While I still feel the DFCs are inelegant, and I'm undecided on the flavor of the werewolf mechanic, I definitely think the mechanic will be fun to play with. It's exactly the right kind of tug of war between players and I can imagine a multiplayer table where someone calls out "looks like nighttime" and everyone flips over their werewolves.
Also, this draft rule change seems like the best decision to me. One of my concerns with the DFCs was that it makes for inconsistent or hard-to-enforce rules. Previously people could be (and were) banned for looking at other players cards, and with DFCs so obvious it risked awkward calls by judges. Someone could peek at their opponent's cards and say they were just trying to see the DFC, or vice-versa being falsely accused when they just wanted to know the public information. Insisting that public information be obvious keeps that line clear.
If you're on MTGO check out the Free Events via PDCMagic and Gatherling.
Other games you should try:DC Universe Online - action-based MMO. Free to play. Surprisingly well-designed combat and classes.
Planetside 2 - Free to play MMO-meets-FPS and the first shooter I've liked in ages.Simunomics - Free-to-play economy simulation game.
I feel bad for you Tom L.You always get to tell us the most controvertial news. Why did you change the rules back? This seems like a very, very bad idea. Different people have different levels of intelligence and perception as well. Are you going to make me wear 3/4 inch thick glasses and listen to loud music in headphones, too? Its not fair for the players that have bad vision or hearing for these rules to be enforced this way. How is this any different that natural dexterity?
Oooo. A card that does something that no other card does. *gasp* A card that requires *skill* to use, even! What *is* this game coming to? Come on, what kind of argument is that? MtG isn't just a card game; it never was. We have coin tossing, card trading, deck construction strategy, skill at playing the right card at the right time, etc. What is wrong with a single card that requires a bit of manual dexterity? Your argument hinges around the basic premise that manual dexterity has no place in the game. Unless I accept that, which I don't, there's no way to convince me that the Chaos Orb is "bad". Maybe if people started explaining *why* dexterity has no place this discussion will go somewhere. No, the argument has been going on that somehow the Chaos Orb is such a powerful and to-be-feared card because of how it works. I've seen many people do some really strange things to try to counter the Orb, from stacking their cards to spreading them over half the table. Quite frankly, I think such people are being way too paranoid. The Orb is a neat card, introducing a little extra spice into the game. It should neither be feared nor banned just because one needs a little dexterity to use it. If you can't or won't develop that dexterity yourself, then don't use the card. Just don't tell me I can't use it either. - Chaosmage
Oooo. A card that does something that no other card does. *gasp* A card that requires *skill* to use, even! What *is* this game coming to? Come on, what kind of argument is that? MtG isn't just a card game; it never was. We have coin tossing, card trading, deck construction strategy, skill at playing the right card at the right time, etc. What is wrong with a single card that requires a bit of manual dexterity? Your argument hinges around the basic premise that manual dexterity has no place in the game. Unless I accept that, which I don't, there's no way to convince me that the Chaos Orb is "bad". Maybe if people started explaining *why* dexterity has no place this discussion will go somewhere.
No, the argument has been going on that somehow the Chaos Orb is such a powerful and to-be-feared card because of how it works. I've seen many people do some really strange things to try to counter the Orb, from stacking their cards to spreading them over half the table. Quite frankly, I think such people are being way too paranoid. The Orb is a neat card, introducing a little extra spice into the game. It should neither be feared nor banned just because one needs a little dexterity to use it. If you can't or won't develop that dexterity yourself, then don't use the card. Just don't tell me I can't use it either.
I can't seem to forget that I forgot about the magic celebration last weekend.
97543238 wrote:Everybody knows that having your awesome creatures killed before they can do anything is frustrating, but the Red mage in me doesn't seem to understand why it's so bad when his creatures spontaneously combust into Flame Javelins and make his opponent discard something at the same time.
76125763 wrote:Zindaras' meta is like a fossil, ancient and its secrets yet to be uncovered. Only men of yore, long dead, knew of it.
Instead of cards like this, we made our common Werewolves look less like that and more like this...
First, I was the one who first floated the idea of double-faced cards to Mark. I was on the Duel Masters design team that created that game's first double-faced cards—now known to the world as psychic creatures—so when Mark started talking about mechanics that could communicate transformation, I suggested that we investigate doing the same thing.
I am willing to "give the cards a shot," but it won't be on paper. I have the glarign problem of dealing with them online. Meaning, the game system will likely pretend these cards have "backs" just like the other cards in the game. Moreover, the system doesn't reveal backs to my opponents when playing Limited, so I breeze through this part of playing Limited easily. Sucks to be a paper player, I guess. They must now deal with what was normally accepted practice to permit players to manupilate their piles while drafting, and must now be force to broadcast this information, which seems like a detriment to drafting Innistrad. Why such a change? "Worrying about manual dexterity" is not the issue: you're punishing new players for learning to draft on this set. Shame on you.Of course, my real response is technical and art related.A response, though, is warrented on how you guys justify this (MaRo has also used LaPille's points to dismiss the value of flip cards):1. "Tiny" Art Box.While Kamigawa had "upside down" left sides of all flip cards, some artists did this extremely well, and players took as a cue that turning it upside down showed you the other side of the box. The art box was actually a little smaller than in normal cards, but it created a more "letterbox" frame for the art, emphasizing left and right. Turning these cards around allows the sides of the box to demonstrate the image. This was no challenge to the players or card developers, just to the artists. As an artist, I can say that such challenges as this would appear to be useful to develop ways to display information. I cannot certainly see you guys use this to try to redefine split cards, but I can only imagine you suddenly thinking "Two spells, one card! One spell per card side! You choose the spell!"This is a cheesy excuse, and valueless, in my opinion, as a reason to choose the obverse face for information.2. Limited Room for Rules Text -- No Room for Flavor Text.Admittedly, this is true. The alternative is with something dumb like Greater Morphling or its more recent now-banned copycat Jace, the Mind Sculptor. You guys have no problems changing things to make room for text boxes. You just didn't want to in regards to the flip cards because you wanted two- to three-line flip conditions (some triggered, some not) and extra abilities. Simply having special rules with keywords (as possible with the Werewolf transform scheme, but unemployed) solves this problem. Flipping, in fact, could have involved more keyworded abilities than others in order to solve this difficulty. It would have solved the issue with "transform" cards, especially since several of them have no "re-transform" conditions, or limited amounts of rules on them to begin with. Have you seen them so far? I'm sure you have. The number of cards with more than one ability per side revealed so far are low, most werewolves have the transform conditions and a keyword, or are a lord-effect, and thus have "two" abilities, one of which can simply be keyworded (Aggressor 3: Attacking creatures you control get +3/+0 until end of turn, etc.)3. Which is "Up" When Tapped.Ordinarily, when I was playing with these, I'd make a note of how my opponent taps his permanents: all of mine tap to the left, and most players I know tap to the right. This was even handled on a poll on this site where (I forget whom) aksed the question of how they tapped their permanents: most people are fairly consistent in going around 45 degrees to the right.When you see this, you can also pay attention to the game and note where a player would have flipped his card. If you're not paying attention, such as getting up and getting a drink and finding something different, you can ask your opponent "what the heck happened?" Reasonably, no player should be unaware of the board state and changing conditions, EVER. Newer players are excused for being learners, and my understanding is that noting changes can be done easily by the use of counters.This isn't a problem of the cards, it's a communication problem, although I admit it is also the worst thing about flippers. There are plenty of solutions, however, including the hideously ugly "level up" cards, that do not require two faces to "solve." Some of your cards, such as those that don't transform back, might as well be level up, or have "[CARDNAME] becomes [thing]" instead of transforming.4. "Hard" to Show Transformation.Your post MASTERFULLY demonstrates the reason the art choice issue will actually be a hinderance, although you do so seemingly without realizing it. Previously, artists have had to descend to the surreal to show "before and after" on cards, testing their skills to demonstrate the aspects of a transformation. Greater Werewolf showed this creepily by "capturing" the transformation moment. Other cards have done this. When Magic tackled "time," they did this with "fields of time" holding frozen objects (my favorite being Shivan Meteor, although Ith, High Arcanist is no slouch) where the slow "unfreezing" is indicated by "temporal energies." But even better were the split second cards, where perhaps best you had Krosan Grip capturing the same object, in the process of its destruction.You guys can capture time before than you have now. Instead, you opted for a technical problem as a "solution." In this I mean you have to turn the card over to see the "next" or "previous" moment. When you depicted Kruin Outlaw, however, you did so by throwing the art together (side by side, Kamigawa-style) with its transformed condition. What does that say to you? If I were to tell you I had a "before and after" series, but I painted them on each side of a two-sided frame, and you wanted to compare the intricate detail of how I had perfectly transposed the background elements to show something mere minutes later, how would it be easiest for you to compare them? Flip it around, back and forth? Or side by side? Your own showcase of Kruin Outlaw proves that in the moment, these works are even painted side by side, presented side by side, compared and prepared side by side. You created an unnecessary technical issue as a supposed "fix" to a "problem," one in which you guys had solved long ago with brilliant artists like Gabor & Szikszai.I think, honestly, you guys are inventing problems with the flippers to justify "the new crank," so it's not really your fault. I'd like to say it's R&D in general, or MtG management, or WotC, or Hasbro, but since you guys don't actually describe the full discussions and reasoning for your decisions, it's rather hard to do other than "agree or disagree". And that means we can't really have an honest conversation, and that is the real failure here.
Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.
And let me say another thing: The rules change about draft is so incredibly pointless and bad, that once I grab my 3rd-4th Liliana 2.0 and a couple of other cards I'm gonna need, I'm never gonna draft with Innistrad boosters again. Letting my opponents know my cards? Is this your idea of fun? Not for me, Tom L. And no, this is not a taboo break, this is ruining the fun concept of a really flavourful block.
If you don't want other people to know what you are playing, then don't draft DFCs. As 12 of the 20 DFCs are Werewolves that shouldn't really be an issue. The only real concern is showing the vampires, Ludevic's Test Subject, or Garruk.
I'm really on the fence about the mechanics of the double-faced cards. The art, however...I fear the amount of money that I will end up spending in this set.
As far as the benefit of the rest of Magic is concerned, gold cards in Legends were executed perfectly. They got all the excitement a designer could hope out of a splashy new mechanic without using up any of the valuable design space. Truly amazing.
--Aaron Forsythe's Random Card Comment on Kei Takahashi
I found the link to the Magic Celebration events by accident while searching for ways to consolidate my prior DCI numbers. It said it would be a free event that used the pack wars format, but when I checked my local stores, none of them were adhering to that, instead playing straight constructed events (and only one of the stores was doing it for free). As for werewolves, I like the trigger mechanic. It's interesting design space. After seeing this preview card, I'm amazed you didn't give it to Mike Flores to write about, because it's some hot stuff. Well, aside from having to limit yourself to only one spell per turn.
MtG isn't just a card game; it never was. We have coin tossing, card trading, deck construction strategy, skill at playing the right card at the right time, etc. What is wrong with a single card that requires a bit of manual dexterity? Your argument hinges around the basic premise that manual dexterity has no place in the game. Unless I accept that, which I don't, there's no way to convince me that the Chaos Orb is "bad". Maybe if people started explaining *why* dexterity has no place this discussion will go somewhere.There is a fundamental difference between what you've mentioned here and what is required by manual dexterity cards. The former only concern matters of how cards interact with each other by game mechanics, while the latter add an additional element: how the cards interact with the physical environment.While it doesn't really require a ton of manual dexterity to flop a Chaos Orb over onto the battlefield, I don't think that's the heart of the issue. The problem is that it requires an extraneous amount of actions outside of the normal game mechanics: measure the height off the table (do you have a ruler?); rearrange your field to dodge the Orb; turn off the fan / shut the window, lest the breeze thwart you. That has the potential to be time consuming, and all for what gain? A fancy Vindicate or Lightning Bolt.Wizards has already set the precedent (which I tend to agree with) that cards that require a lot of physical action tend to get banned from tournament settings. Look at Sensei's Divining Top in Extended. Or Thawing Glaciers and Land Tax. The ideal is to keep as much of the real world out of the game as possible. Having factors outside of the contents of the decks at the table, and decisions made around them, decide a game's outcome is aggravating.
game; it never was. We have coin tossing, card trading, deck construction strategy, skill at playing the right card at the right time, etc. What is wrong with a single card that requires a bit of manual dexterity? Your argument hinges around the basic premise that manual dexterity has no place in the game. Unless I accept that, which I don't, there's no way to convince me that the Chaos Orb is "bad". Maybe if people started explaining *why* dexterity has no place this discussion will go somewhere.
First, I was the one who first floated the idea of double-faced cards to Mark. I was on the Duel Masters design team that created that game's first double-faced cards—now known to the world as psychic creatures—so when Mark started talking about mechanics that could communicate transformation, I suggested that we investigate doing the same thing.From what I've heard from it, DM's DFCs are not regular cards you shuffle in your deck, but act more like wishboards.No talk about why you abandoned this?
From Mark Rosewater's Tumblr: the0uroboros asked: How in the same set can we have a hexproof, unsacrificable(not a word) creature AND a land that makes it uncounterable. How does this lead to interactive play? I believe I’m able to play my creature and you have to deal with it is much more interactive than you counter my creature.
MaRo: One of the classic R&D stories happened during a Scars of Mirrodin draft. Erik Lauer was sitting to my right (meaning that he passed to me in the first and third packs). At the end of the draft, Erik was upset because I was in his colors (black-green). He said, "Didn't you see the signals? I went into black-green in pack one." I replied, "Didn't you see my signals? I started drafting infect six drafts ago."
MaRo: I redesigned him while the effect was on the stack.
This is a great point. I came here for another reason, but I'll bang on this for a second. It goes right back to the alternate idea a lot of folks had. Have the base cards be regular cards with normal backs and all, and when they transform, use one of the token cards to indicate the new state. If you're worried about distribution, then increase the frequency of them in boosters or whatever.
Here's mine: you've irrevocably changed the card back, and that's too far.
I wish it didn't have to end this way, I suppose I should have seen it coming with Command Tower being unplayable except in certain formats. It should have been the signal that WOTC was pushing one boundary too far.
Flip card supporters: Something being mechnically "the same thing" doesn't mean it's intuitively "the same thing". Flip cards are an aesthetic failure; you can't tell what they are just by looking at them. DFCs fix that. Now, DFCs may turn out to be a logistics failure, but only actually playing with them will determine that.
You apparently missed the part in MaRo's article a couple weeks back, where he explained that they came out of design as Sorceries that conjured up double-faced tokens, but then they learned that it would be prohibitively expensive to attempt to ensure that 20 tokens ended up in the same pack as the sorceries that needed them.. and they would still have a 10% failure rate.
Personally, I think they should have inserted 2 cards per pack. One a DFC (like they are doing anyway) and the other a matching "proxy" card, front side of that DFC, with the magic backside on the back. Better than the checklist cards, which just add an extra level of annoyance and are not cool in any way, shape, or form.
But too late for that. They've picked their flawed solution, so we're stuck with it for a block. I do hope they print up and sell some official proxies that we can use though, a pack that contains 4 of each DFC in the set, done in the DFC front, magic card back way, so people who want better looking but tournament usable proxies can get those.
There will always be a special place in my heart for Rochester draft, especially teams. Ah, good times.As a point of clarification, as from reading some of these posts it seems like people are misunderstanding, only a double-faced card will have its identity known when you draft it. All other cards are drafted as they always have been - in a single, face-down pile in front of you. The double-faced card you draft will be covered up by the next card you draft (assuming it's not another DFC). Somehow this turned into knowing the entire deck (or at least all the colors) of the person sitting three seats away.Peeking at the cards in your neighbor's hand is still a major no-no.That being said, I did my first draft with real Innistrad cards a few weeks back, and it was a lot of fun. Some novelties with the double-faced cards, but overall a good time. I hope everyone shares a similar first experience.
Anyway, Duel Masters made double-faced cards a year or so back. They looked very cool and were quite popular. Tom LaPille had seen them recently, so when I asked how we could make the transformation theme work, Tom suggested we explore double-faced cards. Double-faced cards had plenty of splash going for them, but they had one giant hurdle: the lack of a Magic back. In order to make them we were going to have to solve a number of issues.
Psychic Creature: Psychic Creatures are a card type first introduced in DM-36 Psychic Shock. A Psychic Creature is placed in the Hyperspatial Zone which is next to your graveyard. You are limited to 8 Psychic Creatures per hyperspatial zone and they are counted separately from your main deck of 40 or more cards. At anytime during a duel you are allowed to look at your opponents hyperspatial zone. A Psychic Creature card is two-sided, and features a creature on both sides. When the cheaper side creature activates its awaken ability, you may flip the card over to its higher cost side. This gives the creature a higher power and improved card effects. For example: Bolshack Dragon, the Temporal Blaze flips over to Bolshack Mobius, Victory Awakened when it wins a battle. A Psychic creature doesn't provides any mana as it can only ever be in your battle or dimensional zone, whenever a Psychic Creature is to leave the battle zone, it returns to the dimensional zone.
I have been uable to vote in the poll for weeks now using firefox. Anyone else have this bug?Also, love that last weeks poll was 1337