Is there a reason for the Overwhelm card showing up in the article? Is Maro trying to hint at Convoke in Return to Ravinica or is it just some error (or would he admit to it to begin with)?
This is a very helpful article. I have been trying for months to come up with a deck that is simple but flavorful enough to entice my wife to play. The current idea I am working on is a polar bear deck (her favorite animal). Maybe you guys could help me out by printing some more polar bears? =)
Is there a reason for the Overwhelm card showing up in the article? Is Maro trying to hint at Convoke in Return to Ravinica or is it just some error (or would he admit to it to begin with)?
He's just finding cards that share names with some of the key points he's trying to stress. Like Simplify ...that card doesn't look to be coming back any time soon either.
How to autocard (do this to specify a card in your posts): Type [c]Black Lotus[/c] to get Black Lotus . Type [c=Black Lotus]The Overpowered One[/c] to get The Overpowered One .
Is there a reason for the Overwhelm card showing up in the article? Is Maro trying to hint at Convoke in Return to Ravinica or is it just some error (or would he admit to it to begin with)?
He's just finding cards that share names with some of the key points he's trying to stress. Like Simplify ...that card doesn't look to be coming back any time soon either.
I'm not sure it's even that - I suspect it's just the script they run to autolink cards finding a few words that share card names and linking them overzealously!
Rules Advisor. Used to play a lot of old Extended tournaments, now I just play prereleases and casual kitchen-table games with friends.
This attitude to new players seems to be a kind of article of faith within R&D. Last time someone wrote about it I pointed out in the comments that I didn't know one single Magic player who'd actually picked up the game this way and got a serious telling off from the article writer (Ken Nagle, I think it might have been).
This isn't an opinion of mine, it's empirical (albeit anecdotal) data: players get interested in games by watching real play, not by being taught like a child. (And yes, that includes most actual children!)
This attitude to new players seems to be a kind of article of faith within R&D. Last time someone wrote about it I pointed out in the comments that I didn't know one single Magic player who'd actually picked up the game this way and got a serious telling off from the article writer (Ken Nagle, I think it might have been).
This isn't an opinion of mine, it's empirical (albeit anecdotal) data: players get interested in games by watching real play, not by being taught like a child. (And yes, that includes most actual children!)
i can agree with this on a very high decree. "what I consider to be Magic's greatest flaw - it's high barrier to entry"
this for example, i think this barrier is 'overrated' by what i mean: if you just play standerd, the number of cards stay constant (more or less) and so does the complexity of standerd. only eternal formats will increase in complexity over time as more cards get printed
" players get interested in games by watching real play, not by being taught like a child. (And yes, that includes most actual children!)" i guess this is even more true
I like this kind of article, and it reminds me how much teaching Magic has helped me learn teaching in general. I studied aerospace engineering with a big interest in space exploration, but that's not familiar to most people, so I have to do a little teaching along the way to be able to talk about my interests with laymen. Halo orbits, for example, are a result of analysis of the three body problem (with two large bodies and one negligable mass) that identify the five Lagrange points (also called libration points or L points) about which you can place a ...
All the technical jargon doesn't matter though: Halo orbits take place around the points where the gravity of two big bodies cancels out so that small things look like they are orbiting empty space. And then when I say there's a moderately big interest in putting a space station into a halo orbit at the L2 point on the far side of the moon for telerobotics (remote-controlled robots) later in the same conversation, I don't draw totally blank stares later in the same 2 minute story. I make it a point to slip in a little technical jargon so people don't feel like I'm dumbing everything down for them, but I try to keep it relevant.
I'm not perfect, but I like to think I'm made a little better by my experience with this game. The little discoveries when you're teaching can be exciting too. I have an old teaching deck I played against newish players where most of the creatures have fire-breathing. I always thought it was fun to see the player's eyes light up when they realize they can count my Mountain s to see how big my guy can get. A subtle benefit was encouraging players to "attack while they can" -- they seem to start capitalizing on the times when I tapped out more quickly than when there wasn't an obvious use for my mana. I like to think they eventually pick up on the extremely advanced idea that I'm going to do better the longer the game goes (since all my guys obviously keep getting better when I play land), and they need to make sure they have a plan to either end the game first or neutralize my dudes. There's also the benefit of planting a template for building future decks in the other player's mind (That one guy had a deck where all the creatures had the same ability...). I was so excited when I found a deck with so much subtley packed into such an obvious package -- it was my own little discovery.
