There are two ways to approach a double mark:
4 states with 2 systems
This is what Q_x suggested: Idea was to flip the card face down. Thus a card could have the following states:
- Face up, unmarked.
- Face up, marked.
- Face down, unmarked.
- Face down, marked.
That said, I'm still and will remain against the face down suggestion for the reason stated elsewhere above. Mainly, because it hides info and that's a serious problem that causes more mess than it contributes to a game, especially since there are better alternatives to "double mark" that doesn't hide the info.
3 States, 1 system
A double mark that uses 180 rotation to show the second marking would work very differently from the previous solution. It would be just one system, and the additional marking is just a extension of an already existing phenomenon, the casual mark. As pennomi writes "...once a double-marked card is unmarked, it then becomes single marked."
Double marking would have serious effects on the game as it would mean that we would have to change "mark pricing" on some abilities and/or mark pricing of movement etc.
While I favour 180 over hidden cards face down, there's still some issues with it:
1) Opponent won't be able to read text. Having marked 90 is already bad enough but at least it's readable. Having a card upside down makes it very much harder to read. It sounds very counter-intuitive from a design pov. I suggest that this is unsolvable.
2) There would be 3 states a card could be in, where 2 of them are identical geometrically. So, while you can easily and directly spot the difference between a marked and unmarked card, you can't do the same with a doublemarked and unmarked, at least not by looking at the geometrical layout on table. You would have to look at the cards graphics/text to see if it was upside-down or not. This isn't my biggest concern, but it does affect game play and it maybe even makes the table look more chaotic, making it harder to differentiate between states. I suggest that this is unsolvable, but that it's a way smaller problem than 1).
Q_x revised
I'd call it something else than double mark and use it as a system on it's own, much as Q_x original suggestion. We could call that state "exile" or "inactive", and whatever triggers the exile/inactivity would just position a card in 180 (upside down). To come out of exile you would have to wait for unmark phase. Then you'd go into just being marked, no matter if you were marked or not before you became exiled.
An exiled/inactive creature can't attack, can't use any of it's activated abilities, can't move, can't defend. It can however still be targeted by other creatures abilities and by cards like Events and such. Its till counts towards threshold.
So, why would I want to call it exile/inactive instead of "double mark"? Because it isn't the same thing as marking a card again. If you use the double mark concept then you can mark a card, and then mark it again. Each card could mark twice.
With my suggestion each card can still only mark once. But, we would also have a "clear" (with plenty of reservations I made in above paragraphs) way of showing that a card is in another state for whatever reason.
In contrast to Q_x I think it does matter how players mark stuff, since marking, unmarking, double-marking and whatnot all adds up to the administration and could also affect other parts of the game as well, not to mention overall impression of the game as being overly complex or chaotic. That's why I believe we should instil the players with some "ideas" and influence them into using certain methods, while of course respecting all patents etc that our beloved Wizards have up their sleeve. If we know or strongly suspect that some ways to play the game are smoother than others and makes the game flow better, then we should implant those ways into the community culture.
I do however agree on the point that it should be up to the player in the end to follow recommendations or our "inspirational ideas" or if they devise totally new ways to play the game: What people do in private is really non of our business, nor should we try to stop creativity. Only time I'd be opposed that is in an officially sanctioned tournament, for obvious reasons there would have to be some type of standards in such an event and other competitive environments.
Yes, I agree. It really is enough time for this to matter plenty for any sane player.Q-x wrote: Let it not be an ability that will be often used. It holds a card for two rounds - its a long time, really.
I think it's important to understand the nature of this punishment/"ability payment" and how it could be used. I believe the brawler that fired this up is a good example of where it could work well.
Important thing is the last part: card is put into marked state at the beginning of player's turn. How it would be performed - irrelevant to me.
Exactly! And my immediate reply would be that if we plan to use it in a way so that occurs at least once in every game, in average, then it could very well be interesting to adopt such a state. If it would be rarer, then it is overkill to include it since something that happens very rarely can already be handled with tokens or whatver else punishment, like the one you suggest: Marking two cards and/or discarding one. (That would also not require us to add to the core rules, it would say so on the card.)The discussion is do we need such condition, or maybe there should be other ways of making player should feel bad about something, like marking 2 cards or graving one.
So, in line with what Q_x writes:
Function & for what?
This is the primary question we should be asking here: What is another state marker needed for and what functions does it execute? Does it do so better or worse off than already existing methods or other existing but unused alternatives? And so on...
If there is no proper answer to this question or no need a newly invented state marker would fulfil, then this discussion about double marking is just a theoretical designers orgy that that would have little impact on the game.
While I see no problem with us having such discussions (on the contrary, game design in general is something I'm very interested in and I don't mind anyone discussing it on our forum) it would still not really matter much in practice.
This is the only question we should be concerned with right now instead instead of assuming it has been answered and going ahead and refining the methods. Since method discussion is under way already, I commented it above, even if I believe it's a premature topic. Question at hand is why would we need double marking? Which are the benefits, what impact would it have on gameplay, admin, rules etc?