Community

You think simple cases of tension on permanents like Spellbombs are bad, because it's too difficult?

Wow.

...

Really? Did I actually read that right? Thanks for removing one more chance for me to think critically about my cards, and one more chance for me to outplay someone. Wouldn't want someone to have to actually make a choice in a game of choices.

I don't really complain much about Magic's changes, but that's just terrible.

"Design identified two issues with the old spellbombs. One was that you had to choose between drawing a card and using their effect, which is a source of tension in game play. Do I want a random card, or do I want to deal 2 damage to something? They're a little simpler to play with if you just get to do both. Developers like the hard parts of Magic to be attacking and blocking and casting spells, not making fiddly decisions about marginal effects on a permanent, so that appealed to us. The other issue is that the fun part of the card is the effect, which originally was locked away from you if you weren't playing the right color. Why not give everyone access to the effects, Design wondered, and use the less sexy card draw as the reward for being on color?"

So depressing! Seriously, this is why I am getting less and less enthusiastic about Magic all the time. I do understand the desire to make a more 'satisfying' experience for the player by giving them both outcomes, but as has already been pointed out, removing choices that give good players a chance to show an edge over a worse player is a terrible thing!

Ok, I also understand that you're not wanting to remove such situations, just limit them to 'attacking and blocking and casting spells', but we're just going to have to agree to disagree here. I think that a player having to decide whether his Pyrite Spellbomb is more valuable as a source of card draw or 2 damage is interesting, challenging, skill-testing, a chance for a player to develop.

Wizards is always very sensitive to the charge that it is "dumbing down" Magic, but honestly look at what you have stated here; you've said that there was a challenging tension about the choices involved in the old spellbombs and we wanted to only have that challenge in other parts of the game so here we just let players do everything. That is, in terms, an admission that you are intentionally removing skill-testing aspects from certain parts of the game.

"Do I want a random card, or do I want to deal 2 damage to something? They're a little simpler to play with if you just get to do both." - Surely as clear an admission as there can be that the game is being deliberately simplified, and isn't that just a nicer way of saying dumbed down? Rhetorical question, as I have long since accepted that Wotc and I will just never agree on a lot of things!

[off topic, I just hopped over to Starcity to check the price in my sig was up to date, and found that Jace had increased from $74.99 to $89.99 since I last looked. Another reason I'm losing interest in the game.]

I really liked the old Spellbombs.  They're still one of my favorite cards from the set, because they A) have a useful effect and B) basically cycle if you happen to stumble on mana.  The new ones don't help you dig yourself out of trouble if you stumble on your mana.  They also play a lot like the Seals, where you can toss them down and have the effect waiting on the board (although not as good because you have to keep mana open).  I feel like the new Spellbombs ignored the depth that the old ones had in favor of giving players both effects.  I don't mind a new take that gives you both, but I don't want the fun and utility of the old ones to be lost on your team.  If you're mana screwed, these new bombs don't help you save yourself (i.e. they are "win more" cards).

The other thing about Spellbombs I liked was how they gave you more interesting options for creatureless decks.  Creatures are fun, but building a deck without creatures can also be fun, and I don't want that to be lost entirely from Magic.