Card mechanics - how should they be handled going forward?

Magic: The Gathering - Puzzle Quest MtGPQ General Discussion
1

We have seen many new card mechanics introduced over time as new card sets come into use. How should this be handled over time as sets rotate out, and should legacy cards be altered retroactively to accommodate the state of the art? Opinions appreciated, thanks.

Card mechanics - how should they be handled going forward?
  • Introduce all card mechanics going forward into the next sets, abolish none, but leave older cards with limited mechanics alone.
  • Rotate card mechanics that came in with a set out with that set. New set, new mechanics.
  • Retain everything going forward and also write the new card mechanics into older cards, keeping them relevant.
  • Case by case. Assess the utility of the mechanism when the card block is no longer the newest. Keep the useful, make the useless or deleterious ones specific to that set. If very useful, make changes retrospectively, but this should be very rare.
  • Other method.
  • No opinion or don’t care.
0 voters
2

I brought this up because I noticed that some mechanisms were being made block-specific, eg. Charge and Overload, Embalming, Cycling (to a lesser degree) due to cards with these mechanisms being nonexistent or rare in newer blocks.

Now, Charge is only really useful if a lot of the cards in the decks are dependent on it, leading to the board getting filled with matchable charged gems. Now something like this should either be taken forward as useful, or declared useless and phased out.

If it’s good, definitely take it forward. I have reservations about reversing the process, as this can lead to problems, as well as being a lot of effort to take for cards that are rarely used.

There are some things that may bear implementing across the board. I can think of two instances, namely a mechanism that is truly game-changing, or a new category of card.

At present Historic creature cards are such a category. The general guidelines (all artifacts, etc) do include some old cards. However, what about pre-mechanism creature cards? It seems to me that some of these should be included, as, with categorisation, those creature cards referring to a specific named individual rather than an instance of a particular class of individual (eg. Slinn Voda, the Rising Deep vs. Storm Fleet Pyromancer) are Historic.

So, as an older card example, Yargle, Glutton of Urborg could be made Historic(Named individual). However, Scrapskin Drake should not (description of class).

Well, it looks like this one has already been done, and in this way - score one for the developers! Also - read “Legendary” for “Historic” - I used the wrong term. Apologies.

Because this is a card category, it doesn’t create problems and solves many(ability to use cards affecting or affected by the category)

Taking something like Flash “into the past”, is a completely different story and may even create problems where there were none.

I’d be interested in hearing some opinions on this issue. I don’t like mechanisms being made obsolete, unless they are really flawed.

3

MTGPQ is for the most part bound by what Paper MTG has done. Therefore, it isn’t really possible to make mechanics relevant outside of their original sets unless that mechanic appears in a later set.

Energize is a great example, since it is most likely not coming back in paper for a very long time, if ever. It would be nice for future sets to give more energy support, but Oktagon can’t exactly slap energy mechanics on a bunch of random cards from other sets.

Also, you seem to be confusing Historic and Legendary. All Legendary cards are Historic, but not all Historic cards are Legendary (Artifacts and Sagas are also Historic, even if they are not Legendary). The Legendary icon was added to every relevant card in the game when Dominaria came out (well, almost every one at first, they should all have it now). Oktagon has also been slowly adding more subytpes to things (Artifact, Enchantment, Land…ect) which will help mechanics like this going forward. No need to change there either.

4

It’s in Origins too. I checked. I used incorrect syntax - sorry. Original post updated regarding this.

Do you have any idea why this was phased out on paper? Were there problems with it?

Or was it a matter of the game becoming overcomplicated? This is one possible problem I thought of.

5

Would the first option in the poll be something like adding energize/overload to the GRN cards when they were being made, and the 3rd option would be the opposite, like adding surveil to BFZ cards when GRN came out?

6

I am confused and dont understand the options. Mechanics are locked into a set as MTGPQ follows paper MTG as Mburn7 mentioned.

Or are we doing an outta the box kind of thing here?

7

Yeah, I misunderstood the option as well. Um.. I first thought it meant something like “keep it as it is”. In the end it’s not like they would design the mechanics.

Although this adds up to the problem of cards being hard to comprehend (some cards behave alike, but are worded differently.)

8

Yes, that was what I had in mind - keep going forward as well as add to old cards.

9

I was interested in out of the box thinking - for example, what if something is “meh” on paper but happens to work really well in MTGPQ?

Or what if a common problem is fixed by a new mechanic? Should it be written into the older sets?

Maybe you think that the more you can do, the better, so think “keep everything”?

Or maybe you don’t want complexity?

That’s the sort of thinking I was hoping to hear.

I mean, there is quite a difference between MTGPQ and paper MTG, although there has been a lot of gradual change to bring it closer.

I apologise if I wasn’t clear enough in the first post.