Thanks for the feedback everybody, especially for also taking the time to address the form as well as the content. It's important for me to see what works and what doesn't. I won't try to defend the style, as it's either readable or not, and remember that for a lot of people this is more disturbing than helpful. Good to know.
As to the content, some responses:
Terminus being oppressive: Oppressive isn't something I'd apply to that card. It's played in a single deck, a UW hard control deck that crushes midrange aggro. That type of control deck has always done that, the difference being that that kind of deck hasn't really been playable for quite some time and people have forgotten that a viable Wrath of God makes the control matchup a nightmare for midrange-decks without any card advantage. In time we'll see UW wax and wane with the tides of the meta and it's prey rising and falling accordingly.
Lemnear: Agreed on the titans, but those were a little too old to fit into the article. As for your suggested card, I was thinking about some similar stuff while writing the article. Fateful Hour - which is essentially a less flexible version of what you suggested - feels like a missed opportunity as far as balanced comeback-mechanics are concerned.
As to your second post, there is a huge difference between Will-style broken cards and Tinker-style broken cards: Will-esque cards require you to dance for position and to set up your plays and once you've successfully done that (because your opponent didn't interact with you as much as they needed to) the game ends. Tinker-like effects on the other hand get cast and just win when they're cast, independent of what has been going on beforehand. That's why I never had a problem with Will in Vintage but despise Tinker-lossus ever since Darksteel made it truly dumb.
Amon Amarth: I don't have a problem with the Eldrazi in general but Emrakul is terrible design imo (even though it has great flavor). Cast it, you're dead on the spot just isn't something the game needs.
As for the whole S&T discussion, remember this was about design. S&T is the reason these expensive uber-bombs mess up Legacy to a certain extent (because it is what makes them easy to get down) but if a lot of decks got to regularly cast these cards, it'd be just as bad. The problem I have with them isn't just that they are playable (which leads to them actually having an impact on the format) but them existing in the first place - they just make for terrible gameplay whenever they're involved, no matter which way they get down. It isn't that they're overpowered in the sense that they break the game by existing - it's that they're overly dumb whenever they get down.
@brattin: Thanks for pointing that out, I didn't realize the second version even existed. Always happy to learn something new about the English language.
@Finn: Evidently, we agree about Miracles. As for this
I guess that's one way to interpret what I wrote, though that isn't the way it was intended. Maybe there is some bias involved - after all I'm a big fan of playing storm :p - but most combo doesn't feel the same way as GriselB and Emmi decks.Ahh, like Ad Nauseam. Ban combo. Right.
1) Ad Nauseam is actually rather conditional, between life total, variance, deck-construction requirements and the resources involved in casting it. It's a brilliant threat early in the game but usually a rather terrible comeback-card. I won't deny it has some of the flaws of the one-spell-I-win cards, but they feel more mitigated to me especially because something like "Bolt you, double Bolt you" or "Turn 1 Nacatl, turn 2 double Goblin Guide" already weakens it significantly.
2) Storm decks in general have matchups that feel as blow-outy as those involving Griselbrand and Emrakul, no question. If Goblins and Elves were the whole format, Storm would cause exactly the same problems. The different Storm decks make up for the dumb games by being highly complex and entertaining dances against most decks that have interactive capabilities, though. For one thing, because they have to do so many different things to go off and involve a number of different spells they need to have available during the combo-turn, there are a lot of different places to attack them and choosing the right ones makes a huge difference. That's the opposite of "tap my lands, cast spell X, you're dead".
In addition, because their game plans are a lot more flexible in the sense that they force the pilot to adapt to what the opponent is doing, they act much less linear than something like Sneak and Show. Sure, they kill their opponent in basically the same way every game, but what happens before that point is hugely different from matchup to matchup and game to game.
At least that's my impression. Again, maybe it's just my bias talking, but I remember basically no game where playing against the "cheat a big spell" decks was exciting, they feel too binary for that. On the other hand, I remember a ton of tense and complex games against various engine-combo archetypes (including Dredge once graveyard interaction below Leyline-levels is involved). Granted, I usually either play combo myself or I'm on some kind of blue control deck, which skews my judgement because I always have the tools to force interaction.
I don't have low self-esteem, I have low esteem for everyone else. -Daria
Proud member of Team CAB
High Priest of the Church of BLA
CAB JaceTM
My articles
Actually Karsten, I was addressing a few posts that had quoted and discussed those words. I think you have it correct. My Ad Nauseam example is also not that strong for the reasons you point out. The strongest I Win cards beside Show and Tell are no where near as powerful. Maybe Jace. When Gris got spoiled I was probably the first person to compare it to Hulk Flash. But after facing the deck many times since then I know how to beat it - with white DnT no less. So I balk at people complaining that it is too good. It just isn't. It wins when it does in a way that may be distasteful to some. But you know it's coming just as surely as a Tarmo or Tendrils. Same thing. Different wrapping paper.
Btw, I also found myself trying to get past the stylized conversation for your facts and opinions hidden inside.
"Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."
"Politicians are like diapers. They should be changed often and for the same reason."
"Governing is too important to be left to people as silly as politicians."
"Politicians were mostly people who'd had too little morals and ethics to stay lawyers."
Okay then. How will "a lot" of decks be able to regularly cast cards like Omniscience or Enter the Infinite? The only deck I can see that can do that is High Tide, which honestly has better options than either. You're prefacing that statement with an astoundingly big "if."Originally Posted by Mon,Goblin Chief
If it wasn't for Show and Tell, Omniscience would be a card suitable solely for goofy casual decks and subpar High Tide builds (I'll wait until Enter the Infinite is out to make any definite statements but it's hard to see how it'd be any different). Omniscience probably would see only slightly more play than Time Stretch and would be considered on about the same power level (i.e. "casting this card would be really awesome but it costs so much mana it's really not worth it") and I wonder if Legacy players would even care about it at all.
It was a hypothetical. His point was that "Draw literally your entire deck" and "Cast all your spells for free, no strings attached" are not effects that are good for the game at just about any price; if they were cheap enough to realistically ramp to in this format, they would still be shitty effects to have in the game. That SnT is basically the only way to get Omniscience doesn't excuse Omniscience being a card in the game of Magic.
I don't know about anyone else but I play a lot of formats. Casual and Constructed. Often, I'll have a very schizophrenic view of whether something is "good" or "bad". I like the idea of drawing my deck or attacking with enormous fatties and I like the cards in a vacuum. I just think the execution is flawed. I can hate and love the same card for the exact same reason.
It wasn't always like this, look at Door to Nothingness. It wins you the game if you activate it. But it also requires a lot of work to open up oblivion. So it feels cool. Battle of Wits is the same. Ditto Biorhythm. All cool, huge sweet, flavorful spells that make you do something other than tap mana to win. Why can't we swing the pendulum closer back to that?
"We are goblinkind, heirs to the mountain empires of chieftains past. Rest is death to us, and arson is our call to war."
I'm especially annoyed by these cards because they do directly matter in EDH, which is the format I like to play almost all the time now. What's worse, they also get past the self-regulating nature of EDH, unlike say Ad Nauseam or Hermit Druid combo; because the format is "supposed" to be about "big dumb bombs", in theory; though this theory was made at a time when "big dumb bombs" were significantly less "dumb". You can avoid those super Spike decks in EDH because very few people want to play them and they require the whole deck built in a certain way. On the other hand, you're often going to run into casual guy with a Consecrated Sphinx in his deck, or Jin-Gitaxias, in a deck full of mostly unobjectionable cards, and yet that one card will take over the entire game when it's cast.
Omniscience is a terribly boring card in EDH, too, where you do realistically get to hard-cast it. The card is bad not because it's overpowered; the card is bad because it's stupid and leads to stupid games. Just like Enter the Infinite will. I despise cards like that. When I get to draw my deck in Ghave, it's because I have a 3 card engine + skullclamp or + fecundity or something like that, which is an engine with a lot of moving parts. Even Mind Over Matter + Arcanis is at least 2 cards, and MoM is pretty dumb itself. When you get to the same thing for no effort beyond getting 12 mana, the game becomes worse.
I can't believe cards like this make it through R&D because they should really know better. At least they used to.
Exactly. I think that's what a lot of people want, and I don't see any valid reason why we need Emrakul, Jin-Gitaxias, Consecrated Sphinx, Enter the Infinite or other idiotic cards instead. I would be thrilled if all of them were deleted from the game.
Bardo, Site AdminNowhere do you see: Efficient Answers to Other Cards. Force and MMS will never be banned. Deal.
It's an issue of splash creep. Mythics carry a disproportionate amount of weight in terms of getting hype for a set and being desirable, chase cards once the set starts selling, so the pressure is high to up the "wow!" factor. The problem is that you can't drop the wow factor: look at how people are responding to Hellkite Tyrant or the new Orzhov Angel. The cards are still ridiculously powerful by, say, the first Ravnica block's standards; one is a 6/5 flying for six with a built-in way to auto-win while the other one is a large creature with built-in recursion. But we're so inured to stuff like that on the mythic level that people are complaining about the dragon being boring and the Angel being too finnicky.
What we seem to forget is that a majority of the time, the big, splashy cards are virtually unplayed and useless, and the boring, finicky cards end up being the gems of the set. Magic players like to complain about everything...
Initial impressions from brand new, incomplete spoilers are LEGENDARILY bad. While I agree that I don't like the impact for the overall health of the game when they print truly dumb spells, I do feel that the designers are working within an established envelope. Realistically, I feel like they are starting to butt up against the constraints of the Game as a whole, and that there are a few who just know how to push the envelope in power, instead of interesting design.
Check out my Legacy UBTezz Primer. Chalice of the Void: Keeping Magic Fair.
-----
Playing since '96. Brief forced break '02-04. Former/Idle Judge since '05. Told Smmenen to play faster at Vintage Worlds.
-----
Most of the 'Ban brainstorm!' arguments are based on the logic that 'more different cards should get played in Legacy', as though the success or health of the format can be measured by the portion of cards that are available and see play. This is an idiotic metric.
First of all, this article was well thought out and you tried to show why you came to various conclusions.
Did I like it narrative, quasi discussional style?
Hard to say.
I usually enjoy your articles since they give me new perspective, new ideas or simply point
out facts. Although I resent you for calling me and my pet deck Reanimator names. (You are actually right,
still I don't like it!) You had your facts researched and presented them in an unusual way.
The style itself shows how much you - as a writer - have matured.
Would I like to see more of your "mind discussion"?
I liked it in your presentation of Cabal ANT, I am unsure in this specific case.
Still a good read.
Well see in next years "Player Profiles" I guess!
Regards,
Matt
Bingo, this is one of the biggest mistakes R&D has been making as of late; their insistence on pushing "value" creatures (usually those with Comes Into Play effects). And it's tangential to the only part of the EE article I disagreed with (otherwise was excellent, good job brother); the mention of Thragtusk as a good example of creature design. He is godawful design for creatures. Not only do you get an efficient body, but you get an effect that puts you ahead of the opponent in the card advantage game in most situations. The only ways they have to answer it upon resolution are creatures that can kill it and survive in creature combat (hard now that plenty of these dudes have good P/T) or a counterspell. So these value creatures, pushed in sufficient numbers, give rise to stale formats of midrange goodstuff versus aggro/combo decks tuned to defeat the other player before they can start chaining value dudes. Maybe you'll find a few rogue strategies or some Blue tempo. Sounds a lot like Standard lately, and to a lesser extent, Modern.
What was really jarring in the article was that Thragtusk was put side-by-side with Knight of the Reliquary as a well designed creature. Knight is clearly a model for creature design, while the other shouldn't be. Players want creatures like Knight to stick around. Creatures like Knight gain value from attacking/blocking and the use of their abilities. Creatures like Knight can (most of the time) be responded to via Sorcery speed removal without losing too much momentum or card advantage. They are more interactive, more fun, and overall better for the game.
@OP
I thought the content was good; thoughtful, intelligent, and well reasoned. That said, the structure was painful. I appreciate the artistic gesture but I think it's ill suited for what you're trying to say. It convolutes your message and that's the most important part. You can offer both sides or all three sides or all ninety-nine sides of the argument using the traditional essay, do a little wandering a bit on the page. This script seems like a good way to get a first draft out of your head but I'd go through and rewrite something like this as an essay. With fewer adverbs.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote