These articles ask for feedback about what people would like, but then don't deliver. That is disappointing. As far as discussing appearances, the most notable of those is the lack of a comma. Goldnight Commander is a rather unremarkable card except you remarked on it. Goldnight, Commander is a potentially cool legend for Commander.
Umm... do you mean Gisela, Blade of Goldnight ? Who the Goldnight cards are named after? Goldnight is a flight. It's like a division in the military, so unless you think "3rd Infantry, Commander" makes for a great legendary cardname, I'm going to disagree.
It was a joke. A card with 'commander' in the name can't be a commander in commander. Adding a comma like 'stop clubbing, bably seals' is an image of baby seals leaving a nightclub, not baby seals getting hit on heads by clubs.
Ludevic's Abomination has won me many a game in the Just for Fun room of MTGO. I think it's a little ridiculous to label that a bad card just because it doesn't make the Delver decklists, even if you do like it.
I call it a bad card because it's not playable in any competitive format. I have no problem with cards that are not competitive.
What I do have a problem with are cards that are horribly overcosted for no apparent reason, especially at the common level. The majority of a new player's experience is going to be with commons and uncommons; why can't Wizards at least try to make all commons at a certain level? I remembered MaRo's great response to someone complaining about bad rares; "You want to see more of them?" Yet I keep seeing blatantly awful cards made at common.
As MaRo and others have said many times, there can only be so many best cards in a cardpool, which makes the other ones bad by comparison. More generally, I trust Development to understand what the costing needs to be through an entire set rather than those who want every card to be "playable".
Grave Exchange is not "bad in comparison to the good cards". It's just bad. The same applies to Mindless Null , Scoria Elemental (Which they made a functional reprint of in AVR), Crawling Filth , Aven Trooper , and God knows how many other awful cards that were printed with an extra 2 in their mana cost.
These are not cards that casual players have fun with; they don't do anything particularly unique. They're just there.
On a side note, Development should never be treated as infallible. Ever. I know that they are professionals, and that they probably know more than I do. I also know that this should never stop us from raising criticism about the problems we have with their strategies.
Yes, Sealed is more luck-based and a sucky format, so let's just talk about draft. Terrible cards add spice. If all cards had equal power level, it basically doesn't matter which one you pick. Variance creates meaningful choices.
Obviously sucky cards don't provide meaningful choices; that's why I dislike them. They provide an obvious choice, which is why they're typically in the last two or three cards getting passed around.
Let's be honest; what's the only time that you're going to keep Ashenmoor Cohort in a Shadowmoor draft? Answer: When it gets passed to you and there are no other choices.
Also again, Azure Drake versus Amphin Cutthroat and countless other examples. Playing Limited for 10 years will remain more interesting if effects are costed differently in some environments. Overcosting cards is one of the things that make the game tick long-term.
I understand the "some things are costed differently in some environments" argument. A good creature in Invasion will not be the same as a good creature in Zendikar. However, it can only be taken to a certain point.
Grave Exchange treads that point. It's removal, which usually has some spot in draft, and it's reanimation, but it's so overpriced, and sacrifice effects are so much weaker in draft, and Black has better options even in this set... I probably wouldn't pick it until the last four cards of a pack. There are just too many better options.
There are a few truly dead cards that are unplayable. Except I still see people at the lowest ranked draft tables at my local FNM jamming Favor of the Woods in their decks. Magic's design philosophy is that not every card has to be for everyone. Every card just has to be for someone. Even superbad cards have their place.
That's great. You know what would be even better? If Favor of the Woods costed one less mana. Who is that going to hurt? Certainly not the people enjoying the card already.
If every card is for someone, then why wouldn't a better version of the card be for that very same person?
Grave Exchange is not "bad in comparison to the good cards". It's just bad. The same applies to Mindless Null , Scoria Elemental (Which they made a functional reprint of in AVR), Crawling Filth , Aven Trooper , and God knows how many other awful cards that were printed with an extra 2 in their mana cost.
Mindless Null was playable, and we're talking 3-0 decks here. Had it been , the format would've been even less fun.
I was thinking about boarding Raging Poltergeist in an aggressive deck against the green fatty decks.
In the first few weeks of Innistrad Limited, people thought Gnaw to the Bone was unplayable.
Guessing versus finding out where the border lies between useful and unplayable is actually one of the more interesting things.
I gladly give you Aven Trooper (but how many of those cards are printed every year?). That card is so laughably overcosted. It makes me smile every time I see it. Meaning I care more about it that half of the other Torment commons.
Obviously sucky cards don't provide meaningful choices; that's why I dislike them. They provide an obvious choice, which is why they're typically in the last two or three cards getting passed around.
Let's be honest; what's the only time that you're going to keep Ashenmoor Cohort in a Shadowmoor draft? Answer: When it gets passed to you and there are no other choices.
There are more choices to be made. Deckbuilding for example. Perhaps you have a choice between 3 'bad' 23rd cards. But, more importantly, it makes other picks matter more. It makes seeing and sending signals matter more. If Ashenmoor Cohort was just a good card (and every other common with it) you could just slam that off-color black bomb in pack 2 and pick up a deck as good as everyone else's (except better, as you have a bomb), because there's no difference between the 4th and 14th pick.
The choice Ashenmoor Cohort gives you is thinking about what will be more powerful to draft, a deck where every card is good or a deck with bombs but a few less good cards. Otherwise, you wouldn't have this choice, as every deck would be "bombs + good cards" where whoever opens the best bombs would be highly favored.
I understand the "some things are costed differently in some environments" argument. A good creature in Invasion will not be the same as a good creature in Zendikar. However, it can only be taken to a certain point.
Yes, where this point lies is the interesting discussion. I think it's much further. I think a card like Grave Exchange is within that point. Aven Trooper would be beyond that point.
But you actually need Aven Trooper for that. As I showed above, card evalutations can fluctuate during a format's lifespan, and some cards will go from unplayable to pretty interesting. However, for that you do need some cards to be actual unplayable. Otherwise, you know for certain every card is playable (otherwise it wouldn't be printed), so you wouldn't have this skill-testing evaluation metagame (using the non-tournament meaning)
Also, as I said, I actually like that card. Just like there are people who like Elf cards, or people who like coin-flipping cards, there are people who like super bad cards (Chimney Imp has a cult following). Just like coin-flipping, as opposed to Elves, it's a niche audience, so it shouldn't get too many cards like this.
That's great. You know what would be even better? If Favor of the Woods costed one less mana. Who is that going to hurt? Certainly not the people enjoying the card already.
If every card is for someone, then why wouldn't a better version of the card be for that very same person?
It certainly will hurt them as it'll cost them even longer to find out not to play it =) While at the same time, it would help no one, as a 2-mana Favor of the Woods is still unplayable for everyone in the know. But that's just in this specific example. For a more general answer, you shouldn't make cards better just because you can. That would lead to either an arms race or that flat power curve that removes more decisions than it adds. The card connects with its target audience, so it does its job.
However, for that you do need some cards to be actual unplayable. Otherwise, you know for certain every card is playable (otherwise it wouldn't be printed), so you wouldn't have this skill-testing evaluation metagame (using the non-tournament meaning)
I agree with most of your post, but I disagree with you here. The key shouldn't be making some cards that are literally unplayable in all situations, but cards that have extremely limited use, or vary wildly in power level in different types of decks. The skill-testing, then, is figuring out how to use a given card, which is typically much more skill-testing, and almost always more rewarding, than just having a card with the answer "don't ever play this".
If a card can be unplayable in every format, even in casual, then it's a waste of cardboard, and would be better as a second basic land in the booster pack. This is far, far worse when such cards waste a booster's rare slot (I'm looking at you, Moonlace ).
They can make cards that are good for different formats, such as Pauper, but aren't good in Limited or Standard. They can make cards that are only good if you build a deck around it, and are absolutely worthless otherwise (such as Flowering Lumberknot ). What they should never do is make a card that serves no role other than to be a bad card.
Also, as I said, I actually like that card. Just like there are people who like Elf cards, or people who like coin-flipping cards, there are people who like super bad cards (Chimney Imp has a cult following). Just like coin-flipping, as opposed to Elves, it's a niche audience, so it shouldn't get too many cards like this.
This is actually the most compelling reason for unplayable cards being printed. I, myself, am guilty of liking the card Defensive Stance .
I agree with most of your post, but I disagree with you here. The key shouldn't be making some cards that are literally unplayable in all situations, but cards that have extremely limited use, or vary wildly in power level in different types of decks. The skill-testing, then, is figuring out how to use a given card, which is typically much more skill-testing, and almost always more rewarding, than just having a card with the answer "don't ever play this".
But then, upon seeing Gnaw to the Bone , people would immidiately think "okay, this doesn't look very good, but there must be a reason". So there aren't really any hidden surprises. Only hidden plants. And games are all about surprises.
Take these 2 games for example: 1. You choose between $1 or a mystery box which contains anything from $1 to $10 2. You choose between $1 or a mystery box which contains anything from $0 to $10
Which game is more exiting? #2, because everybody in game 1 will choose the box, there is certainty, there is no tension. The existence of unplayable cards is what makes the tension of every card in the game go up.
Take these 2 games for example: 1. You choose between $1 or a mystery box which contains anything from $1 to $10 2. You choose between $1 or a mystery box which contains anything from $0 to $10
Which game is more exiting? #2, because everybody in game 1 will choose the box, there is certainty, there is no tension. The existence of unplayable cards is what makes the tension of every card in the game go up.
Take these 2 games for example: 1. You choose between $1 or a mystery box which contains anything from $1 to $10 2. You choose between $1 or a mystery box which contains anything from $0 to $10
Which game is more exiting? #2, because everybody in game 1 will choose the box, there is certainty, there is no tension. The existence of unplayable cards is what makes the tension of every card in the game go up.
Yes, it may be more exciting, but I'd definitely rather player game 1.
Besides, a more accurate metaphor would be:
1. You pay $4 to get a chance to open a mystery box, which contains anything from $4 to $20. 2. You pay $4 to get a chance to open a mystery box, which contains anything from $0 to $20.
If you're paying for something, you should get value out of it. While, yes, a single unplayable card in the pack doesn't mean the entire pack is valueless, it does still feel bad to know that Wizards is willing to give their paying customers things of zero value.
Take these 2 games for example: 1. You choose between $1 or a mystery box which contains anything from $1 to $10 2. You choose between $1 or a mystery box which contains anything from $0 to $10
Which game is more exiting? #2, because everybody in game 1 will choose the box, there is certainty, there is no tension. The existence of unplayable cards is what makes the tension of every card in the game go up.
What does this show, if not that some people overvalue "excitement" and "tension"?
Okay, bad example, as it has shifted the discussion from gameplay value to monetary value. Of course as a player you'd rather play #1, but that's because the example breaks the magic circle and is not really a game.
I was only using the example as a metaphor for gameplay value, not actual monetary value. That for limited (which is a huge focus for Wizards) cards aren't judged in isolation, but in the bigger picture. An unplayable card can still contribute to this.
I was only using the example as a metaphor for gameplay value, not actual monetary value. That for limited (which is a huge focus for Wizards) cards aren't judged in isolation, but in the bigger picture. An unplayable card can still contribute to this.
I too meant gameplay value when I said "If you're paying for something, you should get value out of it." Magic is a game, first and foremost. If you pay for a game, you should be able to play it. Unplayable cards are like software glitches on release in video games; they detract from the overall value of the game, regardless of how good and functional the rest of it may be. Except Wizards of the Coast can't patch their unplayable cards later.
Unplayable cards add nothing to Limited. Your point about unplayable cards adding skill-testing and variance could just as easily be accomplished by having cards that vary in power level based on the context of the deck in which they're played. People not looking to build that sort of deck can safely glaze over such cards, which accomplishes the (I forget when) stated goal in "bad cards" of making Draft easier to handle. The only thing gained by having unplayable cards in packs is that the people unlucky enough to get the 14th-pick blank have one fewer card for their deck, which just increases the luck factor (which is bad enough with swingy mythics in the format).
I'm not advocating a flat power level across all cards. I understand that some cards have to be better than others. But an unplayable card contributes nothing. Magic is a game, and games are meant to be played. Game pieces that have no gameplay value should simply not exist.
, the format would've been even less fun.
