Conversation: Recent Activity
Conversation: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
Mechanics |
Recent updates to Conversation: (Generated at 2024-05-08 06:06:36)
Conversation: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
Mechanics |
Recent updates to Conversation: (Generated at 2024-05-08 06:06:36)
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
I'm the first to defend outside opinions and practices that I wouldn't try myself. I'm far more interested in seeing imagination at work. When that imagination is coupled with consistency, it can be a wonderful thing. In fact, I know I've given multiple good reviews to games I would never want to play again. Mostly, because I can easily imagine the type of person who would love the mechanics I find tedious, or convoluted.
Anti-NWO concepts can easily appeal to a lot of players, so I'm all for the change of pace, assuming the designer's identity shines through. Not every MTG idea has to feel like it could be the next set. Give me some strange and original ideas. But if a person makes a non-NWO set, they should first have a firm grasp of what NWO is. The designer should know what they're doing and how they plan to achieve their goals. I want a roller coaster, not a drunk driver.
For sets: I try to stick by it; but I wouldn't be completely dogmatic about it.
One good reason to do so is that stunning wonderful complex cards with nifty tricks are harder to appreciate without a background of normal cards - and a normal card can turn out to secretly be a clever card, once you appreciate its hidden interactions.
And, of course, sets need a +3/+3 instant, and a Murder and a Shock and...
For non-set stuff? I typically write the card, and then forget to set rarity, or set it rare+
For a while I did try and do a "What rarity should this be" analysis, for mashup cards. A surprising number of them could be uncommon :)
I think one thing that often happens is that people agree with NWO in theory, but designs from people focussed on design usually drift towards more complicated things...
And obviously, many people design pretend-sets as if they were designing for wizards, but other people design cubes or custom sets for friends who are experienced players, when higher complexity is more acceptable.
"I hope that these days we wouldn't jump in with a lot of critical feedback."
I hope so, but I also think it's difficult -- I often see an individual card and have the urge to comment on it, but it's not always obvious if the set is doing something different to wizards deliberately or not.
"Every card should serve a role (preferably more than one), and Summit Prowler's role was to be a Limited role-player and illustrate one uniquely unchanged part of the story."
I would love to see more vanillas (or other simple effects) which stand out in some way other than being mechanical. It's one reason I suggested full-art vanillas by default.
I wish cards could be equally useful in limited or constructed, but it's probably impossible we probably just have to live with the best compromise we can come up with, tho' I'm not sure what that is...
There are certain of MaRo's decisions that I don't agree with, such as printing double-faced cards. But NWO I can see the benefit in. I've always targeted my custom cardsets at "the high end of the current permissible complexity spectrum"... so if the permissible complexity spectrum shifts downwards, I'll shift my cards' complexity downwards too.
Part of that is because I'm a game designer, not just a custom Magic card designer. And I know that complexity is not just a synonym for "strategic interest". Complexity is mostly a bad thing, and not just for new players. Even with experienced players it makes people need to take longer to consider their options, more likely to overlook things and feel bad later, and generally find the experience more stressful.
"Emergent complexity" is much better. When all (or most of) the pieces are simple enough, but the strategic results of combining them can lead to fascinating gameplay decisions, that's a much better place to be.
To your question, Tonks: I think there has been one or two users who've been fairly strongly anti NWO. I'm all for the community including differences of opinion.
I hope that these days we wouldn't jump in with a lot of critical feedback. We're aware that NWO has nuances, and every set is allowed some complex / red-flagged commons; NWO is about the experience of playing with the set as a whole, not about any one card.
Vanillas are a somewhat separate discussion. I was a rather vocal critic of Shards of Alara when it came out, with all the vanillas, and I'm still not very keen on them, even if I can see their value in simplifying a limited environment. Do note that Summit Prowler served a storytelling purpose: Khans and Dragons had many parallel cards telling stories of how things were affected by the timeline change, but that was the only straight reprint with the same art - but even then, the flavour text had an amusingly different tone between the Khans and Dragons printings. Every card should serve a role (preferably more than one), and Summit Prowler's role was to be a Limited role-player and illustrate one uniquely unchanged part of the story.
But "Being useless in constructed and cube", sadly, is very much not restricted to vanillas. The majority of commons are so strongly focused on Limited that they're unlikely to show up in any but the most casual constructed decks, and that annoys me.