|
2 years ago ::
Oct 10, 2011 - 6:20AM
#31
|
|
|
I like the idea of an unanswered questions column, but these all seemed to be answered questions! I've definitely read Rosewater (and often other members of R&D) answer the lion's share of these questions before, some of them ad nauseum, and some of them in this very column. "Why weren't double-faced cards done as flip cards" for example has been addressed countless times.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Oct 10, 2011 - 6:36AM
#32
|
|
|
So... the big mystery about Daybreak Ranger and the R activation cost. Does nobody else follow these guys on Twitter or something? Daybreak Ranger // Nightfall Predator was changed in development because it was decided that it was too good with a green activation cost.
Pretty telling when R&D uses red to make a card weaker...
If they're going to make this fight ability red-activated (as it was also on Vein Drinker  ), then why aren't any actual RED cards getting the fight ability any more?
Obligatory Dragon (M)   Creature - Dragon Flying Tokenism (This card exists to fulfill a quota.) Whenever Obligatory Dragon attacks, I dunno, maybe it deals damage to something or other. The automated Dragon Dispenser broke down and no one here knows how to design a Dragon card while sober. Hey, tell you what, try attacking with this thing and then shoot us an email to tell us what happens. We'll probably print it in a Core Set. 5/5
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Oct 10, 2011 - 6:41AM
#33
|
Date Joined:
Mar 16, 2004
|
I like the idea of an unanswered questions column, but these all seemed to be answered questions! I've definitely read Rosewater (and often other members of R&D) answer the lion's share of these questions before, some of them ad nauseum, and some of them in this very column. "Why weren't double-faced cards done as flip cards" for example has been addressed countless times.
No it hasn't. It's been answered once in his initial DFC preview article, to a degree that many people including me considered inadequate. If you were convinced by what he said that first time, then fine; good for you; but don't assume that everyone was. I could point you at my post in that article's thread with four questions, two of which were specifically about flip cards, for example.
I've been watching his Tumblr and Twitter to see if he's addressed the issue in more detail there, but I didn't see anything. (Not that Twitter would work for making the subtle, detailed points the issue deserves anyway.)
I was glad to see him engaging with the issue in more detail in this article. If you weren't, then all that's required is to recognise that, just like there are cards that aren't aimed at you, there are parts of the article that aren't aimed at you, and this was one of them.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Oct 10, 2011 - 6:42AM
#34
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2010
|
So who are these people who didn't understand Haunt? It's only slightly more complicated that a traditional "when blah dies" effect.
I know I'm grateful to not see haunt often. Every time I see it in a cube or draft I cringe and try and remember what it does all over again:
1) Okay, so get it killed.
2) It comes back (not really). but is exiled targeting a creature (unless a creaturetureless field killed it).
3) Dont' forget that it's haunting and what its haunted while its disappeared off into the exiled zone.
4) So now get what it (hopefully) haunts killed in (some) amount of time.
5) Okay, finally fully exhaust the use of the card. Pretty narrow use, and doesn't feel that accomplishing; but does the card go back to the Graveyard? No, I guess since it doesn't mention anything, it stays exiled.
And it's about equally as complicated than Imprint, which they just re-used. Flavourfully, haunt fits with Innistrad much better than Imprint did with Scars.
Except that they completely redid Imprint from being a clunky keyword to an open-ended ability word. They had to errata the old ones, and they probably make more sense now. But the new ones are especially easily used and understood.
Plus, there was more Orzhov goodness in the set making players anticipate Haunt being in the set (and clearly people did, if Maro got the question often). They functionally reprinted Orzhov's land, and their is a White/Black dual land... and of course if we talk about tropes, ghosts and haunting pretty much go hand in hand.
I don't know what Orzhov in the set there is. I mean, there are spirits of the dead, sure. Except the spirits in this set are strongly divided betwen Blue vs White, belligerent vs benign. Not Black and White. The major difference in the theories is that Orzhov White haunts, Spirit-tribe White does not.
So they reprinted an uncommon colorless-producing land that fits just fine in either set flavorfully, that means the two should be the same? Well, should we also have Changelings to go with Shimmering Grotto?
Also, their are enemy colored dual lands because the standard format needs them (as explained in his article a couple weeks ago).
As a player who remembers Haunt very fondly, and got into the game playing a white black deck back in Onslaught block, I'll be quite dissapointed if we leave Innistrad without seeing Haunt, or something functionally very similar that R&D feels is less problematic.
They can't cater to every single player, so I guess some of us just have to make do with nuances. They may make a nudge to an idea of Haunt, but using it wouldn't make a lot of sense.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Oct 10, 2011 - 8:03AM
#35
|
Date Joined:
Sep 29, 2010
|
This article got entirely derailed for me when we got to the flip-card conversation. I don't like the Double-Faced cards, but I get that flip cards wouldn't be much better. And then Mark brings up that in order to turn Tormented Pariah into a flip card they would have had to take out "Warrior" from its type line...
Wait, this guy's a warrior? How is this guy a warrior!? Is it because he's red? He must have gotten his warrior title from the same online school that gave Goblin Roughrider his knighthood.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Oct 10, 2011 - 8:42AM
#36
|
Date Joined:
Jul 19, 2001
|
except the drowned doesnt suck. it would be a nice reason to go ub and also give blue a needed 2 drop. know what sucks? manor skeleton. needing 2 mana to regen is terrible and so is haste on a 1/1. it only gets in once if your on the play and they dont have a 2 drop. 1/1s dont matter late game for surprise attacks and 2 mana is just bad for defense.
also i completely disagree with the cloistered youth. it might as well not even be a flip card. it doesnt have any condition and it just is a white 3/3 for two with a life loss. white doesnt get 3/3s for two. sometimes it gets a 3/1 for two but even that isnt very white. and its not a spirit but a horror which has no tribal use in the set and typically should just be a spirit or zombie.
also Maro can we do something about zombies? why are zombies not human zombies. or beast zombies in some cases. we get things like dog zombies because it was a dog remains. we even get giant zombie. which is also rediculous out of context. even goblin zombies. and goblins are very close to humans.
and are skeletons much different than zombies from a flavor standpoint? arent they both just reanimated remains but ones more desicated?
I don't see anything great about a 1/1 that requires access to black mana to regen.
Cloistered youth doesn't need a condition, because it makes you lose life as soon as it flips, and you can't flip it back. it's not just a 3/3 for 2. It has a drawback. And it stops being white when it's a 3/3, so honor of the pure  won't affect it. Also, it's a top down card.
Some zombies are made from parts of multiple creatures. it wouldn't make much sense to have to write each type. Zombies can often be sentient and/or smart. Skeletons rarely so.
Now I still think DFCs were a very bad idea, and the logistical and dexterity consequences are far more negative than the play and flavour benefits are positive, but I will admit there are some medium-level play benefits.
What concequences are we talking about here?
I don't think anyone can say this kind of article is a bad idea (though I wish we'd hear more from other R&D members)
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Oct 10, 2011 - 9:32AM
#37
|
Date Joined:
Mar 16, 2004
|
Now I still think DFCs were a very bad idea, and the logistical and dexterity consequences are far more negative than the play and flavour benefits are positive, but I will admit there are some medium-level play benefits.
What concequences are we talking about here?
I'm somewhat wary of derailing yet another thread into The Great DFC Debate... But to summarise very briefly: (I've edited in a few points by TobyornotToby from later in the thread.)
(1) DFCs force people to use either (1a) opaque sleeves or (1b) checklist cards. (1a)'s problems include (1a1) financial implications especially for players with lots of decks; (1a2) it leaves an ugly taste when you recall Wizards' recent promotional ties with UltraPro; (1a3) it leads to scratching cards when putting them into and out of sleeves potentially several times each game; (1a4) it has risks such as putting a DFC back in its sleeve the wrong way round; and (1a5) it means you can't see all the details of the card when it's in your hand (e.g. what's Kruin Outlaw  's second ability once she's flipped?). (1b) is a horrible hack which nobody likes; it means (1b1) you can't see the details of the card when it's in your hand (nor its artwork or flavour text), (1b2) to check those details you have to look in an out-of-game pile which is a painfully obvious tell, (1b3) even if you don't look in the pile when you draw a checklist card, you have to look elsewhere on the card for its identity than with most cards, leading people to state they can tell when people draw a checklist card by watching them; and (1b4) it's possible for someone to open and want to play more DFCs than they get checklist cards. (2) In-game, a DFC's back side is potentially relevant public knowledge, but not visible on the table. (3) Drafting becomes a dexterity game where (3a) there are strategic benefits to waiting to make your first pick (or any other pick) until you see what everyone else has picked, and where (3b) it's very easy to cheat accidentally or deliberately by seeing neighbours' current choices when trying to look at their piles for the permitted DFC info; also (3c) drafting becomes very different between f2f and MTGO, which impairs the usefulness of MTGO to practice f2f drafters or vice versa. (4) The flavour and immersiveness of the set is impaired because there are (4a) far fewer basic lands opened in boosters, and (4b) fewer basic land arts in total, even for players who don't use the checklist card.
None of these are strategic points (well, unless canny players start making some of them strategic psychological points); the DFCs have good flavour and reasonable strategic gameplay. But these points add up to a heck of a lot of logistical and dexterity issues that the game would have been much better without.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Oct 10, 2011 - 10:03AM
#38
|
Date Joined:
Jul 19, 2001
|
Now I still think DFCs were a very bad idea, and the logistical and dexterity consequences are far more negative than the play and flavour benefits are positive, but I will admit there are some medium-level play benefits.
What concequences are we talking about here?
I'm somewhat wary of derailing yet another thread into The Great DFC Debate... But to summarise very briefly: (1) DFCs force people to use either (1a) opaque sleeves or (1b) checklist cards. (1a)'s problems include (1a1) financial implications especially for players with lots of decks; (1a2) it leaves an ugly taste when you recall Wizards' recent promotional ties with UltraPro; (1a3) it leads to scratching cards when putting them into and out of sleeves potentially several times each game; (1a4) it has risks such as putting a DFC back in its sleeve the wrong way round; and (1a5) it means you can't see all the details of the card when it's in your hand (e.g. what's Kruin Outlaw 's second ability once she's flipped?). (1b) is a horrible hack which nobody likes; it means (1b1) you can't see the details of the card when it's in your hand (nor its artwork or flavour text), (1b2) to check those details you have to look in an out-of-game pile which is a painfully obvious tell, and (1b3) even if you don't look in the pile when you draw a checklist card, you have to look elsewhere on the card for its identity than with most cards, leading people to state they can tell when people draw a checklist card by watching them. (2) In-game, a DFC's back side is potentially relevant public knowledge, but not visible on the table. (3) Drafting becomes a dexterity game where (3a) there are strategic benefits to waiting to make your first pick (or any other pick) until you see what everyone else has picked, and where (3b) it's very easy to cheat accidentally or deliberately by seeing neighbours' current choices when trying to look at their piles for the permitted DFC info.
None of these are strategic points (well, unless canny players start making some of them strategic psychological points); the DFCs have good flavour and reasonable strategic gameplay. But these points add up to a lot of logistical and dexterity issues that the game would have been much better without.
I feel that all these are marginal. And you mentionned not seeing both sides in your hand twice. It's very easy to see the picks of someone close to you in draft. It's not easier/harder with DFCs.
As for the ultra pro point. You're free to use whichever sleeves you want. And if you can't afford any, you don't have to use them. Wether the game would have been better without them or not. That's a matter of opinion. But every new mechanic created within the game potentially leads designers to discover something else. So even if it was bad, something good could, and probably would, come out of it.
The pre-release and release have come and gone with no major problems associated with those cards. So I think we can agree that evidence shows they do not cause any problems.
On average, a card will need to be re-sleeved once, and few of them are good enough that you'd constantly put them in constructed decks. Also, sleeves have minimal friction. I'd like to see how many instances of sleeving a card it would take to actually damage it.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Oct 10, 2011 - 10:14AM
#39
|
Date Joined:
Mar 16, 2004
|
I feel that all these are marginal. And you mentionned not seeing both sides in your hand twice.
Once for the opaque sleeves "solution", and once for the checklist card "solution". Note that this is a problem that flip cards and level-up cards don't have.
It's very easy to see the picks of someone close to you in draft. It's not easier/harder with DFCs.
Have you really not seen this argument anywhere else? The point is that you've now got a legitimate reason to be looking at people's piles, where before there was none. Before there was no justification for peering to your left or right in draft, and anyone seen doing so could have the judge called on them; now it's been given a legitimate justification and indeed a strategic benefit. It's easier to cheat both deliberately and accidentally.
As for the ultra pro point. You're free to use whichever sleeves you want.
Absolutely. But it does nonetheless leave a bad taste in the mouth to see a mechanic like this appear within a year of Wizards forming a business affiliation with one of the most prominent sleeve manufacturers.
And if you can't afford any, you don't have to use them.
That was implicit in the structure of my argument. You can avoid (1a) and all its subproblems by using option (1b) instead, but then you get all the (1b) subproblems instead.
The pre-release and release have come and gone with no major problems associated with those cards. So I think we can agree that evidence shows they do not cause any problems.
Ha! I think looking at a variety of different forums across the internet, all we can agree is that opinions vary widely. There are people in the thread to Tom's article from Friday claiming that everyone at their prerelease felt negatively about the DFCs and they caused great problems. I didn't speak to everyone at my prerelease, so I can't claim that, but I've yet to find anyone I've played against IRL who thinks DFCs are a good idea.
On average, a card will need to be re-sleeved once, and few of them are good enough that you'd constantly put them in constructed decks.
There are very few discussions in which "This mechanic won't be played in constructed so it doesn't matter" is a good one, and I don't think this is one. If someone tries to use the new mechanic in their deck, they'll be confronted with its problems. I don't think "So don't use the new mechanic in your deck" is really a defence of the mechanic :P
Also, sleeves have minimal friction. I'd like to see how many instances of sleeving a card it would take to actually damage it.
There are two basic ways to get a card out of the sleeve: with fingernails or with fingertips. One risks scratching the surface, one risks leaving finger grease on the surface. Neither will likely be a problem when done once, but both will be a problem when done repeatedly. There's also the faff and fiddliness.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Oct 10, 2011 - 10:51AM
#40
|
Date Joined:
Mar 29, 2006
|
Once again DFC vs Flips. The reasons for not using flip cards still doesn't quite sit with me (I'm not exactly a fan of DFC). I can understand the reason for using mock-ups to show why flips cards wouldn't work (And in fact I'm kinda guilty of using mock-ups to defend flips, but that kinda backfires). If flip cards were to be used, then the cards themselves would be designed differently. Using existing cards and saying "Look, we had to remove a creature-type" or "The art's all wonky", means nothing really. The cards would have been designed to fit the template, not the other way around. For the same reason that they wouldn't print, say, Ice Cauldron  again. I'm sure there wouldn't be arguments that the card box is too small - you design for purpose. Art would have been created in the knowledge of having a flip frame, double-sided planeswalkers wouldn't be about either (I don't really see that as being a loss tbh, and it's not really a defence for DFC either)
|
|
|
