"Magnetic" can have potential to be build a full deck like Genn and Baku if they make enough of them because we already have some decent mech. (In wild, of course.)
The idea of a card that is either a minion or a minion enchantment is a great one! It offers flexibility like Discover, prevents dead cards in your hand, and generally encourages more in-game decision-making. Therefore, the idea of the Magnetic keyword has a lot going for it!
The problem is that Magnetic is limited to the mech tribe, arbitrarily restricting the design space for use of this keyword mechanic in future expansions. We saw this problem before, after GvG, the mech tribe received little support. If that happens again, this would be Blizzard introducing a new keyword with limited use, and Blizzard has said that they want to limit the number of keyword mechanics to keep the game accessible (I'm looking at you, Enrage).
Here is a simple proposal to improve the mechanic: Call it "Fuse" and have it always specify a tribe (or tribes). For example, this is how the card text of the new card, Spider Bomb would read:
Fuse: Mech
Deathrattle: Destroy a random enemy minion.
This would allow for many more interesting card interactions. Sure, some could be problematic. Don't print them!
What are your thoughts on Magnetic? Do you have a better idea to improve it?
To sum up your argument (keep me honest, please), you believe the "magnetic" mechanic is a good mechanic, but that it should be open to all tribes in Hearthstone so it can stay relevant even if Mechs fall out of favor.
From a design philosophy standpoint, I completely disagree. Giving mechs a unique game mechanic is exactly what Blizzard should be doing to make tribal synergies more interesting. Today, most tribal synergies exist in the form of conditional battlecries - yes the conditions are different ("hold a dragon" vs. "played an elemental last turn," etc.), but in principle there's nothing fundamentally different about those tribes. Maybe they should add unique mechanics for other tribes to better differentiate tribes, but making this mechanic generic to support all tribes ruins the "specialness" of it.
Regarding whether or not the broad support of mechs over the last few expansions highlights a problem, I think the opposite is true. It's great to see that mechs will get a lot of support now, and that at some point that support will rotate out of standard to make room for some other tribe and/or mechanic to be front and center. It's okay for the support of certain aspects of the game to ebb and flow to keep things fresh.
Yeah I agree with this totally, and I reckon this is how it's going to be moving forward.
Mech's having "magnetic" is perfect thematically, but also adds a new mechanic, that is unique to their tribe alone.
If they were to do this for each tribe, their powers being thematic, and unique it would be amazing.
This might just be the test run for a new approach to Tribe Synergy.
The mechanic has been thinked with a very limited use, as tons of other keywords in HS (very few are found out of their own expansion set, even Odd/Even had been said that will be limited to WW and will not recieve further support). So I don't see any need to make adjustment to it. On top of that we don't know if it will be a good one or a bad one, so let at last wait to see it in play before making any consideration about.
Actually I think that Discover is the only one that have been used after LoE itself (when it was introduced), other than the keywords of the Classic Set.
Adapt is pretty much only for beasts though, right? Now, "adapt" never became an archetype or something, more just a solid keyword for some good cards. Magnetic will probably be the same.
The idea of a card that is either a minion or a minion enchantment is a great one! It offers flexibility like Discover, prevents dead cards in your hand, and generally encourages more in-game decision-making. Therefore, the idea of the Magnetic keyword has a lot going for it!
The problem is that Magnetic is limited to the mech tribe, arbitrarily restricting the design space for use of this keyword mechanic in future expansions. We saw this problem before, after GvG, the mech tribe received little support. If that happens again, this would be Blizzard introducing a new keyword with limited use, and Blizzard has said that they want to limit the number of keyword mechanics to keep the game accessible (I'm looking at you, Enrage).
Here is a simple proposal to improve the mechanic: Call it "Fuse" and have it always specify a tribe (or tribes). For example, this is how the card text of the new card, Spider Bomb would read:
Fuse: Mech
Deathrattle: Destroy a random enemy minion.
This would allow for many more interesting card interactions. Sure, some could be problematic. Don't print them!
What are your thoughts on Magnetic? Do you have a better idea to improve it?
To sum up your argument (keep me honest, please), you believe the "magnetic" mechanic is a good mechanic, but that it should be open to all tribes in Hearthstone so it can stay relevant even if Mechs fall out of favor.
From a design philosophy standpoint, I completely disagree. Giving mechs a unique game mechanic is exactly what Blizzard should be doing to make tribal synergies more interesting. Today, most tribal synergies exist in the form of conditional battlecries - yes the conditions are different ("hold a dragon" vs. "played an elemental last turn," etc.), but in principle there's nothing fundamentally different about those tribes. Maybe they should add unique mechanics for other tribes to better differentiate tribes, but making this mechanic generic to support all tribes ruins the "specialness" of it.
Regarding whether or not the broad support of mechs over the last few expansions highlights a problem, I think the opposite is true. It's great to see that mechs will get a lot of support now, and that at some point that support will rotate out of standard to make room for some other tribe and/or mechanic to be front and center. It's okay for the support of certain aspects of the game to ebb and flow to keep things fresh.
I agree with a lot of what you say. I especially agree with the idea that there should be an ebb and flow over expansions with regards to tribal synergy. I would contend, however, that the way to do this isn't by restricting keywords to a tribe, but by printing some tribal cards rather than others. Just because you expand possibilities does not mean that all possibilities need to be realized every expansion.
The pool of keyword mechanics in Hearthstone is pretty small by design. To call elemental and dragon synergies "conditional battlecries" collapses the significance of elemental: "played last turn" and dragon: "in hand" . The magnetic keyword is pretty close to "Battlecry: If you control a mech, give it x" [if not, play a worse version, which is exactly what you do if you don't meet the conditional battlecries for elementals and mechs]. Board presence is actually what the mech synergy has always been since GvG, so in that sense, Magnetic is nothing new.
Actually I think that Discover is the only one that have been used after LoE itself (when it was introduced), other than the keywords of the Classic Set.
"Joust" has been used after TGT, Raven Familiar, but for some strange reason, they have refused to call it a keyword mechanic, despite it making obvious sense to do so. Compare: "Battlecry: Reveal a spell in each deck. If yours costs more, draw it" with "Joust: Draw the spell".
Magnetic makes sense for Mechs. Cause, well..mechs.. It makes no sense to be able to ''fuse'' dragons and beasts..we already have buffs for those tribes. This is perfectly fine..imho.
Adapt is pretty much only for beasts though, right? Now, "adapt" never became an archetype or something, more just a solid keyword for some good cards. Magnetic will probably be the same.
Not quite. Adapt is basically a specific battlecry, but also spells, e.g. the Palladin Adaptation and the Druid adapt card was overcosted, but neither ever really saw play. But note that dragon and elemental synergies are also specific battlecries: If x minion condition is met, then y. Magnetic spells are not possible [a card can't be both a minion and a spell], so magnetic is, in some ways, just a more limited adapt.
I guess this is partly a philosophical debate. It seems like lots of people think that adding a condensed minion-battlecry-keyword-that-isn't-a-tribe to many sets gives it a flavor. Cool. I don't agree with that, but at least I get where people are coming from. In retrospect, and agreeing with many of you, more elegant keywords would be Dragon (Battlecry: if you hold a dragon, x), Elemental (Battlecry: If you played an elemental last turn, x), Mech (Battlecry: if you control a mech, x), and Murloc (Battlecry: if mrrgl, mrrrrrgl). OK, that last one was a joke.
Magnetic makes sense for Mechs. Cause, well..mechs.. It makes no sense to be able to ''fuse'' dragons and beasts..we already have buffs for those tribes. This is perfectly fine..imho.
Well, magnetic makes sense for mechs made of magnetized metals. God forbid aluminum mechs! ;)
So instead of a mech specific keyword you want fusion summons in HS, or a weaker neutral build-a-beast?
I personally don't care about more keywords, even if some are specific. We have combo keywords that are restricted just to rogue and the game didn't fall apart when metas came that left rogue out of favor. Why would this be any different?
So instead of a mech specific keyword you want fusion summons in HS, or a weaker neutral build-a-beast?
I personally don't care about more keywords, even if some are specific. We have combo keywords that are restricted just to rogue and the game didn't fall apart when metas came that left rogue out of favor. Why would this be any different?
I agree. I'd rather see more keywords, and more consistency. Combo is just another conditional battlecry: if you played a card this turn, then x. Choose One and Overload are basically the only distinctive class-specific keywords in Hearthstone. Once again, we're back to what counts as a "new"/"flavorful" mechanic.
Actually I think that Discover is the only one that have been used after LoE itself (when it was introduced), other than the keywords of the Classic Set.
"Joust" has been used after TGT, Raven Familiar, but for some strange reason, they have refused to call it a keyword mechanic, despite it making obvious sense to do so. Compare: "Battlecry: Reveal a spell in each deck. If yours costs more, draw it" with "Joust: Draw the spell".
The Skeleton Knight. Additionally, your example doesn't stipulate that the card being revealed from each deck is a spell, which is important. It is in every way better for 'Joust' not to be keyworded.
Other, better examples of mechanics being continued beyond the expansion they were introduced in are Poisonous and Lifesteal. Even if you argue that Poisonous doesn't count since it has technically existed since the Classic set, Lifesteal was at the very earliest introduced in GvG - although it now works slightly differently.
For general mechanics, the other tribal synergies - 'Holding a Dragon' and 'Played an Elemental last turn' - have both been continued since their initial inclusion. Magnetic is a fine keyword as is, and gives Mechs as a tribe some more uniqueness than they currently have.
Actually I think that Discover is the only one that have been used after LoE itself (when it was introduced), other than the keywords of the Classic Set.
"Joust" has been used after TGT, Raven Familiar, but for some strange reason, they have refused to call it a keyword mechanic, despite it making obvious sense to do so. Compare: "Battlecry: Reveal a spell in each deck. If yours costs more, draw it" with "Joust: Draw the spell".
The Skeleton Knight. Additionally, your example doesn't stipulate that the card being revealed from each deck is a spell, which is important. It is in every way better for 'Joust' not to be keyworded.
Other, better examples of mechanics being continued beyond the expansion they were introduced in are Poisonous and Lifesteal. Even if you argue that Poisonous doesn't count since it has technically existed since the Classic set, Lifesteal was at the very earliest introduced in GvG - although it now works slightly differently.
For general mechanics, the other tribal synergies - 'Holding a Dragon' and 'Played an Elemental last turn' - have both been continued since their initial inclusion. Magnetic is a fine keyword as is, and gives Mechs as a tribe some more uniqueness than they currently have.
Yes, I agree that poisonous and lifesteal are helpful keywords; it was surprising it took so long (and surprising that enrage got bounced). I disagree that Joust is not "in every way better" not being a key word. Aside: were all jousts only minion-based from TGT, and Raven Familiar the first spell one? Why not "Joust (Spell)" and "Joust (Minion)"? That still reduces the word count by two thirds and is a pretty basic mechanic for CCGs. I guess I just wish they'd do more with existing mechanics, and streamline existing mechanics, rather than more one-and-done ad hoc stuff.
I agree with a lot of what you say. I especially agree with the idea that there should be an ebb and flow over expansions with regards to tribal synergy. I would contend, however, that the way to do this isn't by restricting keywords to a tribe, but by printing some tribal cards rather than others. Just because you expand possibilities does not mean that all possibilities need to be realized every expansion.
The pool of keyword mechanics in Hearthstone is pretty small by design. To call elemental and dragon synergies "conditional battlecries" collapses the significance of elemental: "played last turn" and dragon: "in hand" . The magnetic keyword is pretty close to "Battlecry: If you control a mech, give it x" [if not, play a worse version, which is exactly what you do if you don't meet the conditional battlecries for elementals and mechs]. Board presence is actually what the mech synergy has always been since GvG, so in that sense, Magnetic is nothing new.
Yeah, I don't mean to trivialize the differences today between tribes by abstracting their effects to battlecries. There are obviously different design philosophies beyond "what condition triggers my battlecry?" - Murlocs tend to be aggressively stated and designed for zoo style decks, for example.
That said, having restricted keywords is not new. "Combo" and "Choose one" are special keywords for specific classes, and "Adapt" is a special keyword for Un'goro. All of those abstract to some kind of custom battlecry on a minion*, but are ultimately narrowly applied to ensure some "core identity" for the thing being identified (Rogue, Druid, and Un'goro respectively).
*"Combo" and "Choose one" can also appear on spells, but since Mechs are always minions, it's not necessarily useful to think about those cases. Both keywords could be replaced with battlecries on minions and still exist for spells. Also, they could presumably print a spell that magnetizes mechs, similar to how Evolving Spores adapts minions.
I think there are two reasons to keep it how it is.
#1: It's much easier to balance a mechanic when it is limited to a smaller card pool.
#2: They may not plan to continue with magnetic after this expansion, which isn't necessarily a bad thing as it gives the expansion a flavor that makes it more memorable. If the mechanic doesn't live on past this expansion then it makes sense to be themed towards mechs.
This. This way gives them far more flexibility on the future and for balance.
I disagree completely. I think it adds relevancy to a tribe that is completely irrelevant in standard.
Allowing it to work for all minions is what limits design space. Then, they would have to consider every card already in the game, especially standard, with each card. I don't see them being able to make the effects really strong then or you'll just be dealing with supercharged Hadronox or some shit. There aren't that many mechs and the new ones will be created with that in mind.
Magnetic keyword is a mistake because you can attach them to minions played in a previous turn, which means that basically you give the magnetic minion charge. Charge is a problem because it is uninteractive. I hope they make Magnetic minions trash.
Magnetic keyword is a mistake because you can attach them to minions played in a previous turn, which means that basically you give the magnetic minion charge. Charge is a problem because it is uninteractive. I hope they make Magnetic minions trash.
You make a good point. It's not quite as good as charge but it functions enough like it to be sorta scary. I am hoping that the requirment that a minion needs to survive, that a single taunt can still effectively stop the "charge" effect and that potentially losing both minions to single removal is enough to offset it.
I think of it this way, it's essentially a buff card that has the option of being played as a minion. Buffs essentially have charge as well for the same reason. This is in some ways less scary than some buffs (like battlecry creatures who provide and body and a buff), but better in other ways because it's less punishing if you don't have a body on board already, you just slap the creature as is on the board.
Essentially I don't think the "charge" aspect is going to be any scarier than Blessing of Kings is and way less scarier than Bonemare (was?).
Actually I think that Discover is the only one that have been used after LoE itself (when it was introduced), other than the keywords of the Classic Set.
"Joust" has been used after TGT, Raven Familiar, but for some strange reason, they have refused to call it a keyword mechanic, despite it making obvious sense to do so. Compare: "Battlecry: Reveal a spell in each deck. If yours costs more, draw it" with "Joust: Draw the spell".
The Skeleton Knight. Additionally, your example doesn't stipulate that the card being revealed from each deck is a spell, which is important. It is in every way better for 'Joust' not to be keyworded.
Other, better examples of mechanics being continued beyond the expansion they were introduced in are Poisonous and Lifesteal. Even if you argue that Poisonous doesn't count since it has technically existed since the Classic set, Lifesteal was at the very earliest introduced in GvG - although it now works slightly differently.
For general mechanics, the other tribal synergies - 'Holding a Dragon' and 'Played an Elemental last turn' - have both been continued since their initial inclusion. Magnetic is a fine keyword as is, and gives Mechs as a tribe some more uniqueness than they currently have.
Yes, I agree that poisonous and lifesteal are helpful keywords; it was surprising it took so long (and surprising that enrage got bounced). I disagree that Joust is not "in every way better" not being a key word. Aside: were all jousts only minion-based from TGT, and Raven Familiar the first spell one? Why not "Joust (Spell)" and "Joust (Minion)"? That still reduces the word count by two thirds and is a pretty basic mechanic for CCGs. I guess I just wish they'd do more with existing mechanics, and streamline existing mechanics, rather than more one-and-done ad hoc stuff.
I am not saying that joust shouldn't be a keyword but part of the beauty of games like MTG (and HS) is that in many instances there are subtle differences in how a keyword works vs. an effect very similar to the keyword but worded out instead. For example Raven Familiar only makes you consider the spells you put in your deck and not everything. Obviously you understand this already, but what I am trying to say is that trying to shove other similar effects under a keyword does two things. First it makes the keyword more confusing and secondly it removes some of the nuance of word for word explanations. Raven Familiar for instance wouldn't be any better as a keyword. "Joust: (Spell) If you win place the spell you drew into your hand"
Essentially if they make Joust a keyword it needs a static effect that doesn't function differently. Joust should always mean the same thing essentially. Obviously what happens after Joust can be different but the actual Joust effect should be the same every time. I am fine with them making Joust a keyword but some cards, like Raven Familiar should not be a joust card.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
"Magnetic" can have potential to be build a full deck like Genn and Baku if they make enough of them because we already have some decent mech. (In wild, of course.)
Yeah I agree with this totally, and I reckon this is how it's going to be moving forward.
Mech's having "magnetic" is perfect thematically, but also adds a new mechanic, that is unique to their tribe alone.
If they were to do this for each tribe, their powers being thematic, and unique it would be amazing.
This might just be the test run for a new approach to Tribe Synergy.
The mechanic has been thinked with a very limited use, as tons of other keywords in HS (very few are found out of their own expansion set, even Odd/Even had been said that will be limited to WW and will not recieve further support). So I don't see any need to make adjustment to it. On top of that we don't know if it will be a good one or a bad one, so let at last wait to see it in play before making any consideration about.
Actually I think that Discover is the only one that have been used after LoE itself (when it was introduced), other than the keywords of the Classic Set.
For what profit is it to a man, if he gains the world and loses his own soul?
Adapt is pretty much only for beasts though, right? Now, "adapt" never became an archetype or something, more just a solid keyword for some good cards. Magnetic will probably be the same.
Unpopular opinion: Rogue is OP
I agree with a lot of what you say. I especially agree with the idea that there should be an ebb and flow over expansions with regards to tribal synergy. I would contend, however, that the way to do this isn't by restricting keywords to a tribe, but by printing some tribal cards rather than others. Just because you expand possibilities does not mean that all possibilities need to be realized every expansion.
The pool of keyword mechanics in Hearthstone is pretty small by design. To call elemental and dragon synergies "conditional battlecries" collapses the significance of elemental: "played last turn" and dragon: "in hand" . The magnetic keyword is pretty close to "Battlecry: If you control a mech, give it x" [if not, play a worse version, which is exactly what you do if you don't meet the conditional battlecries for elementals and mechs]. Board presence is actually what the mech synergy has always been since GvG, so in that sense, Magnetic is nothing new.
"Joust" has been used after TGT, Raven Familiar, but for some strange reason, they have refused to call it a keyword mechanic, despite it making obvious sense to do so. Compare: "Battlecry: Reveal a spell in each deck. If yours costs more, draw it" with "Joust: Draw the spell".
Magnetic makes sense for Mechs. Cause, well..mechs.. It makes no sense to be able to ''fuse'' dragons and beasts..we already have buffs for those tribes. This is perfectly fine..imho.
Not quite. Adapt is basically a specific battlecry, but also spells, e.g. the Palladin Adaptation and the Druid adapt card was overcosted, but neither ever really saw play. But note that dragon and elemental synergies are also specific battlecries: If x minion condition is met, then y. Magnetic spells are not possible [a card can't be both a minion and a spell], so magnetic is, in some ways, just a more limited adapt.
I guess this is partly a philosophical debate. It seems like lots of people think that adding a condensed minion-battlecry-keyword-that-isn't-a-tribe to many sets gives it a flavor. Cool. I don't agree with that, but at least I get where people are coming from. In retrospect, and agreeing with many of you, more elegant keywords would be Dragon (Battlecry: if you hold a dragon, x), Elemental (Battlecry: If you played an elemental last turn, x), Mech (Battlecry: if you control a mech, x), and Murloc (Battlecry: if mrrgl, mrrrrrgl). OK, that last one was a joke.
Well, magnetic makes sense for mechs made of magnetized metals. God forbid aluminum mechs! ;)
So instead of a mech specific keyword you want fusion summons in HS, or a weaker neutral build-a-beast?
I personally don't care about more keywords, even if some are specific. We have combo keywords that are restricted just to rogue and the game didn't fall apart when metas came that left rogue out of favor. Why would this be any different?
I agree. I'd rather see more keywords, and more consistency. Combo is just another conditional battlecry: if you played a card this turn, then x. Choose One and Overload are basically the only distinctive class-specific keywords in Hearthstone. Once again, we're back to what counts as a "new"/"flavorful" mechanic.
The Skeleton Knight. Additionally, your example doesn't stipulate that the card being revealed from each deck is a spell, which is important. It is in every way better for 'Joust' not to be keyworded.
Other, better examples of mechanics being continued beyond the expansion they were introduced in are Poisonous and Lifesteal. Even if you argue that Poisonous doesn't count since it has technically existed since the Classic set, Lifesteal was at the very earliest introduced in GvG - although it now works slightly differently.
For general mechanics, the other tribal synergies - 'Holding a Dragon' and 'Played an Elemental last turn' - have both been continued since their initial inclusion. Magnetic is a fine keyword as is, and gives Mechs as a tribe some more uniqueness than they currently have.
You can find me here! Good luck everyone!
Yes, I agree that poisonous and lifesteal are helpful keywords; it was surprising it took so long (and surprising that enrage got bounced). I disagree that Joust is not "in every way better" not being a key word. Aside: were all jousts only minion-based from TGT, and Raven Familiar the first spell one? Why not "Joust (Spell)" and "Joust (Minion)"? That still reduces the word count by two thirds and is a pretty basic mechanic for CCGs. I guess I just wish they'd do more with existing mechanics, and streamline existing mechanics, rather than more one-and-done ad hoc stuff.
Yeah, I don't mean to trivialize the differences today between tribes by abstracting their effects to battlecries. There are obviously different design philosophies beyond "what condition triggers my battlecry?" - Murlocs tend to be aggressively stated and designed for zoo style decks, for example.
That said, having restricted keywords is not new. "Combo" and "Choose one" are special keywords for specific classes, and "Adapt" is a special keyword for Un'goro. All of those abstract to some kind of custom battlecry on a minion*, but are ultimately narrowly applied to ensure some "core identity" for the thing being identified (Rogue, Druid, and Un'goro respectively).
*"Combo" and "Choose one" can also appear on spells, but since Mechs are always minions, it's not necessarily useful to think about those cases. Both keywords could be replaced with battlecries on minions and still exist for spells. Also, they could presumably print a spell that magnetizes mechs, similar to how Evolving Spores adapts minions.
This. This way gives them far more flexibility on the future and for balance.
I disagree completely. I think it adds relevancy to a tribe that is completely irrelevant in standard.
Allowing it to work for all minions is what limits design space. Then, they would have to consider every card already in the game, especially standard, with each card. I don't see them being able to make the effects really strong then or you'll just be dealing with supercharged Hadronox or some shit. There aren't that many mechs and the new ones will be created with that in mind.
I don't see the issue here at all; it just looks like OP is bummed that they won't be able to make some Magnetic Bum-Rush Zoolock deck.
Magnetic keyword is a mistake because you can attach them to minions played in a previous turn, which means that basically you give the magnetic minion charge. Charge is a problem because it is uninteractive. I hope they make Magnetic minions trash.
You make a good point. It's not quite as good as charge but it functions enough like it to be sorta scary. I am hoping that the requirment that a minion needs to survive, that a single taunt can still effectively stop the "charge" effect and that potentially losing both minions to single removal is enough to offset it.
I think of it this way, it's essentially a buff card that has the option of being played as a minion. Buffs essentially have charge as well for the same reason. This is in some ways less scary than some buffs (like battlecry creatures who provide and body and a buff), but better in other ways because it's less punishing if you don't have a body on board already, you just slap the creature as is on the board.
Essentially I don't think the "charge" aspect is going to be any scarier than Blessing of Kings is and way less scarier than Bonemare (was?).
I am not saying that joust shouldn't be a keyword but part of the beauty of games like MTG (and HS) is that in many instances there are subtle differences in how a keyword works vs. an effect very similar to the keyword but worded out instead. For example Raven Familiar only makes you consider the spells you put in your deck and not everything. Obviously you understand this already, but what I am trying to say is that trying to shove other similar effects under a keyword does two things. First it makes the keyword more confusing and secondly it removes some of the nuance of word for word explanations. Raven Familiar for instance wouldn't be any better as a keyword. "Joust: (Spell) If you win place the spell you drew into your hand"
Essentially if they make Joust a keyword it needs a static effect that doesn't function differently. Joust should always mean the same thing essentially. Obviously what happens after Joust can be different but the actual Joust effect should be the same every time. I am fine with them making Joust a keyword but some cards, like Raven Familiar should not be a joust card.