Community

Mar 25, 2012 -- 10:07PM, Qmark wrote:

Non-targeted, if only because Misdirection effects exist.
Additionally, please stop printing these as Sorcery.

They used to print a similar spell at 4cc but instant, but ended up deciding that it gave draw-go decks too much power.

Nowadays, they print it at 5cc, but with some benefit.  For example Think Twice can be split into two payments, Mysteries of the Deep allows you to use it during your turn, if you played a land, for 3 cards.  So...  more versatility.

Mar 25, 2012 -- 10:31PM, Astronautic_Bullfrog wrote:

I voted for no as well, under the assumption that the less complex version should be the default unless a substancial reason exists for introducing complexity.

Ironically, this "less complexity" argument fails because it doesn't acknowledge the necessary complexity of the principle from which it purports to argue.

That is, "less complexity" is merely a principle with lots of room for nuance and, well, complexity. If it were not, we'd be playing War. Or Slapjack.

Mar 25, 2012 -- 9:13PM, Netbrian wrote:

I vote for non-targeted.  It's cleaner, requires less clicks for MTGO and DotP, dodges redirect effects, and I feel there are better ways for people to help others in multiplayer.

I voted for targeted draw because it interacts with redirect effects.

I like that the article makes the case that complexity isn't bad. However, it falls short of really explaining what kinds of complexity are good and what are bad. Emergent complexity, the type that occurs when two cards interact in a way that is more (or less) that the sum of their parts, is good. It's really good. It is, in fact, the very fundamental principle on which a customizeable game like Magic works. Ensuring that the primary parts of the game work together is necessary to create the sort of game where interesting and meaningful interactions take place between cards printed a few months ago and those printed in the '90s.

The other kind of complexity, what I think of as "artificial complexity" is the realm of parasitic mechanics, and dead-end design. It's a fence around play, improvisation, and resourcefulness. Artificial complexity should be used carefully, at the limits of the game, to "scaffold" things. This is the realm of specific rules interactions. An example from a recent rules update:

800.4c

Okay, here's a fun one. This new rule is in the section that handles a player leaving a multiplayer game. Say Mark Rosewater, Aaron Forsythe, and I are in a three-player game. I cast Bribery targeting Mark and put his Maro (what else?) onto the battlefield under my control. Aaron then casts Act of Aggression, taking control of it until end of turn. While Aaron controls it, I leave the game. Nothing happens to Maro at this point as I neither own nor control it. When Act of Aggression's effect wears off, what happens to Maro? Its original controller has left the game. It feels weird to just leave it under Aaron's control because the effect giving him control of it just wore off. It feels weird giving it to Mark because he never controlled it. I decided exiling it was the choice most consistent with other rules handling what happens to objects when a player leaves the game.