Cool Card Design of the Day4/30/2014 - Flourish lets you choose between a more powerful effect, or a cantrip (but you pay for it either way).
One limitation is that you can't choose new targets, so effects like "destroy target creature" aren't compatible.
It not choosing new targets is going to be very unintuitive for newer players, I think. Most people are going to assume a new copy of a spell will be able to target a new thing. Why not just include "You may choose new targets for the copy"? Was it a power-level concern?
ReplyDeleteTrying to keep the keyword text short. Not unlikely that conforming to what players are used to is more important.
Delete"When you cast this, you may copy it and choose new targets for the copy. If you don't, draw a card."
DeleteYeah. There aren't any copy effects I can think of off the top of my head that don't let you pick new targets.
DeleteThat being said, I think that this can't go on spells that target at common without using up a good chunk of the set's NWO complexity points.
That template is gorgeous, Ipaulsen. On these three cards, it doesn't add lines or shrink text at all.
DeleteZefferal, why do you say choosing new targets is too complex? If that's part of the reminder text, would it be more or less confusing to have untargeted effects at common?
We could also only put that part of the reminder text on targeted spells. Given how intuitive retargeting is I doubt that would confuse as many players as it saved from confusion.
Deletechoosing or not choosing isn't too complex - The fact that it needs to be spelled out or we arrive at differing intuitions makes it complex.
DeleteAllowing new target choices adds a bit of board complexity, but not enough to red flag the mechanic.
I like Jules idea to omit that portion of the reminder text on spells with no targets.
DeleteAnother riff, if we want to put it on targeted effects:
DeleteOne or two target creatures get +2/+2 until end of turn.
Flourish (When you cast this spell with only one target, draw a card.)
It's a nice idea, but I think it would be annoying to develop because I feel "two copies of this spell" is going to cost more than "this spell and a card" and you'll end up with cards that are fine (and rather fun) in limited but a real problem to cost for standard. As a result, I can imagine the keyword being dropped and this becoming a cycle so that it doesn't take any of the set's focus.
ReplyDelete