i got to say one thing where is all the fight i think this bs i know this is top down but that is not cool
Are you an artificer? Join the club!
Seeing all the cards in the set, I'm thinking that the Innistrad block should have been it's own seperate offshoot of magic. I think the cards may create interesting play against other cards in the set and eventually the block, but as far as MTG and MTG Standard in particular, I just think Innistrad is horrible.I really didn't care for the SoM block. Core 2012 is the worst core set I've ever seen and now we get this wierd set that falls completely flat.I think MTG set design is completely off the tracks and things seem to be getting worse, rather than better. I think the new Standard is going to be cringe worthy for a lot of players. There will always be winning deck strategies to be built and played, but I no longer feel that Magic offers anything in the standard environment that can't be found in any CCG. It's all just so generic and boring and even transforming cards just feel like a pointless gimmick, rather than an innovation.Those at WotC that had been very resistant to this classic horror themed block should have stuck to their guns. This set (and block) would have made a better limited edition game seperate from MTG than a MTG expansion. They could even have done horror with a MTG flavor, but that's not what happened. Instead we got old fashioned Gothic Horror that doesn't even do a very good job at being that. I think I'm done with the game for a while. I'll peek back in when the next block launches, but with the sets designed so far in advance, I think the process of recorrecting the game's course is going to take a while, assuming they even realize that the game design has taken a wrong turn.This set doesn't feel at all like Magic.
The designers need to get back to the basics and design interesting cards THAT ARE FUN TO PLAY. I'm just not seeing that with these Innistrad cards.
I'm withholding judgement on "fun to play with" until I actually play with the cards. I genuinely don't know yet.
However, all the buzz has been over the top-down design and the flavor it creates. And I have to point out that flavor is a marketing tool, not a feature. When people follow rumors about a set, discuss memorable points about an upcoming release, or even pick out their first pack from a shelf, flavor will absolutely drive that decision. It even wows people when they rip the pack and fan through the cards. However, one play starts the repeat purchase will be driven by playability and flavor will take a back seat.
So if playability has become secondary in the design process (again I don't know that it has, but designing equipment after household objects isn't a great sign), that will have been a grave mistake. I want to like a set that makes the graveyard matter and creates incentives for self-milling. But I don't know if the percent of the set that does this will make up for the large part that doesn't.
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.
Yeah, I'm feeling the same way. Double face cards are so stupid, I can't even stand to look at them. Liliana, the one card that I was super-excited to see revealed, turned out to be a complete dud. I still haven't totally gotten over poison counters, and now this corny set called Innistrad comes along. These designers are just pushing me away. These last couple years, I feel like MTG is drifting in a direction that I don't like. I feel like I barely recognize the game that I fell in love with all those years ago.
For Melvin, yes. For Vorthos, playability is still the driver, but flavor has the map and leads.
Melvin and Vorthos aren't player psychographics, they're the method by which appreciation happens. To use these terms I'm saying Timmy, Johnny, and Spike still need to be satified or else the Melvin and Vorthos aspects will go appreciate the structure and flavor of some other game.
Melvin and Vorthos aren't player psychographics, they're the method by which appreciation happens. To use these terms I'm saying Timmy, Johnny, and Spike still need to be satified or else the Melvin and Vorthos aspects will go appreciate the structure and flavor of some other game.It works both ways. If a game isn't Melvin or Vorthos enough people will look elsewhere as well.
That's not strictly possible. They Timmy Melvinishly or they Timmy Vorthosily, but either way they're Timmying. If a set is insufficiently Vorthosed for the Vorthos Timmy then he won't Timmy, but his judgement will still be formed Vorsothily.
To ground this a little bit, many Melvin Spikes (myself included) miss Damage on the Stack because it created a lot of intricacy for them to master. But it's the Spike part that's disappointed, Melvin is just the way by which we feel our Spikes were let down.
Therefore, what I'm saying is "eyes on the prize". If improving flavor aids the Vorthosian appreciation of Timmys and Johnnys, then do it to get the Timmys and Johnnys. But don't do it as it's own end.
Therefore, what I'm saying is "eyes on the prize". If improving flavor aids the Vorthosian appreciation of Timmys and Johnnys, then do it to get the Timmys and Johnnys. But don't do it as it's own end.What would be an example of something Vorthosian that isn't Timmy or Johnny?