Sets [DTK] Dragons of Tarkir Spoilers Thread

[Coke No Ice]

Megamorph doesn't bother me so much in the abstract, or even as a follow-up to morph, especially since they went out of their way on a few cards to make it seem like they had 3 'sides' instead of just 2. But wow did they ever pick a terrible name for it. It probably didn't even need a name; and naming a 'mechanic' like megamorph gives off the impression that it came at the cost of something else potentially less... mundane.

But what really gets my goat is how it came after manifest, which seemed actually like the 'evolution' of morph they were looking for. It's super neat and has a lot of interesting play to it that I don't think they dug deep enough in to.

Lately I read Sam Stoddard's articles on the mothership on friday and get angry (well, ok, not 'lately', more like 'inevitably') because he'll talk about some card like Knowledge and Power and write something ignorant like "we made this card terrible so that we don't use up future design space" or, as I read it, "we made this card terrible so we could make another card in the future not terrible" with the implication that "another card" means just a better version of Knowledge and Power and not some other interesting interaction.

So when they up and don't finish what they start with manifest or converge and instead transition into megamorph or wingding mana then I end up feeling cheated somehow.

 

[Chris Taylor]

I mean sure they could come up with a mechanic that was entwine word for word but it worked on 3 choice cards like charms, but I don't think anyone would care. I think people had a similar reaction to multikicker: this is barely a mechanic.

 

[Aston]

Just make kicker evergreen and make all the mechanics that are kicker just into kicker.

 

[Laz]

Just make kicker evergreen and make all the mechanics that are kicker just into kicker.

I prefer the 'no need to keyword everything' approach.

 

[Chris Taylor]

I prefer the 'no need to keyword everything' approach.

Just make kicker evergreen and make all the mechanics that are kicker just into kicker.

You two agree more than you might think

Also the sheer amount of keywords replaced by kicker is so large that it'd actually give the impression nothing new was being done. I'd argue entwine is actually new design space, even though it can use the same templating, but I seriously doubt players at large feel the same way

 

[japahn]

I've heard this for a while, but didn't find any actual list. I think these are clearly kicker variants, though:

• Buyback (return to hand if kicked, kicker is the buyback cost)
• Replicate (multikicker - copy the spell for each time it's kicked, kicker is the spell's cost)
• Evoke - when it has a cip ability (keep the creature if kicked, kicker is the mana cost - evoke cost)
• Conspire (copy the spell if kicked, kicker is tapping creatures)
• Devour (cip with counters if kicked, kicker is sacrificing creatures)
• Overload (replace target with all if kicked, kicker is overload cost - mana cost)
• Extort (gives kicker to your spells, drain 1 if kicked)
• Exploit (kicker is sacrifice a creature)

Edit: how could I forget?

• Awaken (animate land if kicked, kicker is awaken cost - mana cost)

 

[sigh]

I'd agree that a lot of abilities could be templated as kicker, but almost zero of them would maintain their flavor, or be as clean as they are with their own keywords. Also a lot of functionality is different when you actually use kicker. Devour is an "as etb" ability, kicker is on cast so your sacrifices become much more risky. Also, "kicker" gives no flavor indication that something is literally being eaten. Exploit is the same way but you can sacrifice the creature with exploit, so it functionally doesn't work the same. Evoke being kicker would change the CMC of the creature, which matters in all sorts of ways. Shriekmaw and Mulldrifter could be Abrupt Decayed, for instance. Reveillark has a Evoke cost greater than the normal cost, so the kicker would have to be negative 1 mana. Replicate puts separate copies on the stack, I think multikicker would have to have rules changes to allow for kicked spells putting copies of itself directly on the stack without the whole spell being counterable. Usually kicker only affects spells/creatures/etc. on resolution. Conspire has kinda the same problem. Giving extort-kicker to each spell you control would put the complexity of things with extort way up, probably making it too complex for common, also the word salad needed = no flavor imo.

I think Wizards has known for a while that the real problem is Kicker, not all the flavorful, unique, mechanics that have been developed since. It was a mistake of design space when they made it, and they are effectively retconning out of the space it hogged up. If anything, all of these mechanics showcase how much space really was hogged up.

 

[Laz]

I am of the opinion that flavour doesn't have to be explicitly spelled out. I find that game mechanics can reflect flavour really well without the need for evocative language. You mention devour loses the flavour implications without the keyword, but does that hold true for cards like Gobbling Ooze or Maw of the Obzedat? Exploit clearly reflects Blood Magic, and there is plenty of room in the art/flavour text to create that thematic link.

I don't like the keyword kicker, but I also don't like the use of keywords for a mechanic which is rarely used, and could easily be spelled out on the card, only for flavour reasons. Bolster and Ferocious for instance are always explicitly spelled out on the card, and don't really add anything. One can make the 'Oh, so you put counters on the smallest creatures you control... I get it, these guys care about bringing everyone up' link without the keyword, and I don't know if Bolster really captures that, or adds anything to that. Ferocious is different on every card, but is hardly required to create a 'These guys are inspired by fighting alongside big monsters'-vibe. The text does that.

 

[sigh]

You don't have to like mechanic words, and that's totally fine. And my argument doesn't actually care either way because I'm talking about relative flavor. I'm comparing the mechanic words to the Kicker word. What's the flavor of kicker? Is that telling the large number of people that do use language to provide emotional links that Jund's monsters are eating things to gain strength? What I'm saying is, it'd be hard to just use the kicker mechanic in place of every kicker-like mechanic because you'd lose flavor relative to the context of the mechanic used. This is regardless of how much mechanic names are agreed with or not.

All of this because I was positing that the mechanic Kicker is the real mistake (Also that the mechanic kicker isn't even as useful as it might seem at first). Having distinct mechanical spaces is healthy for a constantly expanding game over one space that is used over and over. In my opinion.

 

[Onderzeeboot]

I don't like the keyword kicker, but I also don't like the use of keywords for a mechanic which is rarely used, and could easily be spelled out on the card, only for flavour reasons. Bolster and Ferocious for instance are always explicitly spelled out on the card, and don't really add anything. One can make the 'Oh, so you put counters on the smallest creatures you control... I get it, these guys care about bringing everyone up' link without the keyword, and I don't know if Bolster really captures that, or adds anything to that. Ferocious is different on every card, but is hardly required to create a 'These guys are inspired by fighting alongside big monsters'-vibe. The text does that.

I heavily disagree here. Keywording abilities like Bolster and Ferocious saves a lot of "mind space". It provides a very handy way for your brain to shortcut to the correct interpretation of a card. Without a keyword, you'ld have to read the card entirely before you know what it does, but with the keyword, once you've read one, you know (at least in general terms) what the rest of its ilk does slash cares about. This is especially important in limited environments like prereleases and drafts. Even in other formats keywording helps, because "that druid that taps for Bant colors and has exalted" takes up less mind space than "that druid that taps for , or and gives +1/+1 to a creature whenever that creature attacks alone". It's simply easier to remember what a card does when its keyworded. In short, keywords might seem superfluous if you're always going to spell out what they do anyway, but even those keywords really, really help making cards more grokkable.

 

[Chris Taylor]

There's good ones and bad ones. I think a lot of the flavor keywords gain a lot from having the context of the set around them, so exalted works really well with the flavor from bant, but transfigure (with it's single card ever) is meaningless (and was mostly intended that way, if I'm reading future sight right).
Like we all laugh at steamflogger boss, but my favorite interpretation is that he's intended to sound as weird, meaningless, and plausible to us as actual magic linguistics do to most people.
Where we lose a lot are in the keywords which ONLY exist to tie cards together. Landfall for example, doesn't actually mean anything. All the rules are actually spelled out on the card, so putting landfall on something only takes up space rather than saving any; it's like the mirran watermark, except it boosts your wordcount. If it had "whenever a land enters the battlefield under your control", then we open up the option of wordier landfall cards at rare (for eg) where they can omit the reminder text, but for some reason they decided not to.

 

[sigh]

Exactly what Onder said! Can't agree more with him. Even landfall. It takes up an important space, giving the linguistic and mental link between lands etb to do thinks, the zendikari forces, etc. Keywords aren't for saving space on cards specifically, but that is one important role they play. For Landfall, it saves mental space and makes discussion easier.

We are a language-based species. We assign labels to things. I can call my utensils Spoon, Fork, and Knife, instead of having to fully qualify them with their purpose. Keywords are immensely important to the game, because they are immensely important to us as a species. We use keywords all the time in everyday language. "Microwave" is a good example of a real life keyword. It's even a mechanic, effectively. I can "microwave" my food, and that means a specific thing! Basically, if wizards didn't use as many Mechanic Words as they do, they'd be fighting against the linguistic nature of our species. Forcing us to read through cards, try to generate our own shortcut words. Imagine Evolve just as it's rules text every time? I can't immediately grasp the ability in one word because the first whole clause is too generic. Now I have to read around 10 to 13 words before I can safely know this card indeed has the +1/+1 mechanic I thought it was (no name to apply ).

 

[psly4mne]

I agree that ability words* are fine in general, but sometimes they are just wasted space. I don't think having the word tie together the cards with Ferocious or Constellation really accomplished anything, because they are such basic abilities. Ferocious was very clearly just there to fill a quota for named mechanics. The same ability had been used in Alara (but with the number 5 instead of 4) and they did not feel a need to name it then.

*Italicized words like Ferocious and Landfall are ability words, as opposed to keywords which have definitions.

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

Exactly what Onder said! Can't agree more with him. Even landfall. It takes up an important space, giving the linguistic and mental link between lands etb to do thinks, the zendikari forces, etc. Keywords aren't for saving space on cards specifically, but that is one important role they play. For Landfall, it saves mental space and makes discussion easier.

We are a language-based species. We assign labels to things. I can call my utensils Spoon, Fork, and Knife, instead of having to fully qualify them with their purpose. Keywords are immensely important to the game, because they are immensely important to us as a species. We use keywords all the time in everyday language. "Microwave" is a good example of a real life keyword. It's even a mechanic, effectively. I can "microwave" my food, and that means a specific thing! Basically, if wizards didn't use as many Mechanic Words as they do, they'd be fighting against the linguistic nature of our species. Forcing us to read through cards, try to generate our own shortcut words. Imagine Evolve just as it's rules text every time? I can't immediately grasp the ability in one word because the first whole clause is too generic. Now I have to read around 10 to 13 words before I can safely know this card indeed has the +1/+1 mechanic I thought it was (no name to apply ).

I'm not sure if pointing out the function of nouns and verbs in language really addresses laz's argument. As a lawyer I can attest that there is a point where classification and semantics becomes distracting, or overwhelming.

Keywords are meant to teach and facilitate instant recognition so as to smooth out gameplay. In an instance like Laz is describing, where the mechanic only exists in a format in an extremely limited sense (or is strongly tied to the natural functions of the game), you're teaching a lesson that doesn't have to be taught, and its a spot where plain language would actually be clearer, rather than carving out a glossary term to memorize that has little or no utility.

 

[sigh]

I'm not sure if pointing out the function of nouns and verbs in language really addresses laz's argument. As a lawyer I can attest that there is a point where classification and semantics becomes distracting, or overwhelming.

His argument seems to be:
1) I personally don't think flavor needs to be spelled out explicitly. And gives examples of creatures with "devour flavor" that don't use Devour. Also posits that Exploit can be flavored with art and name.
2) Some keywords can be spelled out. Here's two examples of keywords that don't resonate with me personally and can just be rules text.

Mine:
1) Your stance is cool. You may have your stance. My original post doesn't differentiate because the argument holds whether I use the keywords, or consider simply replacing the blocks of text they represent.
2) One mechanical space is less healthy than unique spaces devoted to specific situations (actually just rehashing post 582, my originating)

Chris:
"Transfigure is meaningless", "landfall for example, doesn't actually mean anything" was the inspiration for my post 587, not Laz. The position that keywords don't mean anything if they provide no mechanical function, and the space saving will allow for more complex cards.

Me, again:
1) Keywords are important, look at what Onder said! Also they do more than specifically saving space.
2) Words, and words with secondarily given meanings (Microwave -> "Microwave") are important, therefore keywords are important even outside of mechanics. They provide the human brain the linguistic link it wanted to tie the meaning and the operation together.

So no, my post doesn't get at Laz's post well, because I wasn't addressing points brought up in that post. I guess I should have quoted a little better to make that clear.

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

Ah, that makes more sense. I had attributed your aggreement with onder to his rejection of laz, which of course dosen't necessarily follow.

 

[Chris Taylor]

I guess what I'm trying to say is I wish ability words were keyworded where possible

 

[sigh]

I guess what I'm trying to say is I wish ability words were keyworded where possible

That makes more sense said that way.

So: Landfall - Gain 2 life (reminder text wheee)