'Revelation' Mechanic for Custom Set - Too Complicated?

[MonoRayJak]

Ok, so, think this is the right place. Now, I have been attempting to make a custom set wedge set for a while, and currently, 3 out of the 5 mechanics work perfectly, at least for me. Another one is, well it involves discarding the card as a cost, so it's kind of competing with cycling in the set and will need a few tweaks, but the last mechanic is... well, I think it should work fine... at least in theory.

The mechanic is:
Revelation - Whenever you cast a spell with converted mana cost 4 or greater, [effect].

Short and sweet and it fits the Temur group of the set decently... and then someone pointed out that having that mechanic on instants and sorceries that themselves have a high CMC would make it very hard to combo-trigger them, so to speak. (They can't trigger off themselves, I specify 'another spell')

This presented... issues.

So after some thinking, I figured 'What if I have instant and sorcery spells care about the CMC of permanents you control?' Which seems like it could work, but now I have essentially two varieties of the mechanic, both of which care about the same thing in different ways, and it kind of seems a bit overcomplicated? Anyone got any suggestions? Should I just stick the mechanic to only permanents? Should I rework it from the ground up? (Even though I have all commons in the set done) Is there a simpler way to do this? Is it not as complicated as I think it sounds?

Thanks for any help.

[user_938036]

When an ability functions differently between permanents and non-permanent its been shown to cause problems. This was one problem with haunt. Though such a problem isn't a deathknell it is something to be aware of. If your problem is "this mechanic is great but doesn't work on nonpermanents" you dont have a problem. You simply have an ability that doesn't work on non-permanents. There are plenty of such mechanics and a large number play well and are liked. If you meant it to go on a lot of non-permanents then that is a problem.

[Lorn Asbord Schutta]

I am not sold to concept of "CMC +4 matters". It is very similiar to well treaded paths for this wedge, but unlike those that care about power (which turn +1/+1 counters, pump spells, ramp to cast ahead of curve and in case of formidable tokens into enablers) this will only interact intresingly with ramp. It will probably need decent ramp to begin, or the effects of Revelation will have to be very worthwhile. Mechanic makes sense, but it has little tactical depht in my opinion.

Well, the most obvious way is - as you even mention - to use Revelation only on permaments.
The alternative you propose (When you cast this spell, if you control a permament with CMC 4 or greater, [effect]) would be fine as well, but you should stick to one version, not alternate between them. Just as user said, it causes unneeded problems. You could always do one version of Revelation and have the other spelled out without ability word, to enhance the theme.
To allow the spell to see itself you could do When you cast this spell, for each spell with CMC 4 or greater you have cast this turn, [scalable effect], but this is a big change probably and it will make it even more ramp-hungry due to being poor-man's storm.

[Legend]

IMO, permanents only and increase the CMC to 5 & up. It could even be as high as 6 & up or 7 & up, depending on the overall curve of the set. It will feel bigger that way, more rewarding. It will reduce the likelihood of chaining/stacking Revelation triggers on a single turn in limited. And it will get drafters of other archetypes to think twice before cutting into the Revelation archetype.

[spacemonaut]

I'm with @user_938036 here; the ability on non-permanents is functionally just fine. It just means you could have spells that care about CMC 4+, but don't give them the same ability word.

Note however that Ferocious was very unpopular, and was the least-liked mechanic in Khans of Tarkir. As a player who wanted to love Temur, I fully agree. It's basically a mechanic that reads "this line of text is blank until later in the game, but everyone else is already doing their cool things the whole game by that point and the game will end only a turn or two after this switches on." I was and am wholly unsurprised that Jeskai and Abzan had more luck in tournaments.

@Lorn Asbord Schutta makes the point about the few points of interaction available for "high converted mana cost on permanents matters". I want to mention that hydras, the iconic ramp payoff, don't interact with that theme either. However, the "CMC 4+ spells matter" theme works just fine for spells, and you can have a hydra with revelation just fine. I can imagine a mythic Hydra that comes in with two or three +1/+1 counters, and doubles the number of +1/+1 counters on itself whenever you cast a spell with CMC 4+.

A point of reference is that Scourge had a converted mana cost matters theme. (Which is why Scornful Egotist exists, which otherwise makes no sense at all being costed that way.) If you do want to make a "high converted mana costs on permanents matters" mechanic, you could look to Scourge for lessons about what did or didn't work.

IMO, permanents only and increase the CMC to 5 & up. It could even be as high as 6 & up or 7 & up, depending on the overall curve of the set. It will feel bigger that way, more rewarding. It will reduce the likelihood of chaining/stacking Revelation triggers on a single turn in limited. And it will get drafters of other archetypes to think twice before cutting into the Revelation archetype.

This is basically the thing they did with Eldrazi. That's doable, and can be on a few cards across the set, but should probably not be a faction focus.

[Legend]

IMO, permanents only and increase the CMC to 5 & up. It could even be as high as 6 & up or 7 & up, depending on the overall curve of the set. It will feel bigger that way, more rewarding. It will reduce the likelihood of chaining/stacking Revelation triggers on a single turn in limited. And it will get drafters of other archetypes to think twice before cutting into the Revelation archetype.

This is basically the thing they did with Eldrazi. That's doable, and can be on a few cards across the set, but should probably not be a faction focus.

It isn't my fault they chose an idea that's similar to an existing one. It wouldn't be the first time a subtheme has been expanded upon anyways - see Landfall and many more.
Not every mechanic is a home run. And not every mechanic appeals to every play style or motivation. In terms of quality, a mechanic just needs to be viable to be printable. It doesn't have to be tier 1 limited material. As a TIMMY/johnny, I actually LIKE drafting underdog mechanics and unconventional archetypes. Some levels of fun will never be experienced by those that only play Spike strategies.
Funny, despite Ferocious not being liked, it sure has shown up ALOT over the years. I suspect that it just wasn't liked by a certain psychographic (Spike) that also tends to be the most vocal of the three. Context was the issue, IMO, not the mechanic itself - i.e., Frost Walker was in the wrong set at the wrong rarity.

[spacemonaut]

IMO, permanents only and increase the CMC to 5 & up. It could even be as high as 6 & up or 7 & up, depending on the overall curve of the set. It will feel bigger that way, more rewarding. It will reduce the likelihood of chaining/stacking Revelation triggers on a single turn in limited. And it will get drafters of other archetypes to think twice before cutting into the Revelation archetype.

This is basically the thing they did with Eldrazi. That's doable, and can be on a few cards across the set, but should probably not be a faction focus.

It isn't my fault they chose an idea that's similar to an existing one. It wouldn't be the first time a subtheme has been expanded upon anyways - see Landfall and many more.
Not every mechanic is a home run. And not every mechanic appeals to every play style or motivation. In terms of quality, a mechanic just needs to be viable to be printable. It doesn't have to be tier 1 limited material. As a TIMMY/johnny, I actually LIKE drafting underdog mechanics and unconventional archetypes. Some levels of fun will never be experienced by those that only play Spike strategies.

My dude, you were the one suggesting go for CMC 6+ or 7+. I'm just pointing out where we've seen that before, and I would not use it for a devoted faction mechanic. That's a lot different to caring about CMC 4+ (and even that has some issues).