R&D is in the business of making new cards. Which I love and fully support. I like when they make NEW cards. I even like a good reprint every now and then. I may sound like a bit of a miser, but I don't like that they make so many 'new' cards every year that are really just for the sake of doing it (to make a whole bunch of fast money). Every set has new keyword mechanics, most of which are too niche to have a real impact on constructed, e.g. Sweep, Kinship, or Fateful Hour. These mechanics don't have much resonance and suffer from the all-too-common problem of poor conveyance. These mechanics just end up being forgotten. They aren't useful for competitive play and aren't appealing to casual players. No one has ever come up to me and asked if I wanted to battle their Sweep deck. Never happens. I want an R&D department that takes more time to get things right, instead of just using a 'shotgun' approach; throwing out mechanics all willy-nilly.
Something else that really gets my goose is when they make the same mechanic over and over, but they give it a new (usually worse) coat of paint each time. Kicker is the poster child for this. There are like a hundred versions of Kicker. Some are more obvious than others, but the 'extra price, extra effect' mechanic is very prevalent, and not just in Magic either, it's all over the place. Toppings on ice cream, luxury cars, combo meals. People love options, and optimization problems, but mostly options. So all kicker really is, is a modal choice. In fact, people often replace the names of other lame mechanics by just saying they will 'kick it' instead. I have even gotten into the habit of replacing Unleash with Kick. Let's look at the latest iteration of Kicker on a new Gatecrash card.
Extort basically gives your other spells Kicker. Much like Equilibrium or Mentor of the Meek. Except Extort is not a powerful evocative name. It is the kind of name that I will just automatically be dropping in favor of 'kicking'. The flavor also doesn't make a whole of sense to me. Extort is trying to equate the trading of life in game to the trading of money in the 'story' (for lack of a better word). R&D is sending a confusing message about the role of the player, flavor-wise. Now it seems like we are a corporation or a bank account; just a big stack of money getting moved around. Secondly, extortion is not exactly a two way exchange. One party, in a position of dominating power, makes demands of the weaker party, backed up by the threat of punishment. The Extort mechanic involves a trade. I pay mana and I get your life. This, again, sounds like a business deal, but is also a pretty fair deal. Extorting someone should not feel like a customer-vendor relationship. Final note: I like this card. Seems like a fine, limited quality rare, with potential for use as a card advantage engine in specific decks. Kinda weak. Fun. Sure.
Mark Rosewater said in an interview, that each guild would be getting a new keyword mechanic, which I hated automatically, but I would be excited if it meant 10 GOOD NEW mechanics. This is poor execution of an old mechanic. This is not something I want. Also this card is horribly weak. Really, really pathetic.
I once heard Aaron Forsythe talk about design in a presentation he called, "Between the Ravnicas". In said speech he talks about why Haunt was such a poor mechanic. It had flavor, but lacked resonance. People just didn't latch on to it. It was a bit confusing; it has exiled cards interacting with cards in play, it always does something different, it doesn't leave any visible, in-game, marker of the Haunt trigger, so it is easily missed, and the rules don't specifically address what happens to the exiled card after it does its thing. It just stays out there in no man's land. I find it really strange that Forsythe, as head of R&D, would approve the printing of a mechanic which is almost EXACTLY THE SAME AS HAUNT (which was actually just Imprint in disguise anyway).
Cipher has all of those same problems, which are even worse now because of the new trigger rules. This card generates a ton of triggers, but doesn't give you a convenient way to acknowledge or address them. It also has one of the same problems that Sweep, Kinship, and Fateful Hour have. Why make a keyword if you are just always going to explain what that word means?
This art really throws me as well. I get it, the ghost is whispering mad thoughts in his ear. Why the extreme angle perspective? Why the visual curvature? It looks like I am inside a snow-globe and he is examining me.
Next let's talk name. Cipher is most often used as a noun, but this is the much rarer verb form of the word. Are we going to say, "Cipher this guy?" And why does the reminder text reference 'encoding' a card? Encode isn't a rule, or a game action; not yet at least. This reminds me of Obsidian Fireheart. Lastly, why isn't this just called Encode instead? (Is that even any better?)
Flying makes sense. One creature flies over another so they don't interact the same way in combat. Pretty intuitive. It is actually LESS effective when they spell it all out for you, like on Orchard Spirit. Cipher is the opposite of making sense. The mechanic is so complex that you will ALWAYS need reminder text. Giving it a short name is useless if you need the long-form explanation of what it does.
The idea behind making up new words usually falls along two lines. Something new is created, so we need a new term to define it. The other route is to refine previous words to shorten them, make them more powerful or easier to identify. Reach is great, Shroud is great. They shorten long blocks of rules text. In short: More refinements and improvements. Less weird, off the wall new key words that don't make sense and are only usable for one block.
Well, I've had just about enough of my own complaining for today, but I will be back soon with a follow-up piece on some of my favorite card designs, mechanics, and what can be done to improve the way mechanics are created. Super Secret Sunday will be back to the regular grind next week.
Your go kid.
No comments:
Post a Comment