Multiple Choice Magic Design Question of the Day 4

4) Which of these Ravnica keywords has the largest design space?
 a) Radiance
 b) Overload
 c) Cipher
 d) Forecast
 e) Haunt
 f) Bloodrush

Click through to see the answer and my rationale.

'Design space' is a measure of how many significantly unique cards you could reasonably print with the mechanic in question.

Radiance multiplies an effect's targets, but they can be spell effects or abilities of permanents. Overload multiplies an effect's targets, but only spell effects. Even though overload is a much better and more popular mechanic, Radiance has the larger design space simply because the number of card types you can use it on is so much higher. (Also, overload is always one-sided and total, where radiance might not hit all the targets you want, and often some you don't. That makes it harder to print common overload cards.)

If your Google-fu is strong, you know you can eliminate cipher, because Mark says "This is probably the mechanic with the smallest design space of all 20 guild mechanics. We even had a problem making enough cards to fill up this block." Even if we didn't have that, it's a keyword that can only go on sorceries and instants (and doesn't want to go on instants), where you have to find a repeatable effect that's relevant after combat. Brutal.

Forecast is keyword that allows the effect to which it is bound to repeat. Like cipher, the number of repetitions is only limited by your turns, but unlike cipher, all you have to do to forecast each turn is pay mana and keep the card in your hand, no combat or keeping a creature on board is required. That makes forecast much less interactive, which makes it dangerous, which limits what effects we can use. The other big difference is that you can only forecast during your upkeep, which makes you want sorcery-like effects that are relevant pre-combat, where cipher wants sorcery-like effects relevant post-combat. That gives forecast the luxury of effects that affect combat, like granting evasion or other combat boons. Forecast can appear on any card type.

Haunt is similar to cipher in that you need an effect you want to happen more than once, and it has to be relevant after combat. Unlike cipher, it can go on spells as well as creatures. It's tempting to compare haunt's merits to forecast to decide which is better (Forecast), but that doesn't help us answer which has more design space. Though haunt was printed on one instant, Seize the Soul was a rare and we can assume the same playtesting that showed cipher shouldn't be instant would show haunt shouldn't have been either. That means forecast compares to haunt much like it did to cipher, with the exception that haunt wants creatures to die (where cipher wants them to survive) and that haunt can target enemy creatures (where cipher can't). So again, forecast can have combat effects where haunt can't really. Haunt effects will only happen 0-2 times, where forecast effects are limited only by time; haunt effects require creatures to die, which you might not have control over, where forecast effects are limited only by mana; All that means that haunt effects can be bigger/splashier. On the other hand, forecast has almost no flavor limitations, where haunt really wants to feel like ghostly/death stuff. These two are very close, but I believe forecast has larger design space than haunt.

Bloodrush only goes on creatures, and aesthetically requires that the bloodrush effect parallel the creature's stats and abilities precisely. A set only needs so many combat tricks, particularly in two colors. While you can eliminate Giant Growth when you've got Slaughterhorn, it's hard to make room for many bloodrush creatures. That said, how many sets could you introduce, say, 6 new bloodrush creatures, if that was something you wanted to do?

We've eliminated overload, cipher, and haunt. How do we compare radiance, forecast, and bloodrush? Radiance loses out to these two because it's so difficult to find effects that you can apply to arbitrary numbers of creatures, especially at common. That so many of them can cancel themselves out is also a problem (like when Wojek Siren impotently watches one red creature block another). Between bloodrush and forecast, we've got a mechanic that only appears on creatures (but could theoretically appear on any simple creature) and one that appears on any card type (but the list of repeatable effects is so limited). The number of simple creatures that could be bloodrush-ified is much larger than the number of tiny effects we want players to use over and over.

F is the best answer. D is also a good answer.

Addendum: If you use just the keyworded portion of haunt and discard the rest of the mechanic as used in Ravnica, the options open up to most simple aura effects. I wasn't looking at haunt that way (and Mark wasn't either), but if you do, that becomes the best answer. I'll call E also a good answer.

This question asks something we're not used to thinking about. Not what mechanic is more fun, or more resonant, or elegant, only how much design space it has. It also requires some serious analysis. I'm happy with my answer, but it was a lot of work to come to, and I had no idea when I started. And I still wouldn't be surprised if someone posed an argument that affected my ranking.