It may be that the invitational card in its original form was simply too good at what it did. Despite what many people seem to think, a great deal of work goes into balancing cards, and it's not always immediately obvious which cards are overpowered. (Want evidence of this? Scroll down in the "New Card Discussion" forum. People are generally sort of okay at pointing cards, but are quick to label things as broken, and often overlook extremely powerful cards. Jitte got pretty meh reviews until the prerelease, but Blazing Shoal was going to rip the game in half.) Pros obviously want the card depicting them to be powerful, so logically they push the envelope with thier submissions. Development obviously has a responsibility to do thier best to not break the game - something that's not as easy as I think most people assume, and something that they've more or less done successfully up to now - so it might sometimes be necessary to rein in the power of a submitted card a hair.
It may be that the invitational card in its original form was simply too good at what it did. Despite what many people seem to think, a great deal of work goes into balancing cards, and it's not always immediately obvious which cards are overpowered. (Want evidence of this? Scroll down in the "New Card Discussion" forum. People are generally sort of okay at pointing cards, but are quick to label things as broken, and often overlook extremely powerful cards. Jitte got pretty meh reviews until the prerelease, but Blazing Shoal was going to rip the game in half.) Pros obviously want the card depicting them to be powerful, so logically they push the envelope with thier submissions. Development obviously has a responsibility to do thier best to not break the game - something that's not as easy as I think most people assume, and something that they've more or less done successfully up to now - so it might sometimes be necessary to rein in the power of a submitted card a hair.
Soh's invitational card is very much nerfed though, as you must agree, and it's going to be harder just to throw in black control decks now. I'd hardly call it "by a hair," because I consider it significantly worse, mainly only because it's mana requirement is very strict now.
However, it may still see a lot of play, because it still is good, and the redness of it is only it that it helps the RB mechanic.
But SOMEONE at R+D ruined it by making it an activated ability.
...
As opposed to what? By its very nature Channel is an activated ability. (The only alternative, an alternate casting cost with an alternate effect, is wildly more complex for absolutely no benefit and would be stupid.)
But now I'll never see channel decks, since it's an ability word... and not something you can build around. Compare Channel to Cycling, and realize Channel should have been keyworded (Discard this, pay [channel cost]: Get effect. Use at instant speed).
Uh.... they can still do all of that. I think channel is sitting in the same file as Scry in terms of "mechanics we absolutely will see expanded" and the fact that it's an ability word is what means they could print cards that refer to it by name. "The activation costs of Channel abilities are reduced by :1mana:" (or whatever) is a totally legitimate piece of rules text.
Hellbent should have been KEYWORDED, and recklessness would have been far more pc.
I, uh, don't think you really understand what an ability word is, and I'm personally glad that Wizards isn't worried about who demons and hellfire might offend.
I'm wondering if it can be listed in the Jitte-like choice format without the word "chooses"...maybe not.
We still have the Hydra to speculate on...the mana cost is unknown, but this is the rest of it (courtesy of Avto):
?? Phytohydra
(Monogreen cost unknown)
Creature -- Hydra ??
Whenever ~ would be dealt damage, put a copy of ~ into play instead.
0/2
EDIT: Also, Avto, if you happen to remember: was the art of Momir Vig the original or the one where he's holding up one arm? That would put a lot of nervous people at rest...such badly rendered art.
the fact that it's an ability word is what means they could print cards that refer to it by name. "The activation costs of Channel abilities are reduced by :1mana:" (or whatever) is a totally legitimate piece of rules text.
Umm, so is referencing cycling. See Fluctuator and a bunch of others. I don't see your point. Not to mention I really DON'T think they can do what you say, as it's not a "channel" ability. Channel has nothing to do with the ability. They could remove channel and the ability would still work just fine. They couldn't remove cycling. Channel is just a handy way to say "oh, you mean that discarding thing," nothing more.
What we're doing here is akin to taking the text of Moby Dick, locating specific words therein, rearranging them to create a passage from Fight Club, and concluding from this evidence that Tyler Durden is based on Ahab.
Umm, so is referencing cycling. See Fluctuator and a bunch of others. I don't see your point. Not to mention I really DON'T think they can do what you say, as it's not a "channel" ability. Channel has nothing to do with the ability. They could remove channel and the ability would still work just fine. They couldn't remove cycling. Channel is just a handy way to say "oh, you mean that discarding thing," nothing more.
Er, my point was, you can refer to all the abilities from that set where creatures can be discarded for a spell-like effect with a single name, out of or in the game. They're all "Channel," an official, rules-text name for them. I do understand the difference between a keyword and an ability word, I'm just pointing out that the only point to which it's relevant is "does this word have extra rules not printed on the card?" In all other cases you can treat a keyword and an ability word the same way.
So, yeah, of course they can do what I said. It's completely clear, right? What could "Channel abilities" possibly refer to other than "abilities that are connected to the ability word Channel"? It'd be completely unambiguous. If they decide to do more with Channel (which I think they will -- it's a cool ability and it has tons of room for expansion) they can easily do the exact same kind of tricks they could with Cycling.
Besides your disagreement about rules text referring to Channel (which it absolutely can) what exactly do you disagree with me about?
Er, my point was, you can refer to all the abilities from that set where creatures can be discarded for a spell-like effect with a single name, out of or in the game. They're all "Channel," an official, rules-text name for them. I do understand the difference between a keyword and an ability word, I'm just pointing out that the only point to which it's relevant is "does this word have extra rules not printed on the card?" In all other cases you can treat a keyword and an ability word the same way.
You DON'T understand the difference between ability words and keywords. Keywords are really on the cards, ability words... are flavor text. Refering to a card with channel is equivilent to refering to cards with William Shakepseare in their flavortext.
Ability words are flavor text. Thus, they cannot be refered to. Poor design. Period.
You DON'T understand the difference between ability words and keywords. Keywords are really on the cards, ability words... are flavor text. Refering to a card with channel is equivilent to refering to cards with William Shakepseare in their flavortext.
Ability words are flavor text. Thus, they cannot be refered to. Poor design. Period.
Thank you, at least someone else understands. It's simply a way of refering to the ability, not the actual name of a mechanic. Like gating - that's what it was referred to as, but it didn't actually say that. Wizards could put it as an ability word if they printed more cards with the 'bounce something when this CIP' ability. Just because we refer to it as such doesn't mean Magic cards can.
Quote from Azerbaijan »
If only there were some way Wizards could change the rules in the future to let abilities reference ability words! The game would be saved!
And your point is...? As it stands, the rules say no. Wizards can change whatever they want in the future, so that's not relevant.
What we're doing here is akin to taking the text of Moby Dick, locating specific words therein, rearranging them to create a passage from Fight Club, and concluding from this evidence that Tyler Durden is based on Ahab.
I for one will say I was wrong, although I've still not seen the cards I'm most skeptical about.
Quote from Belgareth »
Oh dear god , if Research/development is true ........ it's SOOOO broken on a scepter
That must cost 3 it simply must or wotc have taken leave of their senses.
My guess is that it's actually a sorcery.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Always accepting ideas for a new title! PM me with your ideas.
If only there were some way Wizards could change the rules in the future to let abilities reference ability words! The game would be saved!
As if the rules weren't long enough as it is. Keywords take up rules text to save space on card text, period. Not only their cards, but also other cards (Giant Spider for example).
I am in favor of massive keywording; we know what Fear, Vigilance, and Doublestrike do. We probably know what Web does, or will within a few months.
The fact of the matter is any given KEYWORD out there is worthy of further development, even Convoke... for example:
New Convoke Goods W3
Instant
Convoke
Untap all creatures you control. Creatures you control get +1,+2 and Vigilance until end of turn.
Devil's Convoke BB6
Sorcery
Convoke
Destroy all tapped creatures.
Purty Flames RRX
Sorcery
Convoke
Deal X damage to each creature and each player.
Notice how the fact that the keyword DOES something allows you to poke fun at it. Now, imagine cards like this:
Combo Green Machine GG4
Creature - Elemental Mutant Lord Frog
Convoke, Trample
Creature spells you play have Convoke.
3/3
Covoke Lover G2
Human Druid
Whenever [card name] is tapped to pay a convoke cost, put a +1,+1 counter on card name.
2/2
Covoke Lord GG2
Human Druid Lord
Convoke
Other creatures you control with Convoke get +1,+1.
Spells you control with Convoke cost 1 less to play.
2/2
Andy The Convoke Hater RR1
Legendary - Human Shamman Berserker Rogue
Haste, Provoke, First Strike
[card name] cannot be blocked by creatures with convoke.
3/1
You won't see that with Hellbent or Channel unless Wizards errattas a lot of old cards. Same thing with Threshold: # (way to go on replicate late-design guys), if threshold were replaced with Threshold - 7, we could get cards like this:
Hating Player R
Human Berserker
Haste
Threshold 1: -1,-1 and [this] is white.
2/2
I'm in favor of massive keywords; it makes a better game, makes better cards, and in general saves space on cards... meaning they can do more, easier, and better.
I don't really know what to say to you guys. If it's honestly your opinion that a card that referred to an ability word by name is illegal under the rules and would be disallowed by the rules team from being printed then you are, like, really amazingly wrong.
Like, what the heck?
Quote from NecroBlade »
Just because we refer to it as such doesn't mean Magic cards can.
It has a name that's printed on the card. Magic cards can refer to any quality other cards have. Cards refer to new qualities that have never been referred to before all the time. At very worst, they need to use wording like "Abilities following the ability word 'Channel.'" More realistically, they can just refer to the ability word by name because it's part of the card's rules text. It is in the Oracle text. I really can't understand why you think this is magically, inescapably against the rules when certainly no one official has said so explicitly.
Exactly, charlequin. Design of Magic cards is constrained by rules, sure, but not by arbitrary rules. Look at the ability words that were printed so far:
Gotcha - Unhinged
Channel - Saviors of Kamigawa
Sweep - Saviors of Kamigawa
Radiance - Ravnica (and only Ravnica)
Hellbent - Dissenssion
In all cases, an ability word was used only in a SINGLE set and wasn't even developed that much for lack of space. Lack of cards referencing an ability word might be caused more by that than by some immutable design rule.
My prediction is that a card referencing an ability word will appear once there will be both space and sense for it.
going back to the art of momir vig... they had the bad one in the dissension preview... but the minisite still has the good one... i personally hope for the good one... it gives him a darker look... i think more appropriate for dissension
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-This signature intentionally left blank to increase general intrigue and mystery-
Where? Between the shiny Azorius, the happy tree friend Simic or the Firemen Rakdos..?
Um... What?
Dissension's setting is one of, uh, Dissension. The Simic are plotting something. The Rakdos are destroying something. And the Azorius are trying to keep it all together.
The more sinister Momir looks, the better.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I am so stupid that I cannot understand philosophy; the antithesis of this is that philosophy is so clever that it cannot comprehend my stupidity. These antitheses are mediated in a higher unity; in our common stupidity."
~ Søren Aabye Kierkegaard
Guys, whether it is Channel or First Strike or Cycling, it doesn't really matter.
Astral Slide was a deck. You will never see a Channel-deck of the same type because, as WOTC has said time and again (try reading their webpage, as well as the rules text, their comments about ability words) ABILITY WORDS are "like" keywords; IE they tie a mechanic together (like gating... which would have been a keyword, and is keywordable)... but they do not have rules text associated with them.
Think of it as the problem w/ the old Goblin king, pre-eratta. Flavorwise he was a goblin (in his name), but function wise he wasn't. Flavorwise, channel cards are all the same... they all have channel written on them, but WORSE than Goblin King, they don't even have official rules text having anything to do with it!
What makes me sick is that Channel, Sweep, Hellbent, Gotcha, and even Radiance could have been keyworded (Radiance in design was a keyword, but it was ruined so it's no longer keywordable as is). And they're not. Meaning we won't have channel-themed deck, Sweep themed decks (had they done more sweep cards, and had designed it as follows, Sweep would have been a valid keyword:
Sink into whatever 3B
Sorcery
Sweep - Swamps
Target player discards X cards.
Then we could develop it as follows:
Elvish Glory G1
Instant
Sweep - Elf
Elves get +X,+X and trample until end of turn.
But they didn't. And thus, it sucks. It's bad design. Meanwhile WOTC has told us they have unused design files with dozens of keywords they're "saving". And Meanwhile, many of us come up with better keywords (Again, Check the graft speculation thread.). Not all of us mind you; but I'd come up with Forecast years ago - called Reveal, used at instant speed. Forecast gives you more powerful effects than ballanced Reveal cards simply because you used them during your upkeep only! Regardless both are simply abarations of Infernal Spawn of Evil's ability.
Simply put, we're asking whether or not WOTC made a mistake when they developed (a) bad keywords, (b) bad cards, and (c) ability words. I say (c) is wrong because even bad keywords can be used as triggers; thus giving them design space. I say that (b) is wrong because we spend our money on cards... and WOTC obviously didn't put the time and effort into Gatehound as they did into Luxodon Heirarch or even the Legendary green dragon (Which, I'd argue, they could have put more time into... giving me 5 1/1 insect tokens or searching for five 1/1 creatures would have been more flavorful, more fun, and more playable... but not broken). And yet I see a gatehound or benidiction of moons FAR too often. Seriously, I'm not asking for staples 100% of the time, but I am asking for ALL cards to be playable in SOME format, whether it be "unlimited mana type 4", 2 headed giant, multiplayer chaos, limited, etc. And had Benidiction of moons gained 2 life with haunt, it would still be bad in limited, but not broken in multiplayer. Sure, in a multiplayer game with 20 people, it might be too good... but that game is going to be random and unweildy to begin with. (a)... I can live with, but short-sited keywords (Threshold, original wording of replicate, etc.), broken keywords (madness? AFFINITY[for artifacts], Certainly Dredge...), and simly poorly designed keywords (Graft, "Bloodthirst - X", Modular, Sunburst (Oh, if it's a creature, it gets +1,+1 counters... otherwise charge counters! How obvious!)) are bad for the game.
And if you don't agree with me on a, b, or c... well; you need a hefty arguement. WOTC says they're with me on a... they wish Threshold was Threshold #, they're glad they avoided the original wording of Replicate, and they certainly don't want to make another affinity or madness. Heck, they're very worried about Dredge and Equipment! The sad thing is they disagree with me about (b). Now they have economic concerns; if every card is good... will people buy as many packs. Damned straight we will, if every card is good SOMEPLACE! Check out how hot type-1 stuff is, check out how hot certain theme or tribal deck things are. Check out how happy I am when I open a Rend Spirit or Horobii's Whisper in limited. Check out how cool that "each opponent discards a card" zombie is in multiplayer. Hell, check out that kid with the cheap deck of cards that won FNM one night because noone brought artifact hate. That kid WON one night; ask yourself if he's going to be MORE into magic, or less, now. And finally WOTC seems to like (c), but they've not given a convincing argument. The same thing can be done w/ keywords, but keywords offer more design space because you can refer to them!:
Sweep - [card type] (upon resulution of this spell, you may return any number of the perimants of [card type] you own to owner's hand. X = the number of perminant returned in this way).
Channel [cost]: Effect (Discard this, [cost]: Get channel effect)
Hellbent: Effect (You have hellbent when you have 0 cards in hand)
Wisdom [condition]: Effect (This gets the effect when the condition is met)
Gating (When this comes into play, return a perminant you control that shares a type and color with this to it's owner's hand)
Gotcha - Condition (When any player meets the condition, you may say Gotcha! before you pass priority. If you do, return this from your graveyard to your hand)
As for Radiance, try this:
Radiance (Put a copy of this spell on the stack for each other perminant that shares a color with the target, with each copy targeting a different perminant)
Not only would Radiance be a keyword (Search target player's library for a card w/ radiance, Spells w/ radiance cost 1 less to play, etc.), but it would also mirror Replicate in it's "Haha, you can't counter them all" bit (Since they're trying to hurt counter-based strategies, this is a plus). The bad news? Radiance can't be on creatures. Whoop ti frickin do. Radiance needed more spells anyways!
"Radiance withstand" 1W
Instant
Radiance
Prevent the next 3 damage to target creature.
"R Life Gain" 1WW
Sorcery
Radiance
Gain life equal to target creature's toughness.
"R burn" 2R
Sorcery
Radiance
This does 1 damage to target creature's controller.
"R Blocker!" 2W
Instant
Radiance
Untap target creature. If it is blocking, it gets +1,+2 UEOT.
"Ghost-Radiance" 4W
Instant
Radiance
Remove target creature from the game. Return it to play at the end of turn.
What makes THIS radiance objectively better is that, in future sets, you can have cards like this:
Lonesome Gorilla R1
- Ape
[card name] cannot be targeted by spells w/ Radiance, or Radiance copies.
2/1
or this:
Radiance Slide 1W
Enchantment
Whenever you play a spell with Radiance, you may remove target creature from the game. If you do, return it to play at the end of the turn.
Or this:
Anti-Radiator 2
Artifact
Spells lose Radiance.
Meaning if we saw Radiance again, it might be worth making a radiance deck.
Not having a rules entry for each ability word is not the same as being unable to refer to ability words in card rule text. The columnists on MTG.com obviously said the former but no one has ever officially said the latter.
I don't know how to explain this to you. Ability words are just like creature types -- they have no effect whatsoever on their own but other cards can refer to them by name. Please point to a sentence from an official source (rules or column by Wizards employee) that addresses this exact point -- not the "do ability words have their own rules" point -- or I'll have to continue believing your opinion here is completely unfounded.
Because, like, I agree with you that mechanics like Channel should be brought back and expanded upon, the way Cycling was (or, even better, in new and unexpected ways.) I just haven't decided arbitrarily that it can't happen, because I'm sure all it takes is one R&D person to go "I have a neat idea for how to expand Channel into a full block mechanic" and it'll happen, and the rules as written in no way stand in the way of that happening.
On the issue of what is good vs. bad design, I have trouble because your own arguments are pretty wildly against my own observations from play. Have you played any non-competitive formats using Ravnica block cards? In a limited-pool constructed environment (for example, the set of low-rare guild decks my house has been building) bloodthirst is quite strong and adds interesting tactical dynamics to games.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Based loosely on Browbeat's wording.
3CB and 4CB5CB!Soh's invitational card is very much nerfed though, as you must agree, and it's going to be harder just to throw in black control decks now. I'd hardly call it "by a hair," because I consider it significantly worse, mainly only because it's mana requirement is very strict now.
However, it may still see a lot of play, because it still is good, and the redness of it is only it that it helps the RB mechanic.
-Yavimaya Ranger
...
As opposed to what? By its very nature Channel is an activated ability. (The only alternative, an alternate casting cost with an alternate effect, is wildly more complex for absolutely no benefit and would be stupid.)
Uh.... they can still do all of that. I think channel is sitting in the same file as Scry in terms of "mechanics we absolutely will see expanded" and the fact that it's an ability word is what means they could print cards that refer to it by name. "The activation costs of Channel abilities are reduced by :1mana:" (or whatever) is a totally legitimate piece of rules text.
I, uh, don't think you really understand what an ability word is, and I'm personally glad that Wizards isn't worried about who demons and hellfire might offend.
My suggestion:
"Unless a player has you draw a card, put a 3/1 red Elemental creature token into play. Repeat this process two more times."
U Twinsanity
WUBRG Reaper King
UBG Dredge
UR Howling Owl
GBU Thief of Time
'An opponent', you mean?
Twitter
Also those who want to talk about soh's card there is a thread all about at the top of the board.
Just ignore Graftling he was the troll of the day. Complaining just to get a stir out of people.
Oops...yes, of course.
I'm wondering if it can be listed in the Jitte-like choice format without the word "chooses"...maybe not.
We still have the Hydra to speculate on...the mana cost is unknown, but this is the rest of it (courtesy of Avto):
?? Phytohydra
(Monogreen cost unknown)
Creature -- Hydra ??
Whenever ~ would be dealt damage, put a copy of ~ into play instead.
0/2
EDIT: Also, Avto, if you happen to remember: was the art of Momir Vig the original or the one where he's holding up one arm? That would put a lot of nervous people at rest...such badly rendered art.
U Twinsanity
WUBRG Reaper King
UBG Dredge
UR Howling Owl
GBU Thief of Time
Guildmaster Jarad
Er, my point was, you can refer to all the abilities from that set where creatures can be discarded for a spell-like effect with a single name, out of or in the game. They're all "Channel," an official, rules-text name for them. I do understand the difference between a keyword and an ability word, I'm just pointing out that the only point to which it's relevant is "does this word have extra rules not printed on the card?" In all other cases you can treat a keyword and an ability word the same way.
So, yeah, of course they can do what I said. It's completely clear, right? What could "Channel abilities" possibly refer to other than "abilities that are connected to the ability word Channel"? It'd be completely unambiguous. If they decide to do more with Channel (which I think they will -- it's a cool ability and it has tons of room for expansion) they can easily do the exact same kind of tricks they could with Cycling.
Besides your disagreement about rules text referring to Channel (which it absolutely can) what exactly do you disagree with me about?
You DON'T understand the difference between ability words and keywords. Keywords are really on the cards, ability words... are flavor text. Refering to a card with channel is equivilent to refering to cards with William Shakepseare in their flavortext.
Ability words are flavor text. Thus, they cannot be refered to. Poor design. Period.
And your point is...? As it stands, the rules say no. Wizards can change whatever they want in the future, so that's not relevant.
Guildmaster Jarad
My guess is that it's actually a sorcery.
As if the rules weren't long enough as it is. Keywords take up rules text to save space on card text, period. Not only their cards, but also other cards (Giant Spider for example).
I am in favor of massive keywording; we know what Fear, Vigilance, and Doublestrike do. We probably know what Web does, or will within a few months.
The fact of the matter is any given KEYWORD out there is worthy of further development, even Convoke... for example:
New Convoke Goods W3
Instant
Convoke
Untap all creatures you control. Creatures you control get +1,+2 and Vigilance until end of turn.
Devil's Convoke BB6
Sorcery
Convoke
Destroy all tapped creatures.
Purty Flames RRX
Sorcery
Convoke
Deal X damage to each creature and each player.
Notice how the fact that the keyword DOES something allows you to poke fun at it. Now, imagine cards like this:
Combo Green Machine GG4
Creature - Elemental Mutant Lord Frog
Convoke, Trample
Creature spells you play have Convoke.
3/3
Covoke Lover G2
Human Druid
Whenever [card name] is tapped to pay a convoke cost, put a +1,+1 counter on card name.
2/2
Covoke Lord GG2
Human Druid Lord
Convoke
Other creatures you control with Convoke get +1,+1.
Spells you control with Convoke cost 1 less to play.
2/2
Andy The Convoke Hater RR1
Legendary - Human Shamman Berserker Rogue
Haste, Provoke, First Strike
[card name] cannot be blocked by creatures with convoke.
3/1
You won't see that with Hellbent or Channel unless Wizards errattas a lot of old cards. Same thing with Threshold: # (way to go on replicate late-design guys), if threshold were replaced with Threshold - 7, we could get cards like this:
Hating Player R
Human Berserker
Haste
Threshold 1: -1,-1 and [this] is white.
2/2
Or this:
Threshold Morphling U3
Creature - Superman
Threshold 1 - Tap: Target creature gains Flying UEOT
Threshold 2 - 1: -1,+1 UEOT
Threshold 3 - U: Return [card name] to it's owner's hand
Threshold 4 - 1: +1,-1 UEOT
Threshold 5 - Discard a card: Untap [card name]
Threshold 6 - Tap: Draw a card.
1/4
...
I'm in favor of massive keywords; it makes a better game, makes better cards, and in general saves space on cards... meaning they can do more, easier, and better.
Like, what the heck?
It has a name that's printed on the card. Magic cards can refer to any quality other cards have. Cards refer to new qualities that have never been referred to before all the time. At very worst, they need to use wording like "Abilities following the ability word 'Channel.'" More realistically, they can just refer to the ability word by name because it's part of the card's rules text. It is in the Oracle text. I really can't understand why you think this is magically, inescapably against the rules when certainly no one official has said so explicitly.
Gotcha - Unhinged
Channel - Saviors of Kamigawa
Sweep - Saviors of Kamigawa
Radiance - Ravnica (and only Ravnica)
Hellbent - Dissenssion
In all cases, an ability word was used only in a SINGLE set and wasn't even developed that much for lack of space. Lack of cards referencing an ability word might be caused more by that than by some immutable design rule.
My prediction is that a card referencing an ability word will appear once there will be both space and sense for it.
going back to the art of momir vig... they had the bad one in the dissension preview... but the minisite still has the good one... i personally hope for the good one... it gives him a darker look... i think more appropriate for dissension
Um... What?
Dissension's setting is one of, uh, Dissension. The Simic are plotting something. The Rakdos are destroying something. And the Azorius are trying to keep it all together.
The more sinister Momir looks, the better.
~ Søren Aabye Kierkegaard
Astral Slide was a deck. You will never see a Channel-deck of the same type because, as WOTC has said time and again (try reading their webpage, as well as the rules text, their comments about ability words) ABILITY WORDS are "like" keywords; IE they tie a mechanic together (like gating... which would have been a keyword, and is keywordable)... but they do not have rules text associated with them.
Think of it as the problem w/ the old Goblin king, pre-eratta. Flavorwise he was a goblin (in his name), but function wise he wasn't. Flavorwise, channel cards are all the same... they all have channel written on them, but WORSE than Goblin King, they don't even have official rules text having anything to do with it!
What makes me sick is that Channel, Sweep, Hellbent, Gotcha, and even Radiance could have been keyworded (Radiance in design was a keyword, but it was ruined so it's no longer keywordable as is). And they're not. Meaning we won't have channel-themed deck, Sweep themed decks (had they done more sweep cards, and had designed it as follows, Sweep would have been a valid keyword:
Sink into whatever 3B
Sorcery
Sweep - Swamps
Target player discards X cards.
Then we could develop it as follows:
Elvish Glory G1
Instant
Sweep - Elf
Elves get +X,+X and trample until end of turn.
But they didn't. And thus, it sucks. It's bad design. Meanwhile WOTC has told us they have unused design files with dozens of keywords they're "saving". And Meanwhile, many of us come up with better keywords (Again, Check the graft speculation thread.). Not all of us mind you; but I'd come up with Forecast years ago - called Reveal, used at instant speed. Forecast gives you more powerful effects than ballanced Reveal cards simply because you used them during your upkeep only! Regardless both are simply abarations of Infernal Spawn of Evil's ability.
Simply put, we're asking whether or not WOTC made a mistake when they developed (a) bad keywords, (b) bad cards, and (c) ability words. I say (c) is wrong because even bad keywords can be used as triggers; thus giving them design space. I say that (b) is wrong because we spend our money on cards... and WOTC obviously didn't put the time and effort into Gatehound as they did into Luxodon Heirarch or even the Legendary green dragon (Which, I'd argue, they could have put more time into... giving me 5 1/1 insect tokens or searching for five 1/1 creatures would have been more flavorful, more fun, and more playable... but not broken). And yet I see a gatehound or benidiction of moons FAR too often. Seriously, I'm not asking for staples 100% of the time, but I am asking for ALL cards to be playable in SOME format, whether it be "unlimited mana type 4", 2 headed giant, multiplayer chaos, limited, etc. And had Benidiction of moons gained 2 life with haunt, it would still be bad in limited, but not broken in multiplayer. Sure, in a multiplayer game with 20 people, it might be too good... but that game is going to be random and unweildy to begin with. (a)... I can live with, but short-sited keywords (Threshold, original wording of replicate, etc.), broken keywords (madness? AFFINITY[for artifacts], Certainly Dredge...), and simly poorly designed keywords (Graft, "Bloodthirst - X", Modular, Sunburst (Oh, if it's a creature, it gets +1,+1 counters... otherwise charge counters! How obvious!)) are bad for the game.
And if you don't agree with me on a, b, or c... well; you need a hefty arguement. WOTC says they're with me on a... they wish Threshold was Threshold #, they're glad they avoided the original wording of Replicate, and they certainly don't want to make another affinity or madness. Heck, they're very worried about Dredge and Equipment! The sad thing is they disagree with me about (b). Now they have economic concerns; if every card is good... will people buy as many packs. Damned straight we will, if every card is good SOMEPLACE! Check out how hot type-1 stuff is, check out how hot certain theme or tribal deck things are. Check out how happy I am when I open a Rend Spirit or Horobii's Whisper in limited. Check out how cool that "each opponent discards a card" zombie is in multiplayer. Hell, check out that kid with the cheap deck of cards that won FNM one night because noone brought artifact hate. That kid WON one night; ask yourself if he's going to be MORE into magic, or less, now. And finally WOTC seems to like (c), but they've not given a convincing argument. The same thing can be done w/ keywords, but keywords offer more design space because you can refer to them!:
Sweep - [card type] (upon resulution of this spell, you may return any number of the perimants of [card type] you own to owner's hand. X = the number of perminant returned in this way).
Channel [cost]: Effect (Discard this, [cost]: Get channel effect)
Hellbent: Effect (You have hellbent when you have 0 cards in hand)
Wisdom [condition]: Effect (This gets the effect when the condition is met)
Gating (When this comes into play, return a perminant you control that shares a type and color with this to it's owner's hand)
Gotcha - Condition (When any player meets the condition, you may say Gotcha! before you pass priority. If you do, return this from your graveyard to your hand)
As for Radiance, try this:
Radiance (Put a copy of this spell on the stack for each other perminant that shares a color with the target, with each copy targeting a different perminant)
Not only would Radiance be a keyword (Search target player's library for a card w/ radiance, Spells w/ radiance cost 1 less to play, etc.), but it would also mirror Replicate in it's "Haha, you can't counter them all" bit (Since they're trying to hurt counter-based strategies, this is a plus). The bad news? Radiance can't be on creatures. Whoop ti frickin do. Radiance needed more spells anyways!
"Radiance withstand" 1W
Instant
Radiance
Prevent the next 3 damage to target creature.
"R Life Gain" 1WW
Sorcery
Radiance
Gain life equal to target creature's toughness.
"R burn" 2R
Sorcery
Radiance
This does 1 damage to target creature's controller.
"R Blocker!" 2W
Instant
Radiance
Untap target creature. If it is blocking, it gets +1,+2 UEOT.
"Ghost-Radiance" 4W
Instant
Radiance
Remove target creature from the game. Return it to play at the end of turn.
What makes THIS radiance objectively better is that, in future sets, you can have cards like this:
Lonesome Gorilla R1
- Ape
[card name] cannot be targeted by spells w/ Radiance, or Radiance copies.
2/1
or this:
Radiance Slide 1W
Enchantment
Whenever you play a spell with Radiance, you may remove target creature from the game. If you do, return it to play at the end of the turn.
Or this:
Anti-Radiator 2
Artifact
Spells lose Radiance.
Meaning if we saw Radiance again, it might be worth making a radiance deck.
Not having a rules entry for each ability word is not the same as being unable to refer to ability words in card rule text. The columnists on MTG.com obviously said the former but no one has ever officially said the latter.
I don't know how to explain this to you. Ability words are just like creature types -- they have no effect whatsoever on their own but other cards can refer to them by name. Please point to a sentence from an official source (rules or column by Wizards employee) that addresses this exact point -- not the "do ability words have their own rules" point -- or I'll have to continue believing your opinion here is completely unfounded.
Because, like, I agree with you that mechanics like Channel should be brought back and expanded upon, the way Cycling was (or, even better, in new and unexpected ways.) I just haven't decided arbitrarily that it can't happen, because I'm sure all it takes is one R&D person to go "I have a neat idea for how to expand Channel into a full block mechanic" and it'll happen, and the rules as written in no way stand in the way of that happening.
On the issue of what is good vs. bad design, I have trouble because your own arguments are pretty wildly against my own observations from play. Have you played any non-competitive formats using Ravnica block cards? In a limited-pool constructed environment (for example, the set of low-rare guild decks my house has been building) bloodthirst is quite strong and adds interesting tactical dynamics to games.