Hello all! I am undertaking a mental exercise in preparation for the design challenges that are to come in GDS3. I'm setting mini-challenges for myself and would love to get feedback or thoughts. Below are two almost identical card designs. The first is a card that works exactly like Firespout. The second is a card that does almost exactly the same thing, albeit with a keyword. The mechanic with the reminder text doesn't really save space, but throwing Spectrum onto a Rare or Mythic without reminder text could save a ton of space...
drawing a card is a lot better than gaining 2 life, and i'd advise against having fog effects that cantrip. especially for so cheap and especially at common. it'd be unfun to play against a deck whose fogs draw into further fogs...
Eh, I'm not crazy about it. The wording that cares about colors spent actually has more design space than your idea. The former can fit into any multicolor set, while yours is pretty much restricted to color-matters sets. The level of parasitism is also a concern.
Eh, I'm not crazy about it. The wording that cares about colors spent actually has more design space than your idea. The former can fit into any multicolor set, while yours is pretty much restricted to color-matters sets. The level of parasitism is also a concern.
Thank you for the feedback. Could you clarify a couple of things for me?
I'm curious how one has more or less design space than the other. Both require the same mana to be spent to achieve the same effect.
I'm also curious how either card would be parasitic. While the mana required to get full usage from the card definitely points you to a Bant mana-base, either card could be played in any set.
Eh, I'm not crazy about it. The wording that cares about colors spent actually has more design space than your idea. The former can fit into any multicolor set, while yours is pretty much restricted to color-matters sets. The level of parasitism is also a concern.
Thank you for the feedback. Could you clarify a couple of things for me?
I'm curious how one has more or less design space than the other. Both require the same mana to be spent to achieve the same effect.
I'm also curious how either card would be parasitic. While the mana required to get full usage from the card definitely points you to a Bant mana-base, either card could be played in any set.
For the record, I'm not trying to discuss the card. Cantripping fogs are broken in constructed and unconducive to a fun draft format, end of story. Spectrum by itself is the entire focus of my previous comment and this one.
You'd think the two abilities are the same because the two cards you presented are functionally similar, but they're anything but the same. Your ability simply isn't evergreen material on account of the narrowness of the type of text you want to replace, so it would naturally be a set mechanic. It simply wouldn't be able to appear often enough to be anything else. I would compare your effort to the renaming that resulted in exert and devotion. Keyworded set mechanics occupy a totally different space than a non-keyworded ability that just happens to be on a handful of cards because they simply do not have the weight of a non-evergreen keyword. For example, you won't see any exert without it being a set mechanic, but Wizards can print any number of creatures that tap themselves and don't untap next turn, which explains my design space comment.
Set mechanics either have to exemplify a 2-3 color chunk, or be a five color mechanic that represents the set. Your ability isn't tethered to a piece of the color pie, so it has to be the latter. Spectrum is, in a vacuum, a color-changing mechanic. You can, of course, dress it up and surround it with text that cares about the color, but that doesn't change the identity of what you created. Changing colors, frankly, does absolutely nothing by itself, ergo a parasitic mechanic. Color changing, in fact, is so useless that such mechanics require a great deal of context to be worthwhile. The next Ravnica revisit may well have cards that care about the types of mana spent to cast them, but including a color-changing keyword would require justification.
One last note: keywording is not, inherently, a universal good. It's a tradeoff that sacrifices comprehensibility (Spectrum is quite roundabout) in exchange for...something. Self-referential mechanics need keywords, and other mechanics need to condense massive walls of text or appear a million and one times. Your ability doesn't fit under any of those, so what does this change bring to the table?
I see where I was getting confused then. I don't think we're defining design space the same way. If I understand correctly, you are defining design space as the number of designs a set can/should contain, and Spectrum is taking up that space. My understanding of design space is how many more cards could be designed with the mechanic. Good or bad, a card that changes colors can be put on... just about anything.
I'm also really not sure how you reached the conclusion that the mechanic isn't or can't be attached to the color pie. This example card is always green and by itself only has a green effect. It might sometimes also be white or blue and has a corresponding white or blue ability (brokeness aside). Of course you're absolutely right, changing colors does nothing by itself, but that doesn't then equate it to parasitism. It makes the most sense in a set that cares about color, but can be played in any set without a single other Spectrum card. Again, I'm not trying to defend how good or useful the keyword is, just trying to understand why you had concerns about it being parasitic.
One last note: keywording is not, inherently, a universal good. It's a tradeoff that sacrifices comprehensibility (Spectrum is quite roundabout) in exchange for...something. Self-referential mechanics need keywords, and other mechanics need to condense massive walls of text or appear a million and one times. Your ability doesn't fit under any of those, so what does this change bring to the table?
I wanted to quote this last bit because you're 100% correct and I would like to remember this going forward. The exercise here was trying to find a way to condense and shorten the Firespout mechanic in a way that was also still easy to understand. The eventual goal was to be able to design cards that could care about 3+ colors (if needed), which would in fact be a wall of text that would require condensing. I don't think Spectrum is a success in that regard, but I appreciate the feedback nonetheless.
Spectrum is interesting. It opens up the original concept to interaction which may not be a good idea. When you cast your spell you want to know what it does, and an opponent casting a Purelace to stop you from drawing a card is annoying, and using a Painter's Servant to cheat on all of your spectrum cards may not be something you want possible. With this interaction and the burying complexity in a keyword with an already complex ability it probably isn't worth doing.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Archenemy: Nicol Bolas Upgrades
Hydrolash and Blinding Spray are uncommons and are not full on fogs.
also, both versions of your card seem to have a lil much going for a common.
anyway, i don't really see spectrum as being worth it
Thank you for the feedback. Could you clarify a couple of things for me?
I'm curious how one has more or less design space than the other. Both require the same mana to be spent to achieve the same effect.
I'm also curious how either card would be parasitic. While the mana required to get full usage from the card definitely points you to a Bant mana-base, either card could be played in any set.
Archenemy: Nicol Bolas Upgrades
For the record, I'm not trying to discuss the card. Cantripping fogs are broken in constructed and unconducive to a fun draft format, end of story. Spectrum by itself is the entire focus of my previous comment and this one.
You'd think the two abilities are the same because the two cards you presented are functionally similar, but they're anything but the same. Your ability simply isn't evergreen material on account of the narrowness of the type of text you want to replace, so it would naturally be a set mechanic. It simply wouldn't be able to appear often enough to be anything else. I would compare your effort to the renaming that resulted in exert and devotion. Keyworded set mechanics occupy a totally different space than a non-keyworded ability that just happens to be on a handful of cards because they simply do not have the weight of a non-evergreen keyword. For example, you won't see any exert without it being a set mechanic, but Wizards can print any number of creatures that tap themselves and don't untap next turn, which explains my design space comment.
Set mechanics either have to exemplify a 2-3 color chunk, or be a five color mechanic that represents the set. Your ability isn't tethered to a piece of the color pie, so it has to be the latter. Spectrum is, in a vacuum, a color-changing mechanic. You can, of course, dress it up and surround it with text that cares about the color, but that doesn't change the identity of what you created. Changing colors, frankly, does absolutely nothing by itself, ergo a parasitic mechanic. Color changing, in fact, is so useless that such mechanics require a great deal of context to be worthwhile. The next Ravnica revisit may well have cards that care about the types of mana spent to cast them, but including a color-changing keyword would require justification.
One last note: keywording is not, inherently, a universal good. It's a tradeoff that sacrifices comprehensibility (Spectrum is quite roundabout) in exchange for...something. Self-referential mechanics need keywords, and other mechanics need to condense massive walls of text or appear a million and one times. Your ability doesn't fit under any of those, so what does this change bring to the table?
I'm also really not sure how you reached the conclusion that the mechanic isn't or can't be attached to the color pie. This example card is always green and by itself only has a green effect. It might sometimes also be white or blue and has a corresponding white or blue ability (brokeness aside). Of course you're absolutely right, changing colors does nothing by itself, but that doesn't then equate it to parasitism. It makes the most sense in a set that cares about color, but can be played in any set without a single other Spectrum card. Again, I'm not trying to defend how good or useful the keyword is, just trying to understand why you had concerns about it being parasitic.
I wanted to quote this last bit because you're 100% correct and I would like to remember this going forward. The exercise here was trying to find a way to condense and shorten the Firespout mechanic in a way that was also still easy to understand. The eventual goal was to be able to design cards that could care about 3+ colors (if needed), which would in fact be a wall of text that would require condensing. I don't think Spectrum is a success in that regard, but I appreciate the feedback nonetheless.
Archenemy: Nicol Bolas Upgrades