This thread is for discussion of the feature article "On the Origin of Scavenge and Overload", which goes live Wednesday morning on magicthegathering.com.
Niv-Mizzet, Dracogenius? Granted, MTG is a fairly geeky pastime, but that is just the worst card name I've seen in ages. Dracogenius? Seriously? Just awful.
I like most the bit where he completely ignored one of the most important changes to scavenge. A bunch of players had asked why Scavenge didn't have a number to go with it. Here we see a playtest card of almost-finished scavenge that does indeed have a number, yet it is absent (without comment) from the final version.
I'm guessing it was because they felt they didn't need the extra layer, but I'm curious if there was a more specific reason for the omission.
The playtest card is kind of awesome... Niv is such a draco freaking genius that he gets smarter by breathing fire.
As for the article, I always enjoy looking into how mechanics evolve over the R&D process, so it was a fun read. I might have just looked at one keyword at a time and gone into a bit more depth with it, but there might have not been enough changes to justify two articles.
I agree that Dracogenius is an odd word, but it does have a little something to it. Maybe if it was hyphenated it would look less silly? (ie: Niv-Mizzet, Draco-Genius)
I like most the bit where he completely ignored one of the most important changes to scavenge. A bunch of players had asked why Scavenge didn't have a number to go with it. Here we see a playtest card of almost-finished scavenge that does indeed have a number, yet it is absent (without comment) from the final version.
I'm guessing it was because they felt they didn't need the extra layer, but I'm curious if there was a more specific reason for the omission.
The number + mana cost template you see in the playtest cards is pretty ugly, and I don't think Wizards has used it before. It could lead to confusion with the two numbers and stuff. If they don't need it, that seems like reason enough.
Dragon_Nut: Omitting the number on Scavenge is smart. Train people to just check the power, done. R&D has said that hacking Echo to allow Echo costs not equivalent to the mana cost was a big mistake, and that's something I agree with - I don't think a 1/1 which turns into 6 +1/+1 counters when dead is a particularly interesting design pathway.
Re Overload: Insert usual comment about how while I respect that double-edged mechanics are less popular at first glance, they are ultimately interesting, so I wish R&D would merely reduce their presence rather than eliminate them entirely. Overloads that affected your stuff too are *interesting*. Bonfire of the Damned is not interesting: do you want to destroy your opponent's board yes/no. Hypothetical Mizzium Mortars that said "target creature" is less Timmy riffic, sure, but leads to interesting gameplay situations. Can I stick more 5+ toughness creatures in my deck? Is it worth clearing out 3 enemy critters while losing 1 of my own + Hypothetical Mortars that targeted anything? I'm not saying that the "target you do control / don't" isn't clever, and certainly it's fine for SOME effects (especially flying / first strike type dealies), but you can have at least a few spells that might go out of control and backfire. Which seems rather Izzet.
How to autocard (do this to specify a card in your posts): Type [c]Black Lotus[/c] to get Black Lotus . Type [c=Black Lotus]The Overpowered One[/c] to get The Overpowered One .
] 
] Azorious Turbo Fog (Modern)
