6/17/2011 LD: "Aaron's Random Card Comment Archive, Part 2"

15 posts / 0 new
Last post
his thread is for discussion of this week's Latest Developments, which goes live Friday morning on magicthegathering.com.
AGAIN with the sea of links. It's not that bad if, like me, you're used to navigating with a mouse with an extra button mapped to the Back function, but it's still more annoying than it needs to be. And it's a real hassle for people used to navigating by keyboard, or so I understand. Would it really be that much trouble to just copy/paste the comments into the article?

(As an added bonus, with a simple search and replace you could get rid of the accent marks and such that Aaron uses to dodge the frankly asinine censoring on Gatherer comments.)
Jeff Heikkinen DCI Rules Advisor since Dec 25, 2011
About Neurok Stealthsuit: I doubt we’d print this card today as a common, as we have been consciously trying to cut down on common on-board tricks, as they lead to some real feel-bad moments. Nothing feels as bad a casting a spell at a creature only to have your opponent pay BlueBlue to give it shroud with a card you should have realized was in play. Magic is hard enough without this kind of slap-you-in-the-face occurrence happening frequently.

Not wanting to make people feel bad for making stupid plays factors into design.

Yay? Why not just make a card game that plays itself and be done with it?
Silly me thinking you'd change the format of this article to have actual content in the article, rather than leaving the inelegant list of links. Oh well, yet another week I don't get content from here.
I agree with the previous posters that it would be simpler for us to just put the comments in the article but that isn't the reason I write this post.
I just wanted to say that I like Aaron's comments of the day and wanted to ask if there was a way to check it daily (apart from searching the user and then try to find in the whole list of cards that he had commented on the one I hadn't read yet, that won't be very easy in a couple of months). If you plan on making this article a staple every 3 weeks or so then I guess it would be ok just to wait for it.
The link at the top goes to staging.wizards.com, which presumbably only works in the WotC office.
We always called Onulet Omulet... And it almost always was played in a deck with Ruhk Eggs.

And I don't care what anyone says, I love Clockwork Steed. It fits my Horse Theme I occasionally try to put it together, and it's a horribly nostoligic card for me. It's one of my favorite cards in terms of art and play. Sure, it's weak by modern standards, but I still love it to ... umm... peices... darn clock works!

AGAIN with the sea of links. It's not that bad if, like me, you're used to navigating with a mouse with an extra button mapped to the Back function, but it's still more annoying than it needs to be.

Is there a reason you don't use tabs? I mean, even Explore supports them nowdays.

(I can see you complaining if you are using old technology for web browsing, or are using a Phone to do so. If the case is you are using a moble, please ignore this comment.)
I hate to post a "me too" post, but just like the last one of these articles, I won't be reading this because I can't be arsed to click back and forth a million times to get to the contents of the card comments. Just cut and paste all the damn comments into your article and give your readers what they want, already.
But that wouldn't persuade people to go to the discussion thread for each card and add their own comments! I've commented on Clockwork Steed and several others, but on the card itself, rather than in this thread.

It's quite a blunt-instrument way of saying "USE OUR COMMUNITY FEATURES D*** YOU", but I can kinda see why they do it.

And yeah, it's a heck of a lot easier if you just Ctrl-click or middle-click each link, and then read each one in its own tab in turn.

(Oh, also, the censor is completely ridiculous. Who designed it to censor words like "classified", "accumulated" and "analysis"? What were they thinking? Or rather, were they thinking? Ridiculous. It drags down the reputation of the whole discussion feature that Wizards are trying to promote. "Card discussion? ...Oh, yeah, that one with the stupid filter, and where you have to type ten characters to insert a card link rather than three.")
Aaron, from a Grumpy Old Geezer Who Loved Old-School Blue, thank you very much for your honest comments on Cancel. I won't hide (and never have hidden) that I hate the card and that I personally hope that you can come up with some good but not broken Hinder-like compromise that's not strictly worse than Counterspell. But I deeply appreciate your honesty and your biting the bullet and saying that you understand that you "broke some people's toys," especially when you brought Lightning Bolt back.

There's a very strong vibe in certain circles that people who liked old Blue are just jerks or complete griefers and that bugs me. I'll admit to having an inner griefer, but the hate strikes me as wildly out of proportion. I hated getting my butt kicked by Goblin Piledriver back in those old days, but I never would have suggested that people who played Goblins, or who "enjoyed playing that deck too much," were nothing but griefers who needed to go away.

I don't expect things to go the way I'd like them to and that's OK. I still love the game and I'm still here. But the hate bugged me a lot, so to see you being nice about this and not coming from the point of view that people who enjoyed playing old-school control are ICKYBADGROSS and deserve our toys broken was really a breath of fresh air. Thank you! :-)
I'm enjoying Aaron's comments quite a bit.  And personally, I don't mind having to click the links to read the comments.  Click the link, read the comment, close the tab, click the next link, etc.
Mercadia's Downfall is the type of card I think would have helped Magic to move in a different direction, ie, where the original alpha duals could have remained and various levels of non-basic hate at different rarities, plus more effects like Imperiosaur would keep the basic lands in play. Might also help to prevent the "more money=better mana fixing" effect that's plagued Magic for too long. 

I don't think I've ever actually played with Onulet, but it looks like a decent card. Decent cost, decent body and a decent extra ability. Maybe a little bland for some folks, but it looks like a great little filler card to me. 

I said the Panorama's were underpowered the instant I saw them.  Way, way, way too many restrictions on that fetch ability. The fetch ability should have lost either the activation cost, the basic restriction on the fetched land or the "fetched land comes into play tapped" clause and these would have been nice budget lands for many years to come. As is, they're perfect examples of GILBIC. I really think they went overboard with the "you can only play three colors!!" nonsense, and should have just put Terramorphic Expanse and other types of regular fetches in the set. 

Cancel The only problem with it replacing Counterspell, is that it should have done it sooner. Upping the CMC of the absolute "no" card opens up so much more design space for softer "no" cards and also lets the game state have a little more movement. And Lightning Bolt vs Shock is different. The Bolt may take a bigger chunk out of your head, but you can keep fighting. A hard counter at 2 mana is just unfun. 

As for the article format: it's minimal effort for the site editors and clicking into the actual Gatherer screens lets you see the other comments for more context. Not really an issue.
Proud member of C.A.R.D. - Campaign Against Rare Duals "...but the time has come when lands just need to be better. Creatures have gotten stronger, spells have always been insane, and lands just sat in this awkward place of necessity." Jacob Van Lunen on the refuge duals, 16 Sep 2009. "While it made thematic sense to separate enemy and allied color fixing in the past, we have come around to the definite conclusion that it is just plain incorrect from a game-play perspective. This is one of these situations where game play should just trump flavor." - Sam Stoddard on ending the separation of allied/enemy dual lands. 05 July 2013
In the comment for Cancel, you note "We can’t be held prisoner by earlier mistakes".  Why can't we get rid of the reserved list and be done with it?  I don't mean to be that guy, but really, it only makes sense...
AGAIN with the sea of links. It's not that bad if, like me, you're used to navigating with a mouse with an extra button mapped to the Back function, but it's still more annoying than it needs to be.

Is there a reason you don't use tabs?

Of course I do. I don't see what the use or non-use of tabs has to do with anything I said, though. Going back and forth from tab to tab is not much different from going back and forth within a single browser window.

Jeff Heikkinen DCI Rules Advisor since Dec 25, 2011
Sign In to post comments