Community

Hi guys, made an account just to write my piece.

I stepped out of magic for a while, back when planeswalkers were introduced/ I just didnt really like them. After a while i came back and seen they were still running around and i have been playing with them for a while now. I still do not like them.

To me they are like glorified enchantments. I kind of wish they would cycle out like set mechanics. yeh they were novel for a time, now im just sick of looking at them. I completely understand that some players absolutely love them and want them and look for them and collect them like golden eggs but i felt that same way about cards with cycling and kicker and eventually those had to go.

I dont really feel like i need to argue why i dislike them so much. im sure its been done before by very articulate people with good points but i just want my voice heard as an old magic player. one of the things that kept me into magic during previous sets was knowing that if something was really annoying that maybe next set i wouldnt have to see it(like affinity for example and the tribal set didnt really suit my tastes), but it seems like this annoyance is here to stay and unfortunately i think im just gonna take a break from it again.

If anyone responds to this please dont flame im not trying to attack people who do like them or determined to make me see the light, I just want to let the company know there are some players who would like a more traditional style of magic without this oddly placed card type thrown into the  mix.

Well, look at it this way: they're mythic rare, so the chances of seeing one in a game are neglicible.

Even at mythic raririty any FNM i go to im sitting across from one and i gotta draw out the game swinging to get rid of the counters on it.

Oh, you're playing constructed?

Then yeah, you're gonna face cards you don't like. Not much that can be done about it, I'm afraid =/

I didn't understand the title but I thought the thread had to do with cycling . >>

They're just a new card type (not mechanic, that's why they keep doing it; also, they're really popular). Most decks have some cards of each card type, that's why many decks have a few planeswalkers, but many don't need them. On the other hand, the way they work is very original (they go up and down as you choose, and your opponent can interact by attacking them or dealing them noncombat damage), they provide characters that can transcend blocks(and that people can look up to and recognize, they only need to be about 5 cards a block, they pull a lot of a set's focus.

In the past, I've heard people saying that planeswalkers are broken, that there aren't enough ways to remove them, and that they shouldn't all be mythic. But the vast majority were thinking the idea was cool, they loved playing it for the first time, and they think games where they get to dominate or activate an awesome ability like "Destroy all lands target player controls" is memorable.

Why don't you like planeswalkers? Since you haven't given a reason, I'd say you just find them a bit alien, given that you started playing Magic and stopped when they weren't around. 

well i didnt want to just list reasons why i was for or against them i wanted to avoid a "i hate planeswalkers because of X" thread. and just let wizards know that there are some players that would like to see something rotate out. tribal theme really isnt a mechanic but that set was cycled out, imagine if every set after that was tribal themed, or every set was monocolored themed or pie shift themed, something you didnt really carefor in every set forever in the game just seems disappointing.

i understand there are lots of reasons some people love planeswalkers, but i just dont. i dont find them original or clever in anyways. to me they are just a glorified enchantments with counters. in fact you could make enchantments with a little bit modified wording to do exactly what planeswalkers do.  i find them an unecessary card type that is just uninteresting.

i was hoping in future sets i wouldnt have to see them anymore but unfortunately im pretty sure players like me arent in geat enough numbers or vocal enough to have wizards go a few sets without them anytime soon.

Magic has enough card types that interact with each other greatly and planeswalkers just dont interact with the other card types enough, especially with much older cards. I dont think another card type is really warranted for something that has abilities for removal of counters. it just feels really clunky and out of place with the rest of magic to me.

At first i thought that i just didnt play with them enough but ive played with em and against them since coming back and i still feel the same. when someone pulls out a planeswalker to me it feels like going "ok set aside our mtg game to play this other mini game."

*edit: Im really sorry if the title seemed misleading, i meant cycling out as in the next set replaces the old set etc which is actually what cycling means hence why it was on cycling cards. maybe i should have used rotating out. 

There are many ways to change cards into other things. Most mechanics, for example, can be done as kicker or split cards, at least in general idea.

This general idea for planeswalkers is that they are allies that help you. They can cast "spells", but they will ditch you if you don't protect them. You don't need to sink your mana for them, they have their own.

In game terms, I wouldn't call them enchantments. They are more like old "mono" artifacts, in that they only have one use a turn.
However, your choices (adding or removing this many counters) affect what you can do later for them. At least in Magic, there is no clean way to do that, so you don't see that in other card types. In fact, few things in Magic last more than a turn, and if they do they probably use counters and are clunky. But in planeswalkers you can save awkward and long lines like "Put two counters on Sorin Markov:" or "Remove nine counters from Nicol Bolas, Planeswalker:" because it's very integrated into their idea. Planeswalkers have loyalty, and it continuously goes up and down, reducing the amount of cards left to draw off a Jace Beleren or slowly threatening to sacrifice half your permanents with Liliana of the Veil .
The other aspect of planeswalkers that I think makes them very different from whatever mechanic they could have done is the fact that you can attack them or deal them damage. More cards have been printed that destroy artifacts and enchantments, but many decks won't have them ready. However, most decks have ways to deal damage, either in combat or not (of course, this is why control decks have a hard time against planeswalkers). This means that the other player using a planeswalker becomes not like a minigame trying to figure out if it's best to attack who, but like there's another threat, like another opponent, that you need to stop, too.

I think planeswalkers add something very original to the game, without the need to make many cards of them, so I think they're okay existing. Maybe you don't like the card type idea, but what I'm trying to tell you is that it's not so simple as an enchantment, nor a clunky way to move counters up and down.

EDIT: By the way, I don't think Wizards reads these forums. But you can email Mark Rosewater to have your issue heard.

Feb 22, 2013 -- 8:06AM, Shiny_Umbreon wrote:

In game terms, I wouldn't call them enchantments. They are more like old "mono" artifacts, in that they only have one use a turn.
However, your choices (adding or removing this many counters) affect what you can do later for them. At least in Magic, there is no clean way to do that, so you don't see that in other card types. In fact, few things in Magic last more than a turn, and if they do they probably use counters and are clunky. But in planeswalkers you can save awkward and long lines like "Put two counters on Sorin Markov:" or "Remove nine counters from Nicol Bolas, Planeswalker:" because it's very integrated into their idea. Planeswalkers have loyalty, and it continuously goes up and down, reducing the amount of cards left to draw off a Jace Beleren or slowly threatening to sacrifice half your permanents with Liliana of the Veil .

This is, to me, the main reason why Planeswalkers are important: they are very elegant from an information-conveyance perspective. There's a reason why so many players love designing Planeswalkers. You can cram an absolutely staggering amount of storyline and character information in a very small space through mechanics alone.

The only other mechanics that I think are comparable for the sheer compression of data, and flavor data in particular, are the Transformers--which are essentially two cards in one (plus the pseudo-gutter of the actual flip, which is very important)--and the Levelers--which similarly use design tools to provide players with a visual shorthand for what the cards do.

Getting rid of Planeswalkers means getting rid of one of the single most powerful storytelling tools in the arsenal of R&D. Getting rid of them would be like getting rid of flying--it's too fundamental for the game from a flavor perspective for them to ditch. I would even argue that the Transformers should have become an evergreen part of the game as well, due to their innate economy of storytelling. But if we can only have one, it's pretty much got to be Planeswalkers.

And, you know, mythics sell packs. So... there's that too. I just tend to look at things from an artistic perspective rather than an economic one. [shrug] 

Feb 22, 2013 -- 5:58AM, KeiSouthCroix wrote:

I kind of wish they would cycle out like set mechanics.

Actually, that's basically what the original plan was--R&D was going to make planeswalkers a fairly rare thing that didn't show up in every set, or even necessarily in every block. (Though they probably wouldn't have waited long enough for all of them to rotate out of Standard every time.) From their first appearance in Lorwyn, they didn't show up again until Shards of Alara, and then Alara Reborn didn't have any either.

But Planeswalkers proved so incredibly popular that R&D decided that they should have at least one per set--around five per block--and that's what they've stuck with since. And most players are happy enough with it that I don't think that they're going to move away from that formula any time soon.

Feb 22, 2013 -- 7:34AM, KeiSouthCroix wrote:

to me they are just a glorified enchantments with counters. in fact you could make enchantments with a little bit modified wording to do exactly what planeswalkers do.

Strictly speaking from a mechanical perspective, that's true--everything that can be done on a planeswalker could potentially be done using enchantments. (With the caveat that it'd take a lot of words and micro-text to achieve.)

...But really, the same is true for all the card types. Sorceries and instants are the same thing, separated only by a line of text telling you when you can cast one as opposed to the other. Artifacts are exactly the same as enchantments--the quite literally only real difference between them is their flavor. And even lands and creatures are just glorified enchantments with a bunch of extra text restricting how they work.

Feb 22, 2013 -- 7:34AM, KeiSouthCroix wrote:

At first i thought that i just didnt play with them enough but ive played with em and against them since coming back and i still feel the same. when someone pulls out a planeswalker to me it feels like going "ok set aside our mtg game to play this other mini game."

That's true; it's actually intended that planeswalkers act to warp the flow of the game that way--all of a sudden instead of playing the game on the terms you're used to you also have to worry about this other battlefront that will make you lose if you don't find a way to deal with it.

But if you think about it, many, many kinds of cards in Magic force you to play little minigames to deal with them because if you don't they'll kill you. Like, say...creatures. Here you and your opponent are, slinging instants and sorceries and enchantments and artifacts around, but then your opponent drops a Hill Giant . And suddenly the game changes, because instead of just worrying about the spells your opponent is casting right now you also have to worry about that Giant, which will kill you singlehandedly if you don't find a way to deal with it. I mean, how fair is that? Your opponent can drop just one card, and it'll completely change the flow of the game because now you have to play the minigame of "How do I stop Hill Giant from killing me?" as well as stopping your opponent from killing you himself.

Or cards like Millstone . So you've dealt with that Hill Giant and the rest of the creatures your opponent has dropped and your life total's stable and you feel pretty good, but all of a sudden your opponent drops Millstone, and now you have to set aside your existing game because you also need to play the minigame of "How do I stop this thing from running me out of cards?"

Or cards like Helix Pinnacle . Now the minigame is "How do I stop my opponent from generating enough mana to hit 100 counters?"


So, yes. Planeswalkers create a minigame. But so does everything else. One reason you might be having so much trouble with this is that you're thinking that this minigame "isn't Magic". But it is. It's just a new kind of mini-game among the thousands that already existed--a minigame you're not used to playing, don't find comfortable, and may not be good at. Just like Equipment, Planeswalkers aren't going anywhere any time soon. And the reason why is partly the exact same minigame you dislike about them. It just adds too much strategic depth to the game for R&D to be willing to cut themselves off from it.

I was actually somewhat surprised to see "mini-game" used in this thread as a negative quality. It seems to me that one of the most fascinating things about Magic is its potential to become other games. At the far end you have things like Commander or Planechase, but there have always been cards that existed fundamentally to rewrite the nature of the game in a way that felt titanic and exciting. That's why so many cards from, say, Alpha to Mirage had totally unreadable microtext--they were trying to change the very nature of the game in a way that goes far beyond just the normal minor changes that occur when, to use Zammm's excellent example, someone plays Hill Giant.

Planeswalkers just happen to be one of the most successful incarnations of that basic urge. 

Well, I don't love them.

The first planeswalker had several balance issues and that's a simple reason why they are so successful. Another reason is that "designing cards on your own" seems to attract a certain player type. The most planeswalker I've seen don't feel flavorful to me. They are just a bunch of effects added together on a single card.... and those planeswalker who can negate at least on threat on the table are the one that see competetive play.

If I look at Jace Beleren . It combines card draw, another card draw and even more.... card dr-- ... I mean mill!

Does this create a flavor in your opinion? - That's a real question, because I don't get it.

The same is true for Chandra, Liliana and co.

Did Liliana of the Dark Realms wade through swamps, inhaling too much of the rotting smell? To me, it's just a random "what do I like to see in my deck" and combine it on a single card.

And please, please stop printing the Xth version of Jace. It feels so silly in my opinion. Identification and stereotyping is ok, but this.....

If you compare Magic with writing a comic or manga, the planeswalker are the colored "big" picture with mirrorfinish. You won't get me buying the 10th magazine of spiderman just because you reprint a new photo everytime. You would get me, if the story behind that hero is great.

Let planeswalker be visible on non-planeswalker cards, let those card tell the story and create a new villain every other set.

Liliana of the Dark Realms is a very bad example. That was a flavor mistake--the card has nothing to do with her established character, and Brady Dommermuth has acknowledged that in the future they need to portray the characters more consistently.

Cheza, have you read any of the novels? 

Feb 22, 2013 -- 5:35PM, Cheza wrote:

Let planeswalker be visible on non-planeswalker cards, let those card tell the story and create a new villain every other set.

Planeswalkers are visible on non-planeswalker cards on occasion--the most recent appearances are Ral Zarek and Vraska the Unseen appearing in Gatecrash on Homing Lightning and Killing Glare , respectively.

And they've tried letting the cards tell the story. For over four years, the events of the Weatherlight saga were conveyed on the cards fairly directly--in some cases it was possible to lay out the cards to depict the story plot point by plot point. But cards aren't a very good storytelling medium, because you can't control what order players see them in. So R&D decided to let the cards set the stage, as is their strength, and tell the actual story elsewhere.

Feb 22, 2013 -- 10:49PM, zammm wrote:

Feb 22, 2013 -- 5:35PM, Cheza wrote:

Let planeswalker be visible on non-planeswalker cards, let those card tell the story and create a new villain every other set.

Planeswalkers are visible on non-planeswalker cards on occasion--the most recent appearances are Ral Zarek and Vraska the Unseen appearing in Gatecrash on Homing Lightning and Killing Glare , respectively.

And they've tried letting the cards tell the story. For over four years, the events of the Weatherlight saga were conveyed on the cards fairly directly--in some cases it was possible to lay out the cards to depict the story plot point by plot point. But cards aren't a very good storytelling medium, because you can't control what order players see them in. So R&D decided to let the cards set the stage, as is their strength, and tell the actual story elsewhere.

In fairness, they seem to be experimenting in slight ways with this model again, but it's probably more comparable to the broad storytelling of Mirage and Visions and even Weatherlight than Tempest or Masques.

i miss the days when planeswalkers like urza were vague hints on the bottom of magic cards. i always imagined that we were the actually planes walkers casting spells. i know im not going to win here im pretty sure they are here to stay and too many players would throw themselves at wizards if they werent printed for a few sets, unfortunately i am not here to say. im just gonna take a break from the game again till something other than multicolor gives me enough interest to come back.

Well, they do still do that to a degree.

Nicol Bolas' return was hinted at in Shards of Alara .
Ral Zarek was spoiled over two years before he was printed in Duels of the Planeswalkers, and then had a variety of cameo apperances before his actual card showed up in Dragon's Maze.  

I do agree that from a meta-narrative standpoint, Planeswalker cards are a bit more common than I personally care for, but Magic is first and foremost a game that needs to be profitable.
Planeswalkers are profitable, and as long as they continue to be, they will continue to see print.  

Feb 23, 2013 -- 7:35AM, KeiSouthCroix wrote:

i always imagined that we were the actually planes walkers casting spells.

You are. That's the entire foundation of Magic: The Gathering.

The addition of other Planeswalkers that you can call on to help in your battle doesn't make you any less of a Planeswalker.

Feb 22, 2013 -- 7:42PM, KeeperofManyNames wrote:

Liliana of the Dark Realms is a very bad example. That was a flavor mistake--the card has nothing to do with her established character, and Brady Dommermuth has acknowledged that in the future they need to portray the characters more consistently.

Cheza, have you read any of the novels? 

Yes.

Nonetheless, most planeswalker aren't that great. I agree with KeiSouthCroix. I also miss the days of Urza, etc.. F.e. I'm glad that she never printed a Xantcha, Serra or Urza himself. I found it much more flavorful to see the cards reflecting the story.

@ zammm:
I know that they made hints and even created cards like Chandra's Phoenix . But that's not what I wish they would do. Mmmh... hard to explain. The best might be to compare it with the planes. I like it that these cards form a seperate deck... That's why I'm still convinced that - at least for me - planeswalker were better printed similar to planes, but as some sort of leveler that I can CONJURE to the battlefield.

I don't like creatures, can we have a block without them?

Feb 22, 2013 -- 5:25PM, Cheza wrote:

If I look at Jace Beleren . It combines card draw, another card draw and even more.... card dr-- ... I mean mill!

Does this create a flavor in your opinion? - That's a real question, because I don't get it.

He's a mind-mage. The typical blue mage. Either you draw a card, or both players do and he goes up. Going -1, -1, +2, rinse and repeat really gives a "sculpting" feel. And if you want? You can even erase your opponent's mind.

I find the flavor to be quite impressive on Jace Beleren.

Feb 23, 2013 -- 1:09PM, Cheza wrote:

Feb 22, 2013 -- 7:42PM, KeeperofManyNames wrote:

Liliana of the Dark Realms is a very bad example. That was a flavor mistake--the card has nothing to do with her established character, and Brady Dommermuth has acknowledged that in the future they need to portray the characters more consistently.

Cheza, have you read any of the novels? 

Yes.

Nonetheless, most planeswalker aren't that great. I agree with KeiSouthCroix. I also miss the days of Urza, etc.. F.e. I'm glad that she never printed a Xantcha, Serra or Urza himself. I found it much more flavorful to see the cards reflecting the story.

@ zammm:
I know that they made hints and even created cards like Chandra's Phoenix . But that's not what I wish they would do. Mmmh... hard to explain. The best might be to compare it with the planes. I like it that these cards form a seperate deck... That's why I'm still convinced that - at least for me - planeswalker were better printed similar to planes, but as some sort of leveler that I can CONJURE to the battlefield.

Is what you're trying to say that you prefer a more old school flavour in your MTG? More of a background story played out in the clash of epic, never fully revealed figures, versus the current arrangement with down to earth, relatable planeswalkers more at the mercy of the story than dominating it?
I guess I can understand that. 

Feb 24, 2013 -- 7:10AM, Dilleux_Lepaire wrote:

He's a mind-mage. The typical blue mage. Either you draw a card, or both players do and he goes up. Going -1, -1, +2, rinse and repeat really gives a "sculpting" feel. And if you want? You can even erase your opponent's mind.

I find the flavor to be quite impressive on Jace Beleren.

Not to mention the mechanics create an internal political game. Will he Vizkopa Guildmage / Bloodchief Ascension /other "mill is life loss" card me? If he's +2ing a lot, probably. But I can benefit until then.