Community

This thread is for discussion of this week's Latest Developments, which goes live Friday morning on magicthegathering.com.

Good luck Zac!

Gonna miss your ramblings.

Zac, didn't know your background, but it explains much why it always felt you were bigger than this card game (even if it is the world's most successful and beloved CCG).  You didn't carry yourself like you were bigger, but your writings always signalled you just oozed competency beyond black-bordered cardboard.

The real world needs more of you's out there.  Go get 'em. 

It's probably kind of jerkish of me, but my immediate reaction to the news was "Oh no, we're getting Tom LaPille back."

Thanks for the reprieve, Zac.  It' was a real pleasure.

To Zac:

Good luck with your new job!


To forum people:


Someone needs to track him down and ask him about stuff off the record. There's a lot of things I really need to know . . .         

Well it was too good to be true. Good luck to Zac in future adventures, and lets all pray that we will get as little Tom LaPille as possible and as much of the others as possible.

Sad to see you go.

Two things:

1) I've been playing Magic since 1995 and Magic 2013 is the first Core Set I've drafted more than once. Because it's actually good.

2) This column was very close to joining Noel deCordova on the "do not read" pile before you took it over. Now it's one of the best every week.

Have fun at The Future Project, though personally I find the work at Gambit much more interesting!

Farewell, sweet prince...

Farewell, Zac, and good luck at the new job!


...Though I can't help but wonder if MaRo keeps a tally board somewhere counting the Latest Developments authors he's outlasted. "Another one bites the dust, muahahahaha!"

Aug 24, 2012 -- 12:22AM, zammm wrote:

...Though I can't help but wonder if MaRo keeps a tally board somewhere counting the Latest Developments authors he's outlasted. "Another one bites the dust, muahahahaha!"

Yea, I was wondering that too. Latest Development has changed hands so many times.

Anyway, it was a joy reading your stuff Zac and its sad to see I won't be getting as much of it. Still, you won't be that far from the game. All the best and good luck with the new job. 

You will be missed.  I was really starting to feel you had the best articles of the week.  Also felt you were the best Latest Developments writer since Aaron Forsythe (and possibly better--I'd really have to go back and compare them side-by-side).

Sad to see the only columnist who could write better than Rosewater go. Glad to hear you'll be doing loads of awesome stuff.

Nooooooooo!

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy for Zac if this is what he wants to do, and seriously, dude's future-resume sounds incredibly impressive. But he's been a fantastic writer for this column, and like everyone else, I'm really, really sad to see him go.

Sorry to see you go, Zac - I really enjoyed your tenure here.

Is it too much to hope that you might still write for other Magic websites from time to time?  That's where I first began to appreciate your work.

Good luck, Zac! Sad to see another LD writer go, but it sounds like you've got a lot of amazing stuff on the horizon.

I really liked Tom's stuff, so it'll be cool to get more articles by him! LD has been my second-favorite column for a while now, because the writers are always so honest and forthright about the issues they deal with and the work they do. Can't wait to see who we get next.

Aug 24, 2012 -- 12:22AM, zammm wrote:

Farewell, Zac, and good luck at the new job!


...Though I can't help but wonder if MaRo keeps a tally board somewhere counting the Latest Developments authors he's outlasted. "Another one bites the dust, muahahahaha!"

I don't know if he keeps an actual tally board, but I do know he keeps track of it to a certain extent.  He has mentioned it in at least one article:
www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.a...

look for the section header:  The Development Column

As long as lapille doesn't start writing again we should be fine... but hey, this is the happiest news I've seen from latest developments in a long time

Aug 24, 2012 -- 4:32PM, S1AL wrote:

As long as lapille doesn't start writing again we should be fine... but hey, this is the happiest news I've seen from latest developments in a long time

Even if you actually believe that (in my opinion, many of Zac's articles have been great), why would you say something that mean?

Aug 24, 2012 -- 8:00PM, fractal wrote:

Aug 24, 2012 -- 4:32PM, S1AL wrote:

As long as lapille doesn't start writing again we should be fine... but hey, this is the happiest news I've seen from latest developments in a long time

Even if you actually believe that (in my opinion, many of Zac's articles have been great), why would you say something that mean?

I think you can find the answer to that in his signature.

Aug 24, 2012 -- 11:26PM, Fenix. wrote:

Aug 24, 2012 -- 8:00PM, fractal wrote:

Aug 24, 2012 -- 4:32PM, S1AL wrote:

As long as lapille doesn't start writing again we should be fine... but hey, this is the happiest news I've seen from latest developments in a long time

Even if you actually believe that (in my opinion, many of Zac's articles have been great), why would you say something that mean?

I think you can find the answer to that in his signature.

Being "not a nice person" isn't really an answer to my question, it just emphasizes the need for me to ask it.

Aug 25, 2012 -- 12:28AM, fractal wrote:

Aug 24, 2012 -- 11:26PM, Fenix. wrote:

Aug 24, 2012 -- 8:00PM, fractal wrote:

Aug 24, 2012 -- 4:32PM, S1AL wrote:

As long as lapille doesn't start writing again we should be fine... but hey, this is the happiest news I've seen from latest developments in a long time

Even if you actually believe that (in my opinion, many of Zac's articles have been great), why would you say something that mean?

I think you can find the answer to that in his signature.

Being "not a nice person" isn't really an answer to my question, it just emphasizes the need for me to ask it.

Because although Zac Hill probably isn't everything that's wrong with R&D these days, he's certainly the face of it. He is the symbol of the arrogant poor judgment that R&D has shown over these past few years. As soon as he's gone, we'll transition to hating the next guy, because the problem isn't any one writer. It's the whole system they've built up over there.

Haters gonna hate.  

Thanks for a great run, Zac. 

Aug 25, 2012 -- 6:51AM, Acritter wrote:

Because although Zac Hill probably isn't everything that's wrong with R&D these days, he's certainly the face of it. He is the symbol of the arrogant poor judgment that R&D has shown over these past few years. As soon as he's gone, we'll transition to hating the next guy, because the problem isn't any one writer. It's the whole system they've built up over there.

Okay, I certainly agree that R&D has made some mistakes in recent years.  Mythic Rares, Titans, Jace, the Mind Sculptor , Snapcaster Mage are all Constructed mistakes that R&D made intentionally (unintentional Constructed mistakes like Delver of Secrets are a hallmark of Magic design since the beginning).  In terms of Limited, Avacyn Restored wasn't really a great format.  However, R&D has also done some things very well - Standard right now is quite diverse with interesting decks, and both Innistrad and M13 have been among the best sets ever for Limited (M13 is easily the best core set ever).  Zac has played a key role in a lot of those successes.

Aug 25, 2012 -- 3:17PM, fractal wrote:

However, R&D has also done some things very well - Standard right now is quite diverse with interesting decks

Bald-faced lie. There is only aggro in Standard.

Aug 26, 2012 -- 4:13AM, Acritter wrote:

Aug 25, 2012 -- 3:17PM, fractal wrote:

However, R&D has also done some things very well - Standard right now is quite diverse with interesting decks

Bald-faced lie. There is only aggro in Standard.

That's not what I've seen at either PTQs or FNM.  There is also lots of aggro-control and midrange, a fair amount of control, and occasionally some comboish decks.  Even within the aggro decks, however, there are many different speeds and varieties of aggro.  It's a lot of fun - I'm glad that Constructed has finally joined Limited (my preferred format) in emphasizing the most interactive element of the game: creature combat.

Aug 26, 2012 -- 11:05AM, fractal wrote:

Aug 26, 2012 -- 4:13AM, Acritter wrote:

Aug 25, 2012 -- 3:17PM, fractal wrote:

However, R&D has also done some things very well - Standard right now is quite diverse with interesting decks

Bald-faced lie. There is only aggro in Standard.

That's not what I've seen at either PTQs or FNM.  There is also lots of aggro-control and midrange, a fair amount of control, and occasionally some comboish decks.  Even within the aggro decks, however, there are many different speeds and varieties of aggro.  It's a lot of fun - I'm glad that Constructed has finally joined Limited (my preferred format) in emphasizing the most interactive element of the game: creature combat.

To answer your earlier question: because I mean it. If you read Zac's articles between the lines, you'll notice a major, recurring theme: he believes it's cool to develop stuff because he wants it to be that way, not because it's actually good for the game. I despise that attitude.

On top of that, the arrogance in his writing is almost on the same level as LaPille's.

And to answer this post in particular: you really ought to pay more attention to what's winning, not what's being played. In my observation, 25% of any PTQ is just going to be random jank. Sometimes I contribute to that, so this is just me being dismissive. When people talk about the "Standard format" being stale and boring, they're generally talking about the decks that are actually good.

Oh, and the whole "creature combat is the most interactive element of the game" schtick is just completely wrong. Unless there are onboard tricks or spell tricks involved, creature combat is 100% predictable, and the winner of any engagement is already decided. The fact that both players are involved does not make something "interactive" in an actual gameplay sense. 

So, in other words, aside from all of the factors which make creature combat incredibly interactive -- the engagement of both parties at the table, the tension between the value of what I know and the danger of what I don't, the opportunities created for bluffing and the application of sophistocated strategy and tactics to questions of when to attack and/or block (in terms of using it to manipulate the information you're giving your opponent) -- creature combat isn't interactive. 

I can tell by the screw up of linking this page, this post will probably never be read. But whatever.

I really respect Dave as a gamer, but shaving a point off primal surge just shows how out of touch you are with this game. That card either does nothing or wins the game. Either it cost too much to ever be relevent, or people cast it off hideaway lands or some other eternal quirk where the casting cost doesn't matter and vomits an entire permanent-filled deck onto the table. 

There is a trend in modern times to make cards that are insane like the casting cost balances it. It only does if you ingore all of Maro's past failures. Outside of that, the cards cost 4 or less, and ruin interaction.       

Aug 30, 2012 -- 9:10PM, 12three45 wrote:

I can tell by the screw up of linking this page, this post will probably never be read. But whatever.

I really respect Dave as a gamer, but shaving a point off primal surge just shows how out of touch you are with this game. That card either does nothing or wins the game. Either it cost too much to ever be relevent, or people cast it off hideaway lands or some other eternal quirk where the casting cost doesn't matter and vomits an entire permanent-filled deck onto the table. 

There is a trend in modern times to make cards that are insane like the casting cost balances it. It only does if you ingore all of Maro's past failures. Outside of that, the cards cost 4 or less, and ruin interaction.       

Don't worry. You're not alone.

One thing you're not quite keeping in mind is that there are some decks (elf decks) that will try to hardcast the spell. With such a deck, lowering CMC by one could be the difference between casting it on time or a turn late. So it really depends on the cards surrounding your super spell.

I actually enjoyed reading this, thank you Mr. Humphreys for introducing yourself in such a detailed manner. I agree with MANY of your viewpoints and opinions on what is good for magic and what is not, when I can't say the same thing about Zac Hill's view on things. So (personally speaking) that's cool.

Also I want to add that I agreee 100% with Mr. LaPille and Lauer as far as Manriki-Gusari is concerned, it'd be nice to have an answer to Sword of X & Y in core sets.

Aug 30, 2012 -- 9:10PM, 12three45 wrote:

I can tell by the screw up of linking this page, this post will probably never be read. But whatever.

I really respect Dave as a gamer, but shaving a point off primal surge just shows how out of touch you are with this game. That card either does nothing or wins the game. Either it cost too much to ever be relevent, or people cast it off hideaway lands or some other eternal quirk where the casting cost doesn't matter and vomits an entire permanent-filled deck onto the table. 

There is a trend in modern times to make cards that are insane like the casting cost balances it. It only does if you ingore all of Maro's past failures. Outside of that, the cards cost 4 or less, and ruin interaction.       

One other thing you're not quite keeping in mind is this thing called casual.

Aug 31, 2012 -- 3:19AM, TobyornotToby wrote:

Aug 30, 2012 -- 9:10PM, 12three45 wrote:

I can tell by the screw up of linking this page, this post will probably never be read. But whatever.

I really respect Dave as a gamer, but shaving a point off primal surge just shows how out of touch you are with this game. That card either does nothing or wins the game. Either it cost too much to ever be relevent, or people cast it off hideaway lands or some other eternal quirk where the casting cost doesn't matter and vomits an entire permanent-filled deck onto the table. 

There is a trend in modern times to make cards that are insane like the casting cost balances it. It only does if you ingore all of Maro's past failures. Outside of that, the cards cost 4 or less, and ruin interaction.       

One other thing you're not quite keeping in mind is this thing called casual.

In what other format are people playing cards like primal surge? Elves was news to me. Casual is exactly what I meant. Pretty much any mythic that costs more than 7 is insane in casual because it uses the eternal card pool and casting costs don't really matter. There are too many ways to get around it. No one pays 10 for primal surge, and if they do, they have gauntlet of might, artifact mana, or something else like that to help them. People aren't tapping 10 actual lands to cast it unless primeval titan got to attack.

Yes, you have to build around the card. However, if it resolves, the game is over. I have to counterspell it or immediately lose to it. It is cards like these that make counterspells way too good.   


  

Aug 28, 2012 -- 7:07PM, Astarael7 wrote:

So, in other words, aside from all of the factors which make creature combat incredibly interactive -- the engagement of both parties at the table, the tension between the value of what I know and the danger of what I don't, the opportunities created for bluffing and the application of sophistocated strategy and tactics to questions of when to attack and/or block (in terms of using it to manipulate the information you're giving your opponent) -- creature combat isn't interactive. 

So what you're saying is that it's cards in hand (and hidden information) that make creature combat interactive? Huh, that sounds familiar...

I honestly hope Gatecrash doesn't become another Avacyn Restored for limited. This is probably your make-or-break chance at being a lead developer, Dave.

Aug 31, 2012 -- 6:34AM, 12three45 wrote:

In what other format are people playing cards like primal surge? Elves was news to me. Casual is exactly what I meant. Pretty much any mythic that costs more than 7 is insane in casual because it uses the eternal card pool and casting costs don't really matter. There are too many ways to get around it. No one pays 10 for primal surge, and if they do, they have gauntlet of might, artifact mana, or something else like that to help them. People aren't tapping 10 actual lands to cast it unless primeval titan got to attack.

I think you're confusing casual with Vintage. Lots of players who don't have access to all the expensive cards of the past will play casual and hardcast cards like Primal Surge.

A lengthy, pedantic article from someone whose second guild is Azorius. Who'd've thunk it?

Aug 31, 2012 -- 11:50AM, coien wrote:

Aug 31, 2012 -- 6:34AM, 12three45 wrote:

In what other format are people playing cards like primal surge? Elves was news to me. Casual is exactly what I meant. Pretty much any mythic that costs more than 7 is insane in casual because it uses the eternal card pool and casting costs don't really matter. There are too many ways to get around it. No one pays 10 for primal surge, and if they do, they have gauntlet of might, artifact mana, or something else like that to help them. People aren't tapping 10 actual lands to cast it unless primeval titan got to attack.

I think you're confusing casual with Vintage. Lots of players who don't have access to all the expensive cards of the past will play casual and hardcast cards like Primal Surge.

There are plenty of cheap, modern-legal cards that let you skip paying high casting costs-like mosswart bridge found in archenemy. If the card pool is expanded beyond standard, cards like primal surge and omniscience get played really early and end the game. These kinds of cards could have cmc of 20 and they'd still show up turn 6. High casting costs don't really balance casual mythics given what else is in the casual card pool.

I liked this article. It showed the types of cards he likes and the types of decks he has played, which one would think influence his development choices. It is perhaps odd how he focused a lot on explaining Birthing Pod and glossed over Delver and Snapcaster. Has there been an article yet explaining how Delver and Snapcaster came to be, from design through development all the way to them being released? I'm sorry if my bias is showing, but they really seem to be more aggressive than blue normally is.

I think it would have been really interesting to include Manriki-Gusari , although with the swords rotating so soon after the release of M13 maybe they weren't so concerned about equipment.

Overall this article seemed like a good introduction to him as a developer.

Aug 31, 2012 -- 2:07PM, 12three45 wrote:

Aug 31, 2012 -- 11:50AM, coien wrote:

Aug 31, 2012 -- 6:34AM, 12three45 wrote:

In what other format are people playing cards like primal surge? Elves was news to me. Casual is exactly what I meant. Pretty much any mythic that costs more than 7 is insane in casual because it uses the eternal card pool and casting costs don't really matter. There are too many ways to get around it. No one pays 10 for primal surge, and if they do, they have gauntlet of might, artifact mana, or something else like that to help them. People aren't tapping 10 actual lands to cast it unless primeval titan got to attack.

I think you're confusing casual with Vintage. Lots of players who don't have access to all the expensive cards of the past will play casual and hardcast cards like Primal Surge.

There are plenty of cheap, modern-legal cards that let you skip paying high casting costs-like mosswart bridge found in archenemy. If the card pool is expanded beyond standard, cards like primal surge and omniscience get played really early and end the game. These kinds of cards could have cmc of 20 and they'd still show up turn 6. High casting costs don't really balance casual mythics given what else is in the casual card pool.

Yes it does. As coien says, those things get hardcast in casual.

Aug 31, 2012 -- 2:09PM, Jamas wrote:

Has there been an article yet explaining how Delver and Snapcaster came to be, from design through development all the way to them being released?.

Not specifically, but they have been mentioned. Snapcaster was put into blue at the request of the championship winner who designed it. Delver was just a mistake. When they designed it, they thought it wouldn't see Constructed since it was too variable/inconsistent. Wizards didn't expect people to build around it; they dropped the ball on that one and admitted it. Funny thing is, when Delver came out, it wasn't considered one of the top ten cards in the set.

Aug 31, 2012 -- 6:34AM, 12three45 wrote:

Casual is exactly what I meant. Pretty much any mythic that costs more than 7 is insane in casual because it uses the eternal card pool and casting costs don't really matter.

Why are we balancing around Casual, the only format with no rules? It's going to be broken anyway, and it's not like it matters on a large-scale basis.