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.
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?).
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?
You make a good point. It's a neat concept that is now overly limited by tribe. I will hold off on whether or not this is a "bad" thing. It's not uncommon in magic the gathering for certain key words to be popular for only one rotation and only show up in one expansion or set of expansions. Perhaps it goes against their original verbiage that they want to limit keywords. That was never that realistic though. Over time you can't get away from it.
Personally I think it's okay. Firstly if we can further flesh out each faction via keywords, then I think that is a good thing. Plus we may get similar effects in the future that aren't limited to only mechs but work slightly differently. So don't count out the possibility something like this may show up in the future.
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.
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?).
You make a good point. It's a neat concept that is now overly limited by tribe. I will hold off on whether or not this is a "bad" thing. It's not uncommon in magic the gathering for certain key words to be popular for only one rotation and only show up in one expansion or set of expansions. Perhaps it goes against their original verbiage that they want to limit keywords. That was never that realistic though. Over time you can't get away from it.
Personally I think it's okay. Firstly if we can further flesh out each faction via keywords, then I think that is a good thing. Plus we may get similar effects in the future that aren't limited to only mechs but work slightly differently. So don't count out the possibility something like this may show up in the future.