9/24/2012 MM: "Card Day's Night"

53 posts / 0 new
Last post
This thread is for discussion of this week's Making Magic, which goes live Monday morning on magicthegathering.com.
I like the acknowledgement of the Rootborn Defenses incident.
Known as Blitzer on most forums. Despite the username, I am male. Both sex AND gender.
If wizards intentionally seeded a very small percentage of packs with a common from the next set, every pack anyone opened would be permeated with intangible excitement. If you have a pack of Return to Ravnica near you, look at it. There might be a Gatecrash card in that pack. Now tell me you don't want to open it.
One of the things you have to be careful about is making spells that refer to cards the players might not have. Planeswalkers are a mythic rare thing. If we put Dreadbore at uncommon, we have greatly increased the number of players who would have a card that destroys Planeswalkers without ever having seen a Planeswalker.


I dunno, seems to me it just increases the whole discovery factor for players. Just when they think they've seen everything WHAM planeswalker. Well, the fact that the planeswalkers have been trotted about like  show ponies for the game since ~Lorwyn making this reasoning sort of malarkey notwithstanding (Incidentally, just image searched Magic: The Gathering, four walkers on the first page, two of which are everyone's favorite pretty boy).

Also, the idea of spell that destroys a Planeswalker by concept shouldn't be very common. It's rare because, well, it's rare.


Aside from the fact that it uses that exact terminology, not really, no. If anything, this sort of reasoning just makes it harder for new players to get the game (which is harder to figure out works as walker removal, hexmage or dreadbore?), and reinforces the stereotype that planeswalkers killed magic.

In short, if a playgroup with no walkers opens a dreadbore, the game is afoot. If a playgroup opens a walker with no dreadbores, MAGIC IS DYING BAN NICOL BOLAS! 

Zammm = Batman.

It's my sig in a box
58280208 wrote:
Everything is better when you read it in Bane's voice.
192334281 wrote:
Your human antics and desire to continue living have moved me. Just kidding. You cannot move me physically or emotionally. Wall humor.
57092228 wrote:
Copy effects work like a photocopy machine: you get a copy of the 'naked' card, NOT of what's on it.
56995928 wrote:
Funny story: InQuest Magazine (I think it was InQuest) had an oversized Chaos Orb which I totally rooked someone into allowing into a (non-sanctioned) game. I had a proxy card that was a Mountain with "Chaos Orb" written on it. When I played it, my opponent cried foul: Him: "WTF? a Proxy? no-one said anything about Proxies. Do you even own an actual Chaos Orb?" Me: "Yes, but I thought it would be better to use a Proxy." Him: "No way. If you're going to put a Chaos Orb in your deck you have to use your actual Chaos Orb." Me: "*Sigh*. Okay." I pulled out this huge Chaos Orb and placed it on the table. He tried to cry foul again but everyone else said he insisted I use my actual Chaos Orb and that was my actual Chaos Orb. I used it, flipped it and wiped most of his board. Unsurprisingly, that only worked once and only because everyone present thought it was hilarious.
My DM on Battleminds:
no, see i can kill defenders, but 8 consecutive crits on a battlemind, eh walk it off.
144543765 wrote:
195392035 wrote:
Hi guys! So, I'm a sort of returning player to Magic. I say sort of because as a child I had two main TCG's I liked. Yu-Gi-Oh, and Pokemon. Some of my friends branched off in to Magic, and I bought two pre-made decks just to kind of fit in. Like I said, Yu-Gi-Oh and Pokemon were what I really knew how to play. I have a extensive knowledge of deck building in those two TCG's. However, as far as Magic is concerned, I only ever used those two pre made decks. I know how the game is played, and I know general things, but now I want to get in the game for real. I want to begin playing it as a regular. My question is, are all cards ever released from the time of the inception of this game until present day fair game in a deck? Or are there special rules? Are some cards forbidden or restricted? Thanks guys, and I will gladly accept ANY help lol.
I have the same problem with women.
117639611 wrote:
198869283 wrote:
Oh I have a standing rule. If someone plays a Planeswalker I concede the game. I refuse to play with or against people who play Planeswalkers. They really did ruin the game.
A turn two Tibalt win?! Wicked... Betcha don't see that everyday.

The Pony Co. 

Is this my new ego sig? Yes it is, other Barry
57461258 wrote:
And that's why you should never, ever call RP Jesus on being a troll, because then everyone else playing along gets outed, too, and the thread goes back to being boring.
57461258 wrote:
See, this is why RPJesus should be in charge of the storyline. The novel line would never have been cancelled if he had been running the show. Specifically the Slobad and Geth's Head talkshow he just described.
57461258 wrote:
Not only was that an obligatory joke, it was an on-topic post that still managed to be off-topic due to thread derailment. RP Jesus does it again folks.
92481331 wrote:
I think I'm gonna' start praying to Jesus... That's right, RPJesus, I'm gonna' be praying to you, right now. O' Jesus Please continue to make my time here on the forums fun and cause me to chuckle. Amen.
92481331 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
It was wonderful. Us Johnnies had a field day. That Timmy with the Grizzly bears would actually have to think about swinging into your Mogg Fanatic, giving you time to set up your silly combo. Nowadays it's all DERPSWING! with thier blue jeans and their MP3 players and their EM EM OH AR PEE JEES and their "Dewmocracy" and their children's card games and their Jersey Shores and their Tattooed Tenaged Vampire Hunters from Beverly Hills
Seriously, that was amazing. I laughed my *ss off. Made my day, and I just woke up.
[quote=ArtVenn You're still one of my favorite people... just sayin'.[/quote]
56756068 wrote:
56786788 wrote:
.....would it be a bit blasphemous if I said, "PRAYSE RPJAYSUS!" like an Evangelical preacher?
Perhaps, but who doesn't like to blaspheme every now and again? Especially when Mr. RPJesus is completely right.
56756068 wrote:
I don't say this often, but ... LOL
57526128 wrote:
You... You... Evil something... I actualy made the damn char once I saw the poster... Now you made me see it again and I gained resolve to put it into my campaign. Shell be high standing oficial of Cyrix order. Uterly mad and only slightly evil. And it'll be bad. Evil even. And ill blame you and Lizard for it :P.
57042968 wrote:
111809331 wrote:
I'm trying to work out if you're being sarcastic here. ...
Am going to stop you right there... it's RPJesus... he's always sarcastic
58335208 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
112114441 wrote:
we can only hope it gets the jace treatment...it could have at least been legendary
So that even the decks that don't run it run it to deal with it? Isn't that like the definition of format warping?
I lol'd.
56287226 wrote:
98088088 wrote:
Uktabi Orangutan What the heck's going on with those monkeys?
The most common answer is that they are what RPJesus would call "[Debutantes avert your eyes]ing."
56965458 wrote:
Show
57461258 wrote:
116498949 wrote:
I’ve removed content from this thread because off-topic discussions are a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_... Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively. If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
...Am I the only one that thinks this is reaching the point of downright Kafkaesque insanity?
I condone the use of the word Kafkaesque. However, I'm presentely ambivalent. I mean, that can't be serious, right? We're April 1st, right? They didn't mod RPJesus for off-topic discussion when the WHOLE THREAD IS OFF-TOPIC, right? Right.
57545908 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
Save or die. If you disagree with this, you're wrong (Not because of any points or arguements that have been made, but I just rolled a d20 for you and got a 1, so you lose).
58397368 wrote:
58222628 wrote:
This just won the argument, AFAIC.
That's just awesome.
57471038 wrote:
57718868 wrote:
HOW DID I NOT KNOW ABOUT THE BEAR PRODUCING WORDS OF WILDING?! WHAT IS WRONG WITH ME?!
That's what RPJesus tends to do. That's why I don't think he's a real person, but some Magic Card Archive Server sort of machine, that is programmed to react to other posters' comments with obscure cards that do in fact exist, but somehow missed by even the most experienced Magic players. And then come up with strange combos with said cards. All of that is impossible for a normal human to do given the amount of time he does it and how often he does it. He/It got me with Light of Sanction, which prompted me to go to RQ&A to try and find if it was even possible to do combat damage to a creature I control (in light that Mark of Asylum exists).
71235715 wrote:
+10
100176878 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
57078538 wrote:
heaven or hell.
Round 1. Lets rock.
GG quotes! RPJesus just made this thread win!
56906968 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
143359585 wrote:
Blue players get all the overpowerered cards like JTMS. I think it's time that wizards gave something to people who remember what magic is really about: creatures.
Initially yes, Wizards was married to blue. However, about a decade ago they had a nasty divorce, and a few years after that they began courting the attention of Green. Then in Worldwake they had a nasty affair with their ex, but as of Innistrad, things seem to have gotten back on track, and Wizards has even proposed.
You are my favorite. Yes you. And moments like this make it so. Thank you RPJesus for just being you.
On what flavor text fits me:
57307308 wrote:
Surely RPJesus gets Niv-Mizzet, Dracogenius?
56874518 wrote:
First: I STILL can't take you seriously with that avatar. And I can take RPJesus seriously, so that's saying something.
121689989 wrote:
I'd offer you a cookie for making me laugh but it has an Upkeep Cost that has been known to cause people to quit eating.
56267956 wrote:
I <3 you loads
57400888 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
"AINT NO LAWS IN THE SKY MOTHER****." - Agrus Kos, Wojek Veteran
10/10. Amazing.
I'm a strong supporter of Stab wound.  Reminds me of Pillory of the Sleepless which was one of my favorite cards from the last trip to Ravnica.
Erik: Supreme Verdict is okay because it's blue and a tertiary ability can be used every once in a while. The last time we used it was Darksteel
Me: Fine.

Problem is, your rule is that you don't let tertiary effects be used in multicolor designs. If you're giving each color one effect on the card, then it has to be either primary or secondary. Gold cards aren't the place for color-bleeding.

Supreme Verdict is not Blue. White/Red, definitely. White/Blue, no.

I've been asked what this card has to do with Return to Ravnica. It feels like a bit of an odd fit. It is. Let me explain how it got here.

One of the jobs of development is to figure out when the environment needs a reactive card to help offset some effect of previously printed cards.


Yeah, because there definitely isn't enough hate for graveyard strategies already. We really needed this card.

Question 1: You said you weren't going to mention "Planeswalker" directly in rules text. What happened?

Magic is a game about breaking the rules. In order to have rules to break, we first have to make them and then, when we think the time is right, we break them. This doesn't mean we break every rule or that we break rules without cause, but it does mean that the reason we make so many rules is that we need to keep having rules we can break from time to time. Dreadbore is an experiment. We are seeing what the players think about cards that directly reference Planeswalkers. I'm curious for your feedback.


This isn't about making a rule and then breaking it. You told us you wouldn't do something, and then you did it anyway. That's breaking a promise. Which, according to your Reserved List policy, is something you've promised us you wouldn't do, even if most of us wish you would.

Another problem with this statement is that you've already referred to Planeswalkers directly: Despise. And that's not the only card that does, just the most direct.

The problem here isn't that it refers to Planeswalkers directly; it's that it destroys them. And guess what, we as players of the game are also Planeswalkers. So the flavor here is absolutely atrocious.

The card did a good job of helping Selesnya in Draft but also began to start helping the Innistrad Spirit decks in Constructed. Erik didn't want to give that deck more cards, as he was worried it was getting a little too good,

Yes, because the Spirits deck is the one that's dominating Constructed right now. Man, I sure am sick of reading about tournaments being won by the Spirits deck. Glad you guys are so talented at judging what decks will be the biggest problems...


So, I can't help but notice that this isn't a "Part One", and you didn't make reference to a Part Two coming, and you ended in the S's. Lately, you've been getting two or even three Card-by-Card discussion articles per set. Is Return to Ravnica so light on individual card design stories that you could only scrounge up a single article? 
IMAGE(http://images.community.wizards.com/community.wizards.com/user/blitzschnell/c6f9e416e5e0e1f0a1e5c42b0c7b3e88.jpg?v=90000)

Question 1: You said you weren't going to mention "Planeswalker" directly in rules text. What happened?



Magic is a game about breaking the rules. In order to have rules to break, we first have to make them and then, when we think the time is right, we break them. This doesn't mean we break every rule or that we break rules without cause, but it does mean that the reason we make so many rules is that we need to keep having rules we can break from time to time. Dreadbore is an experiment. We are seeing what the players think about cards that directly reference Planeswalkers. I'm curious for your feedback.



Magmaquake already mentions planeswalkers, as does despise. And a whole bunch of cards mention 'you or a planeswalkers you control'feel exit seems this rule is quite flexible already.

 
Terminate: Common. Make it better? Better make it rare. The explanation for Dreadbore's rarity: "We saw an opportunity to squeeze more money out of our player base." Any other explanation: Complete bull.
I for one would like to say that I am sad to hear that the cant be countered cycle is not going to be completed... If it wasnt prepared to be a full cycle it shouldnt have been started. To me this seems akin to the legendary werewolf that was never completed; A cycle got started, it couldn't be ironed out so the cycle was broken. I was very much looking forward to the other guilds getting their chance at this.

Maybe I'm not speaking for everyone but cant be countered hardly seems like it takes part in the color pie enough to make this count. How often does a cant be countered card come along? To date there are only around 20 cards that cant be, and 30 that either have or donate the effect. Hardly seems grounded enough in a color to not be able to stretch it. This is hardly something like flying, trample, first strike, etc..

Even if the effect is stapled to green or red, with tertiary in blue, the only guild that doesnt share atleast one of these colors is the orzhova... Gruul is green and red and rightly deserves a cant be countered. Simic is blue-green and also deserves a card. Boros has red, and therefor is an easy add. Dimir has blue, so it is the same level of stretch as the azorius were. and I think for the sake of a ten card cycle, you can though white-black a bone, make it terribly unplayable if you have to, but it should be made.

As MARO went on to say later in the article magic is a game of braking rules. I for one dont even see this as braking a rule so much as stretching one, things have been printed in colors that dont deserve them. I believe that MARO was the lead on Innistrad, and as a firm believer in the color pie, printing a white creature with trample seemed odd to me. I'm just saying the color pie has room to stretch.

Maybe it's jsut the old OCD but broken and incomplete cycles really bother me as a player. I suppose its that adage, if you cant do something right dont do it at all. It creates inconsistancy and like MARO also said in the state of magic address for this year, players want to be supplied what is expected. There are many who read this article today and were dissapointed, like me, to hear that they arent going to finish the cycle. However, there are many who dont read these articles or skim them. I say that when previews start for Gatecrash, people will be dissapointed.

All that whining (for lack of being able to type a better word to describe the level of whining i've done in this article) aside loved the article, every set I love to hear how a card was designed
@MaRo: "We are seeing what the players think about cards that directly reference Planeswalkers. I'm curious for your feedback."

Personally I love it when cards reference Planeswalkers, and feel it is long overdue. There are only about 17 cards that reference Planeswalkers, but this should only be the beginning, IMO. 

 ~ Tim
I am Blue/White Reached DCI Rating 1800 on 28/10/11. :D
Sig
56287226 wrote:
190106923 wrote:
Not bad. But what happens flavor wise when one kamahl kills the other one?
Zis iz a sign uf deep psychological troma, buried in zer subconscious mind. By keelink himzelf, Kamahl iz physically expressink hiz feelinks uf self-disgust ova hiz desire for hiz muzzer. [/GermanPsychologistVoice]
56957928 wrote:
57799958 wrote:
That makes no sense to me. If they spelled the ability out on the card in full then it would not be allowed in a mono-black Commander deck, but because they used a keyword to save space it is allowed? ~ Tim
Yup, just like you can have Birds of paradise in a mono green deck but not Noble Hierarch. YAY COLOR IDENTITY
56287226 wrote:
56888618 wrote:
Is algebra really that difficult?
Survey says yes.
56883218 wrote:
57799958 wrote:
You want to make a milky drink. You squeeze a cow.
I love this description. Like the cows are sponges filled with milk. I can see it all Nick Parks claymation-style with the cow's eyes bugging out momentarily as a giant farmer squeezes it like a squeaky dog toy, and milk shoots out of it.
56287226 wrote:
56735468 wrote:
And no judge will ever give you a game loss for playing snow covered lands.
I now have a new goal in life. ;)
@MaRo: "We are seeing what the players think about cards that directly reference Planeswalkers. I'm curious for your feedback."

Personally I love it when cards reference Planeswalkers, and feel it is long overdue. There are only about 17 cards that reference Planeswalkers, but this should only be the beginning, IMO. 

 ~ Tim



We have 17 already? I can only think of Despise, the quake, Thoughtsieze 2.0, and Sorin. I guess Htarmy technically counts even if reminder text doesn't his was specifically used to preview them so he gets a pass. That said, I'm all for more cards referencing walkers, so long as they don't keep trying to use it as a flimsy justification for a rarity bump.

Zammm = Batman.

It's my sig in a box
58280208 wrote:
Everything is better when you read it in Bane's voice.
192334281 wrote:
Your human antics and desire to continue living have moved me. Just kidding. You cannot move me physically or emotionally. Wall humor.
57092228 wrote:
Copy effects work like a photocopy machine: you get a copy of the 'naked' card, NOT of what's on it.
56995928 wrote:
Funny story: InQuest Magazine (I think it was InQuest) had an oversized Chaos Orb which I totally rooked someone into allowing into a (non-sanctioned) game. I had a proxy card that was a Mountain with "Chaos Orb" written on it. When I played it, my opponent cried foul: Him: "WTF? a Proxy? no-one said anything about Proxies. Do you even own an actual Chaos Orb?" Me: "Yes, but I thought it would be better to use a Proxy." Him: "No way. If you're going to put a Chaos Orb in your deck you have to use your actual Chaos Orb." Me: "*Sigh*. Okay." I pulled out this huge Chaos Orb and placed it on the table. He tried to cry foul again but everyone else said he insisted I use my actual Chaos Orb and that was my actual Chaos Orb. I used it, flipped it and wiped most of his board. Unsurprisingly, that only worked once and only because everyone present thought it was hilarious.
My DM on Battleminds:
no, see i can kill defenders, but 8 consecutive crits on a battlemind, eh walk it off.
144543765 wrote:
195392035 wrote:
Hi guys! So, I'm a sort of returning player to Magic. I say sort of because as a child I had two main TCG's I liked. Yu-Gi-Oh, and Pokemon. Some of my friends branched off in to Magic, and I bought two pre-made decks just to kind of fit in. Like I said, Yu-Gi-Oh and Pokemon were what I really knew how to play. I have a extensive knowledge of deck building in those two TCG's. However, as far as Magic is concerned, I only ever used those two pre made decks. I know how the game is played, and I know general things, but now I want to get in the game for real. I want to begin playing it as a regular. My question is, are all cards ever released from the time of the inception of this game until present day fair game in a deck? Or are there special rules? Are some cards forbidden or restricted? Thanks guys, and I will gladly accept ANY help lol.
I have the same problem with women.
117639611 wrote:
198869283 wrote:
Oh I have a standing rule. If someone plays a Planeswalker I concede the game. I refuse to play with or against people who play Planeswalkers. They really did ruin the game.
A turn two Tibalt win?! Wicked... Betcha don't see that everyday.

The Pony Co. 

Is this my new ego sig? Yes it is, other Barry
57461258 wrote:
And that's why you should never, ever call RP Jesus on being a troll, because then everyone else playing along gets outed, too, and the thread goes back to being boring.
57461258 wrote:
See, this is why RPJesus should be in charge of the storyline. The novel line would never have been cancelled if he had been running the show. Specifically the Slobad and Geth's Head talkshow he just described.
57461258 wrote:
Not only was that an obligatory joke, it was an on-topic post that still managed to be off-topic due to thread derailment. RP Jesus does it again folks.
92481331 wrote:
I think I'm gonna' start praying to Jesus... That's right, RPJesus, I'm gonna' be praying to you, right now. O' Jesus Please continue to make my time here on the forums fun and cause me to chuckle. Amen.
92481331 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
It was wonderful. Us Johnnies had a field day. That Timmy with the Grizzly bears would actually have to think about swinging into your Mogg Fanatic, giving you time to set up your silly combo. Nowadays it's all DERPSWING! with thier blue jeans and their MP3 players and their EM EM OH AR PEE JEES and their "Dewmocracy" and their children's card games and their Jersey Shores and their Tattooed Tenaged Vampire Hunters from Beverly Hills
Seriously, that was amazing. I laughed my *ss off. Made my day, and I just woke up.
[quote=ArtVenn You're still one of my favorite people... just sayin'.[/quote]
56756068 wrote:
56786788 wrote:
.....would it be a bit blasphemous if I said, "PRAYSE RPJAYSUS!" like an Evangelical preacher?
Perhaps, but who doesn't like to blaspheme every now and again? Especially when Mr. RPJesus is completely right.
56756068 wrote:
I don't say this often, but ... LOL
57526128 wrote:
You... You... Evil something... I actualy made the damn char once I saw the poster... Now you made me see it again and I gained resolve to put it into my campaign. Shell be high standing oficial of Cyrix order. Uterly mad and only slightly evil. And it'll be bad. Evil even. And ill blame you and Lizard for it :P.
57042968 wrote:
111809331 wrote:
I'm trying to work out if you're being sarcastic here. ...
Am going to stop you right there... it's RPJesus... he's always sarcastic
58335208 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
112114441 wrote:
we can only hope it gets the jace treatment...it could have at least been legendary
So that even the decks that don't run it run it to deal with it? Isn't that like the definition of format warping?
I lol'd.
56287226 wrote:
98088088 wrote:
Uktabi Orangutan What the heck's going on with those monkeys?
The most common answer is that they are what RPJesus would call "[Debutantes avert your eyes]ing."
56965458 wrote:
Show
57461258 wrote:
116498949 wrote:
I’ve removed content from this thread because off-topic discussions are a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_... Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively. If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
...Am I the only one that thinks this is reaching the point of downright Kafkaesque insanity?
I condone the use of the word Kafkaesque. However, I'm presentely ambivalent. I mean, that can't be serious, right? We're April 1st, right? They didn't mod RPJesus for off-topic discussion when the WHOLE THREAD IS OFF-TOPIC, right? Right.
57545908 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
Save or die. If you disagree with this, you're wrong (Not because of any points or arguements that have been made, but I just rolled a d20 for you and got a 1, so you lose).
58397368 wrote:
58222628 wrote:
This just won the argument, AFAIC.
That's just awesome.
57471038 wrote:
57718868 wrote:
HOW DID I NOT KNOW ABOUT THE BEAR PRODUCING WORDS OF WILDING?! WHAT IS WRONG WITH ME?!
That's what RPJesus tends to do. That's why I don't think he's a real person, but some Magic Card Archive Server sort of machine, that is programmed to react to other posters' comments with obscure cards that do in fact exist, but somehow missed by even the most experienced Magic players. And then come up with strange combos with said cards. All of that is impossible for a normal human to do given the amount of time he does it and how often he does it. He/It got me with Light of Sanction, which prompted me to go to RQ&A to try and find if it was even possible to do combat damage to a creature I control (in light that Mark of Asylum exists).
71235715 wrote:
+10
100176878 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
57078538 wrote:
heaven or hell.
Round 1. Lets rock.
GG quotes! RPJesus just made this thread win!
56906968 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
143359585 wrote:
Blue players get all the overpowerered cards like JTMS. I think it's time that wizards gave something to people who remember what magic is really about: creatures.
Initially yes, Wizards was married to blue. However, about a decade ago they had a nasty divorce, and a few years after that they began courting the attention of Green. Then in Worldwake they had a nasty affair with their ex, but as of Innistrad, things seem to have gotten back on track, and Wizards has even proposed.
You are my favorite. Yes you. And moments like this make it so. Thank you RPJesus for just being you.
On what flavor text fits me:
57307308 wrote:
Surely RPJesus gets Niv-Mizzet, Dracogenius?
56874518 wrote:
First: I STILL can't take you seriously with that avatar. And I can take RPJesus seriously, so that's saying something.
121689989 wrote:
I'd offer you a cookie for making me laugh but it has an Upkeep Cost that has been known to cause people to quit eating.
56267956 wrote:
I <3 you loads
57400888 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
"AINT NO LAWS IN THE SKY MOTHER****." - Agrus Kos, Wojek Veteran
10/10. Amazing.
Every trample card with reminder text (generally every one in a core set) references planeswalkers in its reminder text.

There's also every spell that references you or a planeswalker you control.

I find it a little annoying that MaRo, probably the most open window players have into the Magic R&D process, outright refuses to aknowledge the role moneymaking plays in determining rarity. Not to mention the role pushed money rares play in the good sales of otherwise unsuccessful sets.

Considering his usual honesty (for example, his forthright explanation of the print run mishap of Rootborn Defences in this article), I suspect it's some kind of executive edict that prevents him and other employees from mentioning the elephant in the room.
@MaRo: "We are seeing what the players think about cards that directly reference Planeswalkers. I'm curious for your feedback."

Personally I love it when cards reference Planeswalkers, and feel it is long overdue. There are only about 17 cards that reference Planeswalkers, but this should only be the beginning, IMO. 

 ~ Tim



We have 17 already? I can only think of Despise, the quake, Thoughtsieze 2.0, and Sorin.


I wasnt counting those that only mentioned them in reminder text (or in the card name). The actual count is 18, but that includes Gideon that references the fact that he is still a Planeswalker when animated.

EDIT: Stupid forums wont let me post the link to the gatherer search without breaking it.    
EDIT2: you can copy and paste the following in two parts: 

gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search
/Default.aspx?action=advanced&text=+[planeswalker]+![trample]+!["are%20card%20types"]+!["a%20permanent%20card%20is"]&name=+![planeswalker]+![commandeer]
 
~ Tim
I am Blue/White Reached DCI Rating 1800 on 28/10/11. :D
Sig
56287226 wrote:
190106923 wrote:
Not bad. But what happens flavor wise when one kamahl kills the other one?
Zis iz a sign uf deep psychological troma, buried in zer subconscious mind. By keelink himzelf, Kamahl iz physically expressink hiz feelinks uf self-disgust ova hiz desire for hiz muzzer. [/GermanPsychologistVoice]
56957928 wrote:
57799958 wrote:
That makes no sense to me. If they spelled the ability out on the card in full then it would not be allowed in a mono-black Commander deck, but because they used a keyword to save space it is allowed? ~ Tim
Yup, just like you can have Birds of paradise in a mono green deck but not Noble Hierarch. YAY COLOR IDENTITY
56287226 wrote:
56888618 wrote:
Is algebra really that difficult?
Survey says yes.
56883218 wrote:
57799958 wrote:
You want to make a milky drink. You squeeze a cow.
I love this description. Like the cows are sponges filled with milk. I can see it all Nick Parks claymation-style with the cow's eyes bugging out momentarily as a giant farmer squeezes it like a squeaky dog toy, and milk shoots out of it.
56287226 wrote:
56735468 wrote:
And no judge will ever give you a game loss for playing snow covered lands.
I now have a new goal in life. ;)
I for one would like to say that I am sad to hear that the cant be countered cycle is not going to be completed... If it wasnt prepared to be a full cycle it shouldnt have been started. To me this seems akin to the legendary werewolf that was never completed; A cycle got started, it couldn't be ironed out so the cycle was broken. I was very much looking forward to the other guilds getting their chance at this.


I don't think the comparison holds. The legendary creatures were consistent in the way that they were a legendary creature for the tribal subtheme of the Innistrad block, yet these uncounterable cards have absolutely nothing in common except the uncounterable line. Maybe I am biased because I loathe the idea of so many uncounterable spells around (especially right after printing a moronic card like Cavern of Souls), but I am certainly glad that the 'cycle' does not continue in Gatecrash.

IMAGE(http://i1.minus.com/jbcBXM4z66fMtK.jpg)

192884403 wrote:
surely one can't say complex conditional passive language is bad grammar ?

The sentence should have been "sometimes 8/8 isn't enough enough".



That "uncounterable" cycle is being attacked from all directions, so I'll defend it a little.  It seems like the kind of thing that's fine to stretch to a cycle, but not iconic enough to extend across sets. And I like that this set is full of answers to things.  It makes the game much more intractive with punch/counterpunch than decks that just play their own game without regard to what the opponent's doing.


Just like "nonblack" and "protection from black" don't make black bad, protection from counterspells doesn't make counters bad.  Bad counterspells make counters bad.

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.

For the love of all things holy, would you please just acknowledge that cash-grabbery might have played a part in determining the rarity of dreadbore. Yes, a narrative can be written that gets this over the line to rare. And you're a silver-tongued devil with a talent for specious writing, I'll grant you that. But with despise already a card, with terminate at common, with cards like oblivion ring at uncommon, it just sounds so hollow not to acknowledge the strong reasons for making this uncommon.

If a business which relies on tournament worthy rare or mythic chase cards to sell product doesn't look at the tournament worthy cards and see if they can be bumped or repurposed, you'd be missing a trick. And frankly I don't think you guys miss a trick. So if cash-down design isn't a thing, I'll eat a pair of socks.

How about a little honesty with your constituents? It might not change the outcome of the rarity of cards, but I'd respect you all to hell for saying so.

Just like "nonblack" and "protection from black" don't make black bad, protection from counterspells doesn't make counters bad.  Bad counterspells make counters bad.


I wish the counterspells were "bad". Between Cancel, the 3 mana cancel that requires you to play red, and the absolutely worthless card that is Fall of the Gavel, the counterspells wish they could be called bad. Avacyn Restored also brought us such hits as Outwit, Counterlash and Second Guess while Mana Leak is not in M13. That means the only decent counterspells we have right now are Dissipate and Syncopate.

It's like someone in another thread said, counterspells are going the same direction that Land Destruction went.

Also I kinda disagree, Cavern of Souls single-handedly made pure control decks like the UB ones completely unplayable.

IMAGE(http://i1.minus.com/jbcBXM4z66fMtK.jpg)

192884403 wrote:
surely one can't say complex conditional passive language is bad grammar ?
Terminate: Common. Make it better? Better make it rare. The explanation for Dreadbore's rarity: "We saw an opportunity to squeeze more money out of our player base." Any other explanation: Complete bull.



I'm looking forward to getting some Dreadbores, but I'm pretty sure if I could choose between Dreadbore and Terminate, the instant speed of Terminate would win most every time, so I don't really agree they've made Terminate better here.
Terminate: Common. Make it better? Better make it rare. The explanation for Dreadbore's rarity: "We saw an opportunity to squeeze more money out of our player base." Any other explanation: Complete bull.



I'm looking forward to getting some Dreadbores, but I'm pretty sure if I could choose between Dreadbore and Terminate, the instant speed of Terminate would win most every time, so I don't really agree they've made Terminate better here.



I agree with you that terminate is better, but I also think that Medgeworth is correct that the placement of this design at rare was a commercial design.
Just like "nonblack" and "protection from black" don't make black bad, protection from counterspells doesn't make counters bad.  Bad counterspells make counters bad.


I wish the counterspells were "bad". Between Cancel, the 3 mana cancel that requires you to play red, and the absolutely worthless card that is Fall of the Gavel, the counterspells wish they could be called bad. Avacyn Restored also brought us such hits as Outwit, Counterlash and Second Guess while Mana Leak is not in M13. That means the only decent counterspells we have right now are Dissipate and Syncopate.

It's like someone in another thread said, counterspells are going the same direction that Land Destruction went.

Also I kinda disagree, Cavern of Souls single-handedly made pure control decks like the UB ones completely unplayable.



Nope, tapout control decks with loads of sweepers can still get there.
Adapt. Isn't that what counterspell players have been saying all this time?

Also, with Cancel having been a fringe playable from time to time, it certainly isn't worse than bad.
Just like "nonblack" and "protection from black" don't make black bad, protection from counterspells doesn't make counters bad.  Bad counterspells make counters bad.


I wish the counterspells were "bad". Between Cancel, the 3 mana cancel that requires you to play red, and the absolutely worthless card that is Fall of the Gavel, the counterspells wish they could be called bad. Avacyn Restored also brought us such hits as Outwit, Counterlash and Second Guess while Mana Leak is not in M13. That means the only decent counterspells we have right now are Dissipate and Syncopate.

It's like someone in another thread said, counterspells are going the same direction that Land Destruction went.

Also I kinda disagree, Cavern of Souls single-handedly made pure control decks like the UB ones completely unplayable.



Nope, tapout control decks with loads of sweepers can still get there.
Adapt. Isn't that what counterspell players have been saying all this time?

Also, with Cancel having been a fringe playable from time to time, it certainly isn't worse than bad.


"They can still get there" meaning they are a tier 3 deck at best. Sweepers, hahahaha. And I don't like to play tap-out control, why should I? What if I wanted to play a draw-go control deck with big finishers?

And cancel is abysmal, I wish people like you would stop mentioning it.

IMAGE(http://i1.minus.com/jbcBXM4z66fMtK.jpg)

192884403 wrote:
surely one can't say complex conditional passive language is bad grammar ?
Cancel isn't abysmal. You can make your point without the hyperbole and people are more likely to listen.

You could say Frazzle is abysmal.
"They can still get there" meaning they are a tier 3 deck at best. Sweepers, hahahaha. And I don't like to play tap-out control, why should I? What if I wanted to play a draw-go control deck with big finishers?

And cancel is abysmal, I wish people like you would stop mentioning it.



He who laughs last laughs best.
Wizards is very conscious about not making draw-go control viable. If you want to play that, then you should look at older formats, or be content playing tier 3 decks.

I will stop mentioning Cancel when it stops being played. Obviously this requires times when there isn't a strictly better card like Dissipate, but remember the good old days of Cancel and Stoic Rebuttal?
Why do we even still have the fizzle rule? The "ignore impossible actions and do as much as possible" rule already covers the same ground in an intuitive way. On the vast majority of spells, it works the same way. For example, if there are no legal players for Slaughter Games (everyone has an Ivory mask) it can't do anything and then goes to the graveyard. With the fizzle rule, it does the exact same thing except it's technically countered. Even where it works differently, it doesn't seem worth the rules baggage. Is it really that important that you don't get to draw a card unless Electroylze damages the target? I hope fizzling goes the way of mana burn.

Re: Dreadbore: I don't care. Destroying a planeswalker via "destroy target planeswalker" is just as a flavor mess as destroying via "destroy target noncreature permanent" and Giant Solifuges wearing human body armor.

Is there a reason we haven't seen "target planeswalker loses 3 loyalty" and "target planeswalker gains 2 loyalty" effects yet? It's a flavorful way to put planeswalkers in graveyards, allows players to weaken but not destroy planeswalkers (interesting gameplay!) and it's pretty simple.

Why do we even still have the fizzle rule? The "ignore impossible actions and do as much as possible" rule already covers the same ground in an intuitive way. On the vast majority of spells, it works the same way. For example, if there are no legal players for Slaughter Games (everyone has an Ivory mask) it can't do anything and then goes to the graveyard. With the fizzle rule, it does the exact same thing except it's technically countered. Even where it works differently, it doesn't seem worth the rules baggage. Is it really that important that you don't get to draw a card unless Electroylze damages the target? I hope fizzling goes the way of mana burn.


That 's a common opinion.  Numerous people in GDS2 (including myself) suggested this as their "rule to get rid of."  I don't know what the official objection is, but one concern is how it would mess with power levels.  For example, without the fizzle rule, Ghost Quarter targeting itself becomes a superior Terramorphic Expanse on top of its main role.  And that's off the top of my head.  No doubt there are scarier cards out there.


Is there a reason we haven't seen "target planeswalker loses 3 loyalty" and "target planeswalker gains 2 loyalty" effects yet? It's a flavorful way to put planeswalkers in graveyards, allows players to weaken but not destroy planeswalkers (interesting gameplay!) and it's pretty simple.

Waaaay too narrow.  Take everything MaRo here said about Dreadbore being rare and multiply it by 10.

I never played Star Wars TCG, but I vividly remember a review of it calling out a card called "Come back, Luke" which had the only purpose of getting Luke out of your graveyard.  (To the best of my memory some 15 years later.)  It was viewed as an utterly worthless card because the reviewer didn't have a Luke card, and even if he had one wouldn't put a card in that's so narrowly conditional.  Whenever I hear an idea of a narrowly-dependent card, I think of "Come back, Luke".


If they ever have a block where Planeswalkers get treated like Legends were handled in Kamigawa, then we can expect to see that kind of card.  Otherwise there are too many people who'd be getting those and no Planeswalkers to use it with.

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 had never heard of the Rootborn Defenses incident until now.  Just spent 20 minutes reading up on it.  It's really quite interesting.

***************************************************************************************

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.

***************************************************************************************

Post #777

***************************************************************************************

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.

Is there a reason we haven't seen "target planeswalker loses 3 loyalty" and "target planeswalker gains 2 loyalty" effects yet? It's a flavorful way to put planeswalkers in graveyards, allows players to weaken but not destroy planeswalkers (interesting gameplay!) and it's pretty simple.



The reason being Shock and Hex Parasite do exactly what you're proposing, but so much more.

As for cards that make a Planeswalker gain loyalty, I agree there are not a lot of those, but it seems to be overpowered. I'm still waiting on a card that doubles counters on non-planeswalker permanents myself. Planeswalkers ruined Doubling Season.
Is there a reason we haven't seen "target planeswalker loses 3 loyalty" and "target planeswalker gains 2 loyalty" effects yet? It's a flavorful way to put planeswalkers in graveyards, allows players to weaken but not destroy planeswalkers (interesting gameplay!) and it's pretty simple.



The reason being Shock and Hex Parasite do exactly what you're proposing, but so much more.

As for cards that make a Planeswalker gain loyalty, I agree there are not a lot of those, but it seems to be overpowered. I'm still waiting on a card that doubles counters on non-planeswalker permanents myself. Planeswalkers ruined Doubling Season.



We did just have a whole block mechanic (Proliferate) that let players add loyalty to their planeswalkers.
O yeah we did. So actually, there is 0 reason for cards to reference loyalty counters directly =)

Why do we even still have the fizzle rule? The "ignore impossible actions and do as much as possible" rule already covers the same ground in an intuitive way. On the vast majority of spells, it works the same way. For example, if there are no legal players for Slaughter Games (everyone has an Ivory mask) it can't do anything and then goes to the graveyard. With the fizzle rule, it does the exact same thing except it's technically countered. Even where it works differently, it doesn't seem worth the rules baggage. Is it really that important that you don't get to draw a card unless Electroylze damages the target? I hope fizzling goes the way of mana burn.


That 's a common opinion.  Numerous people in GDS2 (including myself) suggested this as their "rule to get rid of."  I don't know what the official objection is, but one concern is how it would mess with power levels.  For example, without the fizzle rule, Ghost Quarter targeting itself becomes a superior Terramorphic Expanse on top of its main role.  And that's off the top of my head.  No doubt there are scarier cards out there.


Is there a reason we haven't seen "target planeswalker loses 3 loyalty" and "target planeswalker gains 2 loyalty" effects yet? It's a flavorful way to put planeswalkers in graveyards, allows players to weaken but not destroy planeswalkers (interesting gameplay!) and it's pretty simple.

Waaaay too narrow.  Take everything MaRo here said about Dreadbore being rare and multiply it by 10.

I never played Star Wars TCG, but I vividly remember a review of it calling out a card called "Come back, Luke" which had the only purpose of getting Luke out of your graveyard.  (To the best of my memory some 15 years later.)  It was viewed as an utterly worthless card because the reviewer didn't have a Luke card, and even if he had one wouldn't put a card in that's so narrowly conditional.  Whenever I hear an idea of a narrowly-dependent card, I think of "Come back, Luke".


If they ever have a block where Planeswalkers get treated like Legends were handled in Kamigawa, then we can expect to see that kind of card.  Otherwise there are too many people who'd be getting those and no Planeswalkers to use it with.




for the "fizzle" rule, there are a few cards it breaks wide open, a few that it alters, and a few that it breaks the flavor of. For example, it's just weird to Drain Life from nothing.  But Consuming Vapors... should that work? At the time it resolves, there no creature to be that creature. Adding rules on how you keep track of how to identify "that creature" if it leaves the board, and how to evaluate it's qualities sounds like a bookkeeping pain. Add in good-old characteristic-defining abilities as seen on Tarmogoyf (pretend it' just became the only creature in a graveyard), and you have more issues that need to be clarified.

The "easy" way to go would be a brand new rule setting values of characterisitcs of non-targets to zero. We have similar rules for X costs when tallying up CMC, and for P/T set by characteristic-defining abilities that are impossible to evaluate at any given time. Still, that sounds like a lot of new edge cases to accomplish essentially countering the spell.

If removing one edge-case rule means adding ten more, you should not remove the rule.

Also, I agree completely with the Star Wars TCG critique. (Remember "You Will Go to the Degobah System"? It moved any character to a site in the Degobah System. Which was the setting for exactly one expansion. Yeah. That needed a card.)
What if I wanted to play a draw-go control deck with big finishers?

You mean "pilot a draw-go control deck with big finishers". I'd hardly consider "make sure my opponent can't do anything" to be playing the game. If Draw-Go is what you want, then you can get much the same experience out of goldfishing; you don't need to bring along an opponent to make miserable.

The reason Draw-Go isn't made viable these days is because the game is played by more than one person. Draw-Go style decks should never have been viable in the first place.

Re: Dreadbore: I don't care. Destroying a planeswalker via "destroy target planeswalker" is just as a flavor mess as destroying via "destroy target noncreature permanent" and Giant Solifuges wearing human body armor.

There is a difference. It's the difference between using elegant simplicity to cover cases that don't make sense, and being openly in-your-face about doing so. Giant Solifuge being able to wear human body armor because all creatures can wear it is one thing; if they printed a card that specifically said "equip to a creature without limbs", that would be like Dreadbore.
IMAGE(http://images.community.wizards.com/community.wizards.com/user/blitzschnell/c6f9e416e5e0e1f0a1e5c42b0c7b3e88.jpg?v=90000)
Maybe it would be useful to develop a more precise notion of just what constitutes "playing" before we assert that a given set of actions does or doesn't fall under that heading?
Giant Solifuge being able to wear human body armor because all creatures can wear it is one thing


Except for creatures with shroud
I want to jump in with a defense of draw-go.  Draw-go is a rediculously skill intensive play style.  If you are a bad player attempting to simply "pilot" a draw-go deck then you are in for a surprise when someone with skill shows you just how bad you really are.  (obviously there have been times when wizards screwed up and made draw-go far too powerful.  I am talking about draw go in balanced formats).  In addition, I would argue that if wizards truly followed the color pie, then draw-go is pretty much the only thing blue would be able to play.  Why?  It has no other strengths.  Blue is supposed to have bad creatures.  Blue is supposed to be able to only counter or bounce things as removal.  Blue has no direct damage.  Blue has no life gain.  Blue's only strengths are card draw and instant speed effects.  The problem is that wizards printed things like frost titan and delver of secrets and countless other cards that negate blues weaknesses.  Rather than fixing that problem and making it so that a blue player has to bend over backwards to make sure that they never ever ever fall behind on the board, they just keep giving blue decks the tools they need to not have to be draw go, which makes them far too powerful.  No one should have to see an opponent drop an island down turn one and then have to worry about the susequent beatdown that is about to ensue.  Instead you should see the island and think to yourself "well now I need to not play on autopilot and I got this."
I foresee you will regret not having finished the "uncounterable cycle" at least as much as you regret not having included any Ninjas in Saviors of Kamigawa or Goats in Lorwyn. The eternal formats are so skewed towards blue after uncountable mistakes ALL IN THE SAME DIRECTION, that you can barely interact against blue combo and blue tempo decks if you don't play free counterspells yourself. If you don't believe me, take a look at the most played "non-blue" cards in legacy: aside from swords to plowshares, you find "uncounterable graveyard hate" in black, "uncounterable disenchant" in green, and "uncounterable bounce a legend" in lands.

That's because you have made it so that you can't stop a combo deck otherwise: they will counter your answers.

So Gatecrash missed the huge opportunity to finally make playable in legacy the combinations White/Red, Red/Green and White/Black decks, by including some "uncounterable" answer cards against the blue oppression: No uncounterable tax effect,  no uncounterable hate against library manipulation, no uncounterable discard, no uncounterable tranquility, no uncounterable hate against cheating cards into play, no uncounterable hoser against blue that it's not blue itself (it will likely contain an uncounterable creature that costs 5 or 6cc, though, but that doesn't count as hosing blue). 

Notice that if WotC knew even a little bit about how to balance their card game, their sets would contain the proper tools to fight "unfair strategies" such as Land Destruction, Discard, and Countermagic, people would be able to metagame against them, and in turn, it would allow WotC to print again those effects at a playable cost.

I applaud that Return to Ravnica finally includes aggro cards that force combo decks to interact with them, and some uncounterable cards that force blue to interact with the opponent (besides countering everything worth countering). 

I also suggest next time to ban a few blue cards instead of devoting an entire block to hate on Snapcaster Mage and Delver of Secrets.
I want to jump in with a defense of draw-go.  Draw-go is a rediculously skill intensive play style.  If you are a bad player attempting to simply "pilot" a draw-go deck then you are in for a surprise when someone with skill shows you just how bad you really are.  (obviously there have been times when wizards screwed up and made draw-go far too powerful.  I am talking about draw go in balanced formats).  In addition, I would argue that if wizards truly followed the color pie, then draw-go is pretty much the only thing blue would be able to play.  Why?  It has no other strengths.  Blue is supposed to have bad creatures.  Blue is supposed to be able to only counter or bounce things as removal.  Blue has no direct damage.  Blue has no life gain.  Blue's only strengths are card draw and instant speed effects.  The problem is that wizards printed things like frost titan and delver of secrets and countless other cards that negate blues weaknesses.  Rather than fixing that problem and making it so that a blue player has to bend over backwards to make sure that they never ever ever fall behind on the board, they just keep giving blue decks the tools they need to not have to be draw go, which makes them far too powerful.  No one should have to see an opponent drop an island down turn one and then have to worry about the susequent beatdown that is about to ensue.  Instead you should see the island and think to yourself "well now I need to not play on autopilot and I got this."



The big problem is that many players truly despise playing against draw-go, and thus Wizards isn't willing to let it be a big part of blue anymore. This means in turn that they're looking for other ways to build blue's identity, and that leads to the cards you're referring to. Some are successes, some are not, but Wizards is still working on blue's new identity and with that come mistakes.
Giant Solifuge being able to wear human body armor because all creatures can wear it is one thing


Except for creatures with shroud



Glammer Spinning faeries did it.
My thoughts:

Uncounterable cycle should have been continued to the next set. All colors got split seccond and as you noted in your article there aren't really enough examples of uncounterable spells to say that it's defined as being in a certain color. Clearly this was a chance to introduce some great cards for legacy and some of these cards will be played in that format. The ones that are not playable in legacy or modern are a clear miss so hopefully they all see play in modern at least.

You asked what we thought of referencing planeswalkers on cards. I've always thought the need to avoid this as being pretty silly. For example lets look at some products that new players might be attracted to like duel decks. There are planeswalkers in there. I wonder how many players have read the rules to MtG or been taught the game by friends and still don't know what a planeswalker is. I imagine there aren't many people who know how to play MtG and also don't know what a planeswalker is. During Lorwyn there was a planeswalker in almost every draft pod.

Phantom General you're basically saying that you had a constructed playable uncommon card and you turned it into garbage with no reason whatsoever given how weak token strategies are in constructed and the printing of a token board sweeper that is sure to see plenty of play detention sphere.
Don't be too smart to have fun

I never played Star Wars TCG, but I vividly remember a review of it calling out a card called "Come back, Luke" which had the only purpose of getting Luke out of your graveyard.  (To the best of my memory some 15 years later.)  It was viewed as an utterly worthless card because the reviewer didn't have a Luke card, and even if he had one wouldn't put a card in that's so narrowly conditional.  Whenever I hear an idea of a narrowly-dependent card, I think of "Come back, Luke".



hahah, a swccg reference, I have to respond. That game was FULL of narrow cards. There were only three general "counterspells" ever printed, and they only hit one type of card each (and none of the types included the most common permanents). In place of counterspells, you had numerous "bullet" cards, which countered a specific, named, card or cards. Needless to say this made meta-ing and deckbuilding fairly complicated, as you would run these narrow bullets against a strategy that destroyed you but might not have any use for the card in a particular game (many bullets had alternative uses though, which helped).


And yes, while "come back, luke" was a terrible card, there was a similar card called "Run Luke, Run!" which had essentially the sole purpose of moving luke at instant speed to a battle at an adjacent location which actually was a narrow but decent tournament card in a particular top tier deck for many many years (and still might be, but I haven't played the game for too many years!).


Anyway complete diversion but I agree, narrow cards are bad design.

What if I wanted to play a draw-go control deck with big finishers?

You mean "pilot a draw-go control deck with big finishers". I'd hardly consider "make sure my opponent can't do anything" to be playing the game. If Draw-Go is what you want, then you can get much the same experience out of goldfishing; you don't need to bring along an opponent to make miserable.

The reason Draw-Go isn't made viable these days is because the game is played by more than one person. Draw-Go style decks should never have been viable in the first place.


That is your opinion. As much as Magic is about catering to newer players, so it is to keep experienced ones in, and guess what, a lot of competetive good players like to play with and against draw go. I do. It feels truly like a mental battle, baiting them to counter something non-essential and sneaking in what I need to win right after. I'm sorry if I don't enjoy "LOL I MIRACLED BONFIRE BEFORE YOU DID LOLOLOL" type of games that seem to be norm now, but that doesn't mean the archetype I enjoy to play should outright not exist.

If you feel miserable playing against draw-go, it is because you are not good enough, or are not trying hard enough. Simple as.

IMAGE(http://i1.minus.com/jbcBXM4z66fMtK.jpg)

192884403 wrote:
surely one can't say complex conditional passive language is bad grammar ?
What if I wanted to play a draw-go control deck with big finishers?

You mean "pilot a draw-go control deck with big finishers". I'd hardly consider "make sure my opponent can't do anything" to be playing the game. If Draw-Go is what you want, then you can get much the same experience out of goldfishing; you don't need to bring along an opponent to make miserable.

The reason Draw-Go isn't made viable these days is because the game is played by more than one person. Draw-Go style decks should never have been viable in the first place.


That is your opinion. As much as Magic is about catering to newer players, so it is to keep experienced ones in, and guess what, a lot of competetive good players like to play with and against draw go. I do. It feels truly like a mental battle, baiting them to counter something non-essential and sneaking in what I need to win right after. I'm sorry if I don't enjoy "LOL I MIRACLED BONFIRE BEFORE YOU DID LOLOLOL" type of games that seem to be norm now, but that doesn't mean the archetype I enjoy to play should outright not exist.

If you feel miserable playing against draw-go, it is because you are not good enough, or are not trying hard enough. Simple as.



This is not related to newer versus experienced players though. Even among experienced players, the majority dislikes playing against it. To please both newer and experienced players, Wizards makes sure the archetype doesn't exist. This is unfortunate for the group that does like the playstyle, but Wizards has chosen to appeal to the masses rather than a niche.