Conversation: Recent Activity
| Conversation: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics |
Recent updates to Conversation: (Generated at 2025-07-08 05:22:40)
| Conversation: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics |
Recent updates to Conversation: (Generated at 2025-07-08 05:22:40)
> Or they wanted a low-counter block to make it slightly easier to have a -1/-1 counter block next?
That is an interesting hypothesis! Before they spoiled Soul Swallower and Markov Dreadknight (at that point we knew nearly 50 cards between spoilers and leaks), I was wondering whether they would be using stat counters at all, and exulting at the thought.
That didn't happen, but your idea certainly looks like a possible explanation. with nearly a third of the set spoiled, only 5 cards involve +1/+1 counters... If we assume this is representative, this means half as much cards involving such counters than in BFZ (who had about 30 of them).
Oh cool! I'd never seen it laid out like that.
I just checked and I hadn't realised how much the sets with other counters had avoided +1/+1 counters -- there's still some, but not many.
However, I think another way of looking at it would be "there's usually one to two +-1/+-1 counter mechanics, occasionally three, occasionally zero".
So, I think it's unusual, since there's just so many +1/+1 counters, but not surprising that that comes up occasionally. I'm more surprised there wasn't a different counter type, if there wasn't that many +1/+1 counters. But I guess maybe there just wasn't any need for it. Or they wanted a low-counter block to make it slightly easier to have a -1/-1 counter block next?
In Time Spiral block the major counter type was time counters (associated with Suspend and Vanishing). In Rise of the Eldrazi, it was level counters (with Level up). As far as I'm concerned, these are the only two exceptions to counter types, but they do not alter the pattern.
Every block since original Ravnica, as well as every set since Morningtide, has included a mechanic (in one case unnamed) that used the block's main counter type (usually +1/+1 or -1/-1 counters).
Ravnica: [exception]
Guidpact: Bloodthirst
Dissension: Graft
Time Spiral Block: Suspend and Vanishing
Lorwyn: [exception]
Mornintide: Reinforce
Shadowmoor/Eventide: Persist and Wither
Alara block: Devour
Zendikar/Worldwake: unnamed Ally mechanic
Rise of the Èldrazi: Level up
Scars block: Infect and Proliferate
Innistrad block: Undying
Return to Ravnica: Scavenge/Unleash
Gatecrash: Evolve
Dragon's Maze: [see previous two]
Theros block: Heroic, Monstrosity, Tribute
Khans of tarkir: Outlast
Fate Reforged/Dragons of Trakir: Bolser
Battle for Zendikar: Awaken
Oath of the Gatewatch: Support
Shadows over Innistrad: [exception]
You can't deny it's a pretty strong pattern even if we decide to treat Zendikar/worldwake as an exception.
How are you counting -- do you reckon that some sets +1/+1 counters the "major" counter, and other sets they aren't?
I hadn't really tracked that, I just thought, each set has +1/+1 counters (or -1/-1 counters), plus up to one other major counter type. Non-+1/+1 counters usually have a specific keyword mechanic.
But I thought it was mostly chance whether there was a specific +1/+1 counter mechanic or not, just that there's a lot of design space, but usually more than one will fight for the same space.
It's a bit of a relief, really. There's only so many riffs you can do on things that grant +1/+1 counters.
Oh I definitely count level-up. That set had level counters as its main counter type.
I consider the original unnamed ally mechanic to count (because the default at common was putting counters), but that's basically correct. I keep forgetting reinforce was in Morningtide and not Lorwyn, which somewhat breaks the pattern, which is other one mechanic per set.
Probably. I didn't even notice that was a streak. It's what, support, bolster, monstrosity, unleash, undying, infect, level-up (that's a stretch), devour, persist, suspend? Bloodthirst brings it back one block more.
Am I the only one surprised they broke a string of blocks going all the way back to Time Spiral where they've been using the set's major counter type as a component of at least one mechanic?
https://twitter.com/SaffronOlive/status/709392182956830720
Ooh, they did DFC of sorceries!
Right, madness. I forgot, that's why all the preview cards are wild mongrels!
Confirmed
It's always been possible to discard a madness card to exile, then decline (or fail) to cast it and have it go to the graveyard. But as dude said, it used to be optional. The new reminder text suggests it's now mandatory, though reminder text is sometimes simplified.
Also, Madness was listed as an 8, not a 9 -- 8 being "may come back if the stars align." Perhaps not coincidentally, "when the stars align" is a phrase associated with the more eldritch genres of horror...
They changed it, apparently. Discarding it to exile used to be optional but now it's mandatory.
Wait, if you discard a madness card, can you really choose to exile it and then put it into your graveyard without casting it? I guess, that doesn't make any difference, but it does seem confusing.
But yes, "discard to exile" makes sense in the reminder.
He did say he was pretending not to know about anything coming up in the future.
They changed the reminder text for madness, though, and it's a lot clearer now.
eh; it's a set I'm already completely ignoring due to stupid mechanics (DFC...). Maybe they'll bring back shadow and get all the bad mechanics out of their system in one go.
So does anyone else find it funny MaRo mentions Madness as an example of 9 when the spoilers for Shadows Over Innistrad have revealed that the mechanic is returning?
Affinity for artifacts was a massive huge problem. They removed the artifact lands to fix it; but just removing the mechanic would have been a better fix (except for, you know, needing to recall and reprint all the cards). It might be possible to balance it; but likely not - 0 cost artifacts are plentiful and jumping the mana curve by that much leaves you either printing "It's Counterspell! But it costs more if you don't have artifacts!" or printing, well, horribly horribly broken everything.
People have a visceral hatred of Mirrodin block standard. Even if Wizards gets the balance right, either the cards with affinity will be so nerfed that the people who wanted it back will be disappointed and/or everyone else will go into it already distrustful. I know they briefly considered it for SOM.
I'm not sure why Affinity for Artifacts deserves a 10. It seems perfectly reasonable on colored spells. Assert Authority was both powerful and balanced, for example. I understand why it would be unlikely to return, but I probably would have stuck with 'if the stars align' 8.
Thing is, Wizards have been trying to remake banding for years. Nomads en-Kor, Catapult Squad / Crossbow Infantry, Infantry Veteran, Akrasan Squire have I think all been explicitly stated to be trying to capture something of the appeal of banding without the rules complexity. And Defensive Formation and High Ground for the other half, too.
vast majority of players these days either don't know banding was ever a thing or vaguely know it's that old ability that was confusing. it's not a strong enough sentiment to really turn people off a functional remake
:) I think Mark has said 10 for banding and 11 for bands-with-others, though as he says, ratings have shifted around over time as he's become more certain about things, or varied with his mood.
I think that's probably about right.
I think a mechanic like banding but less confusing is probably a bit more likely, in the possible, but we have to have a good reason range. I think the idea in banding, of having creatures clump up into a unit, in order to make the most vulnerable of them less vulnerable, is a good one with strong flavour and gameplay potential. But it needs a version which is clear, and I'm not sure if that's possible or not.
But they'll be really really careful doing that because banding has such a bad reputation. That seems to fit with his #10 examples "Storm, dredge, affinity for artifacts", which I don't think are completely impossible, but they have one major and several minor reasons not to use...
And even more so with bands-with-others, which I think they will probably avoid forever, because it's banding, but MORE confusing, with WORSE flavour and a LOT more parasitic... I'm not sure any of those traits will be desirable ever.
Mm, even banding is probably only 9 or 10.
http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/storm-scale-khans-tarkir-block-2016-02-29
Mark revisits the storm scale.
Of course, it could probably be extended.
11. I never say never, but never
• Real-world people
• Dexterity cards
12. I never say never, but never ever
• Cards on reserved list
• Triple-face cards
• Cards that make you tear up your own cards, cards that affect other games than this one, you know, basically most of Unglued.
13. Never.
• Ante
• Profanity, graphic gore, graphic sex, racial slurs
I was going put "free spells" and "functional reprint of power 9" on there, but they're probably still in the "#10, i never say never, butwould need a major miracle" category. I couldn't think of many actual mechanics that fell above 10!
True; my usual behaviour when commenting on a card is to click a card link; and read the card, and comment on it in isolation of anything else. If it's deliberately "different" I get told so (snottily, usually) and then I just try to remember never to look at cards from that set.
I have noticed that when someone starts a set here that is intentionally not NWO (even if not in that many words), people commenting tend to assume it is NWO. That leads to the designer testily defending their decision and antagonism between them and some of the criticisers, which can be an issue.
NWO forms the core of nearly every project I do, as it makes the custom set more accessible, consistent and fun.
As someone who prints out my set to draft and also makes custom draft decks I want as many people as possible to want to be able to learn and play it.
I even have written probably the most comprehensive primer to NWO outside of MaRo's writings/podcasts. For anyone wanting more understanding of NWO I'd highly recommend checking it out. http://tinyurl.com/pg9as4u