Catch-All Recent Card Design Sucks Thread

[LOLWut]

First off, can anyone explain this nugget of gameplay wisdom from MaRo's blog today to me? I don't care about the Outlast part. Just the last sentence.

http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/97100523388/in-regards-to-the-mechanic-outlast-why-was-it-not

tunainabag said: In regards to the mechanic outlast, why was it not allowed to be activated at instant speed (i.e on other player's turns or during combat)? Was it ever considered to be used at instant speed? And was it ever considered to just not have the tap ability? Thanks for everything you do.

The idea behind it was always you chose on your turn whether or not to use it. The flavor was do you sit out a turn to spend time baking you stronger.

I’ve talked a lot about how having the option to do things whenever cuts down on choice making which is key to good gameplay.

[trollking21]

Now I'm not a fan but I will to play devils advocate and explain.
By making it a sorcery speed tap mechanic you switch the options from attack or block+activate to attack or block or activate. Unlike many other times where the smart move is simply to activate EoT for a few turn now it becomes a real cost as you cannot block either

That being said it seems like it will be a hard mechanic to push with that limitation.and that we will most likely get nothing out of the mechanic for us here. But meh we don't get much anyone it's the nature of playing this format.

[CorwinB]

The flavor was do you sit out a turn to spend time baking you stronger.

If you spend a turn baking you stronger, you can't have your cake and eat it too. :tongue:

Seriously, it is true that MaRo spoke several times about how timing restrictions can make for more interesting gameplay. For example, if all creatures had flash, apart from some small corner cases you would always keep mana open until the last moment (see : Faeries). Having to cast sorcery-speed spells and using sorcery-speed abilities makes for a more dynamic game, since you have to decide on investing mana on your turn and doing so limits your options on your opponent's turn (countermagic, removal, combat tricks...).

[rufus]

...Having to cast sorcery-speed spells and using sorcery-speed abilities makes for a more dynamic game...

I don't think that 'dynamic' is the right word. Making things sorcery speed can make for more difficult decisions. It also makes the abilities less potent.

I could handle it if the abilities were more potent, but the outlast cards that have been spoiled so far seem like they'd be terrible in constructed formats.

[Purgatory]

I think the sentence is weird, I had to read it twice to decipher what (I think) it means. If it's "decision making is more frequent with timing restrictions than without, which leads to better gameplay", I tend to agree. It's not really important if you look at attacking, but what about blocking? Do you want your Outlast dude to stay on defense, or is it okay for him to tap to grow instead?

I'd like to compare it to damage on the stack, the M10 change wasn't that well received by some players, and I can see that. However, the game is more interesting and skill testing if you can't both deal combat damage and sacrifice Ravenous Baloth to gain life. Doing either but not the other is a restriction, and the card itself is definitely worse with the M10-damage rules, but the gameplay is far more interesting.

[Barook]

If you spend a turn baking you stronger, you can't have your cake and eat it too. :tongue:

Seriously, it is true that MaRo spoke several times about how timing restrictions can make for more interesting gameplay. For example, if all creatures had flash, apart from some small corner cases you would always keep mana open until the last moment (see : Faeries). Having to cast sorcery-speed spells and using sorcery-speed abilities makes for a more dynamic game, since you have to decide on investing mana on your turn and doing so limits your options on your opponent's turn (countermagic, removal, combat tricks...).
They did remove combat damage from the stack for the same reason. As far as Legacy is concerned, Brainstorm is actually a good example of "durdle and keep it until shit hits the fan".

That said, more choices don't necessarily mean better gameplay, especially when they clash heavily like with Outlast.

The butchered Invitational card Rakdos Augermage is another great example for that. They went from a 2/2 bear with :0:, once per turn activation for :b::b: to a 3/2 First Striker that needs to tap and costs :b::b::r:. They basically took an elegant design and shat on it for no particular reason. Why did it get a shittier casting cost and a combat body that massively clashes with its initial role as utility beater?

I would rather prefer synergetic effects that make cards interesting instead of cards that are intentionally made bad because of "HURR, bad choices are still choices, right?". I'm not even sure if Outlast is going to be good in Limited.

I also dislike how they recycled Naya's "mechanic" by slapping a keyword onto the cards and reducing the required power by one point.

I wonder what the future holds since the recent trend to design shit cards kinda started with Gatecrash and continues to this very day. They've already stated that with the new block structure, they could revisit old planes and mechanics more often. While that sounded pretty awesome at first, it seems more and more like a sign of laziness since they have to work out less new mechanics and can reuse world-building assets from previous blocks.

[Dice_Box]

I must agree that "Hey look, I casted a Gofy" should not be a keyword.

[Aggro_zombies]

I would rather prefer synergetic effects that make cards interesting instead of cards that are intentionally made bad because of "HURR, bad choices are still choices, right?". I'm not even sure if Outlast is going to be good in Limited.
Depends on how aggressive the format is and how often you have to go three-color. Issues surrounding mana fixing in Limited can slow down a format quite a bit, but if two-color decks are pretty good then the format speed will be greater. Outlast will be beastly in a slower format since there's less pressure to trade early and you'll have time to grind up a couple big guys and dominate combat with them. It will also be good if board stalls are frequent since you can build up one or two guys until they're big enough to either force x-for-1 trades or serve as walking Abysses.

My guess is this is a mid-speed format. It would be weird for them to bring back morph and then put it in a Draft environment where Grey Ogres are actively bad. Mardu (RBW) seems like it could be very aggressive but probably only as a two-color deck; trying to go three colors either means your variance is super high because of mana issues or you have to play Refuges/Banners to fix your colors and that slows you down. I actually think Temur (RUG) will cause the most headaches since Naya was beastly in Shards-block Limited. Casting big guys and bludgeoning your opponent to death with them is never* a bad strategy.

*Except in oddities like triple Zendikar.

[Ellomdian]

I’ve talked a lot about how having the option to do things whenever cuts down on choice making which is key to good gameplay.

This is just poorly worded. The essence of what he said is that the option to do things whenever cuts down on consequences of your decisions. If there is no real opportunity cost to do something, then it's hard to have 'good gameplay.' SDT is probably one of the best, most egregious examples of this - there is typically no real opportunity cost to activating SDT pretty much whenever.

For us graybeards, I am also reminded of Tempest-era draw-go. Forbid, Capsize, whispers, and a pile of counterspells meant that you literally never had to commit mana on your own turn to anything, and this same gameplan was reflected back in Time Spiral with Teachings strategies. Hell, someone has already mentioned Faeries - if you had a Bitterblossom, you just sat back and developed your mana, and waited for your opponent to finish their turn before you made real decisions. These are not widely regarded as high points by most players.

[(nameless one)]

For us graybeards, I am also reminded of Tempest-era draw-go. Forbid, Capsize, whispers, and a pile of counterspells meant that you literally never had to commit mana on your own turn to anything, and this same gameplan was reflected back in Time Spiral with Teachings strategies. Hell, someone has already mentioned Faeries - if you had a Bitterblossom, you just sat back and developed your mana, and waited for your opponent to finish their turn before you made real decisions. These are not widely regarded as high points by most players.

I miss these days. I think they're trying to implement the "do your own things on your own turn" philosophy because of the the rise of Hearthstone, Yugioh and Android:Netrunner where you can't really do anything on your opponent's turn.

[Koby]

I miss these days. I think they're trying to implement the "do your own things on your own turn" philosophy because of the the rise of Hearthstone, Yugioh and Android:Netrunner where you can't really do anything on your opponent's turn.

They already tried this, to varying degrees of unsuccess. With Portal expansions. What are Instants anyway?

[theillest]

They already tried this, to varying degrees of unsuccess. With Portal expansions. What are Instants anyway?
You've activated my trap sorcery card
mystic denial

[TsumiBand]

I miss these days. I think they're trying to implement the "do your own things on your own turn" philosophy because of the the rise of Hearthstone, Yugioh and Android:Netrunner where you can't really do anything on your opponent's turn.

In fairness, Magic is unique among most games which severely limit the number of things you can do when it isn't actually your turn. While that is such a defining trait of the game that it is not unreasonable to maintain it moving forward, it is true when people point out that limitations that force logical forks do actually encourage more choices during gameplay.

I think it's easy to conflate the terms "options" and "choices" in these situations. Most good players will recognize the best time to play a spell or effect that can be activated at any time (typically the end of your opponent's turn, all things being even), and for that player, the actual number of choices drops significantly when realizing that the sheer number of opportunities (options) to play that spell/effect create a time when one is clearly superior to all of them and is ideally played at that time.

I'm not talking about spells that are reactive in nature; it is clearly a mistake to try and cast Daze at the end of your opponent's turn, every time. But if we're talking about those Sensei's Divining Top-type effects that are just durdly and can just be activated "oh, you know, pretty much whenever", then the sheer number of times one can use it is totally irrelevant; there are only so many patently good times to activate it, and most of them are during your opponent's turn - not only that, but repetitively so. SDT can be spammed ad tappedoutium, before and after any shuffle or draw effects, and it's not nearly as "choice-inspired" as you might think. If you're throwing out all of the times when it is suboptimal to activate SDT as 'bad choices' and only looking at good times, then really your reasonable range of choices is more limited than it seems.

At least with Sorcery-speed effects you are required to take a look at your finite resources that aren't a mere cleanup step away from untapping and having to ask yourself if the cost is worth the effect. Maybe Legacy has been trained on the notion that such effects are downright worse than the previous kind, and they may well be in several instances -- I don't think that Outlast, for example, is a great pointer to an effect that is made more potent at Sorcery speed than Instant speed. What I do think, though, is that the concept of what constitutes a 'choice' should be more closely evaluated before anyone claims that Sorcery-speed effects necessarily make the game less choice-oriented.

I also agree with the concept of avoiding too much Draw-Go - pointing to Bitterblossom Fairies is a good call. You cast BB and you let the deck drive itself, and all your 'choices' are made for you. That they are all Instant effects with the possible exception of Thoughtseize and Jace the Goddamn Mind Sculptor is irrelevant; the sheer abundance in times the spells can be played narrows the good choices down to a sliver of "best times".

Or maybe TLDR is you guys should stfu and just play Prowess.dec :cool:

[Ellomdian]

I miss these days. I think they're trying to implement the "do your own things on your own turn" philosophy because of the the rise of Hearthstone, Yugioh and Android:Netrunner where you can't really do anything on your opponent's turn.

I certainly enjoyed it at the time; but the overwhelming majority of the playerbase (especially those that have started since 2007) do not. And it's hard to argue that de-emphasizing the end-of-opponents-turn and putting more time into the combat step hasn't done good things for the overall health of the game.

I think that many Legacy players don't appreciate how boring Instant-speed Magic is to watch - while it can be very fun to play because you have limited information, as a spectator, it often turns into will he or wont he. While we can derive enjoyment from watching (or playing) a game that involves a LOT of given knowledge about a situation, your average standard (or even Modern) player is not going to appreciate why the Brainstorm-into-Fetch play is so strong.

Hell, from a design standpoint, 'do things on your own turn' opens up a lot of space - it used to be that a card had to be INSANE to justify tapping out for it on your own turn, so only the best of the best got played. Now you have a variety of options, and you get to choose the one that is best for you (or for a given situation.) While I dislike a lot of the justification in the article about Sweepers, the upcoming lack of a reliable 4-drop answer to everything makes the 3-drops they are pushing more attractive than they would have been otherwise.

While I consider myself to be much more of an old-school mono-u draw-go style player - and I played with Forbid, and Faeries, and Teachings -I am enjoying the new 'style' of Magic in standard, and I am curious to see what happens when Sphinx's Rev goes away.

Also; If new Design sucks, odds are that the old cards that we already have in Legacy will continue to be sweet. As long as we get the occasional Decay, or DRS, or TNN, I can't complain that I get to play 2 (or 3, or 4...) radically different formats a week.

[GenghisTom]

Can someone explain to me why a Legacy forum cares about new sets? New cards? New mechanics? Old mechanics on new cards? Don't you understand new sets are not for Legacy?. Aren't you happy enough with your format the way it is?

Or has it become so stagnate you wait on the edge of your seats for another Mental Misstep or Vengevine to shake things up? There's so many naysayers on this site nitpicking every little detail of cards that aren't even close to legacy playable.

You get to sit on your lazy ass while Wizards pumps out hundreds of new cards every few months and all you do it bitch (not all of you actually, just a few repeat offenders). It costs too much! I've seen this card/mechanic before! (no shit? a 20 year old game made a card similar to one before? how could they do this!) The art sucks! Flavor text sucks! All they care about is money! All they care about is new players! All they care about is BLAH!

Open your minds and enjoy this game and be thankful to Wizards.
Tsumiband seems like the only sensible frequent poster on here.

This is a Legacy forum. LEGACY. Why do you care so much about new cards?

[Ace/Homebrew]

Hello GhengisTom! Welcome to the internet. :laugh:

Here people from all over the world get to complain about the things that bother them, no matter how small or insignificant.
For example, you get to complain about how people are always complaining! I'm certain someone won't like what you stated and will complain about how you complained about people complaining.

[Ellomdian]

Can someone explain to me why a Legacy forum cares about new sets?...You get to sit on your lazy ass while Wizards pumps out hundreds of new cards every few months and all you do it bitch...This is a Legacy forum. LEGACY. Why do you care so much about new cards?

Ahem, literally the post above yours...


Also; If new Design sucks, odds are that the old cards that we already have in Legacy will continue to be sweet. As long as we get the occasional Decay, or DRS, or TNN, I can't complain that I get to play 2 (or 3, or 4...) radically different formats a week.

So, in order of your points:

1. We care about new sets, because every time WotC decides to print something designed for commander, or everytime they push a new mechanic too far, it has an immediate impact in Legacy. I would argue that we've had more legitimate cards enter the pool in the last 5 years than in the decade prior.

2. The internet was actually designed for 2 things originally: for people to get over-excited about something that inevitably is disappointing, and for people to bitch about something that isn't as bad as they say it is. Look it up!

3. We care about new cards specifically because many of us can recite the gist of flavor text from bad Tempest commons - looking at and learning about new cards is interesting. Even if some people seem to think they are crap.


I'm certain someone won't like what you stated and will complain about how you complained about people complaining.

Can someone explain to me why someone is complaining that people are complaining! All you do is come in to complain, when you could just be happy that people haven't complained at times in the past.

[rufus]

...

Can someone explain to me why someone is complaining that people are complaining! All you do is come in to complain, when you could just be happy that people haven't complained at times in the past.

Dunno. Why are you doing that?

Also. Treasure Cruise. WTF?

[Meekrab]

Aren't you happy enough with your format the way it is?
No, by and large the people that take the time to complain on MTG the Source Your Source For Legacy are not happy with Legacy the way it is. 4x Brainstorm in EVERY DECK ZOMG (despite zero Brainstorm making the finals of last weeks SCG Open and the fact that the card is actually played in Aggro, Midrange, Combo, and Control decks, rather than in one definite archtype or strategy dominating the field) and TRUE NAME PROGENITUS (yes someone recently actually compared a 3 mana 3/1 to a 4 mana 10/10) are RUINING TEH FORMATZ didn't you know?

Serious content below:
Barring some ridiculous cards being hidding in the unspoiled half of the set, I suspect WotC intentionally went low power with Khans and probably the next few sets to sort of reset the power level of Standard so new players won't be intimidated.

Also, because fetchlands, no need to make good cards. /rolleyes

[Zombie]

No, by and large the people that take the time to complain on MTG the Source Your Source For Legacy are not happy with Legacy the way it is. 4x Brainstorm in EVERY DECK ZOMG (despite zero Brainstorm making the finals of last weeks SCG Open and the fact that the card is actually played in Aggro, Midrange, Combo, and Control decks, rather than in one definite archtype or strategy dominating the field)

Yeah, it's played in a ton of decks. But having every deck be a cantrip-playing blue one homogenizes the gameplay feel of decks a lot, and there's the issue that not everyone enjoys the feel that comes with running blue card selection. Contrast Storm and Elves going off, for example. They do similar things for similar ends, technically speaking, but the actual mechanical operation of the decks just feels a lot different. Having Brainstorm be a near autoinclude for the whole damn format dramatically cuts down on that variety in texture.


and TRUE NAME PROGENITUS (yes someone recently actually compared a 3 mana 3/1 to a 4 mana 10/10) are RUINING TEH FORMATZ didn't you know?

3/infinity to 10/infinity for most practical purposes.

I'm also fucking tired about people underplaying TNN.

TNN is a card that forces combo deck style of interaction (race it or have a narrow out) that is readily just slotted into goodstuff decks. It requires next to no commitment in deckbuilding or in play - oh hey, a three-mana creature spell to completely take over the game. Wow. Deckbuilding, well, no requirements, you can just jam it and be sitting pretty. Worst case, it pitches to FoW.

Contrast with NO-Prog, if you will. It requires deckbuilding commitment to green and to being creature heavy so you have ready victims on board. Ingame, it costs 4 mana (a "magic number" where certain anti-broken things hate cards like Teeg turn on), is a Sorcery so falls victim to all the hyperefficient taxing counters that have seen print in recent years, and just casting it costs you board presence because of the additional cost. You also have a real risk of drawing and uncastable brick that makes 3-4 cards in your deck a hell of a lot worse.

Even with all those checks and requirements, it can still be a pretty damn dumb card.

TNN is even dumber. If you answer it, oh well, the opponent still has a rock solid goodstuff deck to play with. The effect is kind of OK, permissible when you have to build around it, work for it. TNN doesn't need any of that shit. Hell, it even has Awesome so if it's crappy you can just pitch it to Force.

[iamajellydonut]

Hell, it even has Awesome so if it's crappy you can just pitch it to Force.

No card's justification should ever include "worst case you pitch it to Force". That's the lowest of the low in terms of cop-outs. On par with "discard it to Liliana" or whatever shitty plan exists at the time. I know this was at the bottom of your post and meant as a complete aside, but the truth is this reasoning should never even be on the table at all.

If you want to jam four copies of True-Name Nemesis in everything from BUG to Death and Taxes, by all means feel free to do so. But just remember that there's a reason it's only played in RWU, Stoneblade, and Merfolk, and remember that we look upon you with utter disdain every time you zealously bitch about irrelevant cards.

[TsumiBand]

Tsumiband seems like the only sensible frequent poster on here.

Do you drink? I want to buy you a beverage.

The truth of the matter is, Legacy players tend to be just as interested in new tech as any other player, because even the greyest of greybeards still wants to learn new lines of play that can't be fostered via old cards. A new mechanic, a different way of controlling the board or an alternative route to a Hyper Combo Finish - all these still have appeal.

The problem is that the inability for Wizards to release sets which are "Strictly Good Cards In My Format" applies across the board. A set of Standard all-goods ruins Limited. Printing against Legacy turns Standard into an awkward zone of cards that have ties to a format outside itself -- like, really guys, how many Counterbalances and Abrupt Decays do you think a format can have before it fails to interact with its own damn self? AD was a masterful wedge-in that can't really be redone unless the idea of spamming the CMC angle is appealing to everyone -- and by the time Wizards does something often enough to keyword it, it's instantly flagged as Unnecessary Fluffness by said community. "This ability word horse-assing has gotta go; anyone remember the days when cards just had words on them that said what they actually did and didn't have bullet points or "battlefield" on them? Where's my Ben-Gay, I can't hardly shuffle without muh ointment... think it's gonna rain soon, these old bo-o-o-ones...."

So Legacy is hard to build against while also selling Standard, and many people have difficulty accepting that, so they rail a lot. You tend to see the old "why I could design a Standard that makes Legacy happy blah blah blah", and while that isn't indicative of a logical fallacy in the argument I'd still *love* to see this magical wonderland of Standard cards that feed new Legacy decks. I'm not talking about a 3-card post outside the Shitty Card Creation thread, I mean like -- show me your 750 card block that has a reasonable Standard/Limited environment that also drops these cascades of new Legacy decks into existence. Do it. Seriously. It would be a literal joy to see this refreshing take on card design. At the end of the day, that argument holds no more weight than insisting you can coach better than some asshat making bad calls in the NFL.

[btm10]

So Legacy is hard to build against while also selling Standard, and many people have difficulty accepting that, so they rail a lot. You tend to see the old "why I could design a Standard that makes Legacy happy blah blah blah", and while that isn't indicative of a logical fallacy in the argument I'd still *love* to see this magical wonderland of Standard cards that feed new Legacy decks. I'm not talking about a 3-card post outside the Shitty Card Creation thread, I mean like -- show me your 750 card block that has a reasonable Standard/Limited environment that also drops these cascades of new Legacy decks into existence. Do it. Seriously. It would be a literal joy to see this refreshing take on card design. At the end of the day, that argument holds no more weight than insisting you can coach better than some asshat making bad calls in the NFL.

This is a really good point. It's been made before, but I'd actually like to expand on it and go so far as to say that the cards that Legacy needs the most - like new cards for Storm, or stack interaction outside of blue - are the least likely to see print in a Standard-legal set. We've gotten some (potentially) neat new cards already in Treasure Cruise and the Delve two-card Impulse. Is part of their appeal that they're blue? Of course, but that shouldn't surprise anyone because blue cards are more likely to have a home, and more likely to do Legacy-relevant things like draw cards.

I'm actually considering playing Khans Standard, though largely because of the tiny outside chance that Eidolon of Blossoms could enable an Enchantress strategy...and because I have Onslaught fetches and format staples like Thoughtseize already.

[Ace/Homebrew]

I mean like -- show me your 750 card block that has a reasonable Standard/Limited environment that also drops these cascades of new Legacy decks into existence. Do it. Seriously.

Blocks are only going to be about 430 cards now. And 20 of those are basic lands... so that's totally doable. :tongue:

[GenghisTom]

Do you drink? I want to buy you a beverage.



You can Fedex me a shot of Hakushu 12.

Alright, I'm complaining of people complaining. Guilty as charged. I'm just a bit tired of spoiler season coming around and reading the same gripes every time about this and that when I want to support Wizards for supporting my hobby (I'm mean addiction, not hobby).

Having said that, I have a few gripes of my own. Perhaps my post was subconsciously directed inward. I'm really sick of cards not having actual drawbacks anymore. Every single card is a good + good + good, oh... hmm we're missing a drawback... so let's just put that in the mana cost. Mana cost is not a drawback, though strictly speaking it IS a drawback - it's just the default drawback design should start from. Life loss, card disadvantage, casting restrictions (not including mana cost), spells that effect all players including the caster, etc, are drawbacks.

Not tapping (pun) into this design space, simply because it might scare off new players, is really limiting when it comes to deck creation. Threshold was great because the card is likely weak until to build it into a deck that reaches threshold easily, then it becomes strong (see: Werebear). Metalcraft is also great (see: Mox Opal). Abyssal Persecutor had a pretty savage drawback but decks built around it did okay in standard at the time.

When reading the current KTK spoiler, every card costs a billion mana and has some portion of Akroma's Memorial slapped onto it. This kinda of card design results in a 'good stuff' meta where you basically just choose your favorite color and add all the best cards from that color. Legacy is taking on this shade as well, though miles more diverse than any standard has ever been (that's why it's still the best format), I wouldn't mind if Wizards rattled our cage with a couple bans/unbans/new cards.

What can I say, I like change. But I also like a format that rewards skill over luck. I just hate having to play the same 20/60 cards for years on end. Fuck it, I'm going mono black pox then next SCG Seattle. Everybody loses their hand and nobody gets to play.

[Richard Cheese]

I don't really expect many Legacy playables, much less staples from standard sets. I think WotC has mostly done a good job of throwing some really good cards for eternal formats into stuff like Commander and Planechase. TNN is really dumb but we also got Deluge, Baleful Strix, Shardless Agent, Scavenging Ooze, Flusterstorm, and a handful of other fringe playables.

Of course, even though I don't expect much from the Standard sets, and don't even play the format, it doesn't stop me from hating some of the design choices. Mostly the blurring of card types with shit like colored mana symbols in Artifacts and Enchantment-errything.

I've also felt like they could ease off on new abilities or keywords since like...Tempest. It's just a needless increase in complexity when something barely gets fleshed out, then tossed only to reappear in a slightly different form a couple years later.

Oh, and I'll never agree with the introduction of Planeswalker as a card type.

[Bed Decks Palyer]

I don't really expect many Legacy playables, much less staples from standard sets. I think WotC has mostly done a good job of throwing some really good cards for eternal formats into stuff like Commander and Planechase. TNN is really dumb but we also got Deluge, Baleful Strix, Shardless Agent, Scavenging Ooze, Flusterstorm, and a handful of other fringe playables.

Of course, even though I don't expect much from the Standard sets, and don't even play the format, it doesn't stop me from hating some of the design choices. Mostly the blurring of card types with shit like colored mana symbols in Artifacts and Enchantment-errything.

I've also felt like they could ease off on new abilities or keywords since like...Tempest. It's just a needless increase in complexity when something barely gets fleshed out, then tossed only to reappear in a slightly different form a couple years later.

Oh, and I'll never agree with the introduction of Planeswalker as a card type.

This should be carved into the rock.

From bottom to top:
If only the PWs were there from the very beginning, but even compared to equipment, they're so much off I don't even. Also, the rules ballast and all that stuff, moreover I dislike how they became a center of all MtG speaking of flavour. I hate them wholeheartedly. Aaand... where's my elegant and strict game with a set of six (or IDK how many) card types? Shall we bring back interrupts? Or the sorcery-instants of Portal?
...which leads us to colored artifacts. I lack words.
The abilities and keywords are mostly useless and add complexity where there's no need for one. Imho there could be like three quarters of them discarded and no one would ever notice. But maybe it's just me and my nostalgia again. Oh, I miss you, pre-Alliances, all the card-by-card basis sets of old.
Strangely enooguh, I'm not insulted by the enchantment creatures, in fact I like them a little bit. The first one (the white flying wutnot) was pretty funny. But they're kinda needless.

[Ace/Homebrew]

Oh, and I'll never agree with the introduction of Planeswalker as a card type.
I agree with everything you've said except the line I quoted. :wink:

I also dislike how all creatures appear to only have 'up-sides'.
Leviathan -- Phyrexian Dreadnought -- Emrakul, the Aeons Torn

Three creatures from different time periods in Magic history.
Each was the big monster in its set. Dreadnought is the only one that feels well designed from a 'good, but with drawback' perspective. Leviathan is fine from a design perspective, but the drawbacks are too severe to make it a playable card.

Even if you are only judging from a flavor point-of-view, Emrakul is terrible design! So the most powerful being in the multiverse, capable of annihilating planes from existence, is completely harmless to the Planeswalker that summons him... Yeah, right. :rolleyes:

Good design creates a card you want to play more than anything, but requires you to find a synergy or trick to make that happen in a beneficial or neutral manner (No, Show and Tell doesn't count!!).


Edit - In defense of Planeswalkers:
Planeswalkers have been the focal point (or at least involved... right? I don't have extensive knowledge of the storyline in Dominaria) since Magic had a cohesive style. Probably around Alliances or so as the color-pie was starting to mean something. At the time they could NOT be put onto a card because they were uber-powerful beings.

Years passed and the plot allowed Wizards to change the amount of power these beings were capable of. They made mistakes along the way, but most are pretty fair cards. The only argument against Planeswalkers that I agree with is that they were added as a card type late in the history of the game. That makes them slightly stronger than they should be for the first few years of their existance. BUT as time goes on and cards are printed specifically to interact with them, they become more and more managable.

2nd Edit - Enchantment Errrything:
This was a really stupid choice... It just further blurs the line between Enchantment and Artifact. What is the difference between the two? How does WotC decide which type to make a card? A coin-flip??

An artifact is an object with special powers. An enchantment is a spell with a lasting effect as long as the enchantment is in place. (these are my loose definitions from what I've picked up from fantasy stuff)
So WTF is Hammer of Purphoros? It's an object with a lasting effect AND special powers. Oh it also makes dudes that have no special powers or lasting effects but they are artifacts and enchantments too because FLAVOR!!! :cry:

[Lord Seth]

I thought planeswalkers were a great addition to the game. :confused:

Don't really see the issue with colored artifacts either.

[Hanzalot]

The problem is that the inability for Wizards to release sets which are "Strictly Good Cards In My Format" applies across the board. A set of Standard all-goods ruins Limited. Printing against Legacy turns Standard into an awkward zone of cards that have ties to a format outside itself -- like, really guys, how many Counterbalances and Abrupt Decays do you think a format can have before it fails to interact with its own damn self? AD was a masterful wedge-in that can't really be redone unless the idea of spamming the CMC angle is appealing to everyone -- and by the time Wizards does something often enough to keyword it, it's instantly flagged as Unnecessary Fluffness by said community. "This ability word horse-assing has gotta go; anyone remember the days when cards just had words on them that said what they actually did and didn't have bullet points or "battlefield" on them? Where's my Ben-Gay, I can't hardly shuffle without muh ointment... think it's gonna rain soon, these old bo-o-o-ones...."

Please, please keep doing this.

[Richard Cheese]

I thought planeswalkers were a great addition to the game. :confused:

Don't really see the issue with colored artifacts either.

I mostly hate them from a flavor perspective. All the old rulebooks and promotional stuff used to make a big deal of "YOU are a Planeswalker!". Now they're back to Weatherlight-style main characters, except they're Planeswalkers too? Bitch, I have a library! You can do four things. We are not equals.

I guess if they had called them Familiars or something it wouldn't bother me as much. Personally though, I liked when storyline characters were just legendary creatures. It made them feel like they were still pawns in your scheme, even if WotC was trying to push some cliched story along with them. And they came and went.

Now you just see Jace or Chandra in every other set and it's like seeing someone from work at the grocery store. At first it's fine, you make some small talk, you part ways. Then you see them again. And again. And again. Someone makes a bad joke. Eventually you just check out without half the shit you came to get because THIS IS MY REAL LIFE! YOU AREN'T SUPPOSED TO BE HERE AND YOU'RE RUINING EVERYTHING^!%#$^!%#!!

[Zupponn]

I mostly hate them from a flavor perspective. All the old rulebooks and promotional stuff used to make a big deal of "YOU are a Planeswalker!". Now they're back to Weatherlight-style main characters, except they're Planeswalkers too? Bitch, I have a library! You can do four things. We are not equals.

I guess if they had called them Familiars or something it wouldn't bother me as much. Personally though, I liked when storyline characters were just legendary creatures. It made them feel like they were still pawns in your scheme, even if WotC was trying to push some cliched story along with them. And they came and went.

Now you just see Jace or Chandra in every other set and it's like seeing someone from work at the grocery store. At first it's fine, you make some small talk, you part ways. Then you see them again. And again. And again. Someone makes a bad joke. Eventually you just check out without half the shit you came to get because THIS IS MY REAL LIFE! YOU AREN'T SUPPOSED TO BE HERE AND YOU'RE RUINING EVERYTHING^!%#$^!%#!!

Grumble Grumble

Bring back Enchant Worlds!

Phasing needs to be in every set!

Banding is awesome!




Am I helping?

[ESG]

An artifact is an object with special powers. An enchantment is a spell with a lasting effect as long as the enchantment is in place. (these are my loose definitions from what I've picked up from fantasy stuff)
So WTF is Hammer of Purphoros? It's an object with a lasting effect AND special powers. Oh it also makes dudes that have no special powers or lasting effects but they are artifacts and enchantments too because FLAVOR!!! :cry:

It's gimmicks in lieu of flavor, and it's been that way for a long time. You want flavor, look at The Dark or Legends.

I heard a guy at a shop introducing some kids to Magic last weekend, and he started off with that "You are a planeswalker" nonsense. I cringed.

[Teveshszat]

Hello,

There is one thing I don´t understand. Why you complain about the existence of the Planeswalker type? For me it is not a problem because it is easy explained why they are in your deck.

If our Universe is not fully explored why should the multiverse of Magic should be?
So if we state that it isn´t fully explored than we can assume the existence of an infinite number of planeswalkers.
If we can assume that a really large number of planeswalkers exists why it is a problem to have one as your ally?

You can be a planeswalker and have one as your ally without any problem. I see that it breaks up with the god complex
Thoughts you might have because now you see that even planeswalkers are beatable but look it that way Jace is a mighty
Planeswalker but he is weaker than you because you can summon him at will.

so you are still a planeswalker you are still nearly unbeatable you just learned a new trick which you use to enslave
weaker planeswalker.

Best regards Teveshszat

[Richard Cheese]

It's gimmicks in lieu of flavor, and it's been that way for a long time. You want flavor, look at The Dark or Legends.

I heard a guy at a shop introducing some kids to Magic last weekend, and he started off with that "You are a planeswalker" nonsense. I cringed.

Could have been worse, he could have started with "HERE YOU RULE!!!"

[Higgs]

Thoughts you might have because now you see that even planeswalkers are beatable but look it that way Jace is a mighty
Planeswalker but he is weaker than you because you can summon him at will.

so you are still a planeswalker you are still nearly unbeatable you just learned a new trick which you use to enslave
weaker planeswalker.

Am I the only one who thinks this concept sounds a bit fucking awkward?

[Bed Decks Palyer]

I dislike PWs because of two things.

First, they're glued in the game and they stick out like sore thumb. This is not that blatantly obvious if you started in post-Lorwyn times, or if you got used to them, but I still dislike them for this reason.
Second, they usurp lots of the flavour and deal it in the exact way how adolescent movies work: "..and then Blade jumps out of the window, he's pretty cool in cool glasses, he tooks sword and man, he just goes whoa!"

Take for example City of Traitors flavour text (btw, that card also got an brilliant art):


"While we fought, the il surrendered."
—Oracle en-Vec

Wow! Maybe it' just me, but I find it amazing. It delivers... I don't exactly know how to tell it, but there's something deep, something epic about this short sentence. The laconic message, moreover one that leaves freedom for your own fantasy. The whole monstrosity of the treason, the fact of defeat, there can be anything. Really, this is moving...

And what do we have on the other kind of spectrum? What we may offer to a usual 17 y/o onanist? What about some cool Liliana of Boobies with some cool and tough quote.
Bah.

Yeah, of course, there are lots of silly stuff in the old cards, and there are lots of new ones with good flavour. And it's not the most important of all... Just saying

[phonics]

Am I the only one who thinks this concept sounds a bit fucking awkward?

I think flavor wise it is more along the lines of "Hey bro, I got some mana, wanna be bffs?" and when he loses all loyalty he just goes "Well f- this, youre on your own bud."

The change that really bothers me flavor wise is both players having the same legend, it just doesn't make any sense.

[Teveshszat]

Hello,

yes the new version of the Legend Rules is not really cool.

But what is akward on the situation with the planeswalkers. I mean first most of them are Insane and if you are one of them the chances are high that you are evil, corrupted by your power, insane, egoistic or soemthing in between.
If we agree on that and this should be easy because it allready was the case in the Ice Age and when Urza became a Planeswalker.

So for people who can chracterized as above enslaving people and let them work for your goal is just logic and convinient because I highly doubt
that they care for their Lifes (close friends excluded).
We also are doing this allready because summoning creatures is nothing else than forcefuly pull them out of their world and let them die for your goal
defeating another Planeswalker.

So if you find this situation akward you never look deep enough into Magic fluff.

And yes I still like to be a planeswalker.

Best Regards Teveshszat

[Lord Seth]

I think flavor wise it is more along the lines of "Hey bro, I got some mana, wanna be bffs?" and when he loses all loyalty he just goes "Well f- this, youre on your own bud."

The change that really bothers me flavor wise is both players having the same legend, it just doesn't make any sense.I don't see how it makes any less sense than how the opponent summoning another will somehow make them both drop dead on the spot.

[Barook]

The whole point of the Timespiral block was to shit on the old Walkers by either killing them in some stupid way or making them useless by losing their spark. Everybody else got nerfed to the ground due to "The Mending" because the plot demanded it (except Nicol Bolas, who shits on every other walker despite the Mending because reasons), so they could introduce and print new Planeswalker (which would have been too powerful before).

The new legend rule is awkward design-wise because instead of summoning the actual creatures, we're kinda making copies of the original now? :confused:

The difference between an artifact and an enchantment was originally that artifacts could be "turned off" when tapped. Ever since they dropped that rule, the lines between artifact and enchantments have blurred.

[Bed Decks Palyer]

The difference between an artifact and an enchantment was originally that artifacts could be "turned off" when tapped. Ever since they dropped that rule, the lines between artifact and enchantments have blurred.
Yep, that was pretty unfortunate decision, moreover the reasoning... "we want the cards to do what's written on them, no outside inforamtion needed". That's why they dropped the "tap: add [ ] to your mana pool" line from basics, right? Morons.

[Teveshszat]

Hello,


I don't see how it makes any less sense than how the opponent summoning another will somehow make them both drop dead on the spot.

but infact it makes less sense. Because the former rule can be seen as a time Space problem. In theory it is problamatic when you go back in time
and encounter your own self creating problems in the time space reality. So if you see this rule as the conseuqnece of this Problem it is just logical
that the future and past self are anihilated because of their encounter and the resulting time space problem.

Best Regards Teveshszat

[Lord Seth]

Hello,



but infact it makes less sense. Because the former rule can be seen as a time Space problem. In theory it is problamatic when you go back in time
and encounter your own self creating problems in the time space reality. So if you see this rule as the conseuqnece of this Problem it is just logical
that the future and past self are anihilated because of their encounter and the resulting time space problem.

Best Regards TeveshszatThen what time-space problem does casting a Clone have? It's just a straight up copy, and isn't summoned from anywhere else in the time stream or whatever.

No iteration of the legend rule has really made sense, so I don't know why people complain about how a new version doesn't make sense when the previous ones didn't either. If someone wants to complain about it from a gameplay perspective, that makes more sense, though personally I never really liked how a Clone effect can be a removal spell for a Legend, or how Legends become removal spells for one another.

[TsumiBand]

Yeah, Cloning a unique permanent to kill it was always a stupid rule. Legends be like "woah that dude looks just like me... aaaaa--a-a---aack! *graveyard*"

I've always been able to reconcile the new uniqueness rule by calling it the "Champion Edition rule". It reminds me that SF2:CE was the shit, which always makes me feel better.

[TsumiBand]

Also I think the most offensive thing about Planeswalkers is that unlike Equipment or even Enchantment Creatures they don't actually expand on existing types yet they have all this real estate in things that are already happening elsewhere.

They muck up the game with weird rules about burn redirection and loyalty abilities and yada yada, and they don't jive with the core essence of the game thematically because the idea of "players are planeswalkers" is classically woven into the game just enough that it causes some friction.

Honestly, if they had found a way to implement them as they currently exist in the form of Lengendary Auras with Enchant Player, (or otherwise 'unique' Auras - I like the PW implementation of uniqueness TBH) that probably would have prevented a lot of rules oddities and made things like "target you, but damage your Ajani" a lot more intuitive. Like as the attacking player you'd have a clear choice that when attacking the opponent you could go after their PW Aura, and there wouldn't be abilities that don't trigger on attacking a 'walker but do on a player or vice versa, and burn spells wouldn't feel quite so off-color and it would make sense for my opponent to have shroud or hexproof and be able to prevent me from casting Soul Burn on their PW Aura.

Yeah so Disenchant would own them. Who cares, there's lots of targets for Disenchant, and that doesn't prevent equipment from being played. I dunno. Maybe it wouldn't be bad if they could be Disenchanted. Maybe after 20 years it's more prudent to work with existing infrastructure than turn so many different things on their head just to suit a new card type that could have existed as Enchant/Equip Player and worked in much the same way.

[Bed Decks Palyer]

TsumiBand, you're right. Yesterday I thought about PWs (due to this thread), and I feel like that IF the PWs effects were that missing (which I'm not even sure to start with..), they could have made them a Legendary Enchantment and/or Creatures and be done with the thing.

"But, but , but..." But what? Magic is silly. We all know it. So there will be one more silly thing. In fact it isn't that bad idea, as they'd be using that "exisiting infrastructure" you've mentioned and it'll be pretty easy to make them disenchant-proof by the mix of e.g. indestructible, shroud or any other abilities.

"But fluff!" And? So yeah, they're powerful beings (thus creatures) whose charisma inspires all around them (thus enchantments), blah blah.


Elspeth, Knight Errant :2::w::w:
Legendary Creature Enchantment - Planeswalker Knight

Indestructible

Elspeth comes into play with 4 loyalty counters.
Her p&t is equal to number of loyalty counters on her.

-1: do some crap
+1: do other crap
-7: do some different crap

Crap only as a sorcery.
_________________________ */*

[rufus]

Also I think the most offensive thing about Planeswalkers is that unlike Equipment or even Enchantment Creatures they don't actually expand on existing types yet they have all this real estate in things that are already happening elsewhere.

They muck up the game with weird rules about burn redirection and loyalty abilities and yada yada, and they don't jive with the core essence of the game thematically because the idea of "players are planeswalkers" is classically woven into the game just enough that it causes some friction....

In a year or three, they may revise the planeswalker rules the same way that they tinkered with the stack and combat.

[Barook]

TsumiBand, you're right. Yesterday I thought about PWs (due to this thread), and I feel like that IF the PWs effects were that missing (which I'm not even sure to start with..), they could have made them a Legendary Enchantment and/or Creatures and be done with the thing.

"But, but , but..." But what? Magic is silly. We all know it. So there will be one more silly thing. In fact it isn't that bad idea, as they'd be using that "exisiting infrastructure" you've mentioned and it'll be pretty easy to make them disenchant-proof by the mix of e.g. indestructible, shroud or any other abilities.

"But fluff!" And? So yeah, they're powerful beings (thus creatures) whose charisma inspires all around them (thus enchantments), blah blah.


Elspeth, Knight Errant :2::w::w:
Legendary Creature Enchantment - Planeswalker Knight

Indestructible

Elspeth comes into play with 4 loyalty counters.
Her p&t is equal to number of loyalty counters on her.

-1: do some crap
+1: do other crap
-7: do some different crap

Crap only as a sorcery.
_________________________ */*
Planeswalkers are basically glorified legendary enchantments that can be attacked and burned while interacting poorly with alot of older cards.

[Higgs]

Honestly, if they had found a way to implement them as they currently exist in the form of Lengendary Auras with Enchant Player, (or otherwise 'unique' Auras - I like the PW implementation of uniqueness TBH) that probably would have prevented a lot of rules oddities and made things like "target you, but damage your Ajani" a lot more intuitive.

But then they wouldn't have been able to push them as poster childs of MtG against the younger player base.

[TsumiBand]

But then they wouldn't have been able to push them as poster childs of MtG against the younger player base.

Pish-posh. They could have just as easily upsold any Legendary Creature in place of walkers. Reprint it regularly enough, put a similar spin on their reprints as they have done with each variation of Chandra/Jace/Lili/etc, it would have been elementary and no different from, like, the notoriety that Nicol Bolas managed to attain without being on a Planeswalker card (though he did eventually end up on one, of course).


In a year or three, they may revise the planeswalker rules the same way that they tinkered with the stack and combat.

Indeed, and I honestly absolutely anticipate such a thing. Planeswalkers are such a monkey-patch on top of the game that it is only a matter of time before they either have a card base that supports a rules change or a strong enough reason to simply enact one and let the cards adjust accordingly. If memory serves they swore up and down for a while that we'd never see a card that said "target planeswalker" because of the aforementioned "oh but we're the planeswalkers, so..." thing as well as trying to foster the interactions that they have with creatures. Yet where we at now? Dreadbore, Hero's Demise... shit even a handful of burn spells specify "target planeswalker". It's an inevitable change; the logical disconnect between burn spells and planeswalkers is a big enough kludge to merit reconsideration without any other factors in play -- but the fact that they can now be targeted either explicitly or implicitly is really weird. In a way it's a precursor to Council's Judgment, right -- the whole "I'm not targeting, but I'm totally selecting this permanent" thing. It's a roundabout goofy way to make the game work with cards that fuck up established methods of interaction.

@Bed Decks Palyer
I would just as soon have seen something like

Elspeth's Blessing :2::w::w:

Enchantment - Aura

Spark 4 (This enters the battlefield attached to its controller with 4 spark counters. Use those counters to play this card's loyalty abilities. Whenever enchanted player would be dealt damage, the source of that damage's controller may remove that many spark counters from this instead. When this has no spark counters, sacrifice it.)
+1: Put a 1/1 white Soldier creature token onto the battlefield.
+1: Target creature gets +3/+3 and gains flying until end of turn.
−8: You get an emblem with "Artifacts, creatures, enchantments, and lands you control have indestructible."

...and then after the first set they'd just ditch all that reminder text obviously, and it'd all be nice and neat for future generations. Kind of like the old reminder text for Equipment - uber long, kind of in the way, but didn't show up on higher-rarity cards unless there was an abundance of room.

I mean yeah the above is not a perfect implementation just because it's kind of off the cuff and I haven't lke mulled over it all week or anything. But it interacts with everything in roughly the same way as you'd find current walkers do (save that whole nonbo with Abolish thing), and it doesn't create a disconnect between targeting the player vs. targeting their aura when dealing damage - it's just a replacement effect instead.

[YamiJoey]

"Naturalise you."

You also still have a stupid redirection rule in place, you've just written it on the card.

[Richard Cheese]

I will only stop hating Planeswalkers if they change the rules to allow the summoning of other human players into your game. Then maybe I'd have something to do at big events after going 0-3.

[PirateKing]

I will only stop hating Planeswalkers if they change the rules to allow the summoning of other human players into your game. Then maybe I'd have something to do at big events after going 0-3.

I don't know, at 0-3 would you really be worth it? :tongue:

[Richard Cheese]

I don't know, at 0-3 would you really be worth it? :tongue:

As long as mana costs are related to standings, yes. Hell I'd probably be cheaper than Liliana. Will even wear a corset if that's what floats your boat.

[TsumiBand]

"Naturalise you."

You also still have a stupid redirection rule in place, you've just written it on the card.

Maybe I was not clear on why I think my quick and dirty version is more intuitive than real planeswalkers.

It is, IMO, a design flaw that burn spells target the player yet can optionally be redirected to a planeswalker they control. It is a flaw because it leads to cards that inadvertently protect and/or ignore planeswalkers when they arguably should not. The Healing Salve v. Lightning Bolt example is well-known; Healing Salve protects the player from Bolt, but not the planeswalker; however since noncombat damage is redirected to planeswalkers, Healing Salve can also protect the planeswalker inasmuch as it is up to the caster of Healing Salve to actually determine the order of replacement effects despite it being up to the opponent to decide whether or not it is even happening. It gets worse with Shroud and Hexproof - why should it matter a damn if the planeswalker's controller has Shroud, if I really want the Bolt damage to go to the planeswalker? It's an entirely separate object; it's a permanent on the battlefield that can be attacked independently from the player, yet seldom actually targeted separately.

At least with my imaginary version of same-but-different cards, there is sense in the notion that targeting the player could affect the aura in the first place, because it is attached to the player and could be grokked in the same way as any creature with an Aura. If the player gains Shroud, great - I can't Bolt them to redirect damage to their Aura. There's no pretense of it being entirely detached from the player because now instead of attacking a permanent, we still attack the player - we just decide to bang into their aura instead of their person. Effects that trigger on attacking the player are no longer ambiguous or subject to being reworded in later sets ("whenever a creature attacks you or a planeswalker you control..."). As for 'Naturalize you', it is no different than casting Naturalize on an equipped creature - you're not Naturalizing Wild Mongrel, you're Naturalizing their stupid Lightning Greaves.

I mean ultimately any 'damage removes loyalty counters' effect will have *some kind* of redirection rule about it, but that isn't the issue I take -- my beef with the current rule is that it just exists as a kludge that leaves some lousy interactions that aren't intuitive against the rest of the game, based on their method of implementation. Like why should I not be able to redirect damage from my own Earthquake to my Koth -- the rules allow for redirection only as long as it's a source an opponent controls. So it's unnecessarily locked-down, as if the rules people were just so concerned with making the "normal lines of play" work that they hadn't considered moving from the specific to the general. If I have a Rumbling Slum in play, it really feels like I ought to be able to redirect the 1 damage to my Garruk and just keep untapping Forests to keep him vital. That would be awesome. But I can't, because the rules just prevent it from even being possible.

Which is fine, I mean, rules define the actual gameplay, -- but it doesn't have the same "bucket of moving parts" feel that the rest of the game tends to have; it uses very closed interactions over open ones, so as a player there isn't a lot of play in the wheel for using them in ways other than those they were designed for*. It'd be like if every spell that destroyed target permanent could never target your own stuff, because someone somewhere went "well why would anyone ever do that? it may as well be part of the rules that you just can't do it; no one would ever Lightning Bolt their own Kird Ape, that's just dumb." and then suddenly cards like Misdirection and friends are a lot less fun to play with, because they can never be used to send a Vindicate back at an opponent's permanents. It's stuff like that; the establishment of very narrow rules in a game which thrives on the ability to act far more freely, that are one small part of the weirdness surrounding Planeswalkers as a card type.

*except for that window of time when loyalty abilities didn't have rules about being played more than once per turn (the planeswalkers carried that rules baggage instead of the actual loyalty abilities) and so any creature that gained a + loyalty ability could infinitely play that ability. which feels like another aspect of the rushed oversight involved in just getting walkers to work at all.

[Bed Decks Palyer]

I'm going to start a "We love TsumiBand" thread right now.

[caiomarcos]

What really, really bothers me in "recent" design is how much creature centered the game has become.

I searched Theros set, and excluding all cards that are creatures or mention creature in its rule text, and not counting lands and reprints, a grand total of 15 - FIFTEEN - new cards were introduced to the game. Ravnica 10 years ago gave us 46, 3 times what Theros added.

I quickly hand checked Kahns, and found 23 new non-creature related cards.

I think that pushed me away a from the game like nothing else before.

[btm10]

The whole point of the Timespiral block was to shit on the old Walkers by either killing them in some stupid way or making them useless by losing their spark. Everybody else got nerfed to the ground due to "The Mending" because the plot demanded it (except Nicol Bolas, who shits on every other walker despite the Mending because reasons), so they could introduce and print new Planeswalker (which would have been too powerful before).

The new legend rule is awkward design-wise because instead of summoning the actual creatures, we're kinda making copies of the original now? :confused:

The difference between an artifact and an enchantment was originally that artifacts could be "turned off" when tapped. Ever since they dropped that rule, the lines between artifact and enchantments have blurred.

As far as "innovations" go, I actually like Planeswalkers because at least they aren't creatures or a spell that cares about creatures. I wish we had more ways of killing them in Legacy, but it's a small price to pay to make creatures worse, and I get why they didn't make them straight up enchantments or enchant players.


What really, really bothers me in "recent" design is how much creature centered the game has become.

I searched Theros set, and excluding all cards that are creatures or mention creature in its rule text, and not counting lands and reprints, a grand total of 15 - FIFTEEN - new cards were introduced to the game. Ravnica 10 years ago gave us 46, 3 times what Theros added.

I quickly hand checked Kahns, and found 23 new non-creature related cards.

I think that pushed me away a from the game like nothing else before.

Agreed.

As much as some of the Khans cards look awesome (the 1R discard then draw spell, Treasure Cruise, Dig Though Time), everything they've done recently is just "hurrr, if we ditch unconitional sweepers at reasonable costs, then control won't be good and people will play with more creatures", "if we make every effect not built as a limited combat trick a sorcery, then the games will be more skill testing" (where skill testing is defined in some inane way). The entire design philosophy now really just plays to the least fun aspects of the game.

[Jamaican Zombie Legend]

Gotta echo the sentiments against the creature-centric design paradigm we're smack dab in the middle of. It's rather mystifying, to be honest, especially in regards to Constructed formats seeing as the combat step is decidedly uninteresting in 90%+ of matchups*. Magic, as a game, simply wasn't designed with a robust set of mechanics surrounding creature combat; it didn't need to have these rules because the game, at the core, wasn't centered around it....players could do and were expected to pursue other strategies.

WotC's current critter-centric focus seems silly because of this, cutting off numerous interesting interactions in order to force Constructed metagames down a rather narrow avenue; the combat step doesn't have a whole lot of usable design space that would promote interaction (notice how most critter keywords make them ignore combat/removal?). When's the last time competitive tier one decks in a Constructed format made the combat step interesting? U/G Madness with Mongrel/Amoeba tricksies?

But they've been doing some serious cargo-cult design for awhile now. At least they seem to have tapered off the torrent of Comes Into Play Effect creatures that had competitive bodies paired with tonso'value. That was some godawful shit.

*I emphasize Constructed because the combat step is actually interesting in Limited matchups because of the enormous card variety, prevalence of combat tricks, and the inability to "know" what your opponent's moves are through metagame knowledge (there's only so many moves X/Y/z aggro/tempo/midrange/control/combo can really make at any given gamestate).

[Lemnear]

Guess the focus is not only on creatures because they overall like the aspect of combat but to deliver a core for limited ad drafts to work with. What if your draft booster would contain only 1 creature and the rest are combat tricks and random stuff? Limited could boil down to who-has-the-first-fatty. I guess we have to accept that WotC targets the market who buys the most boosters: Limited and Drafts.