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.
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
For those who have never played a game with turn undead, the idea is that a cleric uses his faith-based magic to destroy the undead—usually zombies. We designed a card in Innistrad but ended up not having space for it.
Didn't make it into Innistrad? "Turn" -- which generally repels monsters, and only destroys them once you really outclass them on a level vs. HD basis -- is what I always thought they were going for with Avacynian Priest .
Didn't make it into Innistrad? "Turn" -- which generally repels monsters, and only destroys them once you really outclass them on a level vs. HD basis -- is what I always thought they were going for with Avacynian Priest
I wonder if design realized that though the humans were on a rise and were banding together, making a large majority of the cards deal with humans was too lopsided, as well as create extremely powerful connections with token generators, unlike all the other tribes. I also found it amusing how he mentioned R/W was his favorite draft color, and he built a R/W deck to test with, and then mentions R/W a few times throughout the article (showing the amount of focus on these colors in design), and then many people who went to the prereleases saw a dominance in R/W decks being played/winning.
I wonder if design realized that though the humans were on a rise and were banding together, making a large majority of the cards deal with humans was too lopsided, as well as create extremely powerful connections with token generators, unlike all th
I'm glad to see the Gristlebrand "why didn't this cost 7" question addressed, although I find the answer rather lacking. It's a little hard to believe that this would be overpowered at 7, especially if the cost were, say, BBBBBBB. Or you could tone down the lifegain a bit, making it only trigger off of hitting players, or something similar. Personally, I like the prohibitive casting cost solution better, and I'm willing to bet that it could have been done.
I'm glad to see the Gristlebrand "why didn't this cost 7" question addressed, although I find the answer rather lacking. It's a little hard to believe that this would be overpowered at 7, especially if the cost were, say, BBBBBBB. Or you could tone
Should have made it 7 with some additional cost: loss of life (7 haha would make it astetically nice but much worse a card), perhaps sacrifice a creature instead.
Should have made it 7 with some additional cost: loss of life (7 haha would make it astetically nice but much worse a card), perhaps sacrifice a creature instead.
Gallows at Willow Hill is an "awesome" or "cool" card?
-3 mana to cast -3 mana and 3 untapped humans to activate to destroy, not exile, but just destroy a target creature. -And even if I can assemble all this, I still am giving the other guy a 1/1 flyer.
This card is marginally functional in limited, and can only work in the human heavy environment that is AR limited. And even now, there's so much better removal. And speaking of removal, even if you manage to assemble all the pieces to make the gallows work, it is still subect to greet and and red's removal. Althought it wouldn't fit the story, making the gallows industructable would help.
I realize there's always some combo out there that might somehow make this worthwhile, but why oh why did it need to be RARE?! It would have been fine as an uncommon...
Listen, WOTC: I've spent the last 15 months getting back into Magic, and I can't tell you how many times I've struggled and strived to build good decks, play good games, and win FNM's. And when that dilligence pays off, and you manage to win a pack, it is INCREDIBLY frustrating to open up a pack and get something like this, or like knowedge pool (admittedly KP found a home, but it took 2 releases before it happened.)
Fortunately, I haven't gotten any Gallows yet, but when I do (of course I'lll get them) I'll see about sending them on to Maro since he's so pleased with them. ^_~
Gallows at Willow Hill is an "awesome" or "cool" card?-3 mana to cast-3 mana and 3 untapped humans to activate to destroy, not exile, but just destroy a target creature.-And even if I can assemble all this, I still am giving the other guy a 1/1 flyer
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.
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 l
I'm glad to see the Gristlebrand "why didn't this cost 7" question addressed, although I find the answer rather lacking. It's a little hard to believe that this would be overpowered at 7, especially if the cost were, say, BBBBBBB. Or you could tone down the lifegain a bit, making it only trigger off of hitting players, or something similar. Personally, I like the prohibitive casting cost solution better, and I'm willing to bet that it could have been done.
If the only viable choices for Griselbrand 's casting cost were or , I'm glad they chose the latter. Either way you'd prefer to cheat it into play somehow, of course, but at least this version can be cast by some decks that aren't completely monoblack.
I think people are overthinking the aethetics of Griselbrand anyway. When I first saw people talking about it, someone had pointed out that it even had seven words of rules text, so the mana cost should obviously have been seven, right? but counting its rules text as seven words depends on templating "7 life" with a numeral but "seven cards" with a word, which is kind of arbitrary. And then why doesn't it have seven abilities, or seven words in its flavor text, or seven letters in its name? They have to stop somewhere.
Someday they should print a card named "Mike", a 4/4 creature with four CMC, four colors, four abilities (each one a keyword that uses only one word, so maybe haste but not first strike), and the flavor text "Yes, it is intentional." Only in an Un-set, though.
Should have made it 7 with some additional cost: loss of life (7 haha would make it astetically nice but much worse a card), perhaps sacrifice a creature instead.
"Sacrifice a creature" would have broken the symmetry too. But that gave me a great idea for what they should have done: "When Griselbrand enters the battlefield, sacrifice seven other creatures." Fits the black-wants-only-one-creature theme of this set, and it actually does maintain symmetry a bit. They could have given it a CMC of 7 with some colorless in there with a drawback like that.
If the only viable choices for Griselbrand 's casting cost were :bm::bm::bm::bm::bm::bm::bm: or :4m::bm::bm::bm::bm:, I'm glad they chose the latter. Either way you'd prefer to cheat it into play somehow, of course,
The flavor here is simple but potent—being raised from the dead as a zombie takes a little bit out of you. You're undead; you're not quite alive. As such, you're a little less of a threat.
Yet the default size of vanilla Zombies (especially tokens, but also things like Walking Corpse ) is 2/2, while vanilla Humans (especially tokens, again) are 1/1. Yes, many Humans are larger (usually explained by being a Knight or whatever else), but I think it's reasonably well-established that a run-of-the-mill 1/1 Human would become a run-of-the-mill 2/2 Zombie.
I'm also not sure what I think about turning a living Human into a Zombie (not raising it from the dead) flavor-wise.
As far as the mechanics go, I think it's fine, but I think the tacked-on -1/-1 is the actual reason it will ever get played, with the "black Zombie" part only being relevant occasionally.
In the discussion of Ghoulflesh , you say: Yet the default size of vanilla Zombies (especially tokens, but also things like Walking Corpse ) is 2/2, while vanilla Humans (especiall
In response to the use of Flicker in AVR and your speculation on the future of it:
I understand why Flicker effects were altered in this set, and it makes perfect sense. You're trying to push the soulbond theme, and besides the obvious benefit of only being able to flicker your own permanents, the last thing you want is to flicker your opponent's creature, only to have it return and get bonded to an even better creature.
In regards to standardizing how flicker is handled in the future, I do not believe that retaining control of an exiled creature is the best policy. From a flavor sense, when a creature is exiled, it returns to the battlefield as a new creature with no memory of its former self. Would it remember who had previously hypnotized it, or the ownership which has been ingrained upon it? From a rules sense, when a player makes a misplay, usually a simple correction will prevent future mistakes, just as it has with other rules (mana leaving pools, upkeep step, etc.). So if that is the primary reason for a change, I would argue against a change for change's sake. Lastly, from a strategic standpoint, flexibility is at its best when I can target any creature and return to its owner. It allows a player to protect their own creatures and get more milage out of ETB/LTB effects, while at the same time giving a wider range of answers to the player that likes to Bribery others. It turns Mystifying Maze into not just a deterrent from being attacked, but a mini Homeward Path.
I would encourage Development to take another look at Flicker, and rather than trying to standardize everything that they can, look at each case by case and see if there is enough reason for variety to leave some things alone. I believe that there is a time and a place for insta-flicker, EOT flicker, and retain control flicker.
In response to the use of Flicker in AVR and your speculation on the future of it:I understand why Flicker effects were altered in this set, and it makes perfect sense. You're trying to push the soulbond theme, and besides the obvious benefit of only
The insta-flicker effects don't kill tokens. State based effects aren't checked in the middle of resolutions. This seems very important since there are many common insta-flickers and many token producers.
The insta-flicker effects don't kill tokens. State based effects aren't checked in the middle of resolutions. This seems very important since there are many common insta-flickers and many token producers.
On Grave Exchange : Yes, the original design returned the creature card to the battlefield, which was an exact mirror of the other effect. Unfortunately, that turned out to be too good to cost at anything reasonable so the creature card was sent to the hand instead.
If you care about balance, you shouldn't be costing this effect at 6 mana; instead of making it too powerful like the previous version, you made it not nearly good enough. Let it be 4 mana, or 5 at most.
"Oh, but bad cards need to exist, to tell people what's-"
No, they don't. At least, bad cards that are blatantly overcosted for what they do don't need to exist, because they're a waste of cardboard, and they only serve the purpose of giving easy choices to newbies instead of promoting interesting deck-building. Cruel Revival , a removal card printed back in Onslaught (Before a lot of the recent power creep for removal), was an instant speed, selective version of the same effect at 5 mana that only returned zombies; it still was bad. You don't need to stop printing bad cards entirely; I love some bad cards (Ludevic's Abomination , anyone?). What I'm sick of are bad cards that just exist, giving overcosted versions of everyday effects that could easily be printed at a mana cheaper without breaking any format. I know you care about limited, but limited would not be broken by a 5 mana (Or even 4 mana) Grave Exchange.
If you care about balance, you shouldn't be costing this effect at 6 mana; instead of making it too powerful like the previous version, you made it not nearly good enough. Let it be 4 mana, or 5 at most."Oh, but bad cards need to exist, to tell peopl
The insta-flicker effects don't kill tokens. State based effects aren't checked in the middle of resolutions. This seems very important since there are many common insta-flickers and many token producers.
Once a token leaves the battlefield, nothing can bring it back. So after the flickering spell/ability has resolved, SBAs will cause the exiled token to cease to exist.
Once a token leaves the battlefield, nothing can bring it back. So after the flickering spell/ability has resolved, SBAs will cause the exiled token to cease to exist.
In response to the use of Flicker in AVR and your speculation on the future of it:
I understand why Flicker effects were altered in this set, and it makes perfect sense. You're trying to push the soulbond theme, and besides the obvious benefit of only being able to flicker your own permanents, the last thing you want is to flicker your opponent's creature, only to have it return and get bonded to an even better creature.
In regards to standardizing how flicker is handled in the future, I do not believe that retaining control of an exiled creature is the best policy. From a flavor sense, when a creature is exiled, it returns to the battlefield as a new creature with no memory of its former self. Would it remember who had previously hypnotized it, or the ownership which has been ingrained upon it? From a rules sense, when a player makes a misplay, usually a simple correction will prevent future mistakes, just as it has with other rules (mana leaving pools, upkeep step, etc.). So if that is the primary reason for a change, I would argue against a change for change's sake. Lastly, from a strategic standpoint, flexibility is at its best when I can target any creature and return to its owner. It allows a player to protect their own creatures and get more milage out of ETB/LTB effects, while at the same time giving a wider range of answers to the player that likes to Bribery others. It turns Mystifying Maze into not just a deterrent from being attacked, but a mini Homeward Path.
I would encourage Development to take another look at Flicker, and rather than trying to standardize everything that they can, look at each case by case and see if there is enough reason for variety to leave some things alone. I believe that there is a time and a place for insta-flicker, EOT flicker, and retain control flicker.
MaRo only talked about standardizing for #3.
Also, from a design sense, if players keep making the same mistake, you should change your design rather than try to educate the players. This also happened with suspend and haste. It's not a change for change's sake.
MaRo only talked about standardizing for #3. Also, from a design sense, if players keep making the same mistake, you should change your design rather than try to educate the players. This also happened with suspend and haste. It's not a change for ch
On Grave Exchange : Yes, the original design returned the creature card to the battlefield, which was an exact mirror of the other effect. Unfortunately, that turned out to be too good to cost at anything reasonable so the creature card was sent to the hand instead.
If you care about balance, you shouldn't be costing this effect at 6 mana; instead of making it too powerful like the previous version, you made it not nearly good enough. Let it be 4 mana, or 5 at most.
"Oh, but bad cards need to exist, to tell people what's-"
No, they don't. At least, bad cards that are blatantly overcosted for what they do don't need to exist, because they're a waste of cardboard, and they only serve the purpose of giving easy choices to newbies instead of promoting interesting deck-building. Cruel Revival , a removal card printed back in Onslaught (Before a lot of the recent power creep for removal), was an instant speed, selective version of the same effect at 5 mana that only returned zombies; it still was bad. You don't need to stop printing bad cards entirely; I love some bad cards (Ludevic's Abomination , anyone?). What I'm sick of are bad cards that just exist, giving overcosted versions of everyday effects that could easily be printed at a mana cheaper without breaking any format. I know you care about limited, but limited would not be broken by a 5 mana (Or even 4 mana) Grave Exchange.
I strongly agree with this statement. This is the one thing I will always hate about Magic design, as it seems so pointless. I also hate it when they put amazing art on terrible cards, such a waste (i.e. Moorland Inquistor, whose ability should have at least granted double strike [fits the picture as well]). I've played a variety of ccgs/lcgs/and other similar games that do not create bad cards for the hell of it. If they did, I don't think the game would even last on the market (part of the reason Magic still sells is because of its massive card base and nostalgia, which is only due to being such an old game, like Monopoly). And when you don't create terrible cards, you allow the players to have so many more interesting options to build decks and the game is even more fresh. Imagine taking the 20 or so terrible cards in a large set like AVR (I'd venture to say the number may even be higher) and make them balanced, usable cards. You just created a huge variety of new options for deck building and game play. And bad cards do not balance limited. If all cards instead were created on a balance, except for the occasional slips (i.e. Skullclamp), limited play would be even more intriguing and there would be even more options available. All bad cards do to limited is add a large element of luck to the game that is unnessecary and unfun. How many players have lost limited games due to one player pulling three or more bomb rares and over-powerful uncommons (especially sealed) when you weren't even close to having the same options? As strategic as limited is, it can be overtaken by lucky pulls. No head designer of any game will ever be able to persuade me that bad cards ever create game balance (and I'm not talking about Chance-like deck draws for board games like Monopoly, etc.)
If you care about balance, you shouldn't be costing this effect at 6 mana; instead of making it too powerful like the previous version, you made it not nearly good enough. Let it be 4 mana, or 5 at most."Oh, but bad cards need to exist, to tell peopl
When loking at Grave Exchange, in addition to thinking it was an inaccurate parallel I really felt the sacrifice should be first, and the disentomb should be untargeted. That way I could target myself as a very expensive bounce, or maybe get back a stolen creature. Unfortunately I'm sure they really wanted to target, which is why the order is so. But then why make target player and not target opponent?
Honestly the whole card feels sloppy now that you've drawn attention to it, and I don't think you get elegance-of-design points just for intentions.
When loking at Grave Exchange, in addition to thinking it was an inaccurate parallel I really felt the sacrifice should be first, and the disentomb should be untargeted. That way I could target myself as a very expensive bounce, or maybe get back a
I strongly agree with this statement. This is the one thing I will always hate about Magic design, as it seems so pointless. I also hate it when they put amazing art on terrible cards, such a waste (i.e. Moorland Inquistor, whose ability should have at least granted double strike [fits the picture as well]). I've played a variety of ccgs/lcgs/and other similar games that do not create bad cards for the hell of it. If they did, I don't think the game would even last on the market (part of the reason Magic still sells is because of its massive card base and nostalgia, which is only due to being such an old game, like Monopoly). And when you don't create terrible cards, you allow the players to have so many more interesting options to build decks and the game is even more fresh. Imagine taking the 20 or so terrible cards in a large set like AVR (I'd venture to say the number may even be higher) and make them balanced, usable cards. You just created a huge variety of new options for deck building and game play. And bad cards do not balance limited. If all cards instead were created on a balance, except for the occasional slips (i.e. Skullclamp), limited play would be even more intriguing and there would be even more options available. All bad cards do to limited is add a large element of luck to the game that is unnessecary and unfun. How many players have lost limited games due to one player pulling three or more bomb rares and over-powerful uncommons (especially sealed) when you weren't even close to having the same options? As strategic as limited is, it can be overtaken by lucky pulls. No head designer of any game will ever be able to persuade me that bad cards ever create game balance (and I'm not talking about Chance-like deck draws for board games like Monopoly, etc.)
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.
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.
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.
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.Also again, Azure
You don't need to stop printing bad cards entirely; I love some bad cards (Ludevic's Abomination , anyone?). What I'm sick of are bad cards that just exist, giving overcosted versions of everyday effects that could easily be printed at a mana cheaper without breaking any format.
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. 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".
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. As MaRo and others have said many time
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.
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 l
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?
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 le
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.
Mindless Null was playable, and we're talking 3-0 decks here. Had it been :1m::b:, the format would've been even less fun.I was thinking about boarding Raging Poltergeist in an aggre
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
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.
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
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.
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 myste
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"?
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.
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 m
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.
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
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.
I agree with the bolded part. But unplayable cards, in moderation, do not detract from this. Magic is a game about customizing, about inclusion and exclusion. You pick your game pieces, you don't have to play them all.
Aren't art and flavor pieces of the game without gameplay value? Just like flavor text is just a part of a text box, an unplayable card is just a part of a set.
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.
About what kind of cards are we talking about here? Almost every card has some kind of niche application. If you look at it in this way, there aren't any truly unplayable cards.
I agree with the bolded part. But unplayable cards, in moderation, do not detract from this. Magic is a game about customizing, about inclusion and exclusion. You pick your game pieces, you don't have to play them all. Aren't art and flavor pieces of
I agree with the bolded part. But unplayable cards, in moderation, do not detract from this. Magic is a game about customizing, about inclusion and exclusion. You pick your game pieces, you don't have to play them all.
They certainly detract from my enjoyment when I get them in a booster pack. And they detract from the Limited experience, as well.
Aren't art and flavor pieces of the game without gameplay value? Just like flavor text is just a part of a text box, an unplayable card is just a part of a set.
Art and flavor text are purely additive. They don't remove rules text from cards to make room for flavor text, after all. An unplayable card, however, is subtractive; it's effectively a blank. It removes a card in the booster pack; it removes a card from the set; it removes a card from your card pool in Limited.
About what kind of cards are we talking about here? Almost every card has some kind of niche application. If you look at it in this way, there aren't any truly unplayable cards.
A card which is only playable because of tribal interactions has limits. I could print a three-mana 1/1 vanilla wolf and you could claim that it's not unplayable because it could be used to reach critical mass in an wolf deck.
It's very difficult to qualify 'unplayable'. Things that are strictly inferior to other options in the same format... Cards that would still be fair, even underpowered, at one or more mana cheaper... Cards which serve no role in any deck, or serve a role better performed by another card in the same format...
Thanks to the focus on Limited these days, very few cards are unplayable in all formats, but they still do exist.
They certainly detract from my enjoyment when I get them in a booster pack. And they detract from the Limited experience, as well.Art and flavor text are purely additive. They don't remove rules text from cards to make room for flavor text, after all
Ooh, this is starting to get interesting. I'll come back with a more detailed response when I have more time, but I just want to get a foot in here for now.
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.
I agree with chronego completely here. I don't really understand your point about "surprises" versus "plants."
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.
Well, as "the house" Wizards would rather have everyone play #2--obviously they have outside-the-magic-circle concerns as well.
Aren't art and flavor pieces of the game without gameplay value? Just like flavor text is just a part of a text box, an unplayable card is just a part of a set.
Art and flavor text are purely additive. They don't remove rules text from cards to make room for flavor text, after all. An unplayable card, however, is subtractive; it's effectively a blank. It removes a card in the booster pack; it removes a card from the set; it removes a card from your card pool in Limited.
I think what TobyornotToby is getting at is that unplayable cards could be seen as an additive, depending on one's perspective. In terms of game design, there wouldn't be much difference between Scars of Mirrodin block and a hypothetical Scars of Mirrodin minus Defensive Stance block, in the same way that Lightning Bolt is functionally the same regardless of whether it has flavor text or not. The problem, though, is that whenever someone buys a booster pack, that person is paying for the possibility of opening a Defensive Stance instead of one of the playable cards.
About what kind of cards are we talking about here? Almost every card has some kind of niche application. If you look at it in this way, there aren't any truly unplayable cards.
It's very difficult to qualify 'unplayable'. Things that are strictly inferior to other options in the same format... Cards that would still be fair, even underpowered, at one or more mana cheaper... Cards which serve no role in any deck, or serve a role better performed by another card in the same format...
I agree; it is very difficult to qualify unplayability. Competitive Pokémon deals with the issue by dividing Pokémon into tiers (uber, overused, underused, never used), but Pokémon isn't updated nearly as often as Magic, and it isn't played under nearly as many different formats and variants.
Ooh, this is starting to get interesting. I'll come back with a more detailed response when I have more time, but I just want to get a foot in here for now. But then, upon seeing Gnaw to the Bone , people would im
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.
If you made a set of the 250 best cards in Magic history, cards #225 - 250 would be unplayable because they'd get the snot beaten out of them by cards #1 - 100.
If you made a set of the 250 best cards in Magic history, cards #225 - 250 would be unplayable because they'd get the snot beaten out of them by cards #1 - 100.
If you made a set of the 250 best cards in Magic history, cards #225 - 250 would be unplayable because they'd get the snot beaten out of them by cards #1 - 100.
That is not true. They may be unplayable in Standard, but not in Limited or Casual or other formats.
The sorts of cards I'm talking about when I say 'unplayable' are cards like Favor of the Woods that are just plain bad in any situation.
That is not true. They may be unplayable in Standard, but not in Limited or Casual or other formats.The sorts of cards I'm talking about when I say 'unplayable' are cards like Favor of the Woods that are just plain
I agree with chronego completely here. I don't really understand your point about "surprises" versus "plants."
Oh oh I just thought of another example:
You're watching a horror/thriller. They're ramping up the tension, music is getting more intense, you can feel it. There are 3 things that can happen here.
1. Something happens. You flinch. 2. Nothing happens. Then just as you let out a breath of relief, something happens. You flinch. 3. Nothing happens. You curse the movie for making you scared.
Not knowing what will happen is what makes them scary and thus exiting and fun. If #3 was removed, those scenes would be a lot less scary because you're certain something will happen, you just need to brace yourself for when it happens. There would be no surprise, as you know for certain the director planted a moment of something happening there. The same can be said about evaluating magic cards.
1. They're playable. 2. They look unplayable, but then hidden usages emerge. 3. They're unplayable.
Again, if #3 was removed, the discovery of new magic cards (which is a huge part of magic's appeal, and why so many cards are released each year) would be less exiting and less fun.
The problem, though, is that whenever someone buys a booster pack, that person is paying for the possibility of opening a Defensive Stance instead of one of the playable cards.
They certainly detract from my enjoyment when I get them in a booster pack.
Yes this is the problem with them. There are many levels to look at Magic. At the set level, at the booster level, at the playing-a-game-of-magic level, etc. Perhaps we're discussion different levels here. It's true that in boosters, they waste slots. I find that an acceptable sacrifice though, as long as it isn't the rare slot. But commons? Whatever you wanted to open in that Defensive Stance slot you can buy for 10 cents. Or get for free from anyone with draft piles at home.
I stopped buying boosters a long time ago because I got sick of opening crap rares. But I never minded crap commons.
And they detract from the Limited experience, as well.
Well this is where I disagree, as the "Limited experience" is something shaped by more than individual cards. A 'the whole bigger than the sum of the parts' thingy.
Art and flavor text are purely additive. They don't remove rules text from cards to make room for flavor text, after all. An unplayable card, however, is subtractive; it's effectively a blank. It removes a card in the booster pack; it removes a card from the set; it removes a card from your card pool in Limited.
This is true, which is why we're having this discussion (should unplayable cards exist?) and not that discussion (should flavor text exist?). However, I was merely using this point to refute your statement, "elements without gameplay value have no reason to exist".
A card which is only playable because of tribal interactions has limits. I could print a three-mana 1/1 vanilla wolf and you could claim that it's not unplayable because it could be used to reach critical mass in an wolf deck.
If the set has a tribal component, yes. I couldn't make the same excuse for Chimney Imp I think.
It's very difficult to qualify 'unplayable'. Things that are strictly inferior to other options in the same format... Cards that would still be fair, even underpowered, at one or more mana cheaper... Cards which serve no role in any deck, or serve a role better performed by another card in the same format...
A legacy burn deck plays a lot of cards strictly inferior to Lighning Bolt , but it's for the better. I'm at a loss thinking about such cases for limited (Skillful Lunge and Zealous Strike are not in the same environment for example, even being just a set apart), unless you count rarities? But rarities have a gameplay value in limited.
Many cards would be fair for a mana cheaper, many cards that are regulary played already.
"Having no role in any deck" seems like an interesting qualification for "unplayable".
Welcome!Oh oh I just thought of another example:You're watching a horror/thriller. They're ramping up the tension, music is getting more intense, you can feel it. There are 3 things that can happen here. 1. Something happens. You flinch. 2. Nothing h
I'm sure that my experience at the AVA pre-release was improved thanks to the range of power levels. Frankly, I don't buy cards very often and don't even play /that/ often (and when I do, it's usually with equally inept players). I appreciated being able to go through my cards and - on 2nd reading - ditch nearly half of them for being 'worse' and use the others to determine what colour(s) I should play.
I probably made some mistakes in both stages - some folk who beat me pointed out cards that are actually playable. Someone suggested I switch colours completely and I did fare a tiny bit better after that.
But I'm definitely not the worst - finishing higher than median - and even I appreciate the fact that I'm able to discount some cards, making deck-building (or drafting) a bit less stressful.
I find that the better that players are, the more they want the power-curve of all cards to be closer together, making evaluation harder and encouraging deckbuilding to be about synergy and specific deck needs rather than simply putting in the most powerful cards of your colour. MtG has to differentiate between all abilities on the 'spectrum' though and I like being able to beat someone worse than me, despite not being very good myself.
If MtG became the game that forum-posters and pros often seem to ask for, there wouldn't be much differentiation in skill levels until you'd reached a certain point.
I'm sure that my experience at the AVA pre-release was improved thanks to the range of power levels. Frankly, I don't buy cards very often and don't even play /that/ often (and when I do, it's usually with equally inept players). I appreciated being
If you made a set of the 250 best cards in Magic history, cards #225 - 250 would be unplayable because they'd get the snot beaten out of them by cards #1 - 100.
Actually, this makes me wonder about the Cube format (which I have never played or designed for). Do people intentionally stick cards like Chimney Imp into their Cubes? I imagine that, for a particular Cube, certain cards are less likely to be played--do those cards get replaced or deleted? Is a hidden strategy seeded into the card selections to make the apparently weaker cards worth choosing?
You're watching a horror/thriller. They're ramping up the tension, you can feel it. There are 3 things that can happen here...
Not knowing what will happen is what makes them scary and thus exiting and fun. If #3 was removed, those scenes would be a lot less scary because you're certain something will happen, you just need to brace yourself for when it happens. There would be no surprise, as you know for certain the director planted a moment of something happening there. The same can be said about evaluating magic cards.
This is a nicely constructed analogy. I think I get what you're saying--in order for "looks unplayable but has hidden uses" to mean anything, there have to be cards that actually are unplayable. Otherwise, there are just obvious good cards and less obvious good cards. I think your analogy falls down in a few places, though:
1. The horror/thriller can only pull off that trick on the first viewing. Magic is designed to be played multiple times. 2. I don't think surprise and discovery are quite the same thing. Regardless, discovery still exists without #3. Instead of discovering whether a card is playable, a player can discover why a card is playable. In fact, because anyone can look up card prices online, the "whether" is often obvious. (This Jace, the Mind Sculptor card is pretty expensive; it must be really good!) 3. As has been mentioned before, cards aren't necessarily playable or unplayable in a vaccuum; sometimes they are situationally so. 4. There isn't any discovery to be had when a card is obviously unplayable. To quote Extra Credits, "choice is about overcoming internal conflict." If the card is obviously unplayable, there's no conflict--the correct decision will always be to not play the card. For there to be conflict, the card must be useful in some kind of situation.
There are many levels to look at Magic. At the set level, at the booster level, at the playing-a-game-of-magic level, etc. Perhaps we're discussion different levels here.
I do think this is the heart of the problem. You seem to be discussing at the "playing-a-game-of-magic" level where players can effectively ignore bad cards by simply not including them in their decks. But then, if players are ignoring the cards, that brings us back to why design them in the first place?
And they detract from the Limited experience, as well.
Well this is where I disagree, as the "Limited experience" is something shaped by more than individual cards. A 'the whole bigger than the sum of the parts' thingy.
I agree with you here, TobyornotToby. As you mentioned before, sometimes you do have those situations where you have to choose from among three bad cards to be the last card in your Limited deck. Or you have to decide whether it's better to splash for that off-color bomb or stick to weaker cards with a more consistent mana base.
Art and flavor text are purely additive. They don't remove rules text from cards to make room for flavor text, after all. An unplayable card, however, is subtractive; it's effectively a blank. It removes a card in the booster pack; it removes a card from the set; it removes a card from your card pool in Limited.
This is true, which is why we're having this discussion (should unplayable cards exist?) and not that discussion (should flavor text exist?). However, I was merely using this point to refute your statement, "elements without gameplay value have no reason to exist".
Remember Zac Hill's hypothetical Raging Centaur? Bad cards are like the ": Lose 10 life" ability. Even if they're additive in the sense of being an extra option, their psychological impact is negative--they're actually worse than having no gameplay value. This is true at the booster and set level regardless of whether the bad card takes a rare or common slot.
It's very difficult to qualify 'unplayable'. Things that are strictly inferior to other options in the same format... Cards that would still be fair, even underpowered, at one or more mana cheaper... Cards which serve no role in any deck, or serve a role better performed by another card in the same format...
A legacy burn deck plays a lot of cards strictly inferior to Lighning Bolt , but it's for the better. I'm at a loss thinking about such cases for limited (Skillful Lunge and Zealous Strike are not in the same environment for example, even being just a set apart), unless you count rarities? But rarities have a gameplay value in limited.
Many cards would be fair for a mana cheaper, many cards that are regulary played already.
"Having no role in any deck" seems like an interesting qualification for "unplayable".
I wish I could be more helpful here. In Pokémon, tiers are generally standardized by one of the competitive battling websites (read: Smogon.com) through playtesting, tournament results, and community opinion. The "serves a role better performed by another Pokémon" reasoning does come up fairly often, though.
I'm not sure there's a way to meaningfully define "having no role in any deck." I mean, I'd gladly take the 3 mana vanilla 1/1 Wolf if I need to chump-block a Homicidal Brute .
Actually, this makes me wonder about the Cube format (which I have never played or designed for). Do people intentionally stick cards like Chimney Imp into their Cubes? I imagine that, for a particular Cube, cert
I still have no clue how to do Multi-Quote other than just copy and pasting each person I want to quote, so I'm going the lazy route here. Also to keep my post shorter.
@TobyOrNotToby:
Your Horror Movie example is a good one, and tempts me to change my position. Yet I still feel that it's better to be able to go back to any given card and eventually find a use for it, rather than occasionally have "never touch this card again" be the actual, valid answer. It's exciting to finally crack the puzzle, after all.
Yes, commons are easy to pick up, so having a common slot wasted isn't that big a deal. I, too, have stopped bothering with booster packs, but it is in large part because the commons and uncommons have gotten so much less Constructed viable these days. In Time Spiral, I would buy a bunch of boosters and put many of the cards I opened into decks, or build new decks with the cards. I've tried doing the same thing recently, a few times, and found that if I'm lucky, maybe two or three cards in the pack will be worth a spot in a Constructed deck, and that's counting the rare.
Obviously this isn't proof that unplayable cards have gotten more commonplace, since many of those commons I discount are good in Limited. Still, opening a card that would literally be better if replaced with a second basic land is never a good feeling, easily replaceable or not.
Fair point about the Limited experience. I merely meant that unplayable cards decrease your card pool in Limited, rather than being another situationally useful sideboard card.
I understood your point about flavor text and art. Perhaps I should qualify my original point: "Gameplay elements that affect gameplay yet aren't actually playable shouldn't exist."
@Bezman
A fair defense of unplayable cards in Limited. I still feel that this role could be just as equally served by having cards that are only good in some situations, so you can discount them if you don't want to play that type of deck, or don't have the cards to go with them.
I'm not advocating a flat power curve. I'm just advocating that cards which literally serve no role except to be bad, unplayable cards, shouldn't exist. There could still be a range of cards from Primeval Titan to Craw Wurm , since those are playable at all points on their spectrum (at least in Limited).
@notthephonz
Welcome to the discussion!
Good counterpoint to the horror movie metaphor.
The Limited experience isn't necessarily served by having unplayable cards. Having to choose from among three bad cards for the final place in your deck would still exist without unplayable cards. What unplayable cards do is take a spot in your card pool and give absolutely nothing back. You wouldn't even look to run them if they were the last card in your chosen colors; you'd be better off running another land. I'm not talking about bad or weak cards; I'm talking about cards that will never be played. This does mean most creatures don't count as unplayable, because no matter how bad they can still chump block or attack.
Agreed with the Zac Hill Raging Centaur analogy. When a person opens a card that is completely unplayable, it feels like Wizards of the Coast is insulting their intelligence. "We think you're dumb enough to fall into the trap of playing this." And for the people who do fall into the trap of playing it, when they eventually find out just how bad the card is, they feel even more insulted, or at least embarassed.
I know it's hard to define "having no role in any deck", which is why I added the second point, "or a role that is better served by another card in the same format". So yes, you might want that 3-mana 1/1, but you'd be better off running almost any other 3-drop creature in the format for that role.
I still have no clue how to do Multi-Quote other than just copy and pasting each person I want to quote, so I'm going the lazy route here. Also to keep my post shorter.@TobyOrNotToby:Your Horror Movie example is a good one, and tempts me to change my
1. The horror/thriller can only pull off that trick on the first viewing. Magic is designed to be played multiple times. 2. I don't think surprise and discovery are quite the same thing. Regardless, discovery still exists without #3. Instead of discovering whether a card is playable, a player can discover why a card is playable. In fact, because anyone can look up card prices online, the "whether" is often obvious. (This Jace, the Mind Sculptor card is pretty expensive; it must be really good!) 3. As has been mentioned before, cards aren't necessarily playable or unplayable in a vaccuum; sometimes they are situationally so. 4. There isn't any discovery to be had when a card is obviously unplayable. To quote Extra Credits, "choice is about overcoming internal conflict." If the card is obviously unplayable, there's no conflict--the correct decision will always be to not play the card. For there to be conflict, the card must be useful in some kind of situation.
1. True. Luckily for Wizards it takes quite a few drafts/weeks before a format is 'figured out'. However, they've published a number of articles now on how the SCG circuit is endangering their model as people are playing Magic at a hugher frequency than before (and thus formats take less weeks to be figured out). It could be that they need to change their current model in the future, and this 'trick' doesn't work anymore. 2. Certainly, a game without unplayable cards is still functioning and good. They're not essential. I'm just saying the game is better with than without them. 3. Not sure in what way this makes the analogy fall. 4. But what is obvious and what isn't? There are only a few truly obvious unplayable cards. Many are not obvious but still unplayable, others seem obvious but are actually playable.
Remember Zac Hill's hypothetical Raging Centaur? Bad cards are like the ": Lose 10 life" ability. Even if they're additive in the sense of being an extra option, their psychological impact is negative--they're actually worse than having no gameplay value. This is true at the booster and set level regardless of whether the bad card takes a rare or common slot.
Yeah, again, that's why we're having this discussion. Unplayable cards definitely add something negative to the game. My opinion is just that their benefits outweigh that. It's just that it adds positive things on different levels than where it adds negative things.
Yes, commons are easy to pick up, so having a common slot wasted isn't that big a deal. I, too, have stopped bothering with booster packs, but it is in large part because the commons and uncommons have gotten so much less Constructed viable these days. In Time Spiral, I would buy a bunch of boosters and put many of the cards I opened into decks, or build new decks with the cards. I've tried doing the same thing recently, a few times, and found that if I'm lucky, maybe two or three cards in the pack will be worth a spot in a Constructed deck, and that's counting the rare.
True. I do wonder how much this has to do with New World Order. With commons being simpler, there are less knobs to turn for variation, so it's harder to make something that isn't just strictly worse than another card.
Fair point about the Limited experience. I merely meant that unplayable cards decrease your card pool in Limited, rather than being another situationally useful sideboard card.
Yes this could theoretically be a problem, but I don't think it is one in practice. Sometimes it's a foil basic. Sometimes it's a card in a color you're not in. Sometimes it's a card playable only with synergies you don't have. A limited pool can handle a few "never-looked-at-again" slots. When the boosters went from 15 to 14 cards, the world didn't end either.
I understood your point about flavor text and art. Perhaps I should qualify my original point: "Gameplay elements that affect gameplay yet aren't actually playable shouldn't exist."
Just out of curiosity, are you in the "Incite shouldn't change colors" camp?
1. True. Luckily for Wizards it takes quite a few drafts/weeks before a format is 'figured out'. However, they've published a number of articles now on how the SCG circuit is endangering their model as people are playing Magic at a hugher frequency t
Yeah, again, that's why we're having this discussion. Unplayable cards definitely add something negative to the game. My opinion is just that their benefits outweigh that. It's just that it adds positive things on different levels than where it adds negative things.
I suppose I can agree that they do add something. I just disagree that the something couldn't be added in other ways that don't have such a negative impact elsewhere.
True. I do wonder how much this has to do with New World Order. With commons being simpler, there are less knobs to turn for variation, so it's harder to make something that isn't just strictly worse than another card.
Very much so. In Magic, simpler almost always means weaker. There are a few exceptions, where the simplest effect is at the top of the power curve for that cost (Lightning Bolt ) but for the most part, the "vanilla" effect, at any given cost, could be made more powerful by adding more complication.
This is especially true for creatures, where adding a point to power or toughness could take the card over the power level for its cost quite easily while there is still plenty of room to add additional abilities without crossing that line. Coral Merfolk vs. Azure Mage .
Yes this could theoretically be a problem, but I don't think it is one in practice. Sometimes it's a foil basic. Sometimes it's a card in a color you're not in. Sometimes it's a card playable only with synergies you don't have. A limited pool can handle a few "never-looked-at-again" slots. When the boosters went from 15 to 14 cards, the world didn't end either.
In Sealed not so much, but in Draft, opening a pack with unplayable cards, or being passed one, yields fewer choices. That card might mean the difference between a situationally useful card that would push your deck in a new direction, and a pack from which you get absolutely nothing in your colors.
Just out of curiosity, are you in the "Incite shouldn't change colors" camp?
No, that's fine. The card, as a whole, still serves some purpose. I enjoy the occasional extra bit of flavor, as long as it doesn't go too far.
I suppose I can agree that they do add something. I just disagree that the something couldn't be added in other ways that don't have such a negative impact elsewhere.Very much so. In Magic, simpler almost always means weaker. There are a few exceptio
Yes this could theoretically be a problem, but I don't think it is one in practice. Sometimes it's a foil basic. Sometimes it's a card in a color you're not in. Sometimes it's a card playable only with synergies you don't have. A limited pool can handle a few "never-looked-at-again" slots. When the boosters went from 15 to 14 cards, the world didn't end either.
In Sealed not so much, but in Draft, opening a pack with unplayable cards, or being passed one, yields fewer choices. That card might mean the difference between a situationally useful card that would push your deck in a new direction, and a pack from which you get absolutely nothing in your colors.
They've said that that's deliberate. Having many playables in a pack makes the individual choices matter less and makes decks too easy to draft. Reducing boosters from 15 to 14 cards, and having the last few cards in a pack be bad, means that drafters have to be more careful with their picks to make sure that the final deck has enough useful spells.
In Sealed not so much, but in Draft, opening a pack with unplayable cards, or being passed one, yields fewer choices. That card might mean the difference between a situationally useful card that would push your deck in a new direction, and a pack fro
I appreciated being able to go through my cards and - on 2nd reading - ditch nearly half of them for being 'worse' and use the others to determine what colour(s) I should play.
Well, wouldn't it also have been easier if you'd had to deal with fewer cards in the first place?
I find that the better that players are, the more they want the power-curve of all cards to be closer together, making evaluation harder and encouraging deckbuilding to be about synergy and specific deck needs rather than simply putting in the most powerful cards of your colour.
I think this statement is quite profound. It reminds me of another quote from that Extra Credits episode: "The problem with many games is that they let all the player's objectives align all the time, or worse still, they simply give one objective and leave the game to be only about executing the steps to complete that objective." I wouldn't consider myself an expert player, but I do think Magic would be a richer game without unplayables or auto-includes. For example, I went white at the Magic 2010 Prerelease because I just happened to open a Baneslayer Angel ; there wasn't really any decision making involved. Instead of being strong or weak in a vaccuum, cards should be strong or weak in certain combinations--after all, the game is designed to be played with an entire deck, not just one or two mythic bombs (well, with the recent marketing decisions, perhaps this is no longer true). In a way, this is related to the conflict between tension-upside design and all-upside design. Players who enjoy tension-upside cards will favor harder evaluation and a closer power level, and those players will tend to be Spikes.
MtG has to differentiate between all abilities on the 'spectrum' though and I like being able to beat someone worse than me, despite not being very good myself. If MtG became the game that forum-posters and pros often seem to ask for, there wouldn't be much differentiation in skill levels until you'd reached a certain point.
When you say "MtG has to differentiate between all skill levels," I'm not sure whether you mean a) that it has to have design that appeals to players of all skill levels or b) that it has to reward skilled players moreso than unskilled players. Point A is important, but I think tension-upside versus all-upside has to do more with psychographic than actual skill level (again, I'm a Spike but not particularly expert at the game). As for Point B, I imagine that if evaluation in the game were made more difficult it would reward high skill even more, wouldn't it?
1. True. Luckily for Wizards it takes quite a few drafts/weeks before a format is 'figured out'. However, they've published a number of articles now on how the SCG circuit is endangering their model as people are playing Magic at a hugher frequency than before (and thus formats take less weeks to be figured out). It could be that they need to change their current model in the future, and this 'trick' doesn't work anymore.
Right-o. While I would agree that discovery is part of Magic, I think it is a mistake to rely solely on novelty to provide strategic depth. The game should be interesting because there is inherent conflict in the gameplay choices, not because the players haven't yet figured out that certain strategies are unviable. Rosewater once said that all games which last the test of time have a "rock, paper, scissors" metagame--three or more strategies that work to defeat one another without any one being dominant. Tricking players into pursuing an strategy that will ultimately turn out to be unviable flies in the face of this in my opinion. It emphasizes the emphemerality of the game as opposed to its timelessness...but I suppose that's to be expected from a trading card game.
2. Certainly, a game without unplayable cards is still functioning and good. They're not essential. I'm just saying the game is better with than without them.
Interesting. You're saying that unplayable cards are not essential, and you agree that they have a negative impact, but you're arguing that their positive impact outweighs the negative impact. I know that's what you've been saying all along, but it's taken me until now to process it. I'm going to have to reread your posts.
3. Not sure in what way this makes the analogy fall.
Actually, I'm not sure what I was getting at with this either. I think I was starting to say something different but then it ended up bleeding into Point 4. Probably all I meant by this was that your analogy assumes that a card has to strictly fall into the categories of "playable," "unplayable," or "appears unplayable but has hidden uses," and that that assumption is false.
4. But what is obvious and what isn't? There are only a few truly obvious unplayable cards. Many are not obvious but still unplayable, others seem obvious but are actually playable.
This is a great point and I would totally agree with it, except that LaPille has gone on record saying that some cards are deliberately designed to be unplayable. My inner Johnny just about died when I read that article.
Just out of curiosity, are you in the "Incite shouldn't change colors" camp?
This wasn't directed at me, but I don't mind that Incite changes colors. I kind of wish color change effects in general were more relevant to the game. (I don't even remember the wisps being all that relevant in Shadowmoor, where color was supposed to be one of the set's themes.) I think it would be really flavorful if, say, you could destroy a Disciple of Law by somehow turning it red. Maybe color change effects will become less parasitic now that intimidate has replaced fear, but I don't really see that happening.
True. I do wonder how much this has to do with New World Order. With commons being simpler, there are less knobs to turn for variation, so it's harder to make something that isn't just strictly worse than another card.
Very much so. In Magic, simpler almost always means weaker. There are a few exceptions, where the simplest effect is at the top of the power curve for that cost (Lightning Bolt ) but for the most part, the "vanilla" effect, at any given cost, could be made more powerful by adding more complication.
Simpler doesn't always mean weaker! Typhoid Rats is a simpler card than Lab Rats , but I promise it's much stronger in my Rat deck than Lab Rats is. Especially when I have a Swarmyard out, bwahaha...
No, that's fine. The card, as a whole, still serves some purpose. I enjoy the occasional extra bit of flavor, as long as it doesn't go too far.
Right. When you look at it that way, the "Target creature turns red" part of Incite serves to reinforce the same purpose as its flavor text: The veneer of rationality peeled from the mage, revealing the spite and rage beneath. But what purpose does Defensive Stance serve in the context of Scars of Mirrodin block? It lets us know that...some of the Mirrans fought defensively. Yay? Although I suppose that since the Mirrans ultimately lost the war, it makes sense that the card isn't very good.
They've said that that's deliberate. Having many playables in a pack makes the individual choices matter less and makes decks too easy to draft. Reducing boosters from 15 to 14 cards, and having the last few cards in a pack be bad, means that drafters have to be more careful with their picks to make sure that the final deck has enough useful spells.
For a moment I thought you were referring to the same LaPille article I was, but I think he was making a different point than you are. Anyway, wouldn't they be able to accomplish this by just reducing the size of the booster packs? What's the difference between choosing from 10 good cards and 5 bad cards and choosing from 10 good cards?
Well, wouldn't it also have been easier if you'd had to deal with fewer cards in the first place?I think this statement is quite profound. It reminds me of another quote from that Extra Credits episode: "The problem with many games is that they let
Yes this could theoretically be a problem, but I don't think it is one in practice. Sometimes it's a foil basic. Sometimes it's a card in a color you're not in. Sometimes it's a card playable only with synergies you don't have. A limited pool can handle a few "never-looked-at-again" slots. When the boosters went from 15 to 14 cards, the world didn't end either.
In Sealed not so much, but in Draft, opening a pack with unplayable cards, or being passed one, yields fewer choices. That card might mean the difference between a situationally useful card that would push your deck in a new direction, and a pack from which you get absolutely nothing in your colors.
They've said that that's deliberate. Having many playables in a pack makes the individual choices matter less and makes decks too easy to draft. Reducing boosters from 15 to 14 cards, and having the last few cards in a pack be bad, means that drafters have to be more careful with their picks to make sure that the final deck has enough useful spells.
But the packs have pretty clearly gone the opposite way. We haven't had a format where you normally end a draft with 21 or 22 playables in a very long time. For instance, in Masques limited, you'd pretty routinely get ~22 playables. There has been a pretty noticeable decrease in the number of "bad" card. This, Along with million pack sealed, building a not unplayable deck has gotten way easier than it was in older limited formats. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, since it makes limited much more accessible, but the focus of limited has definitely moved away from rewarding drafting skills.
(Also sea snidds are bad and limited doesn't care about combat math anymore. They've pretty much turned limited into constructed and it sucks)
In Sealed not so much, but in Draft, opening a pack with unplayable cards, or being passed one, yields fewer choices. That card might mean the difference between a situationally useful card that would push your deck in a new direction, and a pack fro
I appreciated being able to go through my cards and - on 2nd reading - ditch nearly half of them for being 'worse' and use the others to determine what colour(s) I should play.
Well, wouldn't it also have been easier if you'd had to deal with fewer cards in the first place?
Fewer cards means it would be less likely to have enough cards in your color(s), sadly.
I wouldn't consider myself an expert player, but I do think Magic would be a richer game without unplayables or auto-includes. For example, I went white at the Magic 2010 Prerelease because I just happened to open a Baneslayer Angel ; there wasn't really any decision making involved. Instead of being strong or weak in a vaccuum, cards should be strong or weak in certain combinations--after all, the game is designed to be played with an entire deck, not just one or two mythic bombs (well, with the recent marketing decisions, perhaps this is no longer true).
I agree here. Auto-includes are just as bad as unplayables, because they require no skill to evaluate and decrease decisions in deck-building.
I fear that the growing power of mythic rares is yet another consequence of their "New World Order". With fewer Constructed-playable cards being allowed at common and uncommon, they have to increase the power level of the average rare (and especially mythic, since that's the least likely to show up in Limited) to compensate. Of course, this means that Limited then swings more around "whoever opened the bombiest (mythic) rares wins" than it used to.
This is a great point and I would totally agree with it, except that LaPille has gone on record saying that some cards are deliberately designed to be unplayable. My inner Johnny just about died when I read that article.
That article depressed me as well. If the unplayable cards were ones that R&D thought would be good in some situations but miscalculated, or were key players in deck archetypes that wound up never showing up, that would be more acceptable. Having a design goal be "Make an unplayable card" is a slap in the face.
Simpler doesn't always mean weaker! Typhoid Rats is a simpler card than Lab Rats , but I promise it's much stronger in my Rat deck than Lab Rats is. Especially when I have a Swarmyard out, bwahaha...
I said "almost always"; I know there are exceptions. For the most part, though, it's easier to add more complication without increasing the cost than it is to tweak the numbers and keep it simple. You can't add a point of power to Grizzly Bears without making it too strong, but you can add extra abilities .
Well, wouldn't it also have been easier if you'd had to deal with fewer cards in the first place?[/quote]Fewer cards means it would be less likely to have enough cards in your color(s), sadly.I agree here. Auto-includes are just as bad as unplayables
I suppose I can agree that they do add something. I just disagree that the something couldn't be added in other ways that don't have such a negative impact elsewhere.
So then how would I be surprised for example, by the playability of Gnaw to the Bone ?
In Sealed not so much, but in Draft, opening a pack with unplayable cards, or being passed one, yields fewer choices. That card might mean the difference between a situationally useful card that would push your deck in a new direction, and a pack from which you get absolutely nothing in your colors.
About what kind of packs are we talking about here? If there are only a few cards left, sometimes there's nothing in your colors, sometimes there is, independent of how good the cards are. If there are many cards left, then aren't you in the wrong colors?
No, that's fine. The card, as a whole, still serves some purpose. I enjoy the occasional extra bit of flavor, as long as it doesn't go too far.
And that's how I think about unplayable cards. In the set, as a whole, they still serve some purpose. I enjoy the occasional unplayable card, as long as it doesn't happen too often.
I played this game a long time, I don't care about every individual card anymore. The set as a whole is more important.
Right-o. While I would agree that discovery is part of Magic, I think it is a mistake to rely solely on novelty to provide strategic depth. The game should be interesting because there is inherent conflict in the gameplay choices, not because the players haven't yet figured out that certain strategies are unviable. Rosewater once said that all games which last the test of time have a "rock, paper, scissors" metagame--three or more strategies that work to defeat one another without any one being dominant. Tricking players into pursuing an strategy that will ultimately turn out to be unviable flies in the face of this in my opinion. It emphasizes the emphemerality of the game as opposed to its timelessness...but I suppose that's to be expected from a trading card game.
Well, it also depends on the format. Limited doesn't have to be timeless, it won't be played for more than a year.
Actually, I'm not sure what I was getting at with this either. I think I was starting to say something different but then it ended up bleeding into Point 4. Probably all I meant by this was that your analogy assumes that a card has to strictly fall into the categories of "playable," "unplayable," or "appears unplayable but has hidden uses," and that that assumption is false.
Well, it doesn't have to assume that. Take the scene from Jurassic Park about the women in the generator. Something scary is about to happen, but instead of a dino another man graps her, but then it turns out that's just an arm. So that's also something fuzzy that doesn't fit the 3 categories, but doesn't contradict it. It just uses it in a more fuzzy way.
This is a great point and I would totally agree with it, except that LaPille has gone on record saying that some cards are deliberately designed to be unplayable. My inner Johnny just about died when I read that article.
What part of that article is about unplayable cards?
But what purpose does Defensive Stance serve in the context of Scars of Mirrodin block?
Being a pretty decent sideboard card against infect if you had a slowish curve.
So then how would I be surprised for example, by the playability of Gnaw to the Bone ?About what kind of packs are we talking about here? If there are only a few cards left, sometimes there's nothing in your colors,
So then how would I be surprised for example, by the playability of Gnaw to the Bone ?
I don't believe you need to be surprised by the playability. The sense of discovery could be served by finding the use for a card, rather than finding that the card has a use. Just knowing that every card has some use doesn't mean you necessarily immediately know what that use is.
About what kind of packs are we talking about here? If there are only a few cards left, sometimes there's nothing in your colors, sometimes there is, independent of how good the cards are. If there are many cards left, then aren't you in the wrong colors?
Colors in packs tend to be balanced, in my experience. Roughly two to three cards per color. Therefore, if you get a pack in which one of the cards in your colors is unplayable, that's one fewer options. Had the card instead been situationally useful, you might have found a new direction for your deck; with it being completely unusable, you just lose out on options. In extremely unlucky situations, you might wind up with multiple unplayable cards in your colors, in which case you have a completely dead pack.
And that's how I think about unplayable cards. In the set, as a whole, they still serve some purpose. I enjoy the occasional unplayable card, as long as it doesn't happen too often.
I played this game a long time, I don't care about every individual card anymore. The set as a whole is more important.
The set as a whole serves a purpose. Individual cards in the set may not. I suppose you could claim that the unplayable cards serve a similar role to flavor text, which also has no gameplay impact... except flavor text serves the purpose for which it was intended: to add flavor. Cards are meant to be played, so any given card should be able to be played, or it's not worth printing.
The difference between an unplayable card in a set and the additional line of text on Incite is that the individual line of text will never have to stand on its own; a card will.
What part of that article is about unplayable cards?
This part:
None of us came up with a blue card that was weak enough, so Aaron created Defensive Stance to fill the hole. While I have seen Defensive Stance sideboarded in against Plague Stingers and Blighted Agents, it is hardly a Limited all-star. That same meeting also resulted in Evil Presence entering the set. While Evil Presence was important in Masters Edition III for dealing with certain legendary lands, in New Phyrexia it is merely a weak black card with a flavorful name that we put in to balance the colors.
In order to balance the colors, rather than weaken some cards (while still leaving them playable), they instead design cards whose sole purpose is to be bad and detract from the overall playability of the color.
I don't believe you need to be surprised by the playability. The sense of discovery could be served by finding the use for a card, rather than finding that the card has a use. Just knowing that every card has some use doesn't mean you necessarily imm
If you made a set of the 250 best cards in Magic history, cards #225 - 250 would be unplayable because they'd get the snot beaten out of them by cards #1 - 100.
That is not true. They may be unplayable in Standard, but not in Limited or Casual or other formats.
The sorts of cards I'm talking about when I say 'unplayable' are cards like Favor of the Woods that are just plain bad in any situation.
I just about guarantee that Grave Exchange WILL be showing up in some limited decks.
That is not true. They may be unplayable in Standard, but not in Limited or Casual or other formats.The sorts of cards I'm talking about when I say 'unplayable' are cards like Favor of the Woods that are just plain
Oh yeah, I was killed in the finals of a draft the other day by Grave Exchange ... targeting it's controller. I was at 3 and he had a Soulcage Fiend ...
I don't believe you need to be surprised by the playability. The sense of discovery could be served by finding the use for a card, rather than finding that the card has a use. Just knowing that every card has some use doesn't mean you necessarily immediately know what that use is.
And that's the difference between discovery and surprise I've talked about with notthephonz. I agree it isn't needed. But that's not what you've said, I think. You've said "I just disagree that the something couldn't be added in other ways".
Colors in packs tend to be balanced, in my experience. Roughly two to three cards per color. Therefore, if you get a pack in which one of the cards in your colors is unplayable, that's one fewer options. Had the card instead been situationally useful, you might have found a new direction for your deck; with it being completely unusable, you just lose out on options. In extremely unlucky situations, you might wind up with multiple unplayable cards in your colors, in which case you have a completely dead pack.
Very few situational cards are really build-around. I can see a pack with Furor of the Bitten and Nightbird's Clutches which are perfectly playable but not for me. What you're saying will still happen without unplayable cards. And again, because the number of actual unplayable cards is so low, the number of times the above is caused by unplayables is also just a tiny faction.
The set as a whole serves a purpose. Individual cards in the set may not. I suppose you could claim that the unplayable cards serve a similar role to flavor text, which also has no gameplay impact... except flavor text serves the purpose for which it was intended: to add flavor.
Cards are meant to be played, so any given card should be able to be played, or it's not worth printing.
The difference between an unplayable card in a set and the additional line of text on Incite is that the individual line of text will never have to stand on its own; a card will.
The game is meant to be played. That's where people get their enjoyment from, and why they keep coming back for more. Card design is not so much about individual cards, but environments as a whole. As long as a card contributes to the game, it's worth printing.
When I play the game, I do not see cards standing on their own. I see the limited environment as a whole. I see cards in a pack as picks. I see cards in my deck at a curve and function. I do not see cards standing on their own. That's why I don't mind their downsides as much.
None of us came up with a blue card that was weak enough, so Aaron created Defensive Stance to fill the hole. While I have seen Defensive Stance sideboarded in against Plague Stingers and Blighted Agents, it is hardly a Limited all-star. That same meeting also resulted in Evil Presence entering the set. While Evil Presence was important in Masters Edition III for dealing with certain legendary lands, in New Phyrexia it is merely a weak black card with a flavorful name that we put in to balance the colors.
In order to balance the colors, rather than weaken some cards (while still leaving them playable), they instead design cards whose sole purpose is to be bad and detract from the overall playability of the color.
That's in general about weak cards, bad cards, situational cards, not unplayable cards.
Oh yeah, I was killed in the finals of a draft the other day by Grave Exchange ... targeting it's controller. I was at 3 and he had a Soulcage Fiend ...And that's the difference be
Fewer cards means it would be less likely to have enough cards in your color(s), sadly.
Sure, but the rules could be tweaked to accommodate the decreased pack size. For example, the minimum deck size could be decreased or the amount of packs opened could be increased.
I fear that the growing power of mythic rares is yet another consequence of their "New World Order". With fewer Constructed-playable cards being allowed at common and uncommon, they have to increase the power level of the average rare (and especially mythic, since that's the least likely to show up in Limited) to compensate. Of course, this means that Limited then swings more around "whoever opened the bombiest (mythic) rares wins" than it used to.
Yes, this makes a lot of sense. The power level of the cards is redistributed from the lower rarities to the higher ones. It's pretty much exactly the opposite of the closer power-curve Bezman was describing. In other words, the game is becoming less Spike-friendly and more Timmy-friendly. I realize New World Order is supposed to help acquire new players, but I don't think new players are necessarily Timmies and older players are necessarily Spikes.
I said "almost always"; I know there are exceptions. For the most part, though, it's easier to add more complication without increasing the cost than it is to tweak the numbers and keep it simple. You can't add a point of power to Grizzly Bears without making it too strong, but you can add extra abilities .
Oh, I got what you were saying; I just couldn't resist a chance to brag about my rats.
I don't believe you need to be surprised by the playability. The sense of discovery could be served by finding the use for a card, rather than finding that the card has a use. Just knowing that every card has some use doesn't mean you necessarily immediately know what that use is.
Right. Going back to the horror/thriller analogy, you might know that someone in the room is the murderer, but you don't know who--or you know who, but the story is about trying to prove it. You don't need to be surprised by the murder itself taking place.
About what kind of packs are we talking about here? If there are only a few cards left, sometimes there's nothing in your colors, sometimes there is, independent of how good the cards are. If there are many cards left, then aren't you in the wrong colors?
Well, if there are no picks for you late-pack because nothing's left in your color, that could mean too many drafters were competing for that color. If there are no picks for you late-pack because of stuff like Evil Presence , then it's just because of random chance. It's a matter of something bad happening that you had control over (for example, by reading the drafting signals better) versus something bad you had no control over, which is one of the things Rosewater mentions in Kind Acts of Randomness. Competing over a color is also a more inherent conflict to Draft whereas having cards randomly be bad is an artificial conflict. In fact, as admitted in LaPille's article, the unplayable cards are deliberately designed to band-aid unbalanced formats.
I played this game a long time, I don't care about every individual card anymore. The set as a whole is more important.
Eh, this swings both ways, though. If you don't care enough about an individual bad card for it to detract from your experience, you can't say that it adds to your experience either.
The set as a whole serves a purpose. Individual cards in the set may not. I suppose you could claim that the unplayable cards serve a similar role to flavor text, which also has no gameplay impact... except flavor text serves the purpose for which it was intended: to add flavor. Cards are meant to be played, so any given card should be able to be played, or it's not worth printing.
I just had a weird thought--if flavor affected gameplay, cards would have to have reminder text that said stuff like "Griselbrand was destroyed by Liliana after escaping from the Helvault. This card may not be cast."
The difference between an unplayable card in a set and the additional line of text on Incite is that the individual line of text will never have to stand on its own; a card will.
Ah, this is what I was going for when I made the comparison to Defensive Stance . "Target creature becomes red" adds or detracts from the card; Defensive Stance adds or detracts from the set. "Target creature becomes red" is neutral in terms of viability as a gameplay option whereas Defensive Stance is itself a gameplay option.
I think a better comparison would be if Incite said, "Target creature becomes red until end of turn or attacks this turn if able." In that case, the line of text becomes a superfluous gameplay option rather than a flavor additive.
And that's why Sealed is just a sucky format. In draft, that P1P1 Baneslayer still has a nonzero chance of not making your deck.
Yes, the Baneslayer Angel would most certainly have been an auto-pick in Draft...which is sort of my point. Getting back to Cube Draft, LaPille mentions that he would first-pick a Chrome Mox from the hypothetical pack because it doesn't commit him to anything and he values mana acceleration highly. First-picking a Baneslayer Angel doesn't have the same reasoning; you first-pick it because it's just flatout stronger than anything else. Rosewater wrote about the balance of rock-paper-scissors strategies being key to a successful game; adding in nuclear bombs and nuclear duds detracts from the elegance and strength of the design.
Well, it also depends on the format. Limited doesn't have to be timeless, it won't be played for more than a year.
Eh, personally, I don't think the fact that Limited formats rotate so quickly is an excuse to do a bad job. But like I said, ephemerality is a given since we're dealing with a trading card game. Rosewater's always talking about Magic standing the test of time, but looking at Magic in terms of Limited, it becomes apparent that Magic's design is in direct conflict with doing so. It isn't one game that stands the test of time but a series of related games.
Being a pretty decent sideboard card against infect if you had a slowish curve.
Right. It has a situational use, but that doesn't change the fact that it was deliberately designed to be bad. The article suggests that hosing infect was a coincidental side effect of the card.
Colors in packs tend to be balanced, in my experience. Roughly two to three cards per color. Therefore, if you get a pack in which one of the cards in your colors is unplayable, that's one fewer options. Had the card instead been situationally useful, you might have found a new direction for your deck; with it being completely unusable, you just lose out on options. In extremely unlucky situations, you might wind up with multiple unplayable cards in your colors, in which case you have a completely dead pack.
Very few situational cards are really build-around. I can see a pack with Furor of the Bitten and Nightbird's Clutches which are perfectly playable but not for me. What you're saying will still happen without unplayable cards. And again, because the number of actual unplayable cards is so low, the number of times the above is caused by unplayables is also just a tiny faction.
I think this is really a matter of linearity versus modularity rather than playability versus unplayability. There's certainly a bit of overlap between the two conflicts, and the fuzziness of each definition doesn't help matters much.
The game is meant to be played. That's where people get their enjoyment from, and why they keep coming back for more. Card design is not so much about individual cards, but environments as a whole. As long as a card contributes to the game, it's worth printing.
When I play the game, I do not see cards standing on their own. I see the limited environment as a whole. I see cards in a pack as picks. I see cards in my deck at a curve and function. I do not see cards standing on their own. That's why I don't mind their downsides as much.
So we're all thinking at different scales again. On the other hand, a lot of the polarizing cards we're talking about demand to be evaluated on an individual level. As a few people pointed out in the Building on a Budget threads, sometimes there are situations where you can't make a budget version of a deck because the deck relies on an expensive card that can't be replaced. No other card can do the same job as Snapcaster Mage , for example.
That's in general about weak cards, bad cards, situational cards, not unplayable cards.
Well, this has more to do with us not having come up with a concrete definition for what constitutes "weak," "bad," "situational," or "playable." I'm not sure this is possible, which is why I've been sticking to mentioning cards the developers have explicitly stated were designed to be bad. The best I can think of is to define playability as how often the card appears in decklists in tournaments or Magic Online.
Sure, but the rules could be tweaked to accommodate the decreased pack size. For example, the minimum deck size could be decreased or the amount of packs opened could be increased.Yes, this makes a lot of sense. The power level of the cards is redi
And that's the difference between discovery and surprise I've talked about with notthephonz. I agree it isn't needed. But that's not what you've said, I think. You've said "I just disagree that the something couldn't be added in other ways".
I was counting what you call "surprise" as a sense of discovery. My point is that, instead of allowing players to discover that a card is playable, they could instead set it up so that every card is playable, and the sense of discovery comes from finding how to use it. On the individual level, there could still be cards you consider unplayable, but eventually any of them could surprise you when you find out that they're actually playable in a certain situation. If objectively unplayable cards exist, then not every card has this potential for individual surprise.
Very few situational cards are really build-around. I can see a pack with Furor of the Bitten and Nightbird's Clutches which are perfectly playable but not for me. What you're saying will still happen without unplayable cards. And again, because the number of actual unplayable cards is so low, the number of times the above is caused by unplayables is also just a tiny faction.
They don't have to be build-around to take your deck in a new direction. You see a Furor of the Bitten and no other red cards worth taking, and now you're leaning more towards an aggressive beatdown than a removal-fueled control. If that Furor of the Bitten were instead something like "Enchanted creature is a Red Devil in addition to its other types", then instead you just have a dead card.
That's not an effect on gameplay, it's an effect on card evaluation. And like I said before, you don't need unplayable cards to be surprised by an individual card's playability. Just knowing that every card is playable in some situation doesn't mean you know what those situations are.
The game is meant to be played. That's where people get their enjoyment from, and why they keep coming back for more. Card design is not so much about individual cards, but environments as a whole. As long as a card contributes to the game, it's worth printing.
A card that will never be played in the game doesn't contribute to the game. Even once you've "solved" it by realizing it's unplayable, now it's just something to be ignored, which still doesn't contribute anything. It's the difference between "this sucks" and never look at it again, and "this sucks, oh wait, it's good here" now it contributes to the game forevermore.
Yes, this makes a lot of sense. The power level of the cards is redistributed from the lower rarities to the higher ones. It's pretty much exactly the opposite of the closer power-curve Bezman was describing. In other words, the game is becoming less Spike-friendly and more Timmy-friendly. I realize New World Order is supposed to help acquire new players, but I don't think new players are necessarily Timmies and older players are necessarily Spikes.
I wouldn't say that overpowered mythic rares are more Timmy friendly than Spike friendly. Jace, the Mind Sculptor was absolutely nuts, but it was a Spike card through and through, and made a lot of Spikes happy.
Going back to the horror/thriller analogy, you might know that someone in the room is the murderer, but you don't know who--or you know who, but the story is about trying to prove it. You don't need to be surprised by the murder itself taking place.
I like this analogy. Knowing that a murder took place and someone did it doesn't ruin the mystery; knowing that a card is playable doesn't ruin the mystery of how to play it.
Well, if there are no picks for you late-pack because nothing's left in your color, that could mean too many drafters were competing for that color. If there are no picks for you late-pack because of stuff like Evil Presence , then it's just because of random chance. It's a matter of something bad happening that you had control over (for example, by reading the drafting signals better) versus something bad you had no control over
Well-put. The existence of unplayable cards puts more emphasis on (bad) luck than on skill.
First-picking a Baneslayer Angel doesn't have the same reasoning; you first-pick it because it's just flatout stronger than anything else. Rosewater wrote about the balance of rock-paper-scissors strategies being key to a successful game; adding in nuclear bombs and nuclear duds detracts from the elegance and strength of the design.
Exactly. More powerful higher-end cards also subtracts from skill, putting more emphasis on luck. Instead of balancing a color in Limited by throwing in a couple of extremely weak cards, maybe they should instead go after the top-end. Though its rarity restricts it to only showing up in (and, in many people's opinions, ruining) a few games.
Rosewater's always talking about Magic standing the test of time, but looking at Magic in terms of Limited, it becomes apparent that Magic's design is in direct conflict with doing so. It isn't one game that stands the test of time but a series of related games.
Interesting. When you put it that way, I dislike the increasing focus on Limited even more.
Well, this has more to do with us not having come up with a concrete definition for what constitutes "weak," "bad," "situational," or "playable." I'm not sure this is possible, which is why I've been sticking to mentioning cards the developers have explicitly stated were designed to be bad. The best I can think of is to define playability as how often the card appears in decklists in tournaments or Magic Online.
Maybe the way to define playability is to limit the scope. If a card is designed for Limited, but never gets played in Limited, then it's unplayable. This brings in the new problem of "How do we know for which format a card is designed?" but I feel that's a little easier to answer than trying to determine whether a card is unplayed in every format under the sun.
I was counting what you call "surprise" as a sense of discovery. My point is that, instead of allowing players to discover that a card is playable, they could instead set it up so that every card is playable, and the sense of discovery comes from fin
Well, if there are no picks for you late-pack because nothing's left in your color, that could mean too many drafters were competing for that color. If there are no picks for you late-pack because of stuff like Evil Presence , then it's just because of random chance. It's a matter of something bad happening that you had control over (for example, by reading the drafting signals better) versus something bad you had no control over
Well-put. The existence of unplayable cards puts more emphasis on (bad) luck than on skill.
I think you guys missed the point Bezman was making earlier. There are more than two levels of skill, and different sorts of cards are needed to emphasize the various distinctions between them. The existence of "unplayable" cards may not help distinguish between between good players and decent players, as neither group will attempt to play those cards. However, "unplayable" cards may be ideal for letting decent players triumph over bad players. If those "unplayable" cards did not exist, the decent players would lose to bad players with good luck a lot more often.
For example, this afternoon I played in an AVR sealed tournament. After losing my first match to B/R aggro, I was paired against a guy with three Angel's Mercy , etc, in his deck. The presence of those nearly-dead cards gave me the edge I needed to beat him, even when he played a Dark Impostor I had no way to deal with. If every single card he had to choose from for deckbuilding had been at least a mediocre creature or bad removal spell, it's doubtful if I could have overcome the power of his bomb rare, and I think I'm a pretty good player.
Well-put. The existence of unplayable cards puts more emphasis on (bad) luck than on skill.[/quote]I think you guys missed the point Bezman was making earlier. There are more than two levels of skill, and different sorts of cards are needed to empha
However, "unplayable" cards may be ideal for letting decent players triumph over bad players. If those "unplayable" cards did not exist, the decent players would lose to bad players with good luck a lot more often.
Just what the game needs: more ways for less-skilled players to be defeated by better players. Because better deck-building, play skill and sideboard skill isn't enough to help the better player win.
I'm sorry your opponent opened a bomb rare, but that's the way Limited works. Plus, the fact that a less-skilled player can get lucky and win is actually a positive feature of the game, since newer players would get discouraged if they could never win.
Just what the game needs: more ways for less-skilled players to be defeated by better players. Because better deck-building, play skill and sideboard skill isn't enough to help the better player win.I'm sorry your opponent opened a bomb rare, but tha
However, "unplayable" cards may be ideal for letting decent players triumph over bad players. If those "unplayable" cards did not exist, the decent players would lose to bad players with good luck a lot more often.
Just what the game needs: more ways for less-skilled players to be defeated by better players. Because better deck-building, play skill and sideboard skill isn't enough to help the better player win.
What? What I just described is a more skilled player using better deck-building to defeat a less-skilled player. Having cards that mediocre players can tell aren't effective enough to use but that bad players cannot is one way the game distinguishes between those two tiers of players, and learning to recognize those cards is an achievement for the bad players.
It seems like you've been saying, "No one would ever play those cards, so they serve no purpose and shouldn't have been printed." However, I'm trying to point out that people _do_ play those cards, and they do serve a purpose. By asking for a flatter power curve, you're removing some of the more easily acquired skill from the game. That, in turn, steepens the learning curve and raises the barrier to entry. If practice evaluating cards doesn't benefit you until you can recognize subtle nuances in utility, then why bother to play and improve at all?
I'm sorry your opponent opened a bomb rare, but that's the way Limited works. Plus, the fact that a less-skilled player can get lucky and win is actually a positive feature of the game, since newer players would get discouraged if they could never win.
I'm aware of all of that. The game has to walk the line of rewarding skill enough that it matters, but not so much that there is no point for players of disparate skill levels to ever play each other.
Just what the game needs: more ways for less-skilled players to be defeated by better players. Because better deck-building, play skill and sideboard skill isn't enough to help the better player win.[/quote]What? What I just described is a more skil
That's not an effect on gameplay, it's an effect on card evaluation.
To be fair, some people--like Bezman and fractal--consider card evaluation part of the game. Lots of games have elements which might or might not be considered essential. For example, is golf just about testing the players' ability to hit the ball, or does it also test the physical endurance required to walk to each hole? Is the physical dexterity required to hit button combinations an essential part of fighting games, or are they more about knowing which moves to use in certain situations?
In my opinion, having gameplay options that exist solely to be bad adds an unnecessary and artificial level of difficulty. It's sort of like what Hill said in Bringing Flashback Back: "Oh, if you want to win, you shouldn't summon that awesome Demon Angel Dragon or cast that awesome spell that makes your guys 27/27 or assemble that awesome combination that deals 62 damage to each opponent for every Squirrel Penguin Cat Lord you have in play; instead, you should cast Mind Rot ." Whatever the bad card was, there was something about it that attracted the player. If the card turns out to be deliberately unplayable, then that attraction was a lie.
Which brings us back to the problem of scope. In a fighting game, it usually isn't a problem for a move or even an entire character to be designed to be unplayable. I think this is because fighting games are purchased as wholes and characters are selected as wholes. On the other hand, in a customizable game like Magic, cards are purchased, traded, banned, etc. on an individual level. And of course, there are other reasons this works in fighting games--a expert player can still win with a joke character, whereas an expert Magic player will be much worse off if his deck consists entirely of Squire s.
I wouldn't say that overpowered mythic rares are more Timmy friendly than Spike friendly. Jace, the Mind Sculptor was absolutely nuts, but it was a Spike card through and through, and made a lot of Spikes happy.
Maybe the way to define playability is to limit the scope. If a card is designed for Limited, but never gets played in Limited, then it's unplayable. This brings in the new problem of "How do we know for which format a card is designed?" but I feel that's a little easier to answer than trying to determine whether a card is unplayed in every format under the sun.
Well, sure, but if it's possible to access Magic Online data for Limited, it shouldn't be too difficult to access that data for Constructed formats as well. In fact, I think I remember reading somewhere that Wizards compares what's being played in the Casual rooms to what's being played in the Tournament rooms to get an idea of what's out there that people want to play but isn't doing well.
However, "unplayable" cards may be ideal for letting decent players triumph over bad players. If those "unplayable" cards did not exist, the decent players would lose to bad players with good luck a lot more often.
Eh, this sounds like circular logic to me. "We need bad cards to identify bad players, where 'bad player' is defined as a player who would use those cards." Aside from that, though, a flatter power curve would keep lesser skilled players from winning just by opening bomb rares, too.
By asking for a flatter power curve, you're removing some of the more easily acquired skill from the game. That, in turn, steepens the learning curve and raises the barrier to entry. If practice evaluating cards doesn't benefit you until you can recognize subtle nuances in utility, then why bother to play and improve at all?
If it's that easily acquired, I would hesitate to call it skill. To invoke Hill again, it's sort of like the "skill" of knowing how to say "damage on the stack" when that was legal--it feels artificial. I imagine that a flatter power curve would steepen the learning curve, but that's what makes a game deep. For example, it's very easy to know that a queen is worth more than a rook in chess, but what makes a player skilled is knowing how to use the queen or rook.
That's not an effect on gameplay, it's an effect on card evaluation.[/quote]To be fair, some people--like Bezman and fractal--consider card evaluation part of the game. Lots of games have elements which might or might not be considered essential. F
Well, if there are no picks for you late-pack because nothing's left in your color, that could mean too many drafters were competing for that color. If there are no picks for you late-pack because of stuff like Evil Presence , then it's just because of random chance. It's a matter of something bad happening that you had control over (for example, by reading the drafting signals better) versus something bad you had no control over, which is one of the things Rosewater mentions in Kind Acts of Randomness. Competing over a color is also a more inherent conflict to Draft whereas having cards randomly be bad is an artificial conflict. In fact, as admitted in LaPille's article, the unplayable cards are deliberately designed to band-aid unbalanced formats.
Not every pack contains the same number of cards of each color. Perhaps there just isn't any black common there, something bad you had no control over. The game can handle that. Just as I think the game can handle the negativeness of an unplayable card.
Eh, this swings both ways, though. If you don't care enough about an individual bad card for it to detract from your experience, you can't say that it adds to your experience either.
Of course it does! This is the whole point of sums greater than the parts.
Yes, the Baneslayer Angel would most certainly have been an auto-pick in Draft...which is sort of my point. Getting back to Cube Draft, LaPille mentions that he would first-pick a Chrome Mox from the hypothetical pack because it doesn't commit him to anything and he values mana acceleration highly. First-picking a Baneslayer Angel doesn't have the same reasoning; you first-pick it because it's just flatout stronger than anything else.
I never said you would not pick it, I said you might not play it. If the person to your right opens a white card also and cuts it severe, you might end up with a red/black deck and thus not playing the Angel. That's why draft is more interesting than sealed.
Eh, personally, I don't think the fact that Limited formats rotate so quickly is an excuse to do a bad job. But like I said, ephemerality is a given since we're dealing with a trading card game. Rosewater's always talking about Magic standing the test of time, but looking at Magic in terms of Limited, it becomes apparent that Magic's design is in direct conflict with doing so. It isn't one game that stands the test of time but a series of related games.
Would Magic be a better game if Wizards spent twice as much time developing it? I'm sure it would. But they can't just make the best game. They have to make the best game with the resources they have.
Some things are just not meant to last, I don't see that as a bad job.
So we're all thinking at different scales again. On the other hand, a lot of the polarizing cards we're talking about demand to be evaluated on an individual level. As a few people pointed out in the Building on a Budget threads, sometimes there are situations where you can't make a budget version of a deck because the deck relies on an expensive card that can't be replaced. No other card can do the same job as Snapcaster Mage , for example.
But the thing that matters here is the deck that includes Snapcaster. Not just the card itself.
I was counting what you call "surprise" as a sense of discovery. My point is that, instead of allowing players to discover that a card is playable, they could instead set it up so that every card is playable, and the sense of discovery comes from finding how to use it.
Or how about both? =D I agree unplayable cards are not needed in the sense that they're not neccesary. I'm just saying the specific thing they add to the game is something nothing else could add. You can add something similar as you suggest and the game would be fine, I just rather have both.
If objectively unplayable cards exist, then not every card has this potential for individual surprise.
But that's the whole point of a game like Magic consisting of individual cards. Not every card has to do everything. Not every card has to have such a potential.
They don't have to be build-around to take your deck in a new direction. You see a Furor of the Bitten and no other red cards worth taking, and now you're leaning more towards an aggressive beatdown than a removal-fueled control. If that Furor of the Bitten were instead something like "Enchanted creature is a Red Devil in addition to its other types", then instead you just have a dead card.
A cow is an animal, an animal isn't a cow. I'm not discounting the times Furor of the Bitten presents a meaningful choice. I'm just showing the game can handle a few less choices in the cases it doesn't (or in the cases of an unplayable card).
That's not an effect on gameplay, it's an effect on card evaluation. And like I said before, you don't need unplayable cards to be surprised by an individual card's playability. Just knowing that every card is playable in some situation doesn't mean you know what those situations are.
As others have said, gameplay is more than actually playing a game of Magic. Unplayable cards are like seasoning/spice. No you don't need them, but they improve the overall thing.
A card that will never be played in the game doesn't contribute to the game. Even once you've "solved" it by realizing it's unplayable, now it's just something to be ignored, which still doesn't contribute anything. It's the difference between "this sucks" and never look at it again, and "this sucks, oh wait, it's good here" now it contributes to the game forevermore.
Not every piece of the game has to be everlasting. That's why we get new sets with new limited environments every year. Once you've "solved" it, it has done its job. Games are very much about experiences, inlcuding ephemeral ones.
Yes, I don't think everything has to be everlasting, so ephemeral things like that are valued. Not every pack contains the same number of cards of each color. Perhaps there just isn't any black common there, something bad you had no control over. The
I'm not advocating a flatter power curve. I'm merely saying that cards that are just plain worthless should not exist. That's eliminating maybe the bottom 1% of the power scale. Angel's Mercy isn't an unplayable card. Grave Exchange isn't an unplayable card. What I mean are cards like Favor of the Woods , where, once you realize how bad it is, there is literally no reason to ever play it.
Having weaker cards and stronger cards is fine; in fact, it's necessary. But having cards that serve no role but to be bad is annoying, and I personally feel the game would be better without them.
@notthephonz:
Card evaluation is part of the metagame; it's part of the game as a whole. What I meant was, a card in a game in which you play cards should be worth playing. It can serve other roles, but it should still serve that core role, no matter what.
@TobyornotToby:
There's a difference between being ephemeral and being negligible. Cards that are only good in Limited formats still impact the game for a little while. A card which isn't good in any format will never have an impact. Its only purpose is to be looked at once and henceforth ignored. You may feel that the singular time it's ever looked at is worth its inclusion; I do not.
You separate the objective surprise of a card actually being playable from the subjective surprise of finding out how to play a card. I don't believe the two are separate. Whether a card is actually playable or not, a person may look at it and deem it unplayable; then, later, that evaluation may change, which surprises him. However, if a card is objectively unplayable, that surprise will never happen; if a card is playable in some niche situation, that surprise could potentially happen, but it may not.
You're assuming that just because every card is designed to be playable in some situation that everyone will automatically know that every card is playable in their evaluation. This is not the case. In fact, even if every card is designed to be playable, not every card will be playable in practice. R&D often thinks a certain archetype will be more powerful or more popular than it winds up being. Cards designed for the archetypes that wind up never getting played will still be effectively unplayable. Thus, even if Wizards doesn't set out to make unplayable cards, you still get the surprises like Gnaw to the Bone .
I'm not arguing for a flatter power curve. I'm not arguing for all cards to be made transparently good. I'm not arguing for the removal of bad cards from the game. All I'm saying is that Wizards of the Coast should never, ever make it a goal to design a card that will never see play.
@fractal: I'm not advocating a flatter power curve. I'm merely saying that cards that are just plain worthless should not exist. That's eliminating maybe the bottom 1% of the power scale. Angel's Mercy isn't an unp
I'm not advocating a flatter power curve. I'm merely saying that cards that are just plain worthless should not exist. That's eliminating maybe the bottom 1% of the power scale.
Trimming off one tail of the distribution is making a flatter power curve.
Angel's Mercy isn't an unplayable card. Grave Exchange isn't an unplayable card. What I mean are cards like Favor of the Woods , where, once you realize how bad it is, there is literally no reason to ever play it.
Having weaker cards and stronger cards is fine; in fact, it's necessary. But having cards that serve no role but to be bad is annoying, and I personally feel the game would be better without them.
So there was definitely a long time when I would have agreed with you. My feeling now, however, is that people realizing that those cards are bad is actually an important role. The game would indeed be better for experienced players without them, but not for newer players. As MaRo likes to say, often the correct response to "I don't like that card" is "Well, that card isn't designed for you."
Trimming off one tail of the distribution is making a flatter power curve.Which cards are unplayable depends upon the environment. In a set where Kor Spiritdancer and Rabid Wombat
Which cards are unplayable depends upon the environment.
I don't disagree. I'm not saying cards that such cards never be printed. I'm just saying they should never be printed in places where they serve no purpose.
So there was definitely a long time when I would have agreed with you. My feeling now, however, is that people realizing that those cards are bad is actually an important role.
This is the reason I'm not saying they shouldn't print cards like the lucky charms (Angel's Feather ) in the core set. Cards that look better than they are have a role to play. However, you can have a card that looks better than it is without making that card unplayable. Maybe it's a sideboard card that a newer player runs maindeck, only to realize it's not good against most decks. Maybe it's a card that plays well when built-around, but is otherwise below the curve. Maybe it's just a card that is weaker than it looks. A card can be a teaching tool without being useless in gameplay.
In the same way that banning Jace, the Mind Sculptor made a flatter power curve.I don't disagree. I'm not saying cards that such cards never be printed. I'm just saying they should never be printed in places where
There's a difference between being ephemeral and being negligible. Cards that are only good in Limited formats still impact the game for a little while. A card which isn't good in any format will never have an impact. Its only purpose is to be looked at once and henceforth ignored. You may feel that the singular time it's ever looked at is worth its inclusion; I do not.
You separate the objective surprise of a card actually being playable from the subjective surprise of finding out how to play a card. I don't believe the two are separate. Whether a card is actually playable or not, a person may look at it and deem it unplayable; then, later, that evaluation may change, which surprises him. However, if a card is objectively unplayable, that surprise will never happen; if a card is playable in some niche situation, that surprise could potentially happen, but it may not.
Look, you've been arguing 2 things up until now, and here again.
Unplayable cards have no impact.
The impact unplayable cards have can also be achieved through other means.
The second is kinda contradicting the first. So what is your overall stance? Let's continue discussing only that one and not both.
Look, you've been arguing 2 things up until now, and here again. Unplayable cards have no impact. The impact unplayable cards have can also be achieved through other means. The second is kinda contradicting the first. So what is your overall stance?
Look, you've been arguing 2 things up until now, and here again.
Unplayable cards have no impact.
The impact unplayable cards have can also be achieved through other means.
The second is kinda contradicting the first. So what is your overall stance? Let's continue discussing only that one and not both.
Look at it this way.
Let's say you're hungry, and you have two choices of what to eat. They are otherwise identical, but meal A is stale and meal B is fresh. Sure, meal A will serve a purpose (satisfying your hunger), but there's no reason to choose it if there's a less negative option. It is pointless to offer the choice of meal A when meal B is available.
My point is similar for unplayable cards (at least, cards designed with intent to be unplayable). Unplayable cards do fulfill a role: the role of allowing a lesser skilled player to learn what works and what doesn't. However, this role is just as well served by having playable, yet situational, cards. It is just as well served by having otherwise weak build-arounds. Since there is a better option for fulfilling this role, there's no reason to choose the negative option.
So any time I said unplayable cards had no reason to exist, this is what I meant.
However, a different thing is happening in the example above. The statements are made in two different contexts. The first is about an unplayable card's impact on the game; the second is about the card's impact on the players.
An unplayable card, having achieved its goal (its impact on the player) by showing them that it's not as good as they thought, now has no secondary impact (on the game). Once it's solved, it's effectively blank. Since there are options that yield the first result while still having an impact in the second, I feel my above point applies: there's no reason to choose "A and not B" when you can have "A and B".
tl;dr: I choose the blue option
Look at it this way.Let's say you're hungry, and you have two choices of what to eat. They are otherwise identical, but meal A is stale and meal B is fresh. Sure, meal A will serve a purpose (satisfying your hunger), but there's no reason to choose i
Let's say you're hungry, and you have two choices of what to eat. They are otherwise identical, but meal A is stale and meal B is fresh. Sure, meal A will serve a purpose (satisfying your hunger), but there's no reason to choose it if there's a less negative option. It is pointless to offer the choice of meal A when meal B is available.
My point is similar for unplayable cards (at least, cards designed with intent to be unplayable). Unplayable cards do fulfill a role: the role of allowing a lesser skilled player to learn what works and what doesn't. However, this role is just as well served by having playable, yet situational, cards. It is just as well served by having otherwise weak build-arounds. Since there is a better option for fulfilling this role, there's no reason to choose the negative option.
So any time I said unplayable cards had no reason to exist, this is what I meant.
However, a different thing is happening in the example above. The statements are made in two different contexts. The first is about an unplayable card's impact on the game; the second is about the card's impact on the players.
An unplayable card, having achieved its goal (its impact on the player) by showing them that it's not as good as they thought, now has no secondary impact (on the game). Once it's solved, it's effectively blank. Since there are options that yield the first result while still having an impact in the second, I feel my above point applies: there's no reason to choose "A and not B" when you can have "A and B".
tl;dr: I choose the blue option
Ah, but the role you're talking about (which I've bolded) is not the one I was talking about. Not sure if this was detrimental to the discussion thus far. The impact, the goal, the role, of unplayable cards that I've been arguing for: Favor of the Woods has an impact on our experience of Gnaw to the Bone .
Also, even though I really do not want to sidetrack this, weak situational and build-around cards do NOT serve the role you're proposing "just as well". Magic is incredibly complex, and the learning curve for a beginner is something to take into account. An obviously unplayable card is easier identifyable as such and thus more fit as a learning tool. This is not an argument against your whole argument, just against the red part.
Ah, but the role you're talking about (which I've bolded) is not the one I was talking about. Not sure if this was detrimental to the discussion thus far.The impact, the goal, the role, of unplayable cards that I've been arguing for: Favor of the
Packs should have more bad cards (more borderline playable commons, lower the average power level of uncommons/rares). Limited was way more fun when it was hard to get playables. And its hard to believe they could ever test a set where significantly more commons were constructed playable then in current sets, so its not like this would really impact constructed.
Packs should have more bad cards (more borderline playable commons, lower the average power level of uncommons/rares). Limited was way more fun when it was hard to get playables. And its hard to believe they could ever test a set where significantly
The impact, the goal, the role, of unplayable cards that I've been arguing for: Favor of the Woods has an impact on our experience of Gnaw to the Bone .
I understand, but I have to respectfully disagree. That impact, unlike the one you point out, is just as well served without R&D making it a goal to design unplayable cards. R&D, being a much smaller group, typically makes mistakes in which archetypes will be the most popular, which will get played, and which cards will be used in those archetypes. As such, they'll already be making cards that, while they serve a purpose, are still unplayable because that purpose winds up being unnecessary. Remember Overgrown Battlement in Infect? Sure, the question is now "Is this card playable in practice?" rather than "Was this card designed to be playable?", but I believe the impact is the same. People will look at a card and discount it as a mistake of R&D's, deeming it unplayable. Then, some of those cards (the Gnaw to the Bone s) will wind up getting re-evaluated later, and surprising people.
In fact, taking out the intentionally unplayable cards gives every such borderline-playable card a chance to be surprising, rather than only some of them, though in both cases not all of them will actualize that potential like Gnaw to the Bone did.
Also, even though I really do not want to sidetrack this, weak situational and build-around cards do NOT serve the role you're proposing "just as well". Magic is incredibly complex, and the learning curve for a beginner is something to take into account. An obviously unplayable card is easier identifyable as such and thus more fit as a learning tool.
Yeah, I suppose you're right.
It is possible to have cards be great teaching tools while still not being completely unplayable. Take the lucky charms, Dragon's Claw and friends, for example. They appeal to lesser-skilled players who overvalue life gain, thus leading to them being played when they really shouldn't. Eventually, those players learn that life gain isn't as powerful as they'd thought, and the cards have taught a valuable lesson in comparative power level. However, the cards do still show up, from time to time, in situations such as a sideboard card for the mirror-match in some decks.
Where I am forced to concede is that such designs are likely few and far between. It is a very fine line between "simple, appealing to lesser-skilled players, and niche playable" and "simple, appealing to lesser-skilled players, and unplayable". As such, I must begrudgingly accept that, in order for this goal to be met in every set, R&D will have to seed terrible cards that a more-skilled player will immediately gloss over. I don't have to like them, but I guess I can no longer deny that they are an inevitable consequence of design. Well-argued.
Packs should have more bad cards (more borderline playable commons, lower the average power level of uncommons/rares). Limited was way more fun when it was hard to get playables. And its hard to believe they could ever test a set where significantly more commons were constructed playable then in current sets, so its not like this would really impact constructed.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't recent sets (such as Innistrad and Rise of the Eldrazi) been called the "best Limited environments ever"? This would seem to imply that the majority of drafters disagree with you: easier access to playable cards, with more emphasis on synergy than on power level, is better than forced scarcity via a dearth of playables.
I understand, but I have to respectfully disagree. That impact, unlike the one you point out, is just as well served without R&D making it a goal to design unplayable cards. R&D, being a much smaller group, typically makes mistakes in which archetype
Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't recent sets (such as Innistrad and Rise of the Eldrazi) been called the "best Limited environments ever"? This would seem to imply that the majority of drafters disagree with you: easier access to playable cards, with more emphasis on synergy than on power level, is better than forced scarcity via a dearth of playables.
New limited has also produced the worst limited environment ever, Zendikar. I'd guess the majority of players like "constructed style" games more than limited games, which can somewhat explain the popularity of modern limited. Old limited wasn't really focused on power level, so much as it tested skills like combat math and card evaluation (like fundamentals as opposed to being able to pick a bunch of cards with the same keyword) in a way that no other format does. All the decks in new limited play like boring constructed decks. Its way easier to draft a deck, and combat is way easier. Not to say that new limited is has no redeeming qualities, I really like cube, which is pretty much what limited has turned into. But we've had a lot of sets now that play like a cube, I just wish we'd have some that would actually play like real limited.
This probably isn't a realistic desire, since I can't imagine a format like Masques or Invasion or Kamigawa is new player friendly, and it makes the transition between limited and constructed much more difficult (if that makes any sense). But I would really like a limited format that actually rewards you for reading signals and being able to figure out difficult attacks, instead of rewarding you for picking rares and being able to count to 20 faster than your opponent.
New limited has also produced the worst limited environment ever, Zendikar. I'd guess the majority of players like "constructed style" games more than limited games, which can somewhat explain the popularity of modern limited. Old limited wasn't rea
That impact, unlike the one you point out, is just as well served without R&D making it a goal to design unplayable cards.
I don't follow what you're saying here, what you're referring to with the 'that' and 'the one you point out'. As a reply to something I point out, it seems to refer to the same thing twice?
R&D, being a much smaller group, typically makes mistakes in which archetypes will be the most popular, which will get played, and which cards will be used in those archetypes. As such, they'll already be making cards that, while they serve a purpose, are still unplayable because that purpose winds up being unnecessary. Remember Overgrown Battlement in Infect?
I'm only talking about limited here. The majority of cards aren't exactly designed to be played in constructed in the first place. Wizards' time and energy seems to be more focussed on limited, and I don't think they make as much mistakes there. It's a much more controlled environment, with the added balance that an overpowered strategy will be overdrafted.
Sure, the question is now "Is this card playable in practice?" rather than "Was this card designed to be playable?", but I believe the impact is the same.
So wait, are you talking about constructed evaluation here? Because that would indeed be a wholly different dynamic?
It is possible to have cards be great teaching tools while still not being completely unplayable. Take the lucky charms, Dragon's Claw and friends, for example. They appeal to lesser-skilled players who overvalue life gain, thus leading to them being played when they really shouldn't. Eventually, those players learn that life gain isn't as powerful as they'd thought, and the cards have taught a valuable lesson in comparative power level.
But that's not the lesson unplayable cards have to teach. Their purpose is to make the new player that jams the charms in his deck feel smart. Even he can look at Aven Trooper and say "Hey I'm seeing that this is a weak card, I'm not going to play this" and make him feel happy. Or at least he finds out way before he finds out about the charms.
Arguments could be made about how necessary/important this purpose is, but it certainly is a purpose that only blatantly unplayable cards can fulfill.
I don't follow what you're saying here, what you're referring to with the 'that' and 'the one you point out'. As a reply to something I point out, it seems to refer to the same thing twice?I'm only talking about limited here. The majority of cards ar
That is just either incompetent or trollish set design, wherein a subtheme for the commons is woefully under-supported (incompetent), or a subtheme is intentionally engineered to force players to pick awful cards that end up shoeboxed forever after a draft ends (trollish).
That is just either incompetent or trollish set design, wherein a subtheme for the commons is woefully under-supported (incompetent), or a subtheme is intentionally engineered to force players to pick awful cards that end up shoeboxed forever after a
That impact, unlike the one you point out, is just as well served without R&D making it a goal to design unplayable cards.
I don't follow what you're saying here, what you're referring to with the 'that' and 'the one you point out'. As a reply to something I point out, it seems to refer to the same thing twice?
Sorry, somehow I forgot to add the essential "later on" after "you point out". It should have said: "That impact, unlike the one you point out later on, is just as well served..."
I'm only talking about limited here. The majority of cards aren't exactly designed to be played in constructed in the first place. Wizards' time and energy seems to be more focussed on limited, and I don't think they make as much mistakes there. It's a much more controlled environment, with the added balance that an overpowered strategy will be overdrafted.
They may not make as many mistakes, but that doesn't mean people won't think they do. It is a failing of human nature to think "I could do this better than the pros". I, myself, fall into that trap often. Such as when I once said "They shouldn't design unplayable cards."
But that's not the lesson unplayable cards have to teach. Their purpose is to make the new player that jams the charms in his deck feel smart. Even he can look at Aven Trooper and say "Hey I'm seeing that this is a weak card, I'm not going to play this" and make him feel happy. Or at least he finds out way before he finds out about the charms.
Arguments could be made about how necessary/important this purpose is, but it certainly is a purpose that only blatantly unplayable cards can fulfill.
So you're saying that the purpose of unplayable cards is to be so bad that even the least skilled player knows not to play them? Sorry, but that's a bit ridiculous. There's no lesson to be learned, just as there's no lesson to be learned in looking at a cliff and saying "I should probably not jump off of that."
I don't follow what you're saying here, what you're referring to with the 'that' and 'the one you point out'. As a reply to something I point out, it seems to refer to the same thing twice?[/quote]Sorry, somehow I forgot to add the essential "later o
They may not make as many mistakes, but that doesn't mean people won't think they do. It is a failing of human nature to think "I could do this better than the pros". I, myself, fall into that trap often. Such as when I once said "They shouldn't design unplayable cards."
I don't see what effect on limited you're getting at here exactly, and how it 'serves it just as well'.
So you're saying that the purpose of unplayable cards is to be so bad that even the least skilled player knows not to play them? Sorry, but that's a bit ridiculous. There's no lesson to be learned, just as there's no lesson to be learned in looking at a cliff and saying "I should probably not jump off of that."
I'm saying that's a purpose. The lesson learned is "I should evaluate cards and think about what to include and what not to".
Btw, do you think the must attack "reminder text" on Ulamog's Crusher is ridiculous?
I don't see what effect on limited you're getting at here exactly, and how it 'serves it just as well'. I'm saying that's a purpose. The lesson learned is "I should evaluate cards and think about what to include and what not to". Btw, do you think th
I don't see what effect on limited you're getting at here exactly, and how it 'serves it just as well'.
You're working on the assumption that, just because every card is playable, everyone will know that every card is playable. You seem to be implying that without genuinely unplayable cards like Favor of the Woods , people would look at Gnaw to the Bone and automatically say "Oh, that's playable." That's not likely the case. Even without blatantly unplayable cards, people will still look at borderline-playable cards and occasionally make the mistake in saying that it isn't playable. Thus providing a surprise later when it winds up being better than they'd expected.
I'm saying that's a purpose. The lesson learned is "I should evaluate cards and think about what to include and what not to".
Btw, do you think the must attack "reminder text" on Ulamog's Crusher is ridiculous?
That lesson is taught by the very structure of the game itself. I hardly doubt that if every card were playable, nobody would ever learn to cut cards from their deck. The color system already pushes you to cut cards that aren't in your colors. The deck minimum is a strong hint that maybe you should try to stay around that size. And even when all of that fails, the new player's friends, or even opponents, will still pass on the lesson.
If you're talking about Limited again, well, I feel really bad for the new player who's learning to play the game in Sealed, let alone Draft.
I do not find Ulamog's Crusher ridiculous; it's a completely different thing. Using the cards to teach "You want to attack with this creature" is fine; it's a self-contained lesson. Furthermore, just like when you asked a similar question about Incite , the card still serves a purpose in gameplay. The cards which scream "Never play me" do not.
You're working on the assumption that, just because every card is playable, everyone will know that every card is playable. You seem to be implying that without genuinely unplayable cards like Favor of the Woods , p
You seem to be implying that without genuinely unplayable cards like Favor of the Woods , people would look at Gnaw to the Bone and automatically say "Oh, that's playable."
No, what I'm implying is that without purposefull designed unplayable cards, people would look at Gnaw to the Bone and automatically say "Oh that must be playable or else Wizards wouldn't print it." And then when they find out the way to use it, it isn't so much a pleasant surprise but an expected outcome.
That lesson is taught by the very structure of the game itself. I hardly doubt that if every card were playable, nobody would ever learn to cut cards from their deck.
That's why it's called a learning curve.Different levels for different people.
I wasn't so much talking about Ulamog's Crusher design, but the necessity of the lesson. Many people couldn't believe anyone would need to be taught that lesson. In the same vein, you might think people don't need unplayable cards for their lesson, but they do.
No, what I'm implying is that without purposefull designed unplayable cards, people would look at Gnaw to the Bone and automatically say "Oh that must be playable or else Wizards wouldn't print it." And then when t
That lesson is taught by the very structure of the game itself. I hardly doubt that if every card were playable, nobody would ever learn to cut cards from their deck.
That's why it's called a learning curve.Different levels for different people.
I wasn't so much talking about Ulamog's Crusher design, but the necessity of the lesson. Many people couldn't believe anyone would need to be taught that lesson. In the same vein, you might think people don't need unplayable cards for their lesson, but they do.
Articles about designing preconstructed decks often cite the need to include blatantly bad cards, since otherwise newer players will assume the Wizards-designed decks are optimal and should be left as-is. Cutting cards from a deck or a collection (for those people who play "every green card I own") can be a very difficult lesson, and so it has to be really obvious if people are reliably going to learn it.
A different question, of course, is whether or not it needs to be learned; one perspective is that they should just play the game however they like. However, Wizards wants people to be motivated to buy more cards; that is most likely to happen if people are somewhat dissatisfied with the cards they already own. Therefore, it is important that people learn the skill of eliminating cards.
That's why it's called a learning curve. Different levels for different people.I wasn't so much talking about Ulamog's Crusher design, but the necessity of the lesson. Many people couldn't believe anyone would need
No, what I'm implying is that without purposefull designed unplayable cards, people would look at Gnaw to the Bone and automatically say "Oh that must be playable or else Wizards wouldn't print it." And then when they find out the way to use it, it isn't so much a pleasant surprise but an expected outcome.
That assumes two things. One, that everyone knows that Wizards designs every card to be playable; they could stop designing unplayable cards without announcing that they're doing it. Two, that Wizards is infallible.
All it takes is one mistake every once in a while to show people that, though Wizards may try to make every card useful, they don't always succeed. As long as it is clear that Wizards is capable of making mistakes, people will see mistakes even when there aren't any. For instance, people could look at Gnaw to the Bone and think "This isn't enough of a life gain for three mana! Wizards is out of touch." Then someone demonstrates the sheer potential of the card, and everyone else is surprised.
Even with genuine mistakes few and far between, the beauty of this is that it is a negative feedback loop. If everyone looks at something and deems it unplayable, even if it isn't, then it's possible nobody even tries it, and it retains the 'unplayable' label. This artificially increases the number of 'unplayable' cards, which makes people more willing to believe a new card is yet another mistake.
Finally, even when people eventually do figure out that a card is playable, they do it one by one, and the perception of how many unplayable cards is in the set changes so gradually that nobody realizes just how few cards actually were unplayable.
Articles about designing preconstructed decks often cite the need to include blatantly bad cards, since otherwise newer players will assume the Wizards-designed decks are optimal and should be left as-is. Cutting cards from a deck or a collection (for those people who play "every green card I own") can be a very difficult lesson, and so it has to be really obvious if people are reliably going to learn it.
That's Constructed. I believe Toby is talking about Limited. The role of 'blatantly bad cards that obviously should be cut' in Constructed is well-served by all the Limited chaff in sets. Cards like Amphin Cutthroat may be worth running in Limited, but they just don't cut it in Constructed.
That assumes two things. One, that everyone knows that Wizards designs every card to be playable; they could stop designing unplayable cards without announcing that they're doing it. Two, that Wizards is infallible.All it takes is one mistake every o
That assumes two things. One, that everyone knows that Wizards designs every card to be playable; they could stop designing unplayable cards without announcing that they're doing it.
Pros are spending countless hours on figuring out limited. If there suddenly are no unplayables, they'll know. And of course not 'everyone' will know things. Not all cards are made for everyone.
Again, they are far more infaillible in Limited than in Constructed. Standard or Modern decks and metagames surprise them all the time, sometimes things are less powerful, sometimes more.
Limited though? They have that figured out pretty well.
That's Constructed. I believe Toby is talking about Limited. The role of 'blatantly bad cards that obviously should be cut' in Constructed is well-served by all the Limited chaff in sets. Cards like Amphin Cutthroat may be worth running in Limited, but they just don't cut it in Constructed.
Neither. Or casual constructed. (Sorry I didn't clarify I wasn't talking about limited here, that's why I said I didn't want to sidetrack) What I'm talking about is when people just start playing magic. They don't play tournaments but just have casual decks, which look a lot like (crappy) limited decks.
Btw, a recent tumblr question directed to this article, and at the beginning it also says:
A: From Mark Rosewater, Magic senior designer: "This is a very complex question that I'm sure I'll discuss in greater detail in a future column. But the short answer is that weak cards are a fundamental part of the game. Richard Garfield has described Magic as a 'game of exploration.' Much of the fun of the game comes from players examining each new set to see what they can discover. Many players take great enjoyment in finding use of cards that others dismiss. R&D cannot make bad cards that are secretly good without also making bad cards that are actually bad.
('Bad' and 'Unplayable' aren't interchangable, but it's the same principle I've been hammering on.
Pros are spending countless hours on figuring out limited. If there suddenly are no unplayables, they'll know.And of course not 'everyone' will know things. Not all cards are made for everyone. Again, they are far more infaillible in Limited than in
Again, they are far more infaillible in Limited than in Constructed.
You can't be 'more' or 'less' infallible. It's a switch. Either you are without fault, or you're not. My point was that all it takes is the occasional mistake, which will happen because nobody is perfect, to snowball into a potential for any borderline card to be considered unplayable.
What I'm talking about is when people just start playing magic. They don't play tournaments but just have casual decks, which look a lot like (crappy) limited decks.
Until they actually have the cards to swap in, though, they don't need to learn that some cards aren't worth playing.
Btw, a recent tumblr question directed to this article, and at the beginning it also says:
A: From Mark Rosewater, Magic senior designer: "This is a very complex question that I'm sure I'll discuss in greater detail in a future column. But the short answer is that weak cards are a fundamental part of the game. Richard Garfield has described Magic as a 'game of exploration.' Much of the fun of the game comes from players examining each new set to see what they can discover. Many players take great enjoyment in finding use of cards that others dismiss. R&D cannot make bad cards that are secretly good without also making bad cards that are actually bad.
('Bad' and 'Unplayable' aren't interchangable, but it's the same principle I've been hammering on.
Alright, I concede that genuinely unplayable cards are necessary to make some cards surprising in their playability.
I'd still rather have a set with no unplayable cards and therefore no surprises in playability, though.
EDIT: A conclusion.
I believe what Mark Rosewater is saying in the above quote boils down to "In order for some cards to be stronger than they look, there have to be other cards that actually are as weak as they appear." I agree completely with this sentiment. Where I disagree is merely that there need to be 'zeros', or unplayable cards. Cards that appear to have zero use, but are better than they look; and cards that appear to have zero use, and actually do.
Cards that look weak, and cards that are weak, are fine. Some cards have to be better than others, else the game gets stale quickly. However, this sliding scale of power level doesn't have to extend down to the extremes at 'zero', just as it shouldn't extend to the extremes at 'one hundred' (like Jace, the Mind Sculptor , where every deck that can play it wants to).
Something is lost by eliminating these zeros, sure. Where we disagree (and I feel it's a matter of opinion, thus neither of us can 'disprove' the other) is whether this addition to the game outweighs the subtraction of having game pieces with no use in the game. I feel that having a card like Gnaw to the Bone look weak (yet still be known as playable), but wind up being stronger than it looks, is a good enough compromise; I don't feel that we need that extra little push all the way to the bottom of the scale.
At this point, having discussed the matter to death (we're pretty much just going in circles now), I believe we should simply agree to disagree.
You can't be 'more' or 'less' infallible. It's a switch. Either you are without fault, or you're not. My point was that all it takes is the occasional mistake, which will happen because nobody is perfect, to snowball into a potential for any borderli
What I'm talking about is when people just start playing magic. They don't play tournaments but just have casual decks, which look a lot like (crappy) limited decks.
Until they actually have the cards to swap in, though, they don't need to learn that some cards aren't worth playing.
Yes, but from Wizards' perspective, they need to know that some cards aren't worth playing, so that they'll make the effort to acquire cards that they can swap in.
I'd still rather have a set with no unplayable cards and therefore no surprises in playability, though.
From my perspective, the conclusion is this: the game would be more fun (for me as I am now) if there were not unplayable cards. Personally, I don't much care for terrible cards like Mindless Null , either. I take it the same is true for you, and it might well be true for Tobyornottoby and the rest of the forum posters as well. However, the game is designed to be played by a wider audience than just us, and some of those other players and potential players benefit by the existence of bad cards. Therefore, in order to broaden the playerbase of the game (which does benefit all of us), the game includes cards targeted towards those players specifically.
By being a slightly worse game for us playing among ourselves, it becomes a much better game for us playing as a whole, because we have a more diverse pool of potential opponents to play against, and the game is more successful, leading to more funding for design/development.
Until they actually have the cards to swap in, though, they don't need to learn that some cards aren't worth playing.[/quote]Yes, but from Wizards' perspective, they need to know that some cards aren't worth playing, so that they'll make the effort t
My point was that all it takes is the occasional mistake, which will happen because nobody is perfect, to snowball into a potential for any borderline card to be considered unplayable.
But isn't this ultimately the other way around then? (For ease, cards that are stronger/weaker than they look are left out from the following, focussing just on playable/unplayable boolean)
Current system: Unplayables exist (negative) People will dismiss unplayables (negative) but some will try them out because they're curious (positive) with 2 possible outcomes: 1. Yes it's unplayable (neutral) 2. Hey this is playable! (positive)
Alternate system: Unplayables are not deliberately made (positive) People will try out every card (neutral) with 2 possible outcomes: 1. Yes it's playable (neutral) 2. Nope it's unplayable (negative)
It's a different mindset with which you explore the set. Basically it's about discovering hidden gems versus discovering hidden turds.
Until they actually have the cards to swap in, though, they don't need to learn that some cards aren't worth playing.
Well they have, usually. And it's not about needing. Mark Rosewater always hammers down the point that the best way to teach new players the game is make them enjoy it, rather than letting them learn what they need to know. They don't need to know. But the positive feeling they get from feeling 'smart' because they figured out a card isn't worth playing, that's what Wizards wants to hook them on the game.
Sure, I can certainly agree to disagree with the above (with me preferring the vice versa).One final reply then =)But isn't this ultimately the other way around then? (For ease, cards that are stronger/weaker than they look are left out from the foll
, the format would've been even less fun.
I think I was starting to say something different but then it ended up bleeding into Point 4. Probably all I meant by this was that your analogy assumes that a card has to strictly fall into the categories of "playable," "unplayable," or "appears unplayable but has hidden uses," and that that assumption is false.
