|
1 year ago ::
Jun 19, 2009 - 10:38AM
#1
|
|
|
This thread is for discussion of this week's Making Magic, which goes live Monday morning on magicthegathering.com.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 19, 2009 - 12:55PM
#2
|
|
|
My guess is that they'll cover some of the testing they did with new people.
*In b4 the rants*
PS First!
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 19, 2009 - 1:33PM
#3
|
|
|
Not First!
See I can do it better than you.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 21, 2009 - 9:05PM
#4
|
|
|
You, like R&D, do not have the luxury to say nothing.
Oh. Is this a clever way to say that the supposition that this was pushed upon you, at least in part, by Hasbro is a wholly correct one?
Oh MaRo, you so funny.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 21, 2009 - 9:16PM
#5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 21, 2009 - 9:17PM
#6
|
|
|
Pepper Pike! I'll never forgive you for curb-stomping us at Odyssey of the Mind that one year.
Shift+Enter = Line Break
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 21, 2009 - 9:17PM
#7
|
|
|
Oh. Is this a clever way to say that the supposition that this was pushed upon you, at least in part, by Hasbro is a wholly correct one?
Oh MaRo, you so funny.
I personally read this as a reference to his earlier point that if left alone the complexity of the game will rise to the point where the flow of new players start to dry up. R&D doesn't have the luxury to sit there doing nothing, because they have been entrusted with the health of the game.
Answering Maro's hypothetical - if I had to remove something from the game, I'd get rid of the upkeep step. All existing cards that reference it would instead happen in the draw step (And a few outliers like Paradox Haze would need powerlevel errata). It's a big change, but I can't think of much else that's left after the m10 changes that I feel could go.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 21, 2009 - 9:19PM
#8
|
|
|
I think this is a pretty decently argued column and I have to say that I really won't miss mana burn much at all. After all, why would I miss something that almost never comes up? The most common times it did was when I would accidentally click an extra land on MTGO and not realize it before casting a spell. So yeah, I won't miss that very much.
That said, this:
[INDENT](I feel it's most often a failure when the answer to a problem is to say on the card, "Well, you just can't do this.")[/INDENT]
Is sorta ironic considering that removing combat damage from the stack does just this. Now there's an arbitrary rule about immediately choosing the order damage is assigned, and having to assign lethal damage to one choice before going to the next. Oh, except when a creature has deathtouch, then never mind, assign damage however you like.
I would agree that this is indeed a failure, and I'd like Mark to explain how it isn't. Maybe that'll happen during another of the 2010 weeks.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 21, 2009 - 9:19PM
#9
|
|
|
Oh. Is this a clever way to say that the supposition that this was pushed upon you, at least in part, by Hasbro is a wholly correct one?
No, he means the stuff he spent the whole bloody article saying about why removing a certain amount of stuff now and then is necessary.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 21, 2009 - 9:20PM
#10
|
|
|
Oh. Is this a clever way to say that the supposition that this was pushed upon you, at least in part, by Hasbro is a wholly correct one?
No. It's a glaringly obvious way to reiterate his earlier point that as new rules get added, older ones have to go - and you have to add new rules for the game to change, so you have to also prune old rules away at some point. Hence, you don't have the luxury of saying nothing.
|
|
|
