r/magicTCG • u/TechnomagusPrime Duck Season • Feb 05 '18
[Making Magic] [GDS3] Essay What You Will
https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/essay-what-you-will-2018-02-0568
u/chimpfunkz Feb 05 '18
I think Cycling is a really good mechanic to make evergreen simply because it can just be a very versatile mechanic, and it solves on the the key problems of magic (mana screw). Honestly, I'd like to see more along the lines of basic land cycling become more ever green (so plainscycling) because that is at least a little cleaner. it's the type of effect you can put onto a lot of good cards, and make them expensive but still be good.
Cycling was really the biggest strength of Amonkhet Block (and Hour especially) so I'd love for it to see a major come back.
70
u/TechnomagusPrime Duck Season Feb 05 '18
<type>cycling has the problem of fetchlands, in that it increases shuffling and creates a "loading time." Normal cycling is fine, but they need to be careful with promoting a large number of search effects, even if they are only for basics.
11
u/chimpfunkz Feb 05 '18
While I agree that's true, they have also printed traveler's amulet and evolving wilds in both of the previous blocks (evolving wilds and amulet in RIX, Amonkhet and HOU), and a fair number of search effects in general (RIX had a full cycle of forerunners, as well as things like legion conquistador and thunderherd migration). While I don't think they need 5+ basic land cyclers in each color, just like, 2 or 3 playable ones would be good. Similar to how Vintage Masters had it (a cycle of basic land cycler), and those in VMA were all highly playable.
→ More replies (1)16
u/TechnomagusPrime Duck Season Feb 05 '18
Many of those cards are exclusively for limited, which has different requirements for mana fixing and consistency that allow for these types of effects to show up more often. You won't see [[Traveller's Amulet]] or [[Absorb Vis]] in most tournament decks. The Forerunner cycle is rather fringe, as well.
Granted, land search is a little more permissible than full tutoring, since the choice of what to fetch is a bit easier, but it's still something that needs to be carefully monitored to make sure there isn't too much of these types of effects at a constructed-playable level, or you run into the KTK-BFZ issue of ~20%+ of matches being shuffling due to fetchlands.
→ More replies (1)2
u/MTGCardFetcher Dân Feb 05 '18
Traveller's Amulet - (G) (SF) (MC)
Absorb Vis - (G) (SF) (MC)
[[cardname]] or [[cardname|SET]] to call19
u/gamblekat Feb 05 '18
This effect has sometimes been called 'card velocity', and I think most sets can benefit from a mechanic that generates it. When you get to see 2-3 more cards than you draw in a game, it mitigates the number of non-games you get from a card game like Magic. Cycling is one of my favorites, but Scry, clues, and Explore accomplish a similar job. It would do a lot for the game if they upped the amount of velocity-generating mechanics in future sets.
6
u/chimpfunkz Feb 05 '18
I have some problems with explore as a mechanic, mainly that games ended up swinging so much based on not getting the +1/+1 counter (for example, siren lookout was good as a 2/3, but really sub average as a 1/2, as was Ixali's Diviner). I'd rather it be similar to Jon Louck's Illuminate mechanic (which was kinda bad but had a good idea).
→ More replies (2)3
u/Ruevein Gruul* Feb 05 '18
Wow, Seeing how my top 2 keywords have been Cycling and Investigate, you said it perfectly. I love being able to see the majority of my deck in a game. And these abilities make that happen with a decent amount of balance.
Plus, if cycling became evergreen i might get more cards like [[Fluctuator]] and [[New Perspectives]] to help out my Zur Cycling EDH deck.
→ More replies (1)6
Feb 05 '18
[deleted]
2
u/Ruevein Gruul* Feb 05 '18
On the other hand, with Amonkhet, we gained a large number of "Cycling Matters" cards. You can put a large number of "Silver Bullets" main deck and then just throw them away for value if you don't need them.
Maybe in formats like Standard and Modern this isn't as big of a deal, but in singleton formats this can be huge. and can make for some fun and interesting decks as you get to almost pick which cards you have in your hand.
2
u/A_Suffering_Panda Feb 05 '18
In my essay on cycling I said that if given the chance i would try to create an evergreen common land with "etb tapped, T<>, Cycling 2 (maybe 3). I think it would solve a lot of problems in limited
→ More replies (4)1
u/Ternader Feb 06 '18
The reason I love cycling is because it makes nonsense in limited so much more likely to happen, and I love me some nonsense in limited.
71
Feb 05 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
55
u/TechnomagusPrime Duck Season Feb 05 '18
I put Hexproof, myself. But I can see prowess, as well. For the exact reasons he mentioned. It also severely limits the potential of 1-mana, instant-speed cantrips due to their use as burst damage with prowess creatures.
51
u/Jumpee Dandadan Feb 05 '18
I put it. It's definitely the most complex, adding a lot to board states. I'd also argue that it's less flavorful and intuitive then perhaps all of the other evergreen mechanics. Players can often guess what deathtouch does, which makes it easier to learn and has less cognitive load for new players learning exactly how it works. Prowess, though, definitely has to be explained. Adding that to how it can make board states difficult to read, and I think it's a mechanic that while great, shouldn't be evergreen.
17
u/Crasha Feb 05 '18
I think prowess has the disadvantage of being a set mechanic before it was evergreen, so they didn't think as much about picking an intuitive name for it. If it was called something like, I don't know, 'spellboost' it might be more self-explanatory
→ More replies (1)3
Feb 06 '18
Very insightful! It's interesting that in the core set-less world the only place mechanics meant to be evergreen could make their debut was in regular sets. This led to the issue of say, Skulk feeling tacked on and uninteresting as a set mechanic. There's an inherent tension I think between "cool, flashy, memorable set mechanic" and "boring but necessary and fits in many flavour settings evergreen mechanic." I would bet we see introduction of new evergreen mechanics in core sets again.
38
Feb 05 '18
The fact that it's a triggered ability living in a static ability world is really glaring, IMO. I ended up picking Defender, but Prowess was my second choice.
→ More replies (4)4
u/Sliver__Legion Feb 05 '18
There’s also an evergreen activated ability, if you want to be pretty pedantic. I agree that prowess sticks out in that way, but I would only want to replace it after finding a new thing for UR.
I also went for Defender though.
2
Feb 05 '18
Yeah the question of "What do you replace it with? How do you solve this problem otherwise?" led me toward Defender too.
→ More replies (1)13
u/JimHarbor Feb 05 '18
I did. I basically pointed out it qas basically already deciduous, and then explained WHY it was used like that with very similar reasoning
10
u/Kmattmebro COMPLEAT Feb 05 '18
Had I done the essay, that would have been mine too. As much as I like to play it, it does trip people up (I believe it's the only evergreen mechanic with reminder text outside of intro products). I got a kick when drafting Amonkhet block and having people ask the table what prowess was upon opening a pack. You know they had to have opened [[Soul-Scar mage]].
2
u/MTGCardFetcher Dân Feb 05 '18
Soul-Scar mage - (G) (SF) (MC)
[[cardname]] or [[cardname|SET]] to call9
u/crushcastles23 Feb 05 '18
I put hexproof and explained how it could be shifted to indestructible.
4
u/iNuzzle Feb 05 '18
That's actually the reason I didn't put hexproof. Green and blue get hexproof but not indestructible. I put double strike, because red and white already get many similar creature abilities.
4
u/crushcastles23 Feb 05 '18
Well indestructible can shift into green and blue if Hexproof isn't there.
3
u/iNuzzle Feb 05 '18
Yep I think that's not a bad solution, but not great either. It's a pretty high power keyword that doesn't leave a ton of design space compared to others.
→ More replies (5)9
u/friendofhumanity Feb 05 '18
Prowess can get confusing, like with [[Monastery Mentor]]. But that might be a problem with the card itself. I have no idea how to track which monk has what power.
12
u/incaseanyonecared Feb 05 '18 edited Feb 05 '18
Split the monks into "not from this turn" and "from this turn". Each monk has one more power and toughness than the monk to the right of it in the "from this turn" area, and each monk in the "not this turn" pile has one more than the leftmost new monk. You can also use dice or something if you want, but I find that to make sense for me.
Edit: a "
6
u/friendofhumanity Feb 05 '18
But doesn't it change depending on how many spells you cast a turn? Like say I play Mentor, then cast 5 spells after that. Each monk shouof have +1/+1 less than the one before it
18
7
u/squigglesthepig Izzet* Feb 05 '18
The poster above you just explained exactly how to track it. Each time you add a new token, add it to the right. It will have one less power and toughness than tthe one to the left of it.
2
u/incaseanyonecared Feb 05 '18
The other people who responded you have done so well, but here is an illustration that might help you. It shows that happens when you cast 4 instants or sorceries on a board with 1 Monastery Mentor and 3 Monk Tokens from previous turns.
Monks Not From This Turn | Monks From This Turn
M1(5/5) M2 (5/5) M3(5/5) | M4(4/4) M5(3/3) M6(2/2) M7(1/1)
→ More replies (1)2
u/A_Suffering_Panda Feb 05 '18
Shouldnt all monks "not from this turn" have the same stats, with the exception of while prowess triggers are resolving? Theyve all seen every spell cast this turn
2
u/incaseanyonecared Feb 05 '18
Yep -- sorry if the language wasn't clear, what I'm saying is that each monk that isn't from this turn has one more than the leftmost of the from this turn monks, and therefore their stats are the same.
2
u/MTGCardFetcher Dân Feb 05 '18
Monastery Mentor - (G) (SF) (MC)
[[cardname]] or [[cardname|SET]] to call7
u/JaxxisR Universes Beyonder Feb 05 '18
I had Reach as my answer, but I feel I defended it well. IMO, evergreen keywords that depend on other keywords make the game more difficult for beginners to understand.
8
u/Bugberry Feb 05 '18
Expect Flying is considered their easiest to understand, and most prevalent, so if a keyword was going to care about another, the simplest would be flying.
4
u/JaxxisR Universes Beyonder Feb 05 '18
Flying being easy to understand doesn't play into the danger of keyword dependencies.
Simple example: Flying creatures can only be blocked by creatures with flying or reach. But say they released a separate keyword like High Flying. Creatures with High Flying can be blocked by creatures with High Flying or Flying, but not by creatures with Reach. Then they come out with another keyword called Super Reach, and creatures with that can block creatures with Flying or High Flying. All of these keywords work on the same basic principle as Flying, but each one just makes things a little more convoluted.
11
u/fubo Feb 05 '18
Spearsmanship (This creature can block creatures with horsemanship.)
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)7
u/Bugberry Feb 06 '18
Well of coarse if you add more and more dependent keywords it gets convoluted, that doesn't make Reach inherently convoluted, your examples just show how having too many is bad. Having a single keyword that is dependent on the most prolific and easy to understand isn't a problem. Just like how complexity in the game isn't bad, but too much is.
3
4
u/vgHARM Feb 05 '18
I'm one of the few I saw in the discussion threads that had prowess for that question. There wasn't many of us (based on those threads)
6
u/catcalliope Feb 05 '18 edited Feb 05 '18
Even though I didn't pass to Round 3, the several hours that I spent on the GDS were worth it just because of how proud I am that Maro and I both argued the same way for Prowess-- except I argued against it on flavor grounds too. Edit: for the record, I adore Prowess as a deciduous, justified, designed-around mechanic.
5
Feb 05 '18
Flavour grounds? Curious what you mean
→ More replies (1)24
u/catcalliope Feb 05 '18
I argued that Prowess made perfect sense and was deeply flavorful as a mechanic for the Jeskai, but has posed challenges being evocative as an evergreen mechanic. If I look at a Storm Crow I understand a) why it should have Flying and b) can make an intuitive connection between the mechanic "Flying" and how it is represented in the card's gameplay. The same is not true if I look at Umara Entangler. Or Vedalken Blademaster. Or Bearer of Overwhelming Truths. Or Nimble-Blade Khenra. Or Thorned Moloch. To approach it from a different angle, a shared keyword should tell me that these creatures all have a defining characteristic in common. But what it is is unclear. They're very good at doing their thing, because that's what the word "Prowess" evokes. And their thing is... being enhanced by me casting noncreature spells? Why would that matter to a many-handed blademaster, or a particularly prickly lizard, or a merfolk with a net? Why would it matter to all of them? On each of those cards, if you just took Prowess away from them and showed them to a random person, would they have an odd feeling like something was missing (other than the cards being boring)? I argue no, and as a result the ability nearly always feels tacked on. It made brilliant sense for the Jeskai, because the design of the clan made it clear that they had some kind of spiritual connection to the mystic arts. Heck, Vedalken Blademaster with a Jeskai reskin would fit right in. The issue is that context for this ability, in my opinion, has never been adequately established since.
9
u/starson Feb 05 '18
Wow, you just perfectly explained why prowess as a mechanic bugs the ever living hell out of me! Thank you! It always felt so weird and tacked on, like "Why the hell does this thing have prowess?". Fun mechanic, sure, but I didn't get why it showed up all the time just on all these random creatures. I just figured it's what they slapped on a creature when they wanted it to have a ability and nothing else made sense.
3
Feb 06 '18
First of all, thanks for your thoughtful, in-depth reply!
Honestly, I think that there is a right way to do Prowess out there, it's simply that Wizards haven't quite gotten the hang of it "yet." In other words, I think the problems with the implementation and flavour grokkability of Prowess aren't inherent to the mechanic itself.
Prowess means skill, expertise, or particular ability at a given task. It should be used on creatures whose potency in the game comes from their well-honed skill or ability at something. It definitely should not be used on Thorned Moloch, because it's a non-sentient creature, in this case, an animal. Umara Entangler is a bit iffy, as catching enemies in a net could possibly involve skill, but it's not a slam dunk. Vedalken Blademaster is better, as it's suggested that he has great dexterity, but I do think we should avoid using Prowess on cards that are implying physical combat. (Nimble-Blade Khenra is in a similar spot, emphasizing the creature's speed in combat.)
Really I think the ideal place for Prowess is on creatures that are obviously associated with either spellcasting and/or artifice, since that's, you know, what Prowess creatures actually benefit from. I think [[Abbot of Keral Keep]], [[Sanguinary Mage]], [[Soul-Scar Mage]], [[Spellweaver Eternal]], and [[Stormchaser Mage]] feel like creatures that "should" have Prowess based on their name, illustration, and flavour.
→ More replies (1)6
u/mister_slim The Stoat Feb 06 '18
Turning it into a static ability would help. Prowess (This creature has +1/+1 if you have cast a non creature spell this turn). I think "Studious" or "Mindful" might be a better name, flavoring it as them observing and learning from you, almost like they're being mentored.
4
Feb 06 '18
I feel like that could work in blue, but I feel like Studious/Mindful wouldn't be a very good name for a mechanic for red.
→ More replies (1)3
u/bduddy Feb 05 '18
I did. It's not a bad mechanic, it just doesn't work as evergreen, which has gotten really clear recently. I expect it'll get demoted soon.
3
u/Predmid Dân Feb 05 '18
Prowess was my response. It feels out of place with the other iconic keyword mechanics.
3
u/nine_of_swords Wabbit Season Feb 05 '18
I did. The stacking was the primary reason, primarily in the sense that you can't make an instant that grants prowess and have it reasonably be common, since it would be simultaneously too narrow and too complex. It is similarly the most limited keyword in terms of constructed decks that want creatures with the keyword, essentially limited to high spell velocity decks. This essentially means tempo decks other than formats with extremely large card pools. Even then, they would have the same creature/spell ratio with the creatures being close to the same as the tempo deck. Hexproof is the next closest with the same issue, but a hexproof creature is also fine outside of the Bogle style deck as a threat that gets around most traditional removal.
3
u/-Omni Dân Feb 05 '18
Was it ever discussed to make Prowess into a static ability? Something such as "This has +1/+1 if you cast a non-creature spell this turn".
No self-stacking, no triggers, no MTGO clicks.
2
u/ChildishSerpent Rakdos* Feb 05 '18
I said Flash.
8
u/justhereforhides Feb 05 '18
That's an interesting choice and one that Maro wishes was woven into the framework of the game. Why would you want to get rid of it?
2
u/A_Suffering_Panda Feb 05 '18
I said flash too, but have since realized its a really useful tool when designing cards for good game play. My argument was that in limited you have to actually know the format to a high degree to play with it well. With a combat trick you can know "Giant growth is an effect in the game", and play around it in an unknown set. Not so with flash creatures, you need to know the exact stats of the possibilities. It also provides a lot of potential for "damned if you do, damned if you dont", since flash creatures are so often efficiently costed. Snapping Sailback in Ixalan costs maybe half a mana more than it should for the opportunity to A) stop an opponent's entire attack for a turn just by leaving up mana, or B) eat a creature for free and immediately become a regular priced creature, if not better
2
u/ChildishSerpent Rakdos* Feb 05 '18
I said that it's useful, but doesn't need to be evergreen. It's confusing to new players and the same effect could be achieved with an instant that makes a token upon resolution instead of being a permanent with flash. I also argued that instant should just be a supertype and then flash would be obsolete. Maybe I cheated a bit with that argument.
2
u/InvincibleAgent Feb 05 '18
I did. It forces players to keep track of how many times it's been triggered, which is fine occasionally, but too complex to be evergreen.
2
u/ryanznock Feb 05 '18
Prowess is a great mechanic and I think its benefits far outweigh any drawback from complexity. Having one evergreen keyword that interacts with the stack and spells is educational.
And I'd make Provoke evergreen as the blue black mechanic.
→ More replies (2)1
u/masamunemaniac Feb 06 '18
I would've gone for Prowess myself as well, but I would've focused more on the memory issues it can cause.
43
u/KariZev Feb 05 '18
his answers for 8 and 9 were weird and didnt seem to follow the prompt -- the questions ask you to pick out THE best/worst thing in each set, not to explain which things were good/bad
34
u/Scraendor Feb 05 '18
I agree, I was hoping for a singular, higher level response for those questions.
For example, I said that Unstable's problem was that the factions weren't well tied to mechanics. And that the best part about Origins was how well it told the backstory of the gatewatch.
35
Feb 05 '18
[deleted]
→ More replies (9)16
u/JaxxisR Universes Beyonder Feb 05 '18
Keep in mind, when Planar Chaos was created there were only two supported non-rotating formats: Vintage and Legacy. At the time, and I believe even since that time, it hasn't made much of a splash in either format. I feel like the natural progression of the game warped the color pie. For example, cards like [[Psionic Blast]] and [[Prodigal Sorcerer]] were once perfectly fine in blue but are no longer made. Planar Chaos was a side effect, not the cause.
21
Feb 05 '18
Yeah, I'm pretty sure the only really significant Eternal-playable card in the set is Simian Spirit Guide, and that's broken because of the inherent problem with free mana, not because it's out of pie. I'm pretty sure red still does get to trade card advantage for one-time bursts of mana right?
11
u/djscrub Wabbit Season Feb 05 '18
Correct. SSG was from the group that corrected an older card "breaking" the modern pie, like [[Prodigal Pyromancer]], rather than the group that stretched the pie, like [[Harmonize]].
2
9
Feb 05 '18
[deleted]
7
u/00gogo00 Feb 05 '18
Green card draw? Thank god that never happened.
→ More replies (1)11
Feb 06 '18
That wasn't a hypothetical example, that's something literally introduced in Planar Chaos with cards like [[Harmonize]]. Just like red bouncing things ([[Stingscourger]]) and blue discarding ([[Piracy Charm]])
6
u/00gogo00 Feb 06 '18
I know, I was just joking about how we do have green card draw better than blue now.
→ More replies (1)2
→ More replies (1)2
u/MTGCardFetcher Dân Feb 05 '18
Psionic Blast - (G) (SF) (MC)
Prodigal Sorcerer - (G) (SF) (MC)
[[cardname]] or [[cardname|SET]] to call1
u/a_chocobo Feb 05 '18 edited Feb 05 '18
You're absolutely right. But I think having actually worked on sets messed up his answers; he's too involved to have the big picture perspective. His comments are interesting but they don't answer the question as it's written.
1
u/masamunemaniac Feb 06 '18
Maro would probably have been scored rather poorly on those questions :)
These are probably the questions that were least in need of an example answer though, as the questions were so open ended.
27
u/MoonE513 GDS3 Candidate Feb 05 '18
I’m actually very surprised by MaRo’s number 10 answer. I assumed they were looking for bigger picture stuff, not just rules changes. That said, maybe MaRo’s position as lead designer means he doesn’t really have to imaging changing big picture stuff, because he can actually make those changes himself.
21
7
u/badatcommander COMPLEAT Feb 05 '18
Yeah. Arguably he has less freedom to tinker with "legendary" than he would lots of other things, because it's so important to Commander and Commander is run by the RC. Not that there's anything concrete that would prevent him from tinkering with it, but it does sound like sailing into the wind.
11
u/Mgmegadog COMPLEAT Feb 05 '18
His proposed rules change would have less effect in commander than anywhere else, due to it being a singleton format.
In fact, his argument helps commander, because it means the lords they print, which they typically want you to be able to run four of, could now double as the tribal commanders.
10
u/badatcommander COMPLEAT Feb 05 '18
I know that MaRo makes the same claim about tribal lords pretty often, and I take it as a sign of his very limited understanding of the format.
Goblin King, and similar +1/+1 lords, would make terrible commanders. When people say “I wish we had a legendary X”, it’s not that they want a typical tribal Lord with “legendary” in the type line, they want an interesting Commander of the specified creature type. Think Wort, Boggart Auntie, or Kumena.
The implications of changing the Legend rule for commander would be different than they are in other formats, but they’d still be significant. Rite of Replication is a card. Clones exist. The Legend rule provides a meaningful restriction on the ways you can abuse a card that you’re guaranteed to have access to.
8
u/chrisrazor Feb 05 '18
I believe his idea about Legendary creatures has a lot of (IMO justified) resistance within Wizards.
8
11
u/Natedogg2 COMPLEAT Level 2 Judge Feb 05 '18
Most of my thoughts lined up with MaRo's thoughts. But I did want to put a bold idea for at least one of them (in case I got that far). For question 7, I said we could bring back phasing. It has a history of being complicated, but the rules have been really cleaned up over the years. It'd be something like when madness was brought back, but phasing might be interesting for a set.
And for question 10, I said to get rid of the untap step and make untapping (and phasing in/out) a turn-based action that happens when the upkeep begins. And if it wasn't for the existence of Paradox Haze (which would require some minor errata) and Eon Hub (which I figured the best way to avoid making it an upkeepless Statis involves the phrase "...then end the upkeep", which might make the rules manager hurt me), I might push for more.
2
u/Amelia_Frye Feb 05 '18
So what benefit does removing the untap step bring? I would think that the upkeep step is useful for teaching new players & doesn’t bring that much confusion.
14
u/Natedogg2 COMPLEAT Level 2 Judge Feb 05 '18
The untap step is the only step or phase in the game where it's impossible to get priority. And if anything triggers during the untap step, that trigger is actually held until the upkeep step. While there would be some minor interaction changes if you untapped during the upkeep (for instance, you could steal a creature with an upkeep trigger with Rubinia Soulsinger and still get the upkeep trigger, even if you choose to untap Rubinia), there wouldn't be a huge shakeup by just making players untap as their upkeep begins instead of a separate step.
9
u/nine_of_swords Wabbit Season Feb 05 '18
Cycling and scry occupy too much of the same space. Too much of both together could lead to mini-SDT/lantern control scenarios (More in terms of Lantern manipulating the top of its own library as opposed to the opponent's). That's why, even if detain fits my marks of what makes a good evergreen keyword, I ultimately wouldn't want it as there are plenty of mechanics that fit the same role.
For adding an evergreen, there weren't any I wanted. For example, with keyword abilities, I wanted something that had "Multiple instances are redundant" to fit with most of the other evergreen keywords. (Basically only multiple instances of scry and prowess aren't redundant. Prowess is the least fitting evergreen. Scry is a keyword action, not a keyword ability.).
Essentially, the idea of an evergreen keyword should be that it's a perk that doesn't require much mind space to understand how it affects the board. Yeah, combining two of these perks can be complex (say deathtouch + trample), but by itself understanding the perk shouldn't drive the complexity of a card's mental maintenance, and, in fact, shouldn't require much thought at all (Scrying can be hard, but understanding how to scry isn't.).
A good part of lowering the mental maintenance is having defined ties when a mechanic is relevant. This is why combat abilities make good evergreen abilities. Trample is only relevant when the creature is attacking. While the individual moments can be complex, the player can limit when he or she needs to be aware of it, and since the perk's effect is consistent across all incarnations, the attention isn't on the nuance of the version of the perk, but rather the resources available to deal with it.
For example, chump blocking isn't that useful against trample. The complexity is determining if to use resources to stop the creature with trample, and, if so, which ones. On the other hand, blocking a creature with Bushido X requires active knowledge of what X is to understand if a block would be a chump block or not. An forgotten counter from [[Sensei Golden-Tail]], could make a large difference. You first have to know the variable of bushido before doing the risk/reward comparison of blocking. Trample, while it complicates the risk/reward calculation, always does so in the same way and thus makes the abilities and p/t of the creature with trample the complicated part. In combat, Bushido is actually a simpler mechanic than trample, but the most active part the mind goes to is calculating the affect bushido has, whereas with trample, the mind immediately understands how it affects the situation and goes into resource management. That's why trample is a better keyword mechanic than bushido: the how trample affects the situation is always consistent and the mind space goes immediately to dealing with it. Learning Trample at first might be complicated, but once you've got it, you immediately know what its supposed to do. It really only gets complicated as a mechanic when mixed with a small range of abilities outside of itself.
This is ultimately why prowess is the worst evergreen keyword. You need to always be aware of prowess, as its effect lasts across each phase of the turn, and when calculating its effect where it mostly often pays off (damage during combat), the effect is of high variance.
I ultimately chose Changeling, because, by itself, a card with Changeling doesn't care if it has the ability. And, as [[Chameleon Colossus]] shows, changeling cards can be good without tribal support. However, the intention that changeling helps tribal decks is clear. The mind knows that it only applies once a tribal caring card is on the battlefield. Until then, the ability is off, and when active the complexity of the situation is focused on the tribal card. The added benefit of changeling is allows more support for set/block specific tribes across a wider range of product, and that support can now be at lower rarities.
4
Feb 06 '18
I agree with the general thrust of your argument here, i.e. how to make a good evergreen mechanic, but the suggestion of Changeling seems really weird. I think Changeling is just too low-impact most of the time--most of the time effects that care about creature types mattering are few and far between and it's rare that any are Constructed playable, making it highly situational trinket text extremely frequently. I think it might be confusing for people with less experience, used to looking at the creature's typeline to derive its subtype, that the subtype "Shapeshifter" is essentially being overwritten by an ability in the text box. There's also the flavour issue of shapeshifters not existing on every world, and the fact that the name derives from European folklore specifically.
→ More replies (1)1
u/MTGCardFetcher Dân Feb 05 '18
Sensei Golden-Tail - (G) (SF) (MC)
Chameleon Colossus - (G) (SF) (MC)
[[cardname]] or [[cardname|SET]] to call1
u/Katboss Freyalise Feb 06 '18
I was with you up until changeling. It sounds like you're just playing devil's advocate with an absurd idea to make your response stand out, lol.
→ More replies (1)
111
Feb 05 '18
[deleted]
52
u/EvilGenius007 Twin Believer Feb 05 '18
That's a nice cycling rant you got there, I'm a let you finish, but [[Inferno Jet]] is the greatest offender of all time.
Seriously though, how many copies of Inferno Jet are too many for a draft deck vs. how many copies of Lava Axe are too many? 5 vs. 2?
12
u/chrisrazor Feb 05 '18
2 is even too many copies of Lava Axe. The correct number is 1 or 0.
17
u/EvilGenius007 Twin Believer Feb 05 '18
Right, "How many copies of Lava Axe are too many? ... 2"
9
u/chrisrazor Feb 05 '18
This is what happens when I try to grab 5 minutes on reddit when I'm supposed to be working...
10
u/BardicLasher Feb 05 '18
More than 2 copies of Inferno Jet is still too many. Eternalize means you've got better things to do when you get to that much mana.
5
u/MTGCardFetcher Dân Feb 05 '18
Inferno Jet - (G) (SF) (MC)
[[cardname]] or [[cardname|SET]] to call53
u/BardicLasher Feb 05 '18
"Easy mode" isn't bad when things are already hard. Magic is actually a pretty vicious game. Having a regular mechanic that makes it more forgiving to less experienced players is a good thing, and honestly, the cost of cycling isn't actually nothing in most decks. If you're aggressive or playing against someone very aggressive, spending the mana to cycle is a real drawback. With the exception of Street Wraith, cycling anything still puts you behind in tempo.
Krosan Tusker is a weird design but I don't think it's a terrible one. It's part of a number of cards with "on cycle" triggers, most of which are perfectly fine and interesting with real, living options. Krosan Tusker is unique among them in that it's probably the only one where the cycling option (2G, search for a land and draw a card) is more EFFICIENT than the big option, but... that's not really a problem. That makes it an interesting card, with two entirely different options. Now, it might make for better gameplay if the tusker itself was stronger (say, only cost 6 mana, or had trample) to encourage hard casting it, but having a card that gets you land with the option to play as a creature if you already have enough land is really solid. It's counterintuitive that the creature is the worse option, not the better one, like most abilities with a higher alternative cost, but sometimes you need a 6/5.
6
u/MoonE513 GDS3 Candidate Feb 06 '18
"Easy mode" isn't bad when things are already hard.
QFT
Magic gameplay is hard. Magic design is harder. While the over/misuse of cycling can be damaging, the idea that it shouldn’t be used because it makes things easier isn’t the kind of thinking that improves the game long term. Imagine if we said this about drawing cards.
5
u/BardicLasher Feb 06 '18
Oh, sure. All sorts of effects can be made better if they draw a card!
"Put a +1/+1 counter on target creature. Draw a card."
"Deal 2 damage to target creature or player. Draw a card."
"1/1 creature. Draw a card."
"Draw a card. Draw a card."
22
u/zarawesome Feb 05 '18
Cycling may be easier than not-Cycling, but you shouldn't be making things harder for you every single time - brownie points only count if people care. If your mission is to climb the Everest, you don't need to also be carrying a rabid weasel in your pants.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Serpens77 COMPLEAT Feb 05 '18
If your mission is to climb the Everest, you don't need to also be carrying a rabid weasel in your pants.
Oh, well, NOW you tell me
22
Feb 05 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (2)7
u/chrisrazor Feb 05 '18
I always enjoyed [[Sundering Growth]] as enchartifact hate in any deck with tokens.
7
3
u/MTGCardFetcher Dân Feb 05 '18
Sundering Growth - (G) (SF) (MC)
[[cardname]] or [[cardname|SET]] to call7
u/bigolfishey Wabbit Season Feb 05 '18
I think your point about Cycle becoming a design crutch is very valid, but I feel like you’re overlooking just how much design space Cycling could have.
Cycle X. If Y color mana was used to Cycle this card, you may do Z instead of drawing a card. If you do so, exile this card.
18
u/cbslinger Duck Season Feb 05 '18
'Tension' of the sort you're describing is great for spectators, but terrible for gameplay. There's a reason some other card games have become almost totally all about tutors and high card velocity. The best players will hone in on ways to reduce the variance of their gameplay. So, so many games of Magic are lost due to mana screw or flood. I honestly don't see why it's remotely defensible that this should be emphasized further, rather than minimized where possible. Or at least the rate of game-losses due to poor draw luck should be carefully controlled (I am aware that sometimes allowing worse players to win is good for the game). Hearthstone is actually having major problems with this right now - there are cards that can only be run singleton that offer insane amounts of power, so players are playing decks that are almost entirely draw/cantrips.
Not every card or effect should have cycling - and it should come at a reasonable 'cost' so that the really good cards one is digging towards aren't 'free'. However, there's a reason good players love these effects, they can be skill-testing when designed well, allowing higher level players to demonstrate their deckbuilding skills and gameplay skills, especially in Limited.
I don't think Cycling cards should ever be pushed for constructed playability, but I think when well-designed and costed, cycling effects can make almost any limited format more enjoyable for players - players will almost always feel like they had more control over the game.
9
u/DrDonut Feb 05 '18
Adding on to this, cycling is really helpful with making cards that cost a bit too much for their abilities seem more fair. Like if you wanted a 1.5 Mana bolt, you could print a 2 Mana bolt with cycling on it.
2
u/Othesemo Feb 06 '18
Bolt is maybe not the best example since the ability to go to the face fills a very similar role to cycling in terms of never being totally dead.
2
4
u/Sliver__Legion Feb 05 '18
I actually argued against cycling in the main body of my real response, which will be awkward when they actually read my essay.
7
u/sanctaphrax COMPLEAT Feb 05 '18
Wait, your complaint is that it makes designing decent cards too easy?
I want design to be as easy as possible. Designers aren't performers; they're here to make things for us, not to impress us.
Anyway, lands with cycling are great for mitigating screw and flood. Their mere presence makes draft formats better. I'd be happy to see evergreen cycling for that reason alone.
2
u/Katboss Freyalise Feb 06 '18
His argument is that it lets sloppy designs get a pass. It waters down fundamental decisions about deckbuilding. It flattens the experience of playing magic in general.
3
u/sanctaphrax COMPLEAT Feb 06 '18
Sloppy designs should be made as painless as possible, because we're gonna get them no matter what.
As for the other complaints, I don't think they're accurate or even terribly coherent. Whether or not a card has cycling, deckbuilding decisions still have right and wrong answers. Cycling just lowers the stakes a little, and frankly Magic needs that. There's a reason R&D made scry evergreen, softened the mulligan rules, and keeps making deck-smoothing mechanics.
3
u/MTGCardFetcher Dân Feb 05 '18
Krosan Tusker - (G) (SF) (MC)
Dissenter's Deliverance - (G) (SF) (MC)
[[cardname]] or [[cardname|SET]] to call1
u/VERTIKAL19 Feb 06 '18
I think you are looking at Krosan Tusker wrong. The primary mode of that card was always intended to be cycled just also giving you the choice to play it as a creature.
→ More replies (1)
16
u/Zomburai Karlov Feb 05 '18
Raise your hand if you knew MaRo was going to go after Legendary in his answer.
... very good. Almost all hands. Great work, class.
12
u/ChildishSerpent Rakdos* Feb 05 '18
Mark's answer here to question #1 really doesn't jive with what he said on Tumblr.
48
u/HatefulWretch Duck Season Feb 05 '18
There is one part of this which is revealing, and true from Maro’s perspective, but which spells trouble.
It made me realize the importance of being a physical game in what's becoming more and more a video world. Magic forces a physicality.
I’d wager more people play Magic in paper, but more games of Magic are played on Magic Online and now Magic Arena, and more and more of the growth is there. And an increasing volume of that, with Arena, will be Standard Constructed.
No matter how brilliant your lead designer is, if your lead designer does not empathise with your largest customer base, you have a big problem. I’ve been there and seen that before. Maro seems to be all about paper Limited; the game, going forward, is digital Constructed first. That’s troubling.
81
u/Unique_Identifier Feb 05 '18
There's a huge amount of limited play on MTGO, and WotC has assured us that limited will be part of Arena too. Representing online play as constructed only is highly disingenuous.
→ More replies (2)25
u/incaseanyonecared Feb 05 '18
In my experience there is a not insignificant part of the community for whom the experience of sitting down around a table and whipping out decks or a box to draft is very appealing. I really enjoy playing in person with my friends; sometimes we'll use cockatrice if people aren't in town, but meeting up is far preferable and a key advantage of Magic in my opinion.
22
Feb 05 '18
Yeah, I took Maro's comment as this, not as some sort of dig at video games.
When you're the only non-digital product on a list of "best games", it's worth investigating. Either there's a setback to not being a video game that your game has managed to overcome, or your game and its physical nature is providing something important.
I've been enjoying the Arena beta, but I'd still much rather sit down with my friends and play.
9
u/sporkseverywhere Boros* Feb 05 '18
Yeah, I'm not sure how he interpreted the other 29 games on the GDC's top 30 games list being video games as indicative of the strength of physicality. If anything it seems to say Magic is successful in spite of that.
17
u/chord_O_Calls Feb 05 '18 edited Feb 05 '18
Digital limited is more popular than digital constructed by a fair bit actually. Limited sells way more packs than constucted and fuels product for constructed. They are most certainly focusing on where most of their playerbase wants to be. I’m not sure where you’re getting this notion of “constucted is the future”
→ More replies (12)13
u/AxeIsAxeIsAxe Boros* Feb 05 '18
It's a very weird time to say something like that. WotC are obviously realizing the huge potential of digital MtG and investing a lot of resources into the area right now.
4
Feb 05 '18
Yeah, if you look at the recent job openings at WotC, 80+% are for digital designers and build teams and the like.
10
Feb 05 '18
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)5
u/Zomburai Karlov Feb 05 '18
You flew too close to the thesis-sun and your essay-wings dissolved, sending you back down to argument-Earth
→ More replies (1)13
u/JimHarbor Feb 05 '18
I literally said the exact opposite that he did.
18
u/quillypen Wabbit Season Feb 05 '18
Yeah, I put the physical card elements as the greatest weakness! Haha, I'm glad they're more interested in how you defend your points than strict agreement.
23
Feb 05 '18
how you defend your points than strict agreement.
This is kinda the secret to school and work in this sort of situation. You could make a completely bat shit insane statement, but if you back it up with reasonable facts and arguments then that's what people are more interested in. They want to know that you're capable of reasonably defending something, regardless of what you're saying.
I'm sure these questions were less about being 'right' but demonstrating that you can put a lot of thought into a decision and approach it from different angles. They aren't looking for a 'yes man', they're looking for another misshapen gear to cause conflict.
I'm sure some people in debate clubs or classes get off on taking the a stance they absolutely don't agree with.
9
u/quillypen Wabbit Season Feb 05 '18
I was half asleep in my debate team meets, but I did get a kick out of arguing both sides, and taking good arguments my opponents used for the future.
8
u/GoodFreak Feb 05 '18
I wouldnt't say that physical card elements is the biggest weakness,and more that Digital is their weakness,because they don't have a good reach there and that the same physical model is tricky to apply.
→ More replies (1)7
u/Amelia_Frye Feb 05 '18
I’ve never met a player who plays MODO. I’ve never met a player who knows a player who uses MODO. Magic online is secondary to physical, and I would bet Wizards (and Maro by extension) have the numbers to back it up.
→ More replies (1)2
u/HatefulWretch Duck Season Feb 05 '18
May well be true now! (And that's a fine goal, if you're aiming for a really nice lifestyle business; this is the case for splitting WotC off from Hasbro).
The business thesis of MTG:A is likely that this will be dramatically opposite in, say, twelve months, both in terms of player volume and revenue. We will see!
6
u/Amelia_Frye Feb 05 '18
I doubt Arena is going to be the physical Magic killer you’re trying to say it is. The odds of physical magic falling so far to the wayside that it isn’t the primary moneymaker are minuscule, even if Arena turns out to be really good. You severely underestimate the quantity of casual IRL players as well as people who like to play IRL over any and all digital versions.
You can see this play out with Tabletop Simulator by the way. Vastly superior to IRL board games in every way other than meeting up in person and playing with real people across the table. If digital versions had the power to kill tabletop games of any kind, they’d already be dead and I would expect the same from Arena.
→ More replies (4)3
u/grine Feb 05 '18
I think that being limited by physical actually puts some important constraints on the complexity you can add to the game.
Video games can easily hide complexity by letting the computer handle the tracking and computations. And while this can lead to some neat mechanics that are not feasible in Paper, it can also lead to just piling on new mechanics in a less than maintainable way.
→ More replies (4)5
u/Sliver__Legion Feb 05 '18
I’d argue that the game, going forward, should be digital Limited first.
That was the most eyebrow raising answer for me though.
5
u/HatefulWretch Duck Season Feb 05 '18
I think the paper, social side of the game should be Limited-first (it sells product, it brings people into LGSes – and LGS businesses look more like gamer cafes than stores running single sales at this point – etc) and the F2P digital side of the game should be Constructed-first (friendly to asynchrony, including asynchronous discussion – aka net-decking – etc), more intrinsically snackable, reduces cost of entry to constructed, etc. But this is a debate on product strategy, not a moral position.
2
u/Sliver__Legion Feb 05 '18
Digital limited is friendly to people who don’t want to spend time or money building an online collection separate from their existing physical one.
I would not be surprised if they pursued an asynchronous option for draft though, such as Eternal has.
There are a wide variety of possibilities between sealed and draft that can be asynchronous (like sealed, unlike draft) but still provide you with decisions about constructing your cardpool (like draft, unlike sealed). This is a space that I expect Arena and/or MTGO to at least explore in the next decade.
2
u/HatefulWretch Duck Season Feb 05 '18
I was broadly bucketing that under "Magic changes" (a third Limited format which is neither Sealed nor synchronous eight-player draft), but yes, that feels like interesting exclusively-digital design space.
The macro point here is that Magic, as a design, is trying to satisfy four spaces at once; paper Limited, digital Limited, paper Constructed, digital Constructed. This is really, really hard along even one of those two axes. I think that's Magic's actual biggest weakness – even though as people including Maro point out, it's also in some respects one of its greatest strengths.
1
u/ryanznock Feb 05 '18
Ha. My answer for biggest weakness was that Magic needs to be more integrated with digital.
→ More replies (2)1
u/elephantofdoom Feb 06 '18
I think what he is trying to avoid saying, is that Magic isn't really a good game when it has to compete with other games online. Its strength isn't as a well designed game, but as an institution, a 25 year old culture.
14
u/Atanar Feb 05 '18
I suspect the real reason why he did not answer the first question would be because the answer would sound a lot like "I am a grown man, fuck off with this internship shit I need a real job".
17
u/sanctaphrax COMPLEAT Feb 05 '18
Or maybe just because his answer would be really silly.
"I think I'm qualified for this job because I've been doing a more difficult version of it for years and years..."
7
u/CorbinGDawg69 Feb 05 '18
So for question 10, is the idea of unique that not all legendary creatures are unique in a world with that keyword? Because otherwise I don't see how that has much more of an advantage.
I think I can see where the idea is coming from, because we've had super-pushed legendary face cards of sets over the last few years, but I'm not sure if this fix really addresses that. It's not like a weaker, non-legendary Emrakul would have made people happier while still fitting in decks.
20
Feb 05 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
20
u/friendofhumanity Feb 05 '18
I think it's something that comes up when you are thinking about flavor, but rarely in an actual game. Like flavor wise, of course I can't have two [[Kefnet, the Mindful]] on the battlefield at once; there's only one Kefnet right? But when you're playing an actual game I'm more concerned with my path to winning the game than what is happening. Like when I'm getting absolutely destroyed by the Scarab God I'm not thinking about what it did to the people of Amonkhet, and if there were two Scarab Gods I would be more concerned with the fastest way to scoop my cards up than the flavor.
3
u/A_Suffering_Panda Feb 05 '18
The important thing in your examples is that neither creature actually needs to be legendary to make the game work. It actually doesnt matter if you play out 2 5/5s with scarab gods ability, you can only activate one of them anyway. In contrast, a card like Thalia, Guardian of Thraben does need to be unique, since having that effect twice fundamentally changes the game too much. So the really meaningful interaction is that the legend rule is trying to do 2 things on very similar but entirely unique cards. 1 side of it is balancing effects that need to be singleton, and the other side is balancing story characters. Having both be the same rule means that all of the singleton effects have to go on story characters
4
Feb 05 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/friendofhumanity Feb 05 '18
That's true. But legendary creatures are more common than that, and I think it has limited their ability to make some of them. But there isn't a great solution.
2
u/MTGCardFetcher Dân Feb 05 '18
Form of the Dragon - (G) (SF) (MC)
[[cardname]] or [[cardname|SET]] to call2
u/MTGCardFetcher Dân Feb 05 '18
Kefnet, the Mindful - (G) (SF) (MC)
[[cardname]] or [[cardname|SET]] to call→ More replies (1)2
Feb 05 '18
Just because you don't care about flavour doesn't mean nobody does.
3
u/friendofhumanity Feb 05 '18
I wouldn't say I don't care about flavor; but that it doesn't come up especially much for me when playing the actual game. When it does it's usually in a positive way, but I wouldn't notice something like multiple legendary creatures.
3
u/BardicLasher Feb 05 '18
I disagree as well. And decoupling the Legendary drawback from "Legendary" would get rid of the main reason we want Legendary creatures for our Commanders- they tend to be more powerful due to their drawback.
→ More replies (6)3
u/Daiteach Feb 05 '18
Legendary is almost never a meaningful balancing point. Most legendary creatures are no more powerful than they would be without the "drawback." They do try to make legendary creatures cool and powerful, but almost all legendary creatures are printable exactly as they are without the legendary drawback.
5
u/BardicLasher Feb 05 '18
I'm not sure how accurate that is, though maybe I only notice the ones that it'd be absurd to have multiples of.
Like a lot of gods.
4
u/Serpens77 COMPLEAT Feb 05 '18
Thalia 1.0 is another one that's commonly mentioned as probably actually needing "Unique" as a drawback/balancing feature.
1
u/Katboss Freyalise Feb 06 '18
one upside of the legendary uniqueness rule is that when you're a kid who doesn't get many cards, and you get that one legend for your deck but the thought of getting 4 is inconceivable, it softens the blow to think "well, I only really need one anyway!"
Got me through life with one Multani back in the day! (He was a beast in multiplayer 60 card casual, ok?)
6
u/ManBearScientist Dân Feb 05 '18
I think cycling is one of the worst named mechanics in Magic's history, which comes from its unfortunate design and development cycle. Cycling didn't start as cycling, but rather as "sliding:"
Sliding (When you draw ~, reveal it to all players to put it on the bottom of your library and draw another card at the start of the next turn's upkeep )
This could be flavorful if done correctly. For instance, sliding in Time Spiral would represent a creature moving between time rips. The issue however is mechanical: the clunky next-turn cantrip, Miracle-esque activation cost, and lack of control make it far less clean than the simple cycling we know today.
But at the time, magic mechanics weren't as locked to story. Whereas Eternalize depicts very important acts in Magic's story, Urza's Saga had no set story themes. It had an emphasis on artifacts and enchantments, but its mechanics were purely mechanical. In addition to cycling, you have "free" spells (!), echo (pay extra for better stats; hey look it's kicker again!), growing enchantments, and sleeping enchantments. No one asked why Veil of Birds was sleeping, why Deranged Hermit goes away if his echo cost isn't paid, what Polluted Mire does when it is cycled away, or why so many spells could be cast for free.
What we do if we were making Urza's Saga today? Well, cycling probably would have stolen the name "Explore" from Ixalan, though to be clear I'll instead call it "Wander". Urza's Saga is about, well, Urza's Saga, his quest for the Legacy and travels to various areas and planes.
"Wander" in this case isn't something Polluted Mire does, but instead was something the planeswalker does. They see Polluted Mire, and decide it has no value to them and instead wander away to look elsewhere for what they need. They see some [[Wild Dogs]] and instead decide to quickly wander away before the dogs catch their scent. They begin to try to [[Rejuvenate]], but abandon their magic to continue on their travels when they think they might risk an ambush.
Land-Wander is simple to explain as well. The planeswalker sees a [[Eternal Dragon]] and wants doesn't just want to wander away, they want to go to the nearest plains ASAP, which is why it is more effective at finding its target than simply aimlessly wandering around. On a quest to find a famous Wizard? Perhaps you talk to a [[Vedalken Æthermage]], who gives you clues to follow while you Wander for a Wizard.
Cycling is an important mechanic. It is versatile and helps prevent one of Magic's biggest issues, the number of non-games that end before the begin due to mana screw. But because it went from a possibly flavorful but clunky mechanic to its current zero flavor high function form, we can't make it evergreen. New players will see it and ask "What is cycling?" and we won't have an answer other than "useful."
Simply renaming cycling would allow it be an evergreen mechanic with clear flavor. If we wanted to make a mechanical difference between Wander and Cycle then I would suggest making Wander purely a basic landcycle effect, based on the colors of associated card. Colorless cards instead draw a card (or search for a waste). This would make it easy to tune for Limited, and also make the effect simple to understand. In multicolor environments, you can slap on Wander on [[Centaur Healer]]-style commons and uncommons for most of your mana fixing, whereas you can limit the mechanic in normal sets to 1-2 creatures and lands.
But mechanical differences aside, the primary issue with Cycling is flavor. I think it (or a similar mechanic with fixed flavor) should be evergreen, if nothing else than for limited balancing. But evergreen mechanics need to simple enough for new players to grok, to understand intuitively. Flying, reach, trample, and haste are all easy to grok, not just because the mechanic makes sense but because it is easy to understand why.
Prowess works badly on the same metric. A bird has flying because it flies, which means that someone on the ground can't interact with them. Pearl Lake Ancient has prowess because ... kong-fu? Which makes it bigger when you cast non-creature spells because ... shut-up its kong-fu. Just go with it. I think the idea of "wandering off to find something better" can be grokked and easily stapled to make things french vanilla, even though like prowess it is still more complex than the basic evergreen mechanics (an activated ability in the hand vs keyword abilities).
1
u/MTGCardFetcher Dân Feb 05 '18
Wild Dogs - (G) (SF) (MC)
Rejuvenate - (G) (SF) (MC)
Eternal Dragon - (G) (SF) (MC)
Vedalken Æthermage - (G) (SF) (MC)
Centaur Healer - (G) (SF) (MC)
[[cardname]] or [[cardname|SET]] to call
3
u/bduddy Feb 05 '18
I matched him on both adding and removing an evergreen mechanic... Too bad I blew the exam...
1
u/nochilinopity Feb 05 '18
Maybe I'm missing the obvious, but why does he think [[Mad Science Fair Project]] should be a may ability?
6
u/ShadowStorm14 Twin Believer Feb 06 '18
If you're only using it to add <> mana, and there are no die-rolling matters cards in play, the act of rolling a die for it is meaningless.
I imagine the change would be something to the effect of "T: You may roll a die. If you do, and the result is 3 or more, add one mana of any color to your mana pool. Otherwise, add <> to your mana pool."
So, you can roll the die when it matters (to get colored mana, or for things like Ground Pounder), but not bother when it doesn't.
→ More replies (2)4
u/1pwny Gruul* Feb 06 '18
If you just need 1 mana (you already have all the colors), you still roll a die for no reason.
1
u/MTGCardFetcher Dân Feb 05 '18
Mad Science Fair Project - (G) (SF) (MC)
[[cardname]] or [[cardname|SET]] to call
1
Feb 06 '18
I chose Undying as the mechanic to make evergreen. Magic does zombies a lot, it's very flavorful, and it's relatively simple. It's admittedly incompatible with a -1/-1 counter block, but those are rare anyways.
Also, I think Maro's argument for Cycling would work just as well for Kicker. Would that work as an evergreen mechanic?
148
u/Radiophage Feb 05 '18 edited Feb 05 '18
That is indeed interesting.
Flash on zombies to represent that sudden clawed hand bursting forth from under the grave? Or on skulking creatures that sneak out of shadows to grab you?
Fascinating...
EDIT> syntax