Tuesday, June 25, 2019

Proposal: I Wonder What’s Inside?

unpopular 2-3 failed by card

Adminned at 27 Jun 2019 23:48:37 UTC

“Add to the rule “Creatures”:

The Mysterious Egg - if a Wizard has never had a Mysterious Egg in their Stable, then add to that Wizard’s Stable a creature called Mysterious Egg.
This creature counts as one of a Wizard’s allowance of five creatures.
This creature has a score of 0 on any battlefield.
This creature cannot be mutated.
A Wizard with a Mysterious Egg may choose to mutate a creature in another Wizard’s Stable without spending its food cost. If a Wizard chooses to do this, the Mysterious Egg hatches and is removed from that Wizard’s Stable.

A re-working of my previous proposal. Hopefully someone can come up with an interesting alternative use for the Mysterious Egg which will create some interesting decisions.

Big shout out to Derrick for helping me with this one!

Comments

Brendan:

06-25-2019 22:26:58 UTC

Usually if something is a one-time action (like “add to each Wizard’s Stable”) it is made part of the proposal text, rather than rules text. A provision like “if a Wizard has never had a Mysterious Egg in their Stable, then upon joining or unidling, a Mysterious Egg is added to their Stable” helps allow for new players too.

Farsight:

06-25-2019 22:38:48 UTC

[Brendan] Thanks for that, (edited within the 2 hour window).

TyGuy6:

06-25-2019 23:38:45 UTC

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SAxl5Kpckfs7oTWld4DUxzmQ2un8d16O/view?usp=drivesdk

Photo from my Google Drive of my niece’s interpretation of the mysterious egg. She changed the original egg drawing into a duck, and it laid another egg.

Farsight:

06-26-2019 05:03:25 UTC

Hehe that’s brilliant, I like it!

Kevan:

06-26-2019 08:21:08 UTC

against This seems like a lot of GNDT real estate for an entity that nearly all players will want to keep around for most of the game.

The creation line is also at odds (although not catastrophically) with “A wizard may not add a creature to their stable if that creature is in another wizard’s stable.”

derrick:

06-26-2019 15:03:52 UTC

for

I think taking up a stable slot is a feature, not a bug. You want to keep it until you can cash it out properly, but you also want to free up space in your stable.

Farsight:

06-26-2019 16:56:40 UTC

I would argue it creates a meaningful tactical decision.

Kevan:

06-26-2019 17:28:22 UTC

It’s a meaningful decision, but for most people I think the decision is going to be, probably for several weeks, “don’t use the thing”.

TyGuy6:

06-26-2019 17:55:16 UTC

Hmm. Love the idea, but execution still needs rework. Four bugs that I’d want to be fixing (or exploiting if I felt like it).
against

TyGuy6:

06-26-2019 18:04:53 UTC

Maybe we should come up with a way to display a proposal for review before it becomes voteable, and in a way that’s also editable? Would it be fun to group edit something? Could be a normal post with edit-enabling link to a Google Doc.

TyGuy6:

06-26-2019 18:24:49 UTC

Kevan:

06-26-2019 18:39:22 UTC

A Nomic with a lot of group editing would be interesting, but I think attaching that mechanic to BlogNomic hits some of the problems that “Protosals” bring.

If I thought we needed a mechanic allowing one free mutation per game, I’d probably just do it as an adjective on the creature. (When you mutate something, if you make it Spectral you don’t have to pay its mutation cost; but you can only have one Spectral creature in your Stable, and you can’t easily get rid of it.)

TyGuy6:

06-26-2019 19:09:32 UTC

Fair enough, then let’s avoid adding on a protosal mechanic. As for the above linked doc, since the purpose is to avoid simple errors, vs to take a straw poll, some of those objections seem less relevant.

Anyway, I put it in a new post before I saw your reply. Continue this conversation there?

card:

06-27-2019 05:00:39 UTC

against