Set Proposal in 4 Cards

[Icarii]

See title. Tell me what you think with this narrow view into a set idea.

Relapse Ripple 1u
Instant (C)
You draw two cards and each adjacent player draws a card.
Memories are like men in the mist. The closer they are, the more clear their features become.

Atarak Chaser 3
Creature - Cerberus (C)
Goldify (You may pay r and g instead of this spells hybrid cost.)
Haste
If Atarak Chaser was made gold, in enters the battlefield with an additional +1/+1 counter on it.
4/2

Conflicted Jurisdiction w
Sorcery (U)
Mimic (Each other player may pay 2 as you cast this spell)
You and each player who mimics you each exiles target creature you don't control. Those creatures controllers gain life equal to their converted mana cost.

Kogart, the Diamond Scarred WR
Legendary Creature - Dwarf Warrior (R)
First strike
Whenever you attack with 2 or more creatures, you get an experience counter.
Attacking creatures you control have double strike if you have 3 or more experience counters.
2/3

[void_nothing]

I'm curious about how goldify actually works because the reminder text isn't that clear. Do you mean you can pay for the {R/G} with RG, effectively giving a 3RG alternate cost? In that case, it doesn't make a lot of sense to say "R and G" because, well, those are both mana you can pay that cost with, so it comes off as tautology.

Assuming that's what you mean - which seems logical - a better, and more general, reminder text would be something like "You may pay for hybrid mana in this spell's cost with (mana of) both colors instead of one."

[Icarii]

Yes that is indeed the goal, void_nothing!

[frogchild]

I'd rename goldify to gild maybe, but otherwise this seems quite interesting. I quite like Relapse Ripple, but the instant speed seems a bit strong at 2 Mana. Koggart seems solid, I'd love to build a commander deck based off him

[Icarii]

Maybe it should be:

Gild (You may pay RG instead of this spells hybrid cost.)

[Watchwolf]

Goldify is interesting. I agree with the above that it could be reworded (and maybe renamed, I like "Gild"), possibly as an ability word:

"Gild — You may pay 3RG rather than pay ~'s mana cost. If you do..."

I'm not sure how practical it will be though. I think most of the time, it'll just end up being "Kicker 1", or substitute 1 with mana of a specific color. I suppose that is a niche that only your mechanic can occupy well, but I just don't know how large of a niche that is. I think the best way to think of it is that it gives the card a splashable, toned-down version you can play in decks that only play one of the card's two colors.

The other cards look interesting. I really want to see experience counters used in a draft set. Mimic is a pretty elegant mechanic, though it's a downside mechanic, which isn't great. I do think that downside mechanics are a bit under appreciated as a way to push the power level of a card, but it will always just make the card look less attractive.

The set is obviously a multiplayer set of some kind, which is always interesting. I'd like to see that concept developed a bit more.

[Icarii]

Outside of some wording quibbles, it seems like the general idea here is likable. I'll explore it more and you can expect me to post on it in the future.

[void_nothing]

Yup, this appears to be an idea for a draftable multiplayer set; I always enjoy those and mimic, despite being a "drawback" mechanic, starts looking better in things like 2HG. (I have seen this keyword design done before, but I enjoy it overall.)

Relapse Ripple is a good standalone design and I like the "adjacent" space, and experience counters are my jam.

[Icarii]

You keep saying mimic is a drawback mechanic. How?

[void_nothing]

Because it gives your opponents a choice. It's actually more of a drawback in theory than tribute, because both outcomes of tribute are beneficial to you alone.

Mimicking obviously gives an outcome that's beneficial to your opponents as well, allowing them to hurt the opponent that most threatens them, although of course it's easy (and seems to be your intent) to just design mimic cards to never be able to remove their controller's permanents, damage their controller, etc.

In other words, casting Conflicted Jurisdiction is never going to directly backfire and exile one of your own creatures, but it could indirectly backfire and wind up helping out the player who later eliminates you from the game.

[Watchwolf]

You keep saying mimic is a drawback mechanic. How?

I should clarify that your example card can't directly harm you because it specifically says "you don't control," which is fine. But Mimic also does nothing to directly help you. It gives your opponents and teammates equal opportunity to further their own ends, even if the card that has it makes sure to keep you out of the crosshairs.

I would improve this mechanic by limiting it to teammates, which is much more of an upside and probably plays really well in a multiplayer format. It would be a lot like Assist in that way.

[Icarii]

The format I'm designing is a free for all, so teammates doesn't really work.

Sure, your opponent can further their own ends, but it can also help you and play politics. If one player in a pod is decidedly ahead, a card like this can strip their board state back down with cooperation. So while yes it's a mechanic that has downside, it also has upside even in FFA. I think using that term drawback mechanic is a missuse since it naturally has upsides as well. To me a drawback mechanic is ALL downside.

And yes, all designs with mimic will be worded or otherwise specify that the effects can't harm the caster.

[void_nothing]

Something I think is clever but probably unintentional is how nice Relapse Ripple is in the Star format, because it benefits every player you DON'T want eliminated from the game.

[Icarii]

I thought about it in terms of Emperor, but not Star. I think some of the core mechanics i've proposed paring together have wide applications in multiple multiplayer formats and play different in each one, which is neat.

[SecretInfiltrator]

I actually considered Emperor the strongest argument against a design like Relapse Ripple. That format breaks the symmetry too easily. In that format even "Draw a card, then each player draws a card." would break the symmetry thanks to range of influence, but would never be quite as much of an upset as a wording based on seats.

Something I think is clever but probably unintentional is how nice Relapse Ripple is in the Star format, because it benefits every player you DON'T want eliminated from the game.

I actually thought the same at first, but then I realized that you actually are actively competing with one of your neighbors if one of your opponents gets eliminated, so it's not as clean.

Either way, in the context of the "multiplayer set" this seems to try to be the card is under-cost.

---

The thread is titled "Set Proposal in 4 Cards", but between those four cards there is no hint of a cohesive vision. "Multiplayer" itself is such a vast theme, there might be none at all. There would be an "intended way of play" for some subset of multiplayer. Is this free-for-all? Likely not, due to mimic and adjacent player rules making team play decisions more interesting - probably even shared turns.

Depending on the format one envisions these cards vary widely in applicability, and there doesn't seem to be one that really would suggest them all as good ideas. Which makes this less of a "set" and more a bunch of individual ideas - not all without merit, since more experience counter legendary ideas are always welcome, but nothing I'd would want to use together.

---

The wording on the card with mimic is a mess. There is only one target and players can pay mana so they can also exile that very same creature. If you want multiple targets your wording has to allow for choosing more targets not just for each player performing an action on the same creature.

The life gain half also is ambiguous once you get to exile multiple creatures from multiple players. Does each controller gain the same total amount of life, or only life for the creature(s) they controlled?

Beyond the wording the ability kinda is also promoting bad game play. Mimic discourages player from tapping out since they could miss out on mimic, but also if a team taps out the resulting one-sided board wipe seems devastating. We've seen better variants of mimic in the form of several ability words, where the big factor usually was that the "cost" of partaking in the spell was nonmana (e. g. tempting offer) or the effect of the spell was symmetric to begin with.