Cascade - New keyword ability

[RichardD]

shouldn't there be a restriction to the ability?

like; use this ability only once each turn....or that the copy shouldn't get the cascade ability or something like that?

[Godder]

The general idea was to mimic Storm, which doesn't really have limits as such. One of the ideas of it was to be kinda like an X spell – the more mana one has, the better the card gets.

It makes no real difference whether or not the copies have Cascade because they resolve before the original spell does anyway.

[Matt]

http://mtgsalvation.com/spoiler/guildpact/#656

WHAT I SAY, BITCHES, WHAT I SAY!

[Machinus]

Yeah, I fully expect my burn card (cascading avalanche) to show up in this set in some form.

[Godder]

Cascade is so much better-sounding than replicate...

[Limbo]

Cascade is so much better-sounding than replicate...

Yeah, but if they went with that name, they wouldn't have thought of anything new themselves for the ability

[asmoranomardicodais]

So does this mean that all the cascade cards in the master list should become replicate ones now, since replicate is SO similar to cascade (Although I like the subletly of cascade more)?

[Matt]

I'm not really sure what to do with them now.

[Jacob Orlove]

I think we should just stick with cascade and ignore replicate.

[Matt]

So, should we reword these to all be replicate, or stick with cascade?

Note: Wizards has explicitly said that they gave the guild keywords nonguild names in case they wanted to bring them back and expand on them. They also said that if/when they did bring some back, to not expect them to be tied to the same colors.

[asmoranomardicodais]

Actually, though, looking at some of the cascade cards, like my Cascade edict, they kinda lose something when translated to replicate. I agree with Orlove now, just leave 'em.

EDIT- I just realized that my Cascade Edict was never finalized. Never mind.

[Matt]

1. This card:

CanDoubleTrip

Sorcery
Draw a card.
Cascade

Is overpowered. Train of Thought is a solid, playable card; this costs less, and cascade is strictly better than Replicate. Do we just remake Train or axe this or what?



2. I have been convinced that we should go ahead with Cascade instead of translating everything to Replicate, because of this card:

Siege of Cranes
{W}
Sorcery
Put a 1/1 white Bird creature token with flying into play.
Cascade -- Tap two untapped white creatures you control.

If you have to pay that all upfront, it loses much of the coolness of using the newly-minted tokens to creature yet more tokens. I don't want to lose that.

[Ephraim]

1. This card:

CanDoubleTrip

Sorcery
Draw a card.
Cascade

Is overpowered. Train of Thought is a solid, playable card; this costs less, and cascade is strictly better than Replicate. Do we just remake Train or axe this or what?

Aaron Forsythe actually commented in one of his articles that he believes that this is how they should have made Train of Thought.  They got caught up in the notion that the casting cost and replicate cost should be the same and neglected to explore cards where they were different.

[Matt]

Can you cite me that? If so I would be amenable to leaving it.

[Godder]

From Latest Developments on March 3rd:

It wasn't until the editing and templating asked if we wanted to put a mana cost on the replicate ability that we even considered that the two could be different.   

Person 1: Do you want a mana cost on replicate?
Person 2: No, it doesn't need it.
Person 3: Well, what if we want to make the costs different next time?
Person 2: Hmmm… well… good point. Put the mana cost there then.

So even though the costs are all the same this time around, the door is open for significant tweaking when we inevitably return to this mechanic.

And from another Latest Developments, this time on January 27th, a reply to a question asking why Pyromatics and Train of Thought were so grossly overcosted (also note that a question asking why Shattering Spree was so undercosted is in the same article):

The “replicate cost” on replicate cards was added very late in development (so late, in fact, the set was practically in editing); in design, the mechanic meant simply “pay the card's mana cost multiple times.” There was never any consideration to being able to have higher or lower replicate costs than the mana costs, even though the way the mechanic ended up worded makes such differences possible. So we had to decide whether or not one damage should cost or , and whether “draw a card” should cost or . The cheaper costs made the cards far too good, so we settled for the more fair (and admittedly less sexy) two-mana versions. They are, after all, meant to be the simplest and most common execution of the mechanic.

[Matt]

Good enough for me.

[technogeek5000]

Hmm i just thought of a idea, what if the card you are cascading hurts you and the cascade cost helped you. Sorta, maybe, somewhat like herald of leshrac.

(leshrac ability card)
3 B
you lose 3 life
cascade: gain control of target land

This kind of thing would develop productive combos, but yet again its open for changes, I'm not really sure if its broken or not.

[Godder]

The concept of Cascade as a good rather than bad thing is interesting, similar to some of the cumulative upkeep "costs", and will no doubt involve a lot of design space. If you've got specific ideas, I suggest posting them as cards, and we can have fun tweaking them.