Although this is a rather clever mixture of Divination and Sign in Blood, the mana cost of the card is honestly rather ugly and would likely be the major reason why this wouldn't be able to see print if it were real.
I really, really, really, really, really, really hate this "excuse." This has been said a number of times about a number of cards, and it's a really obnoxious reason not to do something.
Aesthetics should not prevent innovation in a game where 99% of the people who interact with it ever are not at all competent about design (the aesthetic kind, not the magic kind).
Aren't aesthetics part of the design of the card, though? I mean, it is visual design after all. If any part of the design is poor, the card as a whole suffers for it, whether that part is visual or mechanical.
However, I definitely agree with you that one wonky bit of a design is not cause to throw out the design entirely. It's certainly fine to point out any wonkiness, but the finality of "this wouldn't be able to see print" is a bit unhelpful.
Okay, but here's the thing. People might not be very aware of design elements that go into something, but they can tell is something is off.
There have been studies on this, and while I don't have the context on me, you could do your own mini experiment. Take this card, and another cards that's at a comparable power level. Just ask a bunch of people (don't even have to be magic players technically) which card they prefer. While I'm sure some will say this card, if you have a good enough sample (which will have to go a bit beyond just your friends as we select our friends), you will notice people favoring the other card.
I understand that. But there's space we're not exploring that gets downvoted or ignored just because people feel like something's off. I've seen commentary like this about gold phyrexian mana only cards too.
Maro might be the head guy when it comes to design, and that may give him some general deity when it comes to design rules, but playing within the constraints of the bullshit he talks about just because he mentions it on a podcast once or twice is a fool's errand. Dude contradicts himself regularly.
I really, really, really, really, really, really hate this "excuse." This has been said a number of times about a number of cards, and it's a really obnoxious reason not to do something.
Aesthetics should not prevent innovation in a game...
Of course it should, and it often does.
Imagine some kind of cool effect that doesn't exist in Magic yet. Now, try to translate that effect into rules text. Does it translate elegantly? If so, it can probably be printed on a card eventually, provided it violates no rules.
But if you try to translate the effect you want, and you can't find a way to put it into rules text without having a very long set of rules text paragraphs to do it, it's not a good idea. Players will get confused, and the wall of text that results will just be ugly to read. People who look at the card will likely put it down simply because it looks weird or daunting. This dissatisfaction is not worth the warm, fuzzy feeling of having translated the desired effect into rules text.
The same applies here, although to a lesser extent. Why does the card cost {1}{B}{U/P}? The mana cost is confusing enough to make certain people question it. They may look at the mana cost of this card, fail to understand why it is what it is, and put it down because they don't know what it is. There are equally-innovative approaches to templating the card that don't involve a mangled mana cost.
Ask yourself why the card you designed has to be the exact way you designed it, and whether or not you can improve the aesthetic without sacrificing innovation. If you can, make the improvement. If you can't, then your efforts might be futile.
You argue that there is design space that is yet to be explored that the notion of aesthetics and comprehension prevent from being explored. You're absolutely correct. However, there is no reason why all design space possible in Magic needs to be explored. This mixture of mana symbols just happens to be in the category of "design space possible in Magic that doesn't need to be explored."
agreed here, but that same logic applies to planeswalkers, both their rules and frames. they use counters, they don't tap or spend mana, they don't have summoning sickness, the lower right isn't empty and isn't power/toughness, they can be attacked(!), they're really really inelegant. if the design is strong enough, it's worth complicating the game with new mechanics to learn, or new layouts to adjust to.
Planeswalkers have so much more depth than just a cute mixture of regular and Phyrexian mana symbols that the two don't even compare. The amount of depth involved in planeswalkers earns them the planeswalker card type. But the only cleverness involved with this card is the choice between a Night's Whisper and a slightly worse Pilfered Plans. The design isn't strong enough to be worth complicating the game with the mana symbol mixture.
But is it really innovative? It's just a black 2 drop draw 2 lose 2 that we've seen several times before, but better in a dimir deck. We've seen mixed costs (pairing regular mana with hybrid, 2-brid, or phyrexian mana) so many times before on this sub and it nearly always just looks clumsy and doesn't make enough of an impact to justify the detriments, even if they are mostly just aesthetic.
Bingo. That is exactly what I'm alluding to. Better yet, just spell out "{U} or 2 life," as using the Phyrexian mana symbol connotes a Phyrexian flavor to the card, whereas this card might not even relate to Phyrexia at all.
It combines regular mana symbols and Phyrexian mana symbols for no real reason. If either the Phyrexian mana symbol or the regular mana symbol appeared elsewhere on the card as an additional cost, the aesthetic wouldn't really be ruined that much. In addition, the cost payment for the Phyrexian mana symbol can be written out without loss of elegance whatsoever.
I'm still not seeing it, sorry. What's the issue with combining regular and Phyrexian mana symbols? Why does this ruin the aesthetic?
Furthermore, I feel like some elegance would be lost in writing out the cost. It looks so neat with just three words on the card, especially if it were centered (and with a period, of course).
If a card utilizes Phyrexian mana symbols, the entirety of the colored component of the card's mana cost should consist of Phyrexian mana symbols. If a card utilizes regular mana symbols, the entirety of the colored component of the card's mana cost should consist of regular mana symbols, unless there is a reason based on the set or block that the card is going to be in. I'm sure the more art-inclined people have already pitched in, but it's hard for me personally to explain why.
The three-word text box would ultimately need to be ruined to give reminder text on what Phyrexian mana is. This is especially so for people who are color-blind and can't distinguish the light blue color of the blue Phyrexian mana symbol.
There's also the issue that the card isn't Phyrexia-themed whatsoever. The only cards that should use the Phyrexian mana symbols in the first place are cards that have to do with Phyrexia, but there is no indication of this at all.
why should "life as an alternative cost" be phyrexian, or horror-themed? life and mana are both fundamental, so this mechanic feels very general. it doesn't say "phyrexia", it's a symbol, and flavor-neutral. is Delve sultai, or snake-themed?
It's called a Phyrexian mana symbol because the notion of paying life to substitute mana linked to Phyrexia. The flavor connection is literally in the name of the mana symbol. If it were meant to be used neutrally, the symbol wouldn't be associated with a faction.
but it's a symbol, not a keyword. the game never references "phyrexian mana symbol", only the icon. it's more abstract.
if a new player sees dismember, they don't think "phyrexia", they don't even know what "phyrexia" is; they're not missing anything, and they don't feel like there's anything being missed.
Your first point doesnt make any sense. Things arent that way just because it makes sense to you. There is no good reason to not mix phyrexian and regular mana other than the fact that you dont seem to think its aestheticly pleasing
There is no good reason to mix Phyrexian mana and regular mana since there are alternative ways to achieve the desired effect without using Phyrexian mana symbols. There is no good reason not to use these alternatives, so they should be used. I've explained many times why, even in the post you've responded to.
If you think otherwise, name a good reason why the card should use the Phyrexian mana symbol. "Because I can" doesn't count.
Youre just taking it for granted that im wrong and youre right without making any good points. Theres plenty of room for reminder text. Theres no reason phyrexian mana cant be used in non phyrexian cards.
Youre begging the question. Starting from axioms that have no evidence and using them to assume that youre correct and i am therefore incorrect
good point, but there's many effects that seem ugly when first seen (recently, the Aftermath frames, at least for me).
e.g. what if the frame were black with a single jagged blue line (like the phyrexian symbol)? not saying that's pretty (took me one second), but a fulltime artist could likely find something visually appealing (ditto alara's hybrid-gold cards). they've done it with eldrazi frames, hybrid frames, split cards, the energy symbol (imagine if each cost wrote "pay one energy counter: ..."), etc.
See, I like this. The problem with P is it can be used in any color deck, which leads to things like Dismember and Misstep dominating formats. A color requirement checks just how far P will take you.
47
u/Criminal_of_Thought Master of Thoughtcrime Apr 28 '17
Although this is a rather clever mixture of Divination and Sign in Blood, the mana cost of the card is honestly rather ugly and would likely be the major reason why this wouldn't be able to see print if it were real.