Second Look at the Morph Mechanic

[nineisnoone]

One of the interesting things about Morph is it's varying states and effect, face-up, face-down, and the trigger when it's turned face up.

One of the things that makes it less practicable of a mechanic is usually they need to be played face down as a 2/2 for .  As such they become creatures spells attached to them.  However, since the creature itself is not a solid mana investment (for a variety of reasons), the subsequent Morph ability is hampered to a great extent.

So my idea for a second look at Morph is think of them as spells that can also be creatures if necessary.

Silencing Wail
Uncommon

Creature - Spellform
Flash
When ~this~ comes into play or is turned face-up, counter target spell unless that spells controller pays
Morph
0/0

So basically you can hard cast it for the , or you can play it down as a 2/2 creature for and have a Mana Leak available whenever you need it.

You could do this with basically any spell, I just named the creature type "Spellform" and they'll always have morph costs, flash, and a power and toughness of 0/0.

Thoughts?

[parallax]

This is an interesting use for the morph ability. However, I disagree with the execution. This use of morph will be much more interesting when it is used on a variety of different spells, and is probably best in a block that doesn't have any canonical morph creatures. Creating a large number of creature cards that will never actually be in play (face up) is a problem, though. None of them will really feel like creatures and a lot of them will have flash. A better way to accomplish this might be to just give an instant morph.

Silencing Wail

Instant -- Manifest
Counter target spell unless its controller pays .
When ~this~ is turned face up, counter target spell unless its controller pays .
Morph

[Anusien]

I'm almost 100% sure the rules don't accomodate instants with morph, and they won't without serious overhauls to the rules.  However, you could do something like this:

Spell Creature Man -
Creature
Flash
When you play ~this~, counter target spell unless its controller pays .
When you flip this, counter target spell unless its controller pays .
Morph
1/3

[nineisnoone]

That was sort of my thoughts on whether to make them spells that are creatures or creatures that are spells.
But for me, making them 0/0 creatures was the core of the idea. Otherwise, it's still ends up being evaluated on the same terms as other morphs (since there will always be the body attached to it).

[Godder]

Take Anusien's template, make the creature have 0 toughness and you're away. The 'comes-into-play' abilities of creatures with 0 toughness still trigger (c.f. Night of Souls Betrayal, where creatures can come into play with 0 toughness, but will still trigger any relevant coming into play abilities). Additionally, by making the Morph-flip trigger a separate ability, you gain possible depth, because there can be interesting tensions between the options, or different abilities.

[parallax]

Number of creatures in Magic with 0 toughness that don't come into play with +1/+1 counters or as a copy of another creature: 0.

There is a reason for this. The rules can handle it, but it's a poor decision flavor-wise. A creature with zero toughness is, by definition, not a creature.

If the intent is to make instants with morph, then make them instants with morph.

The rules can accomodate instants with morph. The rules for Magic are actually quite flexible. Nothing in the rules for morph states that the card must be a creature card. It would be necessary to modify the rules somewhat to account for what happens when the card is turned face up, but that's not a big deal.

Possible change 1:

420.5p An instant or sorcery in the in-play zone is put into its owner's graveyard.

Possible change 2:

502.26d Any time you could play an instant, you may turn a face-down permanent you control face up. To do this, show all players what the permanent’s morph cost will be when the effect ends, pay that cost, then turn the permanent face up. The morph effect on it ends, and it regains its normal characteristics. If it is an instant or a sorcery, put it into its owner's graveyard. Any abilities relating to the permanent coming into play don’t trigger when it’s turned face up and don’t have any effect, because the permanent has already come into play.

I don't think those qualify as massive overhauls.

[Godder]

You're suggesting changing the rules to accommodate something, whereas the original suggestion didn't involve changing anything. From a complexity standpoint, not changing the rules is easier to play understand than changing the rules. The interaction between cards such as Glorious Anthem and 0-toughness creatures could also be a pleasant diversion for Johnny.

[nineisnoone]

Number of creatures in Magic with 0 toughness that don't come into play with +1/+1 counters or as a copy of another creature: 0.

There is a reason for this. The rules can handle it, but it's a poor decision flavor-wise. A creature with zero toughness is, by definition, not a creature.

The fact that there aren't any 0 toughness creatures is part of the idea; it's meant to be unique.

And I guess, I just don't see how it's not a creature. Sure it automatically dies, but that is (essentially) what it does. The creature is summoned (for some effect) then instantly dies. That's how a player would see the card working mechanically speaking, and that would be the intended flavor of whats supposed happening.

[asmoranomardicodais]

I agree with paralax. Your making morphing instants, and the idea is very intuitive; why muss it up by making the instants 0/0 creatures? I think morphing instants are aethetically far more pleasing, far less clunky, and much more elegant than 0/0 creatures.

[Norm4eva]

What's so uncreature-like about a 0/0?  If 1/1s vary from frail wizards to hawks to basking lizards, a 0/0 could describe a mist or vapor; in this case, a 'concentrated spell' that ceases to exist while it actuates.  I think it makes perfect sense.
At any rate, it's no more or less clunky than the Simic 'spellcreatures' - monocolored creatures that had all manner of CIP effects but required UG be spent on them to keep them in play.  And it's certainly more appealing than changing the rules to accomodate a gimmick; the last time they did that IIRC was Kamigawa's new Legend rule, which has changed things for better or worse depending on your point of view.
And while there may not be any 0/0s with no CIP counters or whatever, Sunburst creatures don't necessarily CIP with any counters; Spinal Parasite actually has negative power and toughness, it's a -1/-1.  Obviously neither is optimal, and Spinal Parasite is an AWFUL card, but it's not entirely beyond the scope of creature design to print creatures that don't necessarily come into play with power or toughness.
Doesn't our Master List have a few zero toughness creatures?  Something about a 7/0 trampler for 3W?

[Matt]

Not changing the rules > changing the rules

Plus, the Castle effect is really cool. No one wants instants in play (no changes to the rules are required for artifact, enchantment, or land morphs though - we've made a few in the master list already).

I see these as a sort of weak elemental. Like Fog Elemental, you get one use, then it dies. I even like the "spellform" name.

[parallax]

What's so uncreature-like about a 0/0?  If 1/1s vary from frail wizards to hawks to basking lizards, a 0/0 could describe a mist or vapor; in this case, a 'concentrated spell' that ceases to exist while it actuates.  I think it makes perfect sense.
At any rate, it's no more or less clunky than the Simic 'spellcreatures' - monocolored creatures that had all manner of CIP effects but required UG be spent on them to keep them in play.  And it's certainly more appealing than changing the rules to accomodate a gimmick; the last time they did that IIRC was Kamigawa's new Legend rule, which has changed things for better or worse depending on your point of view.
And while there may not be any 0/0s with no CIP counters or whatever, Sunburst creatures don't necessarily CIP with any counters; Spinal Parasite actually has negative power and toughness, it's a -1/-1.  Obviously neither is optimal, and Spinal Parasite is an AWFUL card, but it's not entirely beyond the scope of creature design to print creatures that don't necessarily come into play with power or toughness.
Doesn't our Master List have a few zero toughness creatures?  Something about a 7/0 trampler for 3W?

A 0/0 is uncreature-like because it can't attack, can't block, can't be enchanted or targeted or do anything else that creatures in Magic do.

It is far more clunky than the Dissension "enhanced" cycle. It's not beyond the scope of creature design to print creatures that don't necessarily stay in play. It is beyond the scope of creature design to print creatures that don't stay in play at all.

I'm not arguing against creating one creature that is 7/0 or something like that. A single 0-toughness creature with high power at rare wuold be an interesting puzzle for Johnny to solve. But presumably, this mechanic would appear on a large number of cards throughout the set/block, on commons and uncommons as well as rares. I also would not object to this card as is if it were a single card meant to appear in a set with normal morphs. Breaking the rules is OK with a card that is meant to be the exception, and exists for that purpose, but if the intent is for a general mechanic, possibly the primary mechanic of the set, then elegance and intuitiveness should win out.

I don't see why not changing the rules is automatically better than changing the rules. I think making cards as elegant and intuitive as possible should come first, and the rules exist to make cards work. And the last time Wizards changed a rule to accomodate a 'gimmick' was Time Spiral: they changed "Spells without mana costs can't be played." to "Non-existent mana costs can't be paid." in order to accomodate the Ancestral Visions cycle. In addition, they change the rules every time a set comes out to add the new mechanics. They're even willing to add entirely new rules just for single cards such as Mindslaver and Time Stop. Magic's rules are meant to change to accomodate new cards and mechanics; they are, in fact, designed to do just that.

[andrewpate]

I don't see why not changing the rules is automatically better than changing the rules. I think making cards as elegant and intuitive as possible should come first, and the rules exist to make cards work. And the last time Wizards changed a rule to accomodate a 'gimmick' was Time Spiral: they changed "Spells without mana costs can't be played." to "Non-existent mana costs can't be paid." in order to accomodate the Ancestral Visions cycle. In addition, they change the rules every time a set comes out to add the new mechanics. They're even willing to add entirely new rules just for single cards such as Mindslaver and Time Stop. Magic's rules are meant to change to accomodate new cards and mechanics; they are, in fact, designed to do just that.

This is a great point and one too often ignored on these forums.  People are constantly criticizing cards because of the apparently-damning flaw that a cosmetic change to the CR would be required before the card would see print.  Most players, even most tournament players, don't know the CR to any greatly specific extent and cannot tell you, for example, all the strange nuances of Madness or Phasing.  The people who will notice small rules changes are also the people who will stay abreast of them and read the rules update with the new set.

[Darkenslight]

How about, instead of making it an instant, making it an Enchantment with morph, with the triggered templating, 'Whenever a player plays a spell, you may sacrifice ~.  If you do, [effect]."  and giving it Flash.  Yes, it works differently, but I think it may be a solution.

Those who say no change > change: I'm on the fence about this.  Whilst I can see the idea behind not changing the rules, in rare instances, it may be much simpler to make changes to the way things work; I point to the revision of the Legend rule as an example.  At least now you can kill your opponent's Akroma with your own.  It's like looking into a mirror of reality that looks back; you'd be freaked and time would probably stop.

[Norm4eva]

So wait a minute - creatures that are 0/0s are 'beyond the scope of design' but Instants and Sorceries that come into play are not?  I think if one would argue that a creature can never be a static 0/0, then I could argue on the same merit that an Instant/Sorcery should nevertouch the in-play zone.  That's just not what they do.  Making a new state-based effect and a change to the rules that are otherwise superfluous to satisfy the notion that 0/0s will just piss people off for being 'beyond the scope of design' just seems frivolous.
And what exactly is so functionally different about 0/0s with Morph vs, say, a 0/0 with a manacost like XG which puts X +1/+1 counters on?  From the standpoint that either one could potentially be cast without any p/t, yet it's clearly beneficial and almost always "the right play" to do it that way, there's no real difference.  There's plenty of 0/0s that have optional p/t; Ghastly Remains, Golgari Grave Troll, Ivy Elemental, Shimatsu the Bloodcloaked, blah blah blah.... the point is, I don't see a difference between putting them into play by using their "intended costs" whether its Amplify or an X in the cost, or paying the Morph cost instead of just hardcasting it.  These kind of cards are all over the place, they just don't happen to come into play face-down.

[Godder]

Basically, what Norm4eva said.

That said, they could be enchantments with a sacrifice ability like the Nemesis Seals with Flash. In fact, that could be done anyway. Instead of making them trigger on turning them over, just give them abilities that include being sacrificed as part of the cost, and Flash. Make them 1/1 or 0/1 or something, and you've got a creature that's basically useless if it's not sacrificed for its ability.

[parallax]

You're trying to make a card, that you play, it has an effect, and then it goes to the graveyard, that you can play whenever you have priority. Magic has a word for that: instant. If this card did not have morph, it would clearly be an instant. The morph ability itself doesn't care what type of card it's on. I see no reason to make these cards creatures when they are functionally instants, for the same reason that there are no sorceries with flash.

[orgcandman]

There's also an issue of understandability, especially with respect to new players.

When you talk about intuitive cards, make sure to take note that intuitive can be interpreted differently. Many people who are just learning the game, as well as people who have been playing for a while, will probably not intuitively know what to do with an instant that is in the in-play zone. And it is also very confusing to have cards such as instants, and sorceries, with different states (IE: they can be in-play AND also, resolve to the graveyard...wha??) The creation of 0/0 creatures that go directly to the graveyard, however, is much more intuitive. Players can see "Oh, the effect happens, but the creature dies."

Also, you need to address the possibilities that the mechanic allows. How easily does it integrate to existing magic design space, and what new design possibilities does it give both designers and players.

A 0/0 creature is VERY easy to integrate into the game. There are so many rules around it, AND there are interesting possibilities that players get.

HOWEVER, an instant that can be turned face up, is NOT as easily designed around. What happens to lingering effects on the creature? What about with humility in play? What if it gets turned face up, and some copy ability is starting to clone it? could someone bounce it? What about type-setting effects?

There become a lot more rules nightmares. Rules which are designed for creatures, will now have to be duplicated and applied to instants. It becomes a lot more difficult to intuitively know how to handle the different situations.

THIS is where 0/0 creatures come in. They can easily handle the different complex rules situations that happen. They're more intuitive than an instant which turns face-up.

[Darkenslight]

A 0/0 creature is VERY easy to integrate into the game. There are so many rules around it, AND there are interesting possibilities that players get.

HOWEVER, an instant that can be turned face up, is NOT as easily designed around. What happens to lingering effects on the creature? What about with humility in play? What if it gets turned face up, and some copy ability is starting to clone it? could someone bounce it? What about type-setting effects?

There become a lot more rules nightmares. Rules which are designed for creatures, will now have to be duplicated and applied to instants. It becomes a lot more difficult to intuitively know how to handle the different situations.

What if we add the clause, 'If this is face-up, sacrifice it.  If you do, [effect]' to the card and give it the type instant?  Woiuld that have a different effect?

[Norm4eva]

There become a lot more rules nightmares. Rules which are designed for creatures, will now have to be duplicated and applied to instants. It becomes a lot more difficult to intuitively know how to handle the different situations.

This is another good point.  Why worry about adding clauses and additional effects and rules to the game just to have Instants with Morph?
Facedown 0/0s are at worst a case of RTFC.  Facedown Instants with Jumility in play aren't.

If this card did not have morph, it would clearly be an instant.

Ugh.  If Maga, Traitor to Mortals weren't a Creature, it'd be Drain Life.  If Golgari Grave-Troll weren't a Creature, it'd be a green Book Burning.  It's true, cards fundamentally change when they lose or gain text. :)  There's no sense in talking about what this card isn't, that just confuses the issue.