It's interesting to read how much R&D's processes have changed - I'm hoping we get a full article about this at some point, so far it's just disconnected references.
For example, some things we've heard about recently, just mentioned in passing:
Creation of "Devign" phase Discussion of what happens when Design runs too long and delays Development Additional involvement of the Creative team in the process
I love extort as a mechanic, I think it is very flavorful, and just powerful enough without being over the top. However, I'm concerned about its viability in constructed. Cheap cards with extort are going to be much better than expensive ones because it gives you a lot better chance of being able to extort in the long game. The spoiled card is cheap but the effect is not good. I think something like W, Enchantment, extort would actually be pretty good, simple, and effective (so long as it wasn't a rare). I'm not sure the ability is actually worth the extra 1 because you won't want to play 1W on turn 2 to do nothing immediately. My concern is that the bleeder deck won't actually be good enough because the extort cards spoiled thus far just aren't going to cut it. There are some amazing Orzov cards that will see play but so far the extort cards aren't connecting for me. So my fear is that once again, bleeder won't really be viable in competitive constructed.
Kickboxing would have been reflavored had the mechanic worked out. Mechanics often have a placeholder name that makes sense to the team members but clearly isn't suited for for the "real world."
Wow that oppress mechanic sounds well, very oppressive.
For Orzhov, Shawn Main had come up with a mechanic he called "extort." The idea was that it taxed your opponent for casting spells.
The way you worded that sounds like extort initially worked by leeching the opponent when they cast spells. Hmmm, I wonder if that ever was the case.
I was wondering the same thing. MaRo skipped the most interesting part of the history of Extort -- when did it switch from "taxing opponent's spells" to, um, adding an extra bit of self-serving oppressiveness to each of your spells?
I can easily see how the original Extort wouldn't work as well. I mean, who wants a mechanic that basically gives complete control of it to your opponent? Still it cannot be denied that mana/life taxation is really flavorful. So I'd be curious to hear how that worked out.
Now Bloodrush as a sorcery instead of an instant - that I could see them doing.
I was surprised that bloodrush turned out the way it did since it seems really similar to the instant-speed version of scavenge that got axed. I guess the difference is that since bloodrush activates from a hidden zone it doesn't increase board complexity, and also that bloodrush represents a choice (you get a creature or a pump spell) while instant-speed scavenge was all upside (you got a creature and a pump spell).
The mechanics work better this way, not just in gameplay, but from a flavor perspective:
Bloodrush is all like RWAR! IN YOUR FACE!You try to block me, I BEAT YOU OVER THE HEAD! Puny god.
WhereasScavenge is, "Oh, don't mind us Golgari. As you can see, we're just cleaning up the sewers, gathering up the detritus (growing stronger all the while). Nothing surprising or unexpected. Nothing to worry about."
I was surprised that bloodrush turned out the way it did since it seems really similar to the instant-speed version of scavenge that got axed. I guess the difference is that since bloodrush activates from a hidden zone it doesn't increase board complexity, and also that bloodrush represents a choice (you get a creature or a pump spell) while instant-speed scavenge was all upside (you got a creature and a pump spell).
The difference is that scavenge lasted for more than a turn, while Bloodrush ends at end of turn. Remembering something for one turn is easy. Remembering it for multiple turns is hard.
Also, I hate Gruul and it's my least favorite guild by a lot, but Bloodrush is awesome. Such a great mechanic.
I'm not really too sure how to feel about bloodrush yet. I'll be honest though: when I first saw the mechanic, I was a little disappointed and my first thought was "Oh, Gruul just got Channel from Champions of Kamigawa. Darn." Reading this article makes me feel a little better however - Mark at least recognized that they probably could have done better but ran out of time, and everyone signed off on it. Feels kind of strange that Orzhov had a strong follower to help their mechanic but Gruul didn't. Is there anyone in R&D who is a though-and-through Gruul? The Bloodrush mechanic might be very good, but I'm still going to wait until the prerelease to make any opinions. I do like how it does add a sense of surprise in a creature-based deck, but I know for certain I'd like a hexproof-like ability to use with Bloodrush like Vines of Vastwood instead of just generic pump spells that can easily be 2-for-1s.
I guess in general, I can only sum up my feelings about why I love to play Gruul with my absolute favorite first three turns in the original Ravnica block (or Standard at the time; possibly ever):
After successfully attacking once, I honestly didn't care what my opponent did. Just being able to have a 6/6 trampler attacking on T3 was/is one of the coolest things I've ever experienced. That rush only increased the more I got a chance to do it again (or even make it bigger!). That to me is what the Gruul is all about.
I was surprised that bloodrush turned out the way it did since it seems really similar to the instant-speed version of scavenge that got axed. I guess the difference is that since bloodrush activates from a hidden zone it doesn't increase board complexity
The difference is that scavenge lasted for more than a turn, while Bloodrush ends at end of turn. Remembering something for one turn is easy. Remembering it for multiple turns is hard.
I believe notthephonz is actually more correct. Scavenge puts simple counters right on the creature, so there's no memory issue involved. However, what many players wouldn't remember to do is to cross reference the graveyard against every possible opposing creature before each combat. And then they'll blame themselves for missing something obvious. Since R&D's contemporary motto is "dont' let players know how bad they are", that's something they avoid.
Contrast that to Bloodrush. Sure, it grants abilities besides +1/+1s. But that's not the factor in instant vs sorcery. The difference is that the card is in the hand, not the graveyard. Good players will still try to play around them, guessing what's in hand and playable. But bad players will never know that was even possible, and have no idea why they lost. Which is apparently desirable.
I must be being Captain Stupid, as I don't understand how kickboxing is repeatable kill.
Yeah it's not really. Mark phrases things strangely sometimes. What it is, however, is a deck full of 2-for-1s. Very Jund. (The deck, not the shard.) A few make good cards. And when it's slightly unwieldy (like in the form of un-cast cards ), 2-for-1s are desirable even.
But too many and it becomes impossible to "play fair" against it. Your card is a creature, then my card is a bigger creature that immediately kills yours? It turns into a card advantage arms race, and that can become really stifling.
Free MTGO Tournaments you should be playing: Pauper (all commons) - Tuesday Nights, prizes by MTGOTraders Peasant (Pauper + 5 uncommons, with paper rarity) - Sunday Nights, prizes by MTGOTraders Silverblack (Modern-era Commons and Uncommons - Most Wednesday nights, prizes by MTGO Bazaar Heirloom ("Cheap" cards only, e.g. rares under 20 cents) - Sunday afternoons, sponsored by MTGOTraders Check the superbly-made Gatherling site for more.
Other games you should try: Spectromancer - Online card game by Richard Garfield, available cheap on Steam. DC Universe Online - action-based MMO. Free to play. Surprised me how well designed it is. Simunomics - Free-to-play economy simulation game.
