|
3 years ago ::
Aug 06, 2010 - 1:52PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Jun 24, 2008
|
This thread is for discussion of this week's Making Magic, which goes live Monday morning on magicthegathering.com.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Aug 08, 2010 - 9:19PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Oct 17, 2007
|
"Back in 1999 with the release of Sixth Edition, we made a major revamp to the rules. This revamp, known as the Sixth Edition Rules Change, met with a lot of resistance from the player base. The number one concern was that R&D, in making these changes, were "dumbing down the game". That is, that we were making Magic less strategic." Replace Sixth Edition with MTG2010 and...  Yeah, this is pretty much true in every conceivable manner. MaRo isn't as diplomatic back them, telling us point-blank that there are some things we need that we don't want (even if it's true).
'I have had players complain about having extra rares in a pack. I’ve had players complain about getting free things. I have had players complain because they liked something “too much”.' - Mark Rosewater's Twitter, May 7th, 2013
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Aug 08, 2010 - 10:07PM
#3
|
|
|
There are advantages to doing archive binges - I'm quite certain that I read this article in past, though it has of course been a very long time. Interesting to re-read, and of course the irony of posting a half-forgotten article on memory isn't lost on me. Also, hope that whatever personal issues kept you from writing a new column get sorted out properly and quickly - best of luck with whatever it is. Edit: Well don't I just look like a putz now... On the upside, I did get quoted in a MaRo article, which is pretty cool.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Aug 08, 2010 - 10:09PM
#4
|
|
|
I don't remember this column at all, and I've been reading MaRo's articles since Onslaught previews began. Maybe I missed it like he suggested...or maybe he's playing games to make a point about memory and this actually is a new article.  Fake Edit: Went back through the archives and found it right where he said it should be. Then checked his 'One Hundred and Counting' article to be sure the archives weren't messed with. I guess he's not playing games. But if he was, what an awesome game it would have been! ...Actually, that probably proves his point right there. 
And so people say to me, "How do I know if a word is real?" You know, anyone who's read a children's book knows that love makes things real. If you love a word, use it! That makes it real. Being in the dictionary is an artificial distinction; it doesn't make the word any more real than any other word. If you love a word, it becomes real.
--Erin McKean, Redefining the Dictionary
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Aug 08, 2010 - 10:27PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
Did we really lose anything with the 6E rules (other than interrupts)? There's a world of difference between "streamlining" and "dumbing down". 6E got rid of piles of convoluted rules, exceptions to those rules, and exceptions to the exceptions, in favor of a streamlined "everything works the same way" template. Losing Batches, Interrupt Batches, and Damage-Prevention Windows in favor of GUTS actually added depth by removing the rules complexity. Rather than having to play interrupts right damn now (and only being able to respond to an interrupt with another interrupt), everything up and down the (new) Stack could be manipulated, and a creature could be sacrificed for an effect while still being useful in combat. In contrast, M10 removed depth by adding rules complexity, and justified it as "strategic decisions" that quickly rendered cards like Steve  and Fanny  sub-optimal. When given the choice between dealing combat damage or sacrificing for an effect, the choice taken is almost always to just replace that card with something else. At the very least, however, M11 solved the glaring issue of the Deathtouch Exception. Curious how the public singled that problem out within minutes of seeing the new rules, while R&D seemed to have missed it over several months, huh?
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Aug 08, 2010 - 10:51PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Nov 29, 2007
|
I really like this article! I think I can apply it to my job. And I wouldn't have seen it otherwise so I'm glad it was reprinted. It's just so true. It feels like I already knew about this phenomenon among hardcore game fandoms. But it took this article calling it out to solidify the idea in my mind. Now I'll be watching for this to happen in myself and in other people.
---------------------------------------------------------
Attended Worlds every year
One article per work week for 9 years
Time to declare a new streak! Of something. Maybe "Member of a design team for a set in (#) consecutive years?"
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Aug 08, 2010 - 11:28PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Oct 11, 2007
|
I liked this one a lot. I remember reading a few sixth edition rants during the M10 changes. It was hilarious how similar they were, especially now that the changes have been with us for a while and the sky hasn't fallen. Both changes ended up being for the better and got rid of a few clunky and unnecessary rules.  I hope all is well Mr R. :/
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Aug 08, 2010 - 11:44PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Jun 10, 2009
|
Now I remember some time back MaRo saying something to the effect of: "Mythic rares are not going to be top level tournament staples." Is this trusting my own memory more than anything else, or is it that my memory is not very reliable, or perhpas I remember hearing what I wanted to hear?
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Aug 08, 2010 - 11:59PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
May 19, 2009
|
Now I remember some time back MaRo saying something to the effect of: "Mythic rares are not going to be top level tournament staples." Is this trusting my own memory more than anything else, or is it that my memory is not very reliable, or perhpas I remember hearing what I wanted to hear?
Apparently so, because he never, ever said "mythic rares are not going to be top level tournament staples."
Here is what he actually said about Mythic Rares: www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.a...
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Aug 09, 2010 - 1:21AM
#10
|
|
|
Did we really lose anything with the 6E rules (other than interrupts)?
We lost the ability to know whether our spells would be countered before responding (the Armageddon  / Zuran Orb  trick and similar), we lost tapping artifacts to stop them, we lost tapping blockers to avoid combat damage, we lost unrespondable triggered abilities, we lost running Artifact Creatures to get around anti-Summon-spell cards, we lost Dark Ritual  and friends being uncounterable, we lost the ability to Infernal Pact  or similar below 0 life and survive by bringing your life total back up quickly enough, and a number of individual cards lost significant amounts of power, especially interrupts.
So yes, technically speaking we did lose some things. A significant number of things, even. It just turns out that the game was better off without those things.
And so people say to me, "How do I know if a word is real?" You know, anyone who's read a children's book knows that love makes things real. If you love a word, use it! That makes it real. Being in the dictionary is an artificial distinction; it doesn't make the word any more real than any other word. If you love a word, it becomes real.
--Erin McKean, Redefining the Dictionary
|
|
|
~ 
~ 
~ 
~ 
