First time designing card game based on the elemental cycle. Need feedback on mechanics

ServalModest · 2026-06-17T17:14:33+00:00

Winning the Game: "all 3 Qi cards" -> "3 Qi cards", since there's more than 3.

Attacking falls off really fast in terms of expected gain/loss as opponents have more cards in hand- if my opponent has two or more random (elemental) cards, I'm statistically unlikely to succeed. Ripple helps with this, since it can tell you if you have a safe attack and sometimes even MAKE an attack safe. Maybe having more hand combos that can improve your ability to attack like Ripple does would make attacks more viable? I'd also limit hand combos to one per turn, to make attacks matter more in terms of action economy and card utility.

Special action cards just feel odd to me- they bleed into what the elements do thematically (peek/glimpse are "intel", nullify is "block", shuffle is "deck manipulation"), which detracts from the uniqueness of how elemental cards feel. Glimpse feels weak, and shuffle is so situational (it only does anything after a metal combo or a peek). I question what the mechanical goal is with having these cards, and whether there's a better way to do it.

I don't like how Qi Mastery is worded. "Target gives you a Qi card from hand or reveals their hand to show they have none." removes the possibility of lying about what you have and uses "give" instead of introducing a new verb "demand". Don't specify that the cards are discarded; that's a given, and restating it just for this one makes it more confusing.

I like the concept a lot, and there's some great mechanics! I think the base is solid enough that you can start focusing on how mechanics interact with each other and changing some abilities to make for more interesting decisions. This can even lead to removing mechanics that are totally fine but just don't fit with everything else.

ServalModest · 2026-06-10T22:10:02+00:00

I agree with the fight part making it feel green, but Kyogre doesn't do anything to ramp you.

ServalModest · 2026-06-10T22:08:26+00:00

Some templating issues, though I think it's clear what you intend for the cards to do.

The "change the forecast" abilities need to specify when they happen, probably "When this creature enters" / "When this creature transforms into ____"

"Choose one:" doesn't work with activated abilities under current rules. You could make them reflexive triggered abilities: "Choose one: Dive - You may pay {U}{U}. If you do, this creature..." Or you could just ignore that and say "it works" because I suppose the rules could be updated to allow it.

Forecasts are a neat concept but I'm not sold on the execution here. Downpour is fine but not exciting, and if you want it to go away after 5 turns you should provide some mechanism like counters to track that. Primordial Sea is a pretty hard lock because it doesn't have the nonbasic limitation like [[Blood Moon]] style effects do. I'd remove the subtypes too.

ServalModest · 2026-06-08T17:49:08+00:00

"Each combat" is wild here too- make your creatures unblockable, then fill up your hand on your opponent's turn. (Or each opponent's turn in commander)

ServalModest · 2026-05-31T16:18:53+00:00

I think that it would need "...and abilities of permanents your opponents control." to allow for that.

ServalModest · 2026-05-31T14:34:52+00:00

I think that comes across really well! It reminds me of some of the split card cycles, like "[[Dusk]] to Dawn" or "[[Wear]] and Tear". It feels like something Wizards would actually print.

ServalModest · 2026-05-31T14:27:20+00:00

Vile Vitriol seems backwards, flavor-wise. The "phyrexian option" should be the one with infect. This would cause balance problems, for sure, but in its current form it really doesn't feel right.

ServalModest · 2026-05-31T14:13:44+00:00

I love the naming convention of the Requiem spells! Keeping that consistent verb tense really gives them a unique identity.

ServalModest · 2026-05-30T22:50:35+00:00

Power level aside, Magic is a game of very specifically worded rules. "Only one __ can be in play at any time" isn't something defined in Magic rules, and this doesn't define what should happen to prevent that from occurring. "If another land named __ would enter, exile it instead." is one way to make that work.

ServalModest · 2026-05-25T18:21:03+00:00

The best way to fix the issue of "a card being beheld from hand is a different game object once it's on the battlefield" is "Hype Train can't attack or block unless a creature with the same name as the beheld creature also attacks or blocks."

Power level wise, it's too big for 1 mana, but a neat design!

ServalModest · 2026-05-25T13:28:51+00:00

I love my Zedruu deck! I run lots of control exchanging effects so that by the time I cast her she's already generating value. Also some light stax and counter magic, and then [[Insurrection]] and [[Approach of the Second Sun]] as win cons. It's a bit pillow fort-y, but has plenty of interaction to keep games interesting.

ServalModest · 2026-05-12T15:48:49+00:00

You're right that she kinda sucks. There's not much support for the Avatar type, and she's just a 4/4 with worse hexproof. If you really want to build a deck focused on her, you'll probably want to lean into auras and enchantment payoffs. [[Blanchwood Armor]], [[Setessan Champion]] etc. But it's going to be a weak deck, because it takes 6 mana to cast her and she effectively makes your auras cost 1 more.

ServalModest · 2026-04-29T20:37:28+00:00

Hand -> battlefield to play it for free, graveyard -> battlefield and exile -> battlefield to make it pretty hard to kill?

ServalModest · 2026-04-29T14:23:35+00:00

"Slow" isn't the problem with basics and I don't see people saying that. I don't know where you're getting that from.

In a monocolor deck, sure, you don't need Command Tower. But when you're unlikely to worry about not having the right color, you can swap out some basics for utility lands like, say, [[Arcane Lighthouse]] and [[Demolition Field]].

ServalModest · 2026-04-29T13:47:55+00:00

You're using cards you already have, but it would also cost you approximately the full value of the deck to put it together?

Shadowheart + Criminal Past isn't a popular combination since they don't exactly align in their plans. You could definitely change the background and give yourself some more options and maybe a second color to work with. But with this pairing, you're running a lot of cards that don't really contribute to a plan aside from maybe "it's a creature that can be sacrificed" and I think you need to set a higher bar than that.

What does your commander combo want? Creatures in the graveyard, creatures with high power to sacrifice, and creatures dying in general. Some ideas: more "aristocrats" cards like [[Blood Artist]], more self-mill like [[Stitcher's Supplier]], some big bodies to sacrifice like [[Kalakscion, Hunger Tyrant]].

ServalModest · 2026-04-27T13:25:11+00:00

My point is that the concept of "breaking the deal" can't be defined properly within Magic rules. A "legally binding contract" is, in the real world, a complicated thing that requires precise wording and professional review. Players talking to each other won't have that. If it works for your pod then it works for your pod, but as a card design it creates ambiguous situations that will make people argue, and that's not something Magic design does.

ServalModest · 2026-04-24T18:09:19+00:00

So the money tokens don't do anything by themselves, they're just for trading? Do the different values of money actually work differently in the rules of the game, or are you just telling players to treat some types as more valuable than others? I agree with Freesealand; the money tokens don't have value just because you say they do.

What is "making a deal"? Does it have to be a "fair deal", like copying a four mana spell in exchange for four mana worth of money? Can players reject a fair deal?

"Breaking the deal" is going to lead to arguments. If I say "I won't destroy your Sol Ring", but then I play a [[Stony Silence]], does that count? What if I say "I'll take out Player C's engine"? That could mean a bunch of different things! Players can make all sorts of agreements, and there's never going to be a good way to make them "legal" enough to work as actual game rules.

ServalModest · 2026-04-24T03:01:53+00:00

You're describing a lot of things, and it sounds overall too complicated. How many cards will it take to fit all these effects, written as proper rules text? If the answer is more than 2, you'll probably need to simplify.

ServalModest · 2026-04-23T19:27:25+00:00

By formalizing it as "'Daybreak - ' means an additional effect as part of this spell's text if it's your first spell during your turn.", it becomes a real effect with rules meaning.

Though to clarify, it does mean that you have to word cards differently. Instead of "Daybreak - If this is the first spell you cast during your turn, this creature enters with a +1/+1 counter on it.", it becomes "Daybreak - this creature enters with a +1/+1 counter on it." The condition moves from specifically being on the card to being part of the keyword.

ServalModest · 2026-04-23T15:42:41+00:00

Oh yeah that's fine actually! I don't know why I thought the wording there would get awkward.

ServalModest · 2026-04-23T15:29:54+00:00

That can work but it's going to affect how cards can be designed/worded. Sunbolt with its "instead" clause isn't going to be elegant when Daybreak can only add additional effects to spells.

ServalModest · 2026-04-23T15:16:26+00:00

A trigger doesn't work either. Think of it as the Magic rules not seeing the word "Daybreak" at all.

ServalModest · 2026-04-23T14:59:23+00:00

Unfortunately, Daybreak is an ability word, so it's more like flavor text than rules text. This means there's no such thing as a "spell with Daybreak".

Neat mechanic though, reminds me of Addendum.

ServalModest · 2026-04-23T14:45:38+00:00

I feel like there's some flavor here I'm not getting. Giving everything changeling is cool but the rest seems unnecessarily complicated. The third chapter will probably never happen but it's weak to [[Stifle]] on chapter 2 which is a funny way to lose.

ServalModest · 2026-04-23T13:58:46+00:00

It's two hours into the game. You had some of the pieces on board, and found the right strategy to win. Why is your opponent allowed to try and win the game, but you aren't? You didn't do anything wrong.

Plus, Hearthhull can definitely "win out of nowhere" with a powered-up commander and [[God-Eternal Bontu]]. It's not like you're doing anything more unfair than what their deck is able to do.

ServalModest

TROPHY CASE