Community

Are they still trying to convince us that Soul Siezer isn't garbage?
Oh, yeah, Limited.  Yay garbage!

Heh. Wizards decide on this really bad idea (DFCs), and have to change the rules of drafts to accommodate it. The fact that they didn't change MTGO to also display DFCs indicate that it's not a desired aspect of the idea, but an unfortunate consequence of having to, y'know, play with physical objects in a three-dimensional world. It's tantamount to admitting there are big problems with DFCs.

It means there's eight months where drafting is affected in the wacky way that Steve describes here. I find it interesting and amusing that good players generally want to reveal some information to their neighbours, but are prevented from doing so by the rules, and the very fact of being not a proper card with a proper back makes something a desirable pick. And yet, Rochester draft is not so popular; there's no desire to reveal everything about your deck. It's an interesting dynamic: if you had the choice, how many of your picks would you choose to reveal to your neighbours?

Maybe once DFCs have died the death they need to die, and been buried deeper than Arcane and Banding, Wizards will invent some new draft format whereby players can reveal as many of your picks as you like; we'd get pros discussing whether 1 or 4 or 8 is the right number to reveal. Interesting thought experiment. (Whaddaya know, some good things do manage to come from even the worst ideas!)

Mar 6, 2012 -- 5:15AM, lathspel wrote:

Mar 6, 2012 -- 3:17AM, alextfish wrote:

Heh. Wizards decide on this really bad idea (DFCs), and have to change the rules of drafts to accommodate it. The fact that they didn't change MTGO to also display DFCs indicate that it's not a desired aspect of the idea, but an unfortunate consequence of having to, y'know, play with physical objects in a three-dimensional world. It's tantamount to admitting there are big problems with DFCs.

Or maybe, there are just problems getting MTGO to implement it properly?  I can't imagine the impact of DFC on Limited was a surprise; it's the first thing anyone would think of when contemplating a change to the card back.

You say that, but in his original article on DFCs, Mark Rosewater doesn't mention draft at all. He enthuses about the horrible, horrible checklist cards as a solution for "Limited" (principally meaning Sealed Deck AFAICT), but doesn't mention draft once.

The closest he gets is this laughable paragraph:

It created all sorts of logistical headaches not just for game play but for the entire Organized Play system. (By the way, we never at any point took this lightly.)

Yes, yes it did...

So yeah, I'm sure MTGO could have been made to show when other people pick DFCs. Every new set brings new coding challenges for MTGO, be it the new card frames of planeswalkers or level-up cards, or the new targeting conditions, replacement effects, and bizarre oneoff cards that every set has. 

Mar 6, 2012 -- 10:39AM, Pauper wrote:

Short of announcing, 'Woot! I just first-picked a Loyal Cathar!', which I'm pretty sure is illegal, how would anybody know that's what you're picking?

When you play with real cards (as opposed to MTGO) and you pick a double-faced card like Loyal Cathar, everyone at the table can see what you picked. So if you first pick a DFC, yes, you're announcing it to the table.

As far as signalling, it's not just about reading what your neighbors are doing. You also want to send your neighbors a clear message about your own intentions. Remember, the reason for this is that you are all trying to build the best deck with scarce resources, and generally if you can choose different colors or draft plans from your neighbors, you will all benefit. If you choose the same plan/color, you will all suffer.

So passing someone a Mikaeus the Unhallowed (a mono-black bomb) or Fires of Undeath (one of the top limited removal spells) says, "You should play black or red." First picking a Loyal Cathar says, "I am playing white. Don't fight me for it."

The problem with signalling is that most players are bad at both sending and reading signals, which makes analyzing signals a waste of time. Even if you are with a group that gets the basic concept, the group still needs a solid understanding of which cards are powerful in a format. So sometimes even decent players end up sending mixed signals. This leaves with situations where you would've done better sticking to your basic bombs-removal-evasion plan instead of worrying about what everyone else was doing. It's also why there aren't very many articles about signalling; it's kind of a fringe topic that isn't always useful.

Steve does have a couple older posts about signalling...
www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.a...
www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.a...