Community

Nov 14, 2010 -- 6:36AM, GoblinWarPainter wrote:

R&D needs people who can design blocks and push their visions to encompass the environment as a whole. The variety of ideas just in these eight finalists' submissions shows that Magic can go on for at least another decade without getting tired... the person who is chosen may become the next Mark Rosewater.

It's curious to me to hear someone talk about the variety of the final 8 without irony. There are many repeated mechanics, two underground sets, two enchantment sets, and all but one of them (Deadsands) are quite juvenile both in terms of scope and writing quality.

Why is writing quality important? If the finalists are truly being chosen for vision, as opposed to any reasonable capacity for card design, then they need to be able to distill that vision into something compelling and coherent, and then effectively communicate it to others. It's essentially a writing job. I mean no offense to any of the finalists, but they are all unimpressive in that regard. They are all obviously intelligent, talented, and capable people, but this just isn't an area in which any of them excel. It may be that the multiple choice test, for example, was not a very good tool for selecting the kind of talent Mark is really looking for.

Nov 10, 2010 -- 6:14PM, Skibo_the_first wrote:

Nov 10, 2010 -- 5:57PM, orcishartillery wrote:

Nov 10, 2010 -- 4:33PM, Skibo_the_first wrote:

Nov 10, 2010 -- 11:03AM, Alsadius wrote:

Is it just me, or did Rosewater misread the last card of Johnathan Woodward's pretty badly? Hunger reads as a triggered effect, not as an activated effect while the spell is on the stack. In other words, you get to do it exactly once. I'm not a huge fan of the card, but that makes a big difference to his evaluation of the effect.

Hunger (You may sacrifice a creature. If you do, copy this spell. You may choose a new target for the copy.)

Actually this is neither an activated ability nor a trigger ability, it's just text. No different than if you replaced "Draw a card" with "Cantrip (draw a card)".

Which is why it's so weird and isn't something that would normally be done.

Like Alsadius, I assumed it only allowed you to copy the spell once.  On the other hand, I agree that as written, it's not completely clear how it's supposed to work.  I figure it should work like Conspire; an optional additional cost of sacrificing a creature, plus a triggered ability that copies the spell if you paid the cost.

Hunger (As you cast this spell, you may sacrifice a creature you control. When you do, copy this spell and you may choose a new target for the copy.)

It's actually very clear how it works, part of it's text allows you to sac a creature to get a copy of the spell. The problem is that that copy also has Hunger. As worded, it would allow you keep sacrificing creatures to get copies.

The problem is what the designer intended, which is where proper templating comes in. The ability works just fine as it stands, it's a bit wonky since R&D traditionally does copying effects when you cast cards, not when they resolve, but there's nothing incorrect about the ability.

I should have been clearer - when I say "reads as", I mean what I think the designer intended. Obviously, it's not templated as precisely as could be desired, but judging by how he wrote it, I think it's almost certainly intended to be limited to one use. As such, Rosewater's criticism seems off-base. Short of actually asking the designer there's no definite answer to be had here, but I'm about 80% confident MaRo criticised him for something he didn't actually do.  

Nov 14, 2010 -- 2:53PM, Skibo_the_first wrote:

I have to agree, the worlds felt a bit flat. Only the one inspired by the Old west stood out.

I'm a little shocked that the top 8 had so much redundancy, i would hate to have to slog through all 101 sets.

I think the sets that stand out flavofully will do the best, as having personality to your world is important.

I'm also a bit sad to see two enchantment blocks without anything that screams enchantment. Mirrodin had equipment and indestructible, Zendikar had landfall.... where's the "Enchantment mechanic"?

Hey, I tried to point them at my enchantment mechanics. I can't really fault people for wanting to use their own stuff for the most part, though. (However, I think they'd be well served by checking out other ideas if time permits. This contest sounds like it would encourage and grade well on such behavior, so if it's not misleading...)

Nov 15, 2010 -- 3:33AM, TobyornotToby wrote:

Also I really don't 'get' what revealing cards has to do with the wild west (but maybe that's because I'm european).

During the old west people would often reveal cards to gain magical effects.

Of course back then everyone used the batch, so things got a bit crazy.

* I think the whole reveal thing is tied to the spellslinging, whatever that may be. I don't get the "reveal" theme, but we'll see.


I think GleamAxe is more talking about the resonance of the world, and not the design. Alot of the worlds felt like they were ripped from high fantasy and worn tropes, but the old west world has a distinct flavor to it.

Nov 15, 2010 -- 9:25AM, DrJones wrote:

Old West for an american is like medieval europe for an european. Unless you add a twist to it is less imaginative than the mushroom kingdom from the Mario games. I'm not saying it's a bad choice (except for the fact of guns), but the designer has to work harder in creating something that other people couldn't easily come up with, like the makers of Knights of Cydonia did. Actually, the theme of Knights of Cydonia wasn't "Old west", but "Rhapsody-videoclip", and the old west was just one part of their implementation.

I've to say that this challenge was terribly difficult, so I'll not be surprised if no one of the contestants do what they were asked to do: proving that they have vision.  

I don't think your idea of vision and mine are the same. If you look, most sets have a pretty basic, or obvious underlying structure.

Zendikar is an adventure world based largely on D&D. Kamigawa was a Japanese world based largely on Japanese history and culture. Ravnica is based on Eastern Europe. Lorwyn is based on fairy tales.

Building off of existing tropes is a good thing, as long as they are distinct. I can say "Old west set" and everyone knows what i'm taking about... alot of the others lack that.

Vision isn't "What's the weirdest, most original idea i can think of, it's "what's the world i want to convey, and how can i convey it through my cards."

The old west is a good place to start since it's very open ended on what you can do. It will have a distinct flavor from any other set, and is quite innovative from a magic standpoint. I mean Grixis is a pretty interesting setting despite the fact that "Zombie world" is a pretty common thing, And Naya is cool even though it's based on South American primitive culture. The fact that that jumping off points of these planes is firmly planted in existing things doesn't stop them from having a unique entity.