IS THIS SPICY ENOUGH FOR YOU?
Because having Naga and Snake be different types for no good reason wasn't enough, now we have Mouse to conflict with Rat.
Don't know about anyone else, but adding unnecessarily specific creature types that only end up conflicting with already existing ones is a practice that seriously bothers me.
Does this have a slot in Oops and Manaless Dredge, or any other creature combos?
Brainstorm Realist
I close my eyes and sink within myself, relive the gift of precious memories, in need of a fix called innocence. - Chuck Shuldiner
Warlock can at least be excused because it has a reasonable flavor reason for it, that is giving each color its brand of spellcaster.
Mouse is just nonsensical. I guess that they are worried about the Piper card? But even then, they could make the carriage create white Rats and specify that Piper can only sacrifice black Rats. That way there is no need to bloat the game with new needless creature types.
Eh, I get that this is a non-issue to most but to me it is too irksome to keep my mouth shut.
I would argue that that is exactly what bloating is... But as I said, this is a non-issue that just bothers me in particular. I just wouldn't like to see what happened with Snake and Naga again, though if Mouse stays primarily as tokens and receives little support then it will ultimately be harmless.
I mean I'll answer for him. The more differentiation that creature types get, the more space has to be devoted in various places for cards that effect specific creature types. When you have different creature types for "Rat" and "Mouse", you then need to print both Rat lords and Mouse lords (or cards that affect Rat/Mice) to appease the players who want cards in that space. It also makes creature-type hosers (like Engineered Plague) more/less effective (which swings both ways).
See: Soraya the Falconer for a prime example of this. As printed, gives Falcons (and only Falcons) +1/+1 and can give them banding. Is it better or worse for Magic to have that narrow of a creature type, versus "Bird?" If they are all "Birds", it makes it easier to support the tribe/build on the tribe in future sets.
Note: I'm not arguing in favor of either way. Just explaining why, from both a game play and set-development perspective, it might be int he game's best interest to have fewer tribes that overlap thematically (Types of rodents, types of birds), not more.
Folk-of-An-Havaa did nothing wrong.
Well, whenever WotC gets around to banning Ancient Stirrings, looks like Tron already has a replacement option. I think any DD list needs to at least look at this, though I'm not sure how great it is. Clearly helps mulligans a lot, comboes with Brainstorm later in the game, is effectively Impulse for a fair number of decks.
Probably strongest in Standard Field of the Dead decks as a replacement for Elvish Messenger or whatever the one that looks for a land in your top five cards is called.
Actually, now that I think about it, probably strongest in Amulet Titan/Scapeshift decks in Modern and Legacy. Makes it far more likely to get the combo early for that quick win.
Well, each decision opens and closes design space to some degree.
In the end, they are left to decide where they want to open it or close it with each "use." So, consolidating all rodentia into "Rats" closes some design space, where opening it up also closes some design space, while simultaneously opening other space.
What is kind of dumb about the "snake vs. naga" point is that things are are pretty "clearly" naga (they are snake-people) are still just snakes, because some "sins of Design past" are just too awkward to fix retroactively. Which, actually, is exactly why Rat and Mouse probably should be different things, even if it is a bit of rules bloat, it's likely best for the game.
I think, most likely, Naga were snakes for the sake of avoiding "rules bloat" but then we got Naga anyway and now we have a bizarre disconvergance of snakes that are clearly naga and no way to fix it realistically.
"The Ancients teach us that if we can but last, we shall prevail."
—Kaysa, Elder Druid of the Juniper Order
It's like they "forgot" again how to make good cards. But chances are that they probably just fired a good chunk of the playtest team after getting back on track. Wouldn't be surprised if sales are garbage because the power level is too low, but we'll see.
Once Upon A Time is great, though, especially as its design clashes heavily with Xerox decks and provide consistency to non-Xerox decks.
WTF is this?
I mean, I don't even know how to evaluate it, because it seems like such a strange amalgam of abilities. But that "damage can't be prevented" clause is a nice design space I'd love to see opened up more often (to void TNN).
"The Ancients teach us that if we can but last, we shall prevail."
—Kaysa, Elder Druid of the Juniper Order
......
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)