Or Terror then beacon it back later Same deal with Twisted Abomination, where you can swampcycle it then get it back into play.
I tried to build a deck around that idea once using the TS Living Death card and Tormod's Crypt to empty their graveyard then dump a bunch of your creatures into play from yours while killing the board...
The concept of a spell that takes animate form for an extra investment of mana is plenty flavorful.
But it isn't flavourful for elementals which we know are a theme because of the precons. An elemental that can be summoned for a second to have an effect is way cooler than a little weenie critter that you need to pay to be bigger. Plus it has better interactions with other cards (blink, et cetera)
If I see one more person that honestly thinks that this mechanic would be broken with pandemonium, I will reach through the screen and hit them in the face. Well, if my internet let me (damned aussie broadband).
WoTC wouldn't let this anywhere near broken with pando. The wording would prevent that, I think, because otherwise it would have the normal wording(edit:I'm speaking about the dreadnought style part). Either that or it's fake and we don't have to worry anyway.
I'm also loving how they went a new direction with the art and are chasing a niche of folklore which isn't mainstream. This is looking to be quite exciting! An entire kicker-themed block of mechanics sounds like fun.
As AaFo pointed out amply in that article a few weeks ago, Wizards could get through whole blocks' worth of new mechanics with different variations on kicker. But why in the world would they want to? Someone mentioned earlier, very acutely, that kicker as a flavor item has a very narrow (but very useful) role--taking a spell and making it have a bigger, flashier effect. Kicker as a rules mechanic can be extended, through the stupid and convoluted templating seen on Skizzik and others that permeates "custom-set" threads the world over, to do a whole slew of things. But just because it's possible for Wizards to start attempting to execute new mechanical ideas with the templating of stuff they've already done doesn't mean in the slightest that they'd be justified in doing so.
I can't see how anyone would prefer an entire block with just kicker done in interesting ways as its new mechanic over a block with actual new keyword abilities that, while they could superficially be templated with kicker, have flavor and rules-interaction nuances that make them quite different. I agree that keywording reach, shroud, deathtouch, lifelink, etc. was sort of unnecessary and makes for a lot of memory issues, and it's understandable that people have angst about inventing new keywords when we've just been dumped an unusual 10 in Rav block and even more than that in TSP. But new keywords have been an integral part of showcasing new sets since the beginning of modern Magic design, and trying to make mechanics as sterile as possible (i.e. making absolutely sure every new idea couldn't be templated with some contortion of an old one instead, because God forbid the game evolve and take on new material) isn't healthy for anyone.
And no, R_E, it wasn't an admission that they're running low on design space; it was an admission that Kicker was sort of a bad idea because it was too mechanically broad, even though initially it was used fairly narrowly flavorwise, and that lots of new mechanics tend to live under the shadow of kicker because of its incredible versatility. I'm sure they've realized for a long time that Kicker can be used to do whatever the hell you want if you tweak the templating enough (and again, amateur designers seem to get a kick out of doing just that), but they've also realized that that's a bad idea for the health of the game. Refusing to innovate isn't nice. And MaRo and others answer concerned Ask Wizards questions every other month about whether they're running out of design space, and they're always upbeat and say they have many depths yet unplumbed. From looking at set-creation threads and from knowing the considerable ingenuity R&D has for designing the game, I'm well prepared to believe that.
Anyway, I'm in love with this card and I'm in love with Evoke. People have already pointed out the many interesting interactions and design possibilities with the mechanic, and they're all amazing. This card and mechanic are exemplars of good design, and are also just bloody good; while Shriekmaw's stats make it probably a little too clunky for Standard, it's obviously a straight-up bombling in Limited and could see Block play. And the depth of the mechanic makes me confident that, with a little more aggression in costing, creatures with Evoke could be veritable powerhouses even outside of draft and sealed. Think Kavu Titan--early game you get a solid beater (in this case, a solid removal spell); late game you get a solid finisher. (Oops, Titan has kicker. But still.) Naysayers, naysay all you will, but if the rest of Lorwyn is as engaging as this, I think we'll be in for a nice time.
As paid professionals, I think WotC should make more of an effort to distinguish themselves from amateur designers. Yes, this mechanic does have nuances that make it "different" from channel, but are those differences enough to make it interesting and fun? IMO, the answer is no, but of course everyone has different tastes.
Personally, I think when you're charging $4 a pack, you should be able to come up with mechanics that feel special and exciting, and not like minor variations on old ideas.
There are three things I see going on in this thread. Two of them bother me.
The first is that people seem to think Evoke is "the" mechanic for Lorwyn. Isn't this, like, the first card we've seen of Lorwyn? For all we know, Evoke is going to be on around ten cards, like Scry was in Fifth Dawn. Don't be disappointed with the set after one card!
The second is that it's been mentioned that "it seems like Evoke will be competitive." Eh? How can a mechanic be "competitive?" Cards are competitive. Mechanics are just ways to print cards. On a tangent -- Affinity wasn't inherently broken; it's just that everything with affinity for artifacts had affinity for half the block, and they put it on cards with entirely colorless costs.
The last thing I see is one I agree with. This card looks amazing, all around. It's flavorful (look up two or three posts), both sides are playable... I just like this a lot.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DCI Certified Level 1 Judge
Remember, kids: Never fight with Flashback, 'cause Flashback always wins.
The first is that people seem to think Evoke is "the" mechanic for Lorwyn.
I agree with you that it definately won't be "the" mechanic for Lorwyn. It could have a good run of cards in the two set block, but it won't be that big.
The last thing I see is one I agree with. This card looks amazing, all around. It's flavorful, both sides are playable... I just like this a lot.
Agreed. It is a cool card. If a deck is going to run Terror anyway, I see no reason why not to run this card instead. Sure, it's sorcery speed, but it can also be used as a creature, and most control decks love that sort of multipurpose card.
Well tis the nature of the rumor mill to over-react. Heck, I've done it myself, and even recently (*****ing about art).
Evoke I think is a very flavorful mechanic, and I wouldn't be surprised if each "race" has a mechanic, this being of the Elementals. As for those who say "it doesn't look like an elemental..." well Kamigawa spirits sure the heck didn't look like someone with a sheet over their head. the whole point of "fantasy" is to break boarders and challenge the imagination.
I agree that this will not be the primary mechanic of Lorwyn, but obviously one that Wizards wants to showcase if it's on a release promo. Notice that this is an uncommon, though, so it's not the pre-release card. Or can those be uncommons, too?
Also, I don't think it's fair to say that Evoke is a worse version of Channel. Sure, Channel couldn't be countered, but Evoke triggers CITP and "whenever you play a.." abilities, where Channel does not. Channel may be better for the individual card, but I think Evoke has much more combo potential..
(about the English language) It's kinda like a raft that was cobbled together from parts of three different boats and since then has been kept barely afloat with crude repairs every time a leak appeared.
Release promos are generally uncommon, and in the text box they have the set's name foiled in there. This would lead me to believe that this is a preview of the release card.
I agree that this will not be the primary mechanic of Lorwyn, but obviously one that Wizards wants to showcase if it's on a release promo. Notice that this is an uncommon, though, so it's not the pre-release card. Or can those be uncommons, too?
Also, I don't think it's fair to say that Evoke is a worse version of Channel. Sure, Channel couldn't be countered, but Evoke triggers CITP and "whenever you play a.." abilities, where Channel does not. Channel may be better for the individual card, but I think Evoke has much more combo potential..
I call bull*****. The concept of a spell that takes animate form for an extra investment of mana is plenty flavorful. Moreover, it conserves design space. Why don't we try to come up with a new and flavorful evasion ability for each set to match the plotline of the novels? Why do we keep going back to flying? Because it works, it makes sense, and it keeps the game simple(r).
No, you've got it backwards.
The creature comes into play. It exists. It doesn't take an animate form for extra mana. It stays for extra mana. The implication would be that all evoke creatures have some sort of CIP or leaves-play ability so that you want them to produce spell-like effects (evoking the elemental) whether they are actually summoned or simply evoked.
As far as the second comment, they added shadow in the Rath cycle and realized it was a mistake to make more flying-like evasion cards. You can create umpteen different versions of flying, but then the cards only work within that block and negate the power of flying itself. By the same token, making different versions of things that could be kicker doesn't do anything to kicker but show its versatility.
First thoughts: The art is great...! Very otherworldly. Love the "mixture-look" of a bird + salamander + butterfly.. makes me look forward to the rest of the block's art.
The card on its own is also pretty versatile... sorta like an 'upgraded' Nekrataal, maybe even better (bigger & evasive). Can't wait to test Shriekmaw & assorted "CIP-friends" in a Rescue deck.
A Swamp Elemental. I was wondering what a swamp elemental would look like ever since the precons of lorwyn were shown. Very creative. Nice card overall in terms of mechanics and abilities. Having 3 abilities on the card and being a 3/2 creature that activates Pandamonium, is amazing.
[card=Dismal Failure]"Two magi could trade spells all day and never crown a victor.
The real battle is not one of power but of will.
If your confidence breaks, so too shall you." —Venser[/card]
As AaFo pointed out amply in that article a few weeks ago, Wizards could get through whole blocks' worth of new mechanics with different variations on kicker. But why in the world would they want to?
Are you serious? You need a reason to add useless and needless layers of complication to the game- you don't need a reason to avoid that.
Someone mentioned earlier, very acutely, that kicker as a flavor item has a very narrow (but very useful) role--taking a spell and making it have a bigger, flashier effect. Kicker as a rules mechanic can be extended, through the stupid and convoluted templating seen on Skizzik and others that permeates "custom-set" threads the world over, to do a whole slew of things. But just because it's possible for Wizards to start attempting to execute new mechanical ideas with the templating of stuff they've already done doesn't mean in the slightest that they'd be justified in doing so.
Oh my God, it's ludicrous how loaded your language is. Of course they're going to be justified in doing whatever the **** they want with the product, it's their product. It just so happens that one decision makes their product far more elegant, and another means that it'll be getting progressively messier with each year. Needless layers of redundancy aren't desirable. What about that is so difficult to understand?
I can't see how anyone would prefer an entire block with just kicker done in interesting ways as its new mechanic over a block with actual new keyword abilities that, while they could superficially be templated with kicker, have flavor and rules-interaction nuances that make them quite different.
Um, let's see. Because I don't care about how many keyword mechanics there are. I don't play keyword mechanics in my deck, I play cards in my deck. Channel and Cycling are examples of things to do with a creature that are genuinely different from Kicker, but where the shoe fits... do whatever it is you do with shoes.
I'd prefer a set with Kicker done in interesting ways rather than a set with cards with new mechanics done in boring ways because we have to have the nth variation of "Card with x mechanic that gives a creature flying/haste, destroys a land, is an otherwise vanilla green beater, etc., etc...".
I agree that keywording reach, shroud, deathtouch, lifelink, etc. was sort of unnecessary and makes for a lot of memory issues, and it's understandable that people have angst about inventing new keywords when we've just been dumped an unusual 10 in Rav block and even more than that in TSP. But new keywords have been an integral part of showcasing new sets since the beginning of modern Magic design, and trying to make mechanics as sterile as possible (i.e. making absolutely sure every new idea couldn't be templated with some contortion of an old one instead, because God forbid the game evolve and take on new material) isn't healthy for anyone.
Oh, you're ridiculous. Why don't we have a new variation on flying in each set instead of using the same boring evasion mechanic? Because it conserves space. Shooting out tons of unnecessary and redundant mechanics doesn't increase creativity, it decreases it by putting the focus off what the card actually does and onto the nuances of how it does it.
How is it that you can think that keywords that actually do something no other keyword can cover are unnecessary, but be happy about **** like Grandeur and Entwine? Does your argument just boil down to, "I like things the way they've been done so I don't think anything should change"?
And no, R_E, it wasn't an admission that they're running low on design space; it was an admission that Kicker was sort of a bad idea because it was too mechanically broad, even though initially it was used fairly narrowly flavorwise, and that lots of new mechanics tend to live under the shadow of kicker because of its incredible versatility. I'm sure they've realized for a long time that Kicker can be used to do whatever the hell you want if you tweak the templating enough (and again, amateur designers seem to get a kick out of doing just that), but they've also realized that that's a bad idea for the health of the game.
You have yet to make a single credible argument that it is bad for the health of the game.
Refusing to innovate isn't nice.
This must be from another thread, because the comment is surely irrelevant here. No one's suggesting not innovating. Unless you think creating new and interesting cards is impossible unless you have another narrow and needless mechanic to slap onto it? In reality, the most interesting of the cards from recent sets don't even involve the new keyword mechanics.
But it isn't flavourful for elementals which we know are a theme because of the precons. An elemental that can be summoned for a second to have an effect is way cooler than a little weenie critter that you need to pay to be bigger. Plus it has better interactions with other cards (blink, et cetera)
Which isn't relevant to anything. No one's talking about a weenie critter that you need to pay to make bigger in this case. Follow the bouncing ball.
Kicker: Shriekmaw is a spell of Black destruction that can take animate life of it's own when imbued with extra mana.
Evoke: Shriekmaw is a black creature of destructive bent that can puff into existence and die for less mana.
The creature comes into play. It exists. It doesn't take an animate form for extra mana. It stays for extra mana. The implication would be that all evoke creatures have some sort of CIP or leaves-play ability so that you want them to produce spell-like effects (evoking the elemental) whether they are actually summoned or simply evoked.
It's not extra mana, it's how much the creature normally costs. It's on discount for the one shot.
As far as the second comment, they added shadow in the Rath cycle and realized it was a mistake to make more flying-like evasion cards. You can create umpteen different versions of flying, but then the cards only work within that block and negate the power of flying itself. By the same token, making different versions of things that could be kicker doesn't do anything to kicker but show its versatility.
-E
Should I point out that that's obviously not the same token at all?
Replicate = Kicker X - Add a copy of this spell to the stack, you may repeat this as many times as you like.
Where were your complaints during Rav block about Replicate being only a minor permutation of Kicker (in fact its even MORE like Kicker)
Fact is that Kicker was needlessly open-ended, has a lack of elegance since it can be a mish-mosh of effects, and during my era of judging for IPA was a nightmare to explain to newer players.
I like Shriekmaw. Good limited potential. I don't know about constructed. Enduring Renewal and Pandemonium are the most obvious choices in the current environment. It could be fun with Grave Pact or Stalking Vengeance. I just hope it doesn't turn out to be Lorwyn's Radiance.
Im not a rules guru,but i don't think you can sac it to anything else.If i remember correctly sac'ing dosen't use the stack,like mana abilities,it just happens.But if im wrong,im wrong,no biggie.
You are (probably) mistaken. As written, the word "when" indicates that it's a triggered effect -- once the creature comes into play, a sacrifice is put on the stack, but both players can play and resolve other spells and effects before the sacrifice occurs.
Is anyone else about sick of how many stupidly needless mechanics there are?
Are we sick of Magic constantly introducing new mechanics that play differently, lead to different synergies and decisions during games, and otherwise increasing the interesting interactions that make the game strategic and enjoyable? Why would we?
But new keywords have been an integral part of showcasing new sets since the beginning of modern Magic design, and trying to make mechanics as sterile as possible (i.e. making absolutely sure every new idea couldn't be templated with some contortion of an old one instead, because God forbid the game evolve and take on new material) isn't healthy for anyone.
I totally agree with everything you've said here. There are single specific varieties of kicker that are interesting enough to support an entire block -- just look at Entwine. It's much better to treat them separately, explore them in full, and make it clear to the players what aspect of the mechanic is being explored than to just say "yeah, bringing Kicker back for the eighth time" and let people figure out that for some reason this time around every kicker cost ends with "return this spell to your hand as part of its resolution."
My extra point (since many other people, not you, seem to miss it) is that evoke isn't even a subset of kicker. This particular creature has an Evoke cost that is strictly part of its play cost, but that is in no way required -- off-color costs, larger costs, hybrid costs, and non-mana costs are all possible.
Yes, this mechanic does have nuances that make it "different" from channel, but are those differences enough to make it interesting and fun? IMO, the answer is no, but of course everyone has different tastes.
You're going to find when you open packs that you were wrong in this assessment. Five minutes of examination indicates the differences in this mechanic that are significant enough to change how it plays in comparison to something like Channel -- and they're all for the better, in that they increase opportunities for strategic play, synergistic card effects, and interesting variations.
Oh, you're ridiculous. Why don't we have a new variation on flying in each set instead of using the same boring evasion mechanic? Because it conserves space.
You don't seem to understand what design space is.
Creating a keyword that is a subset of a previous keyword neither adds nor removes design space, meaningfully, it just shifts it a little; it stops those cards from "triggering" cards that trigger the original keyword, but lets them trigger new cards.
With cycling, this is relevant: if "Swampcycling" were called "Swampsearching" it would reduce opportunities to work with the existing cycling triggers. But kicker doesn't now, nor would I expect it to ever, have such triggers; so what you call an ability that's a subset of kicker (which, remember, Evoke is not) has no effect on the game's actual design.
If your complaint is just "you're using up mental space by making people remember a keyword," well... too bad. There are something like 70 keywords now, and there will only be more with time. The reason we have blocks with their own keywords, and reminder text, is so people don't have to reference all 70 keywords from their own memory.
How is it that you can think that keywords that actually do something no other keyword can cover are unnecessary, but be happy about **** like Grandeur and Entwine?
Grandeur isn't even a keyword; it's just there to link a themed mechanic. It literally has no memory requirements whatsoever, and serves only to potentially create design space.
Kicker: Shriekmaw is a spell of Black destruction that can take animate life of it's own when imbued with extra mana.
Evoke: Shriekmaw is a black creature of destructive bent that can puff into existence and die for less mana.
I'd say Kicker would be more flavorful here.
Leaving beside the point I keep hammering on (Evoke as defined is not a subset of kicker), even in this case Kicker is a worse way to write the effect because it obfuscates how the card works and is wordier.
Evoke:
Shows you unambiguously the cost to keep the creature in play
Shows you unambiguously the cost to use it only as a spell
Has two lines of text, one for the CIP and one for the Evoke mechanic
Kicker:
Does not list the cost to play the creature as a creature anywhere; you need to sum the two listed costs
Lists the cost to play the creature as a "spell" in the play cost spot
Has three lines of text: the CIP ability, the kicker cost, and the "unless kicked sacrifice this" text.
Should I point out that that's obviously not the same token at all?
I think he means more like "when considered by the same standards." It's bad to make multiple evasion mechanics because each one keys off of itself -- flying and horsemanship have negative synergy with one another. Kicker is an almost opposite situation -- itjust affects the card that has the mechanic. What one card with a kicker-like mechanic calls that mechanic never affects play, just how people refer to the mechanic; that's why it's very different from something like flying.
i think this card is TOTALLY awesome.
art rocks.
ability rocks.
recursion will love this.
AND IT'S GOT FEAR!!!
(i really hope to see the green "naturalize" evoker a previous poster speculated. it would replace all my stomphowlers.)
how about this?
Brilliant Drake 4U
Creature - Drake
Flash, Flying
When [this] comes into play, counter target creature spell.
Evoke 1U
2/2
i think this card is TOTALLY awesome.
art rocks.
ability rocks.
recursion will love this.
AND IT'S GOT FEAR!!!
(i really hope to see the green "naturalize" evoker a previous poster speculated. it would replace all my stomphowlers.)
how about this?
Brilliant Drake 4U
Creature - Drake
Flash, Flying
When [this] comes into play, counter target creature spell.
Evoke 1U
2/2
You almost had it there:
Brilliant Drake 4UU
Creature - Elemental
Flash, Flying
When [this] comes into play, counter target spell.
Evoke 1UU
3/3
Fixed.
Otherwise yes, we can best speculate we will see other elementals have this sort of thing going on.
[card=Dismal Failure]"Two magi could trade spells all day and never crown a victor.
The real battle is not one of power but of will.
If your confidence breaks, so too shall you." —Venser[/card]
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I tried to build a deck around that idea once using the TS Living Death card and Tormod's Crypt to empty their graveyard then dump a bunch of your creatures into play from yours while killing the board...
...didn't work so great
But it isn't flavourful for elementals which we know are a theme because of the precons. An elemental that can be summoned for a second to have an effect is way cooler than a little weenie critter that you need to pay to be bigger. Plus it has better interactions with other cards (blink, et cetera)
If I see one more person that honestly thinks that this mechanic would be broken with pandemonium, I will reach through the screen and hit them in the face. Well, if my internet let me (damned aussie broadband).
WoTC wouldn't let this anywhere near broken with pando. The wording would prevent that, I think, because otherwise it would have the normal wording(edit:I'm speaking about the dreadnought style part). Either that or it's fake and we don't have to worry anyway.
I'm also loving how they went a new direction with the art and are chasing a niche of folklore which isn't mainstream. This is looking to be quite exciting! An entire kicker-themed block of mechanics sounds like fun.
But damn, that's some amazing art. I'm going to get this just for that. If it's a release promo art, I will be sad. But, it probably is.
*looks sad*
CLICK TEH LINK TO HELP DRAGONS GROW
http://solarion.dragonadopters.com/dragon_15323
Personally, I think when you're charging $4 a pack, you should be able to come up with mechanics that feel special and exciting, and not like minor variations on old ideas.
The first is that people seem to think Evoke is "the" mechanic for Lorwyn. Isn't this, like, the first card we've seen of Lorwyn? For all we know, Evoke is going to be on around ten cards, like Scry was in Fifth Dawn. Don't be disappointed with the set after one card!
The second is that it's been mentioned that "it seems like Evoke will be competitive." Eh? How can a mechanic be "competitive?" Cards are competitive. Mechanics are just ways to print cards. On a tangent -- Affinity wasn't inherently broken; it's just that everything with affinity for artifacts had affinity for half the block, and they put it on cards with entirely colorless costs.
The last thing I see is one I agree with. This card looks amazing, all around. It's flavorful (look up two or three posts), both sides are playable... I just like this a lot.
Remember, kids: Never fight with Flashback, 'cause Flashback always wins.
I agree with you that it definately won't be "the" mechanic for Lorwyn. It could have a good run of cards in the two set block, but it won't be that big.
Some mechanics are pushed more than others by R&D. This seems like it could be a pushed mechanic. At the very least, we know it has one good card.
Agreed. It is a cool card. If a deck is going to run Terror anyway, I see no reason why not to run this card instead. Sure, it's sorcery speed, but it can also be used as a creature, and most control decks love that sort of multipurpose card.
Evoke I think is a very flavorful mechanic, and I wouldn't be surprised if each "race" has a mechanic, this being of the Elementals. As for those who say "it doesn't look like an elemental..." well Kamigawa spirits sure the heck didn't look like someone with a sheet over their head. the whole point of "fantasy" is to break boarders and challenge the imagination.
/Official "White and Nerdy" Poster Boy of The Called\
Good Movie Mafia - Townie - Survived - Win
Mortal Kombat Mafia - Mafia - Lynched - Loss
Star Wars Mafia II - Townie - Exploded - Loss
Newbie Mafia 11 - Townie - Survived - Loss
Don't Fear the Reaper Mafia - Solo Mafia after day 1 - Survived - Win
Unluckyville Mafia - Townie - Survived - Win
View Askew Mafia - Townie - Survived - Win
I agree that this will not be the primary mechanic of Lorwyn, but obviously one that Wizards wants to showcase if it's on a release promo. Notice that this is an uncommon, though, so it's not the pre-release card. Or can those be uncommons, too?
Also, I don't think it's fair to say that Evoke is a worse version of Channel. Sure, Channel couldn't be countered, but Evoke triggers CITP and "whenever you play a.." abilities, where Channel does not. Channel may be better for the individual card, but I think Evoke has much more combo potential..
Ahrhoo? </scooby>
How? It's a 3/2 fear for five mana, every time, and a Terror as well.
Remember, kids: Never fight with Flashback, 'cause Flashback always wins.
Black = Shriekmaw
Blue = Bounce-maw = evoke U: return target critter OR Evoke: UU: return target permanent
White = Pro-maw = evoke W: target critter gains "pro-color" until end of turn
Red = Burn-maw = evoke 1R: deal 3 to target critter
Green = Naturalize-maw = evoke 1G: destroy target artifact/enchantment OR Giant Growth-maw = Evoke: G: target critter gets +3/+3
As for Evoke, itself: it seems alright; nothing flashy. Just another CIP variant, which is fine w/ me because I'm quite fond of 187 critters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
~Patrick
No, you've got it backwards.
The creature comes into play. It exists. It doesn't take an animate form for extra mana. It stays for extra mana. The implication would be that all evoke creatures have some sort of CIP or leaves-play ability so that you want them to produce spell-like effects (evoking the elemental) whether they are actually summoned or simply evoked.
As far as the second comment, they added shadow in the Rath cycle and realized it was a mistake to make more flying-like evasion cards. You can create umpteen different versions of flying, but then the cards only work within that block and negate the power of flying itself. By the same token, making different versions of things that could be kicker doesn't do anything to kicker but show its versatility.
-E
The card on its own is also pretty versatile... sorta like an 'upgraded' Nekrataal, maybe even better (bigger & evasive). Can't wait to test Shriekmaw & assorted "CIP-friends" in a Rescue deck.
Quite so, sir.
A Swamp Elemental. I was wondering what a swamp elemental would look like ever since the precons of lorwyn were shown. Very creative. Nice card overall in terms of mechanics and abilities. Having 3 abilities on the card and being a 3/2 creature that activates Pandamonium, is amazing.
:symr::symu: Reality Bites
:symr::symu: Delver Cyclops
:symr::symu: Niv Control EDH
:symg::symw: Sigarda EDH
The real battle is not one of power but of will.
If your confidence breaks, so too shall you."
—Venser[/card]
Are you serious? You need a reason to add useless and needless layers of complication to the game- you don't need a reason to avoid that.
Oh my God, it's ludicrous how loaded your language is. Of course they're going to be justified in doing whatever the **** they want with the product, it's their product. It just so happens that one decision makes their product far more elegant, and another means that it'll be getting progressively messier with each year. Needless layers of redundancy aren't desirable. What about that is so difficult to understand?
Um, let's see. Because I don't care about how many keyword mechanics there are. I don't play keyword mechanics in my deck, I play cards in my deck. Channel and Cycling are examples of things to do with a creature that are genuinely different from Kicker, but where the shoe fits... do whatever it is you do with shoes.
I'd prefer a set with Kicker done in interesting ways rather than a set with cards with new mechanics done in boring ways because we have to have the nth variation of "Card with x mechanic that gives a creature flying/haste, destroys a land, is an otherwise vanilla green beater, etc., etc...".
Oh, you're ridiculous. Why don't we have a new variation on flying in each set instead of using the same boring evasion mechanic? Because it conserves space. Shooting out tons of unnecessary and redundant mechanics doesn't increase creativity, it decreases it by putting the focus off what the card actually does and onto the nuances of how it does it.
How is it that you can think that keywords that actually do something no other keyword can cover are unnecessary, but be happy about **** like Grandeur and Entwine? Does your argument just boil down to, "I like things the way they've been done so I don't think anything should change"?
You have yet to make a single credible argument that it is bad for the health of the game.
This must be from another thread, because the comment is surely irrelevant here. No one's suggesting not innovating. Unless you think creating new and interesting cards is impossible unless you have another narrow and needless mechanic to slap onto it? In reality, the most interesting of the cards from recent sets don't even involve the new keyword mechanics.
Which isn't relevant to anything. No one's talking about a weenie critter that you need to pay to make bigger in this case. Follow the bouncing ball.
Kicker: Shriekmaw is a spell of Black destruction that can take animate life of it's own when imbued with extra mana.
Evoke: Shriekmaw is a black creature of destructive bent that can puff into existence and die for less mana.
I'd say Kicker would be more flavorful here.
It's not extra mana, it's how much the creature normally costs. It's on discount for the one shot.
Should I point out that that's obviously not the same token at all?
Replicate = Kicker X - Add a copy of this spell to the stack, you may repeat this as many times as you like.
Where were your complaints during Rav block about Replicate being only a minor permutation of Kicker (in fact its even MORE like Kicker)
Fact is that Kicker was needlessly open-ended, has a lack of elegance since it can be a mish-mosh of effects, and during my era of judging for IPA was a nightmare to explain to newer players.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
I like Shriekmaw. Good limited potential. I don't know about constructed. Enduring Renewal and Pandemonium are the most obvious choices in the current environment. It could be fun with Grave Pact or Stalking Vengeance. I just hope it doesn't turn out to be Lorwyn's Radiance.
You are (probably) mistaken. As written, the word "when" indicates that it's a triggered effect -- once the creature comes into play, a sacrifice is put on the stack, but both players can play and resolve other spells and effects before the sacrifice occurs.
Are we sick of Magic constantly introducing new mechanics that play differently, lead to different synergies and decisions during games, and otherwise increasing the interesting interactions that make the game strategic and enjoyable? Why would we?
I totally agree with everything you've said here. There are single specific varieties of kicker that are interesting enough to support an entire block -- just look at Entwine. It's much better to treat them separately, explore them in full, and make it clear to the players what aspect of the mechanic is being explored than to just say "yeah, bringing Kicker back for the eighth time" and let people figure out that for some reason this time around every kicker cost ends with "return this spell to your hand as part of its resolution."
My extra point (since many other people, not you, seem to miss it) is that evoke isn't even a subset of kicker. This particular creature has an Evoke cost that is strictly part of its play cost, but that is in no way required -- off-color costs, larger costs, hybrid costs, and non-mana costs are all possible.
You're going to find when you open packs that you were wrong in this assessment. Five minutes of examination indicates the differences in this mechanic that are significant enough to change how it plays in comparison to something like Channel -- and they're all for the better, in that they increase opportunities for strategic play, synergistic card effects, and interesting variations.
You don't seem to understand what design space is.
Creating a keyword that is a subset of a previous keyword neither adds nor removes design space, meaningfully, it just shifts it a little; it stops those cards from "triggering" cards that trigger the original keyword, but lets them trigger new cards.
With cycling, this is relevant: if "Swampcycling" were called "Swampsearching" it would reduce opportunities to work with the existing cycling triggers. But kicker doesn't now, nor would I expect it to ever, have such triggers; so what you call an ability that's a subset of kicker (which, remember, Evoke is not) has no effect on the game's actual design.
If your complaint is just "you're using up mental space by making people remember a keyword," well... too bad. There are something like 70 keywords now, and there will only be more with time. The reason we have blocks with their own keywords, and reminder text, is so people don't have to reference all 70 keywords from their own memory.
Grandeur isn't even a keyword; it's just there to link a themed mechanic. It literally has no memory requirements whatsoever, and serves only to potentially create design space.
Leaving beside the point I keep hammering on (Evoke as defined is not a subset of kicker), even in this case Kicker is a worse way to write the effect because it obfuscates how the card works and is wordier.
Evoke:
Kicker:
I think he means more like "when considered by the same standards." It's bad to make multiple evasion mechanics because each one keys off of itself -- flying and horsemanship have negative synergy with one another. Kicker is an almost opposite situation -- itjust affects the card that has the mechanic. What one card with a kicker-like mechanic calls that mechanic never affects play, just how people refer to the mechanic; that's why it's very different from something like flying.
art rocks.
ability rocks.
recursion will love this.
AND IT'S GOT FEAR!!!
(i really hope to see the green "naturalize" evoker a previous poster speculated. it would replace all my stomphowlers.)
how about this?
Brilliant Drake
4U
Creature - Drake
Flash, Flying
When [this] comes into play, counter target creature spell.
Evoke 1U
2/2
You almost had it there:
Brilliant Drake
4UU
Creature - Elemental
Flash, Flying
When [this] comes into play, counter target spell.
Evoke 1UU
3/3
Fixed.
Otherwise yes, we can best speculate we will see other elementals have this sort of thing going on.
:symr::symu: Reality Bites
:symr::symu: Delver Cyclops
:symr::symu: Niv Control EDH
:symg::symw: Sigarda EDH
The real battle is not one of power but of will.
If your confidence breaks, so too shall you."
—Venser[/card]