat is the most commonly used card to combo with other death effect cards). That way, even if the opponent is unprepared for FM cards, they'll be able to still use FM to their advantage (or at least lessen their disadvantage) in most cases.

[OldTrees]

One simple way to introduce creature mobility would be to have a low cost permanent that allowed players to choose the slot their creature(s) enter play in.
Its relatively cantrip / trick like in terms of the current meta, so it wouldn't be disruptive, but could be quite a useful utility for other field manipulation cards. As a card it could also provide some moderate protection for non-field centric decks without adding a heavy "card tax" to do so.

I think this could be optimized to be a really central card for this series. Perhaps we could make it so that it affects the entire field but also make it so that it's one of the main cards to combo with in the FM design (similar to how Schrodinger's Cat is the most commonly used card to combo with other death effect cards). That way, even if the opponent is unprepared for FM cards, they'll be able to still use FM to their advantage (or at least lessen their disadvantage) in most cases.

This set will be too large to center around a card or a few cards (similar to how death effects are not centered around Cat or Soul Catcher). So while those effects would be expected in the end set, we should not try to balance the set's boundaries by assuming they are in play.

[AD TienzuStorm]

Alright, oh well.

Anyways, going to make a poll then to decide between the two choices OT said in this post:

Spoiler for the post:

The difference between Hard and Soft control(assuming you are referring to more than just mitigation effects) only matters when your opponent has access to the reversal effects. The reason both Hard/Soft CC can exist is that all decks can indirectly combat it. Hard/Soft Field Control does not have a indirect counter(besides adoption) yet.

So we have 3 2 kinds of options(2 since I am ignoring the "have card taxes" option). Either we can greatly restrict our design of this set, or we have to change the default creature's abilities. Both are valid options, but it is an choice/decision that will have to be made (and to that end we need people to actually voice their opinion).

So, any objections to this?

1. Greatly restrict the design of this series
2. Change the default creature's ability

[ZephyrPhantom]

While I don't think we should have a "center" card for this series I would caution against limiting variety too much. I personally think it would be ideal if we focused on soft effects involving creature field movement only. Hard effects, Permanent Zone, Hand, and Deck Manipulation can be worked on at a later date.

Can someone clarify what the "default creature" is supposed to be? It appears to have just popped up out of nowhere and I suspect I've missed out on some kind of context regarding it.

[OldTrees]

So, any objections to this?

1. Greatly restrict the design of this series
2. Change the default creature's ability

1. Avoid creature control effects
2. Give existing creatures some mobility
3? Other solution(specify)

While I don't think we should have a "center" card for this series I would caution against limiting variety too much. I personally think it would be ideal if we focused on soft effects involving creature field movement only. Hard effects, Permanent Zone, Hand, and Deck Manipulation can be worked on at a later date.

Can someone clarify what the "default creature" is supposed to be? It appears to have just popped up out of nowhere and I suspect I've missed out on some kind of context regarding it.

All decks that don't use these new cards use existing cards. Those decks that use creatures are using creatures that are not from these new cards. This is what I meant by a "default/base creature" (since it is a baseline from which especially mobile creatures would deviate from). One of the design challenges we are facing is that there is no existing counters to any CC/Control cards we add beyond those we add ourselves. As such we would be creating a card tax on old decks in that they would have to include some of these new cards or be at a disadvantage(obviously this is bad design). So either we avoid designs that would be unfair to the "default creature" or we change the "default creature" so that the designs are no longer unfair.

Personally I would err on the side of increased variety and accept the costs(needing to change the default/base creature so that the variety is not unfair to them) that come with it.

[ZephyrPhantom]

I'm still hesistant to change Cygnia's  "Default" cardpool because that goes against the original premise of what Cygnia was supposed to be (EtG with card ideas, not another OEtG), but I can understand you point.

Also, I presume moving creatures would involve some form of targeting, which would arguably make Cloak and Quintessence counters. General ideas that punish targeting would be easy counters to add into this set in general, if slot movement requires targeting for the most part.

(Sidenote: I am looking at this under the impression we will be able to distinguish between EtG's original card pool and individual Cygnia 'sets' in an MTG-esque fashion. This would allow hypothetical events organized around them to mix and match sets as needed.)

[OldTrees]

I'm still hesistant to change Cygnia's  "Default" cardpool because that goes against the original premise of what Cygnia was supposed to be (EtG with card ideas, not another OEtG), but I can understand you point.

Also, I presume moving creatures would involve some form of targeting, which would arguably make Cloak and Quintessence counters. General ideas that punish targeting would be easy counters to add into this set in general, if slot movement requires targeting for the most part.

(Sidenote: I am looking at this under the impression we will be able to distinguish between EtG's original card pool and individual Cygnia 'sets' in an MTG-esque fashion. This would allow hypothetical events organized around them to mix and match sets as needed.)

I completely understand your hesitation even without referencing prior intentions. Both options(technically a continuum) are valid and have their own merits.

While hostile movement of creatures is one of the concerning effects(highlighted by flooding comments), I am more worried about hostile terrain effects(which would bypass Cloak, Quint, Immaterial, Divine Shield, and sometimes Burrow).

Adding more "punish targeting" cards in with this set would not fix the issue of a card tax since the solution card is in this set. Discouraging not using such a card would still be a card tax(double negative intended and not equivalent to "encouraging using").

I was thinking this was going to be a more integrated set than MtG has ever attempted, but I see no reason not to make a list for easy on/off.