|
11 months ago ::
Jul 23, 2012 - 12:35AM
#11
|
|
|
For me the power level of cylian elf is totally within the range I find acceptable. There are a bunch of cards that are emphatically not, like the aformentioned skeleton, or, say, caravan hurda  or numai outcast  or whatever (there are at least six of these terribad cards in every set) and its those cards where I totally disagree with WOTC. We don't need those clearly bad-bad cards and every time it is argued we do, it doesn't even come off as reasonable, just a really weak argument that even the author doesn't actually believe.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 23, 2012 - 4:59AM
#12
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2011
|
Because you can't allow players to explore if all the options aren't possible. For example, let's say that cards that looked bad were always actually good. Well, then players learn that any card that looks bad isn't and then it's hard for you to create cards that can grow to surprise the players.
Isn't this true in the reverse as well? If you make cards that look good (to some people) but they always turn out bad, isn't that going to make that player realize that those types of cards are always bad, and thus they'll never be used?
I'm specifically referring to combo enablers (i.e. Johnny cards) printed since roughly Time Spiral. As examples: Furnace Celebration, Burning Vengeance, Barren Glory, Near-Death Experience, Ad Nauseaum (in rotating formats). If everyone knows the combo enablers are always Good-Bad cards, won't they just become Bad-Bad cards? Does R&D want Johnny, Combo Player  to always feel bad because he's playing Bad-Bad cards thinking they're good?
Omniscience  has just made significant ripples in the Legacy Grand Prix, while Restoration Angel  turned the Naya Pod combo deck into possibly the best deck in Modern. A year ago we had Splinter Twin and Pyromancer's Ascension in Standard. They're not bad-bad cards plenty of times.
Not only this, but defining good and bad strictly along the lines of whether or not it wins tournaments seems really narrow and problematic to me. That's like applying a Spike filter to Johnny cards. I know my Burning Vengeance deck won't be taking a Grand Prix anytime soon but I still enjoy busting it out now and then.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 23, 2012 - 5:06AM
#13
|
|
|
For me the power level of cylian elf is totally within the range I find acceptable. There are a bunch of cards that are emphatically not, like the aformentioned skeleton, or, say, caravan hurda or numai outcast or whatever (there are at least six of these terribad cards in every set) and its those cards where I totally disagree with WOTC. We don't need those clearly bad-bad cards and every time it is argued we do, it doesn't even come off as reasonable, just a really weak argument that even the author doesn't actually believe.
I'm a believer!
Also, "that's a weak argument" is not a constructive criticism of something =p
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 23, 2012 - 7:52AM
#14
|
|
|
And "I'm a believer" is not a constructive endorsement. We're just stating our opinions. The argument I refer to isn't even made in this column and I've given plenty of constructive criticism when it actually did come up. I just mention it because it's related and similar to the 'bad-bad' argument.
The argument in favour of printing terrible cards can be found in numerous older columns so people can decide for themselves if it makes sense. It really comes down to whether you think a 2/6 for 6 mana or a 4/6 for 6 mana is better. Some people seem to prefer the 2/6 on the grounds that memorably awful cards are better than 'bad' cards, or that the 2/6 represents a 'skill test' for a new player which is desirable, whereas the 4/6 doesn't.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 23, 2012 - 8:51AM
#15
|
|
|
Well endorsements are often not very constructive. You learn more from your mistakes than from your successes. If you share the same views, you'll have less new information to share than when you have a different view.
Also, you talked about "every time". How am I supposed to know that doesn't refer to this time? =p
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 23, 2012 - 8:56AM
#16
|
Date Joined:
Jan 19, 2010
|
Don't tar and feather me: For me Thundermaw Hellkite  went into category 3: Bad/Good. When I saw it previewed I felt utterly let down: It looks like a glorified Lava Axe. Now I haven't had the chance to actually play with it yet, but I stopped and thought about it. And I realized it's a Lava Axe that can hit you again. And again. And again. Not only that, but if you happen to have other fliers on the board (and I know I will in my Dragonstorm Deck), he lets all the other guys through too (barring spiders). So while I recognize now that this is, in fact, an insanely powerful card, my first impression was definitely negative.
******************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************** From Mark Rosewater's Tumblr: the0uroboros asked: How in the same set can we have a hexproof, unsacrificable(not a word) creature AND a land that makes it uncounterable. How does this lead to interactive play? I believe I’m able to play my creature and you have to deal with it is much more interactive than you counter my creature. ******************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************** Post #777
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 23, 2012 - 9:34AM
#17
|
Date Joined:
Oct 12, 2010
|
Cylian Elf  is fine in limited, but green should get at least a 2/3 or 3/2 for two mana if we talk about vanilla creatures. Possibly a 3/3. Here are some more examples, from other sets: Sliver First impression--Good Last impression--Meh Spellshaper First impression--Good Last impression--Good Rebel First impression--Good Last impression--Insane Domain First impression--Good Last impression--Bad Cycling First impression--Good Last impression--Good Madness First impression--Bad (I thought it was just a hoser.) Last impression--Whoa mama! Splice First impression--Bad Last impression--Unbelievably bad Radiance First impression--What is this i dont even Last impression--What is this i dont even Bloodthirst First impression--Good Last impression--Good Graft First impression--Good Last impression--Good Suspend First impreesion--Good Last impression--Bad Tribal (the card type) First impression--What is this i dont even Last impression--Meh Landfall First impression--Meh Last impression--Good Rebound First impression--Good Last impression--Mixed Infect First impression--Broken Last impression--Meh Proliferate First impression--Good Last impression--Good Living weapon First impression--Meh Last impression--Good Phyrexian mana First impression--Good Last impression--Really good Werewolf First impression--Good Last impression--Bad Zombie "exile from graveyard" First impression--Bad Last impression--Bad "Human matters" First impression--Good Last impression--Colorpie? What colorpie?
Clever deduction Watson! Maybe you can explain why Supergirl is trying to kill me.
----
Autocard is your friend.
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] = Lightning Bolt 
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 23, 2012 - 3:37PM
#18
|
|
|
Instead of focusing on specific cards from other sets that are good/bad, I would like to let Mark know why we initially thought Exalted was a bad mechanic. When I initially saw the card, I looked at:
Whenever a creature you control attacks alone, it gets +1/+1 until end of turn.
It seemed like such an insignificant benefit. Where was the super soldier who got +4/+4 whenever he attacked alone? The biggest confusion for us was not understanding that each instance of exhalted stacked. This was HUGE for us to overcome (I've got it, but when my brother played in the M13 Release tournament, he made the same mistake I initially did when I first encounted the mechanic during the Alara block).
Because other keywords (first strike, lifelink, deathtouch, intimidate, etc) aren't cumulative, our natural assumption was that Exalted wasn't either. We understood having multiple lords on the table all granting +1/+1 benefits, but Exalted creatures really didn't feel like that to us. The mechanic didn't scream out to us that every permanent with the keyword on it was contributing.
We'd basically read the card to say "Whenever THIS creature attacks alone, it gets +1/+1 until end of turn". And my brother wasn't the only person at the tournament to make the mistake. Througout the release tournament, one of the most commonly overheard sayings was "No, Exalted is actually cumulative." WHOOSH. Right over our heads.
Confusing mechanics aren't fun to play with, so we kept them out of our decks and went after things that made sense. That is why Exalted is a bad first impression mechanic for me.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 23, 2012 - 7:49PM
#19
|
|
|
Instead of focusing on specific cards from other sets that are good/bad, I would like to let Mark know why we initially thought Exalted was a bad mechanic. When I initially saw the card, I looked at:
Whenever a creature you control attacks alone, it gets +1/+1 until end of turn.
It seemed like such an insignificant benefit. Where was the super soldier who got +4/+4 whenever he attacked alone? The biggest confusion for us was not understanding that each instance of exhalted stacked. This was HUGE for us to overcome (I've got it, but when my brother played in the M13 Release tournament, he made the same mistake I initially did when I first encounted the mechanic during the Alara block).
Because other keywords (first strike, lifelink, deathtouch, intimidate, etc) aren't cumulative, our natural assumption was that Exalted wasn't either. We understood having multiple lords on the table all granting +1/+1 benefits, but Exalted creatures really didn't feel like that to us. The mechanic didn't scream out to us that every permanent with the keyword on it was contributing.
We'd basically read the card to say "Whenever THIS creature attacks alone, it gets +1/+1 until end of turn". And my brother wasn't the only person at the tournament to make the mistake. Througout the release tournament, one of the most commonly overheard sayings was "No, Exalted is actually cumulative." WHOOSH. Right over our heads.
Confusing mechanics aren't fun to play with, so we kept them out of our decks and went after things that made sense. That is why Exalted is a bad first impression mechanic for me.
Great post. I always felt like exalted wasn't tempated right. I felt for things like Rafiq it should have been
"Exalted: +1/+1 and doublestrike"
Such that each card with a different exalted benefit clearly stated what it was doing. It really is a mess when exalted is keyworded and then cards like battlegrace angel and rafiq do the same thing but trigger it. What is the point of exalted when the variants of it are just extra non-keyed text?
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 23, 2012 - 8:15PM
#20
|
|
|
Great post. I always felt like exalted wasn't tempated right. I felt for things like Rafiq it should have been
"Exalted: +1/+1 and doublestrike"
Such that each card with a different exalted benefit clearly stated what it was doing. It really is a mess when exalted is keyworded and then cards like battlegrace angel and rafiq do the same thing but trigger it. What is the point of exalted when the variants of it are just extra non-keyed text?
Yes! Thank you for helping me articulate that.
|
|
|
