|
3 years ago ::
Sep 20, 2010 - 1:49AM
#11
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
While people can infer that a card is either Phyrexian or Mirran, why not have something in plain sight to tell one from the other. Having a watermark doesn't say people are too stupid to figure out the flavor of a card.
We certainly didn't need an "Icatian" or "Ferrelite" watermark in Fallen Empires to tell who was what, and the cards that were ambiguous enough were simply allowed to be ambiguous.
So what if the watermark doesn't "do" anything. The Ravnica watermarks don't "do" anything either. A watermark is just there for flavor reasons, nothing more.
So long as it stays that way, that's fine. However, the whine I hear that my functionally-constructed R/U deck is not "Izzet" because I'm using some-odd blue card with a Dimir watermark, considering I had to go google the guilds for this terrible attempt at a parable, becomes a player who is permanently moving into my mental list titled "avoid".
Showing up to an event and being told this arbitrary fluff, that was just "for flavor reasons", is being enforced is even worse. Fortunately, that doesn't happen on a widespread scale very often - only once in the past, and once in the near future.
Translation for the tl;dr
- blatantly assigning "good guys" and "bad guys" is a terrible substitute for narrative.
- if something is just there "for flavor", let it remain so. do not force flavor into gameplay.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 20, 2010 - 2:22AM
#12
|
|
|
I can see that I am just going to hold a different view of watermarks and poison than most other people but I am still going to say this anyway.
The only way that Watermarks would be a waste of work is if it compromised the completion of a set by being argued about for days. However, as the article states, Rosewater made the list of qualities for a Phyrexian watermark in his design philosophy document. The decision to use watermarks and what cards get them might not have taken much time at all.
I am not arguing about whether poison is a good mechanic. I am just trying to figure out why it is such an issue. In all honesty, Infect would be very useful in formats using a higher life total (such as EDH) since you can poison an opponent way quicker than you can bring their life to 0. You can also fight decks that use a lot of life gain. You can be at 100 life and still lose the game since you have 10 poison counters. Platinum Emperion won't save you from being poisoned.
Also, how would infect creatures not work with non-infect creatures at all? If you are playing them in a deck with non-infect creatures, they basically have wither. Granted, if you only run a few infect creatures and no proliferate, they don't do any damage to an opponent.
If the fact that they can't damage an opponent is the reason why they don't work well with non-infect creatures, then I agree that they don't get along so well. But if it is a different reason, then I would like to know. I already have a deck idea that incorporates Ichorclaw Myr and various Proliferate cards to make poison an alternate win condition if necessary.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 20, 2010 - 2:27AM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2007
|
blatantly assigning "good guys" and "bad guys" is a terrible substitute for narrative.
Just pointing out, they haven't done this. They've assigned 'Mirrans' and 'Phyrexians'. Which ones are the antagonists is dealt with only through narrative and not undermined in any way by the presence of watermarks.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 20, 2010 - 3:04AM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Jan 24, 2002
|
Phyrexian sacced creatures and Mirrans sacced artifact?
What about Throne of Geth  , Mr Rosewater? :P
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 20, 2010 - 4:30AM
#15
|
|
|
So long as it stays that way, that's fine. However, the whine I hear that my functionally-constructed R/U deck is not "Izzet" because I'm using some-odd blue card with a Dimir watermark, considering I had to go google the guilds for this terrible attempt at a parable, becomes a player who is permanently moving into my mental list titled "avoid".
Showing up to an event and being told this arbitrary fluff, that was just "for flavor reasons", is being enforced is even worse. Fortunately, that doesn't happen on a widespread scale very often - only once in the past, and once in the near future.
Translation for the tl;dr
- blatantly assigning "good guys" and "bad guys" is a terrible substitute for narrative.
- if something is just there "for flavor", let it remain so. do not force flavor into gameplay.
Dude nobody forced you to go to that event. I'm not going to, let's say, a techno party and complain about the horrible music and why don't they play jazz.
One of magic's strengths is that it's a different game to different people. Some like to battle with authentic guild decks it seems, so let 'm.
BTW, who else is intrigued by that cryptic remark on paying life totals? Lifegain block in 2011?
I immediately thought about an "all-infect set" where every creature was infected by Phyrexia and had infect, so the 20 life could be fully used as another resource in that limited environment (it should be a stand-alone set like Eldrazi for that to work)
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 20, 2010 - 4:35AM
#16
|
|
|
Phyrexian sacced creatures and Mirrans sacced artifact?
What about Throne of Geth , Mr Rosewater? :P
I think that Throne of Geth and Geth himself are tied to Phyrexia due to their flavor. The article "Phyrexia and the Vaultlord" explained his connection to the Phyrexians.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 20, 2010 - 4:36AM
#17
|
|
|
Am I the only one that sees the Proliferate mechanic being used more to boost planeswalkers than for poison counters or -1/-1 counters (speaking in terms of competitive play).
Duels of the Planeswalkers 2013 deck builds and analysis: http://megamaster125.angelfire.com/dotp2013/ Another one of my websites: http://megamaster125.angelfire.com/rationalchristianity/ 
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 20, 2010 - 5:44AM
#18
|
- Jawsome UnCon Prizewinner
Date Joined:
Sep 22, 2003
|
I think people are looking at the watermarks all wrong.
Anyone reading this article and this forum, will already know what's going on, and won't need the information provided by the watermark.
But for new players in Scars block, the watermark may be one of the first things they notice. Then, by comparing cards with similar watermarks, they will be able to figure out "hey, all the cards with Phi on them, seem like they're on the same team...", etc. It's more of a clue for learning the structure of the set. (Which is just how Fallen Empires worked as well, it's just that you had to read the flavor text to start to figure it out.)
Bottom line - the watermark is a fun thing for players to have one more way to learn and experience the set. I think it's a neat idea, and I'm glad Wizards came back to it again. If it doesn't work for you, well, it's not hurting you either.
(I'd never noticed until today that the Phyrexian symbol really is the Greek letter Phi - nice touch, creative team of a while back....)
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 20, 2010 - 5:56AM
#19
|
Date Joined:
Jun 20, 2010
|
@ Qmark
The watermark isn't there for Spikes. It's there for those that care about the flavor of the cards.
Then R&D assumes the Vorthoi of the world are just too stupid to infer what's Phyrexian and what's not, given the criteria that was used to assign watermarks.
"It looks cool" is enough reason for me.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Sep 20, 2010 - 6:41AM
#20
|
Date Joined:
Mar 13, 2004
|
Watermarks are fine, kind of redundant since i think most people know which side a card's on. I'd rather have seen new "curropted" card frames for the Phyrexian side.
There won't/can't be restrictions on what cards you place in your deck for scars... the Phyrexians only have 20% of the cards. I don't think anyone would play Phyrexia and leave 80% of the cards alone.
I'm pretty surprised about them still using Poisonous at the start of Scar's design. A wither version of Poisonous solves all the problems right there.
… and then, the squirrels came.
|
|
|
