Another good episode guys. I opted out of Rishadan Port from xkorpio's list because I couldn't think of a game position where I would have to tap down a land. Mana bases are so good right now with Workshop decks pushed out of the format that even Wasteland feels like a wasted slot. In fact, Wasteland was only useful to shut down other Wastelands from killing my Mutavaults. Card availability of Rishadan Port was not a problem ;)
Tarmogoyf wrecked me and I was reminded that no matter how good Fish may be against a perceived metagame, a big dumb green creature still stops it dead in its tracks without a lord for Islandwalk.
Waterfront Bouncer should have been more awesome than it was, and I wished it was a 2/2 split of Waterfront Bouncer and Merrow Reejery. Islandwalk is your primary win condition in this deck and without Islandwalk your dudes are bears. Holding Aether Vial on 2 was great, though. Bumping a Vial from 2 to 3 is always a big decision in traditional Fish builds.
Gilded Drake didn't come up but I thought it would be a nice sting on Oath which is the deck I expected in larger numbers than what appeared. Aether Spellbomb copied from xkorpio and while he may have had luck with them, Seal of Removal would have been better. Oh wait ... xkorpio is already ahead of me on that!
Fish is awesome. If WOTC prints another decent Merfolk at UU or less it could be a tier 1 contender for years to come.
Big Congrats on Episode 50! I have to admit since I am not a classic tourney player I listen sporadically but the work you guys do every week is imho very important. Keep it up and Thanks.
Jyalt, you are generally an outstanding writer and I usually look forward to your articles. This one, however, even before I opened it, made me cringe a little. Why? Because the set was just spoiled and it hasn't for most of us had time to really settle into our consciousnesses and here you are preparing to deride it and its designers.
I am in agreement with some of your assessments of cards and disagree with a bunch of others. I won't argue about who is the best qualified to make sets because everyone has opinions and to me this seems to be somewhat of a matter of opinion.
(We can talk till we are blue in the face about what the correct criteria are for determining this and you might actually even be totally correct but that won't be convincing by itself. Game Design is not a science as of now.)
Also many mtg players have some experience either as designers or expert users of game design and have at least some intuitive knowledge of what works and what doesn't. For those of us who have done deeper work in the field this is even more true.)
One of the patterns we have seen with Wizards when it comes to set power over a long period of time is there is an ebb and flow to power creep. Sometimes a set comes out like Urza's Saga and everyone freaks out, and then we get sets like Mercadian Masques. And then Invasions and so on. This pattern repeats itself over and over again in the history of sets.
To complain that this set is as bad as the Dark was is really imho missing the mark. Not that I hated the Dark at all. When I opened Dark packs I really enjoyed finding Frankenstein s monster and Maze of Ith. I loved the Elves of Dark Shadow and Witch Hunter. There were plenty of less spectacular cards but also plenty of interesting stuff.
However, back then, set design was very primitive without much nuance at all. Mirage is probably the first time a magic set seemed gel. In my opinion DKA is fairly good for what it is. It is the 2nd set of a cycle and imho is fairly spot on. I don't care for the art the way I did ISD (Wow!! that set has lots of great art!) but everyone has different tastes.
I agree that excitement is important for initial sales and if a person really loves a set deeply they will likely get very involved with it. But I don't agree that a set always needs to knock our socks off. (Wasn't Grafdigger's Cage a good enough example of that?) I don't see DKA as being boring but then again there are at least a dozen cards I really like a lot (which seems to be about the right number per set for me).
I think one of the reasons this article gets me down is the highly negative tone your text seems to take only marginally lightening up at the end with the few things you do like about the set. If you'd started with that, maybe this wouldn't feel so much like just a rant from a disgruntled player.
In fact this article reminded me a lot of the one by Blau from last year after the GDS was over. He had some legitimate points but they seemed to drown in the vitriol of his personal vendetta against Mark Rosewater. I get it. Not everyone loves the guy but really...is he solely responsible for all the ills players perceive?
My preference would have been that you take a more neutral stance and actually maybe go with a positive tone so that your criticisms could be taken more seriously.
By the way if you are going to tell us you have designed games you know your audience is going to want to check them out. Why not post some links?
Have you ever watched "Thank you for Smoking"? Your arguments are very reminiscent of it. My issue was never with your "proof of knowledge" - it was with this line :
Have *you* read "The Art of Game Design" by Jesse Schell from cover to cover? If not, you don't have a clear picture of what good design can be, especially if you believe "Making Magic" articles are the pinnacle of design advice.
Had your argument basically said "I've done X and Y and Z", you would have been fine. But then you throw in a clearly false statement and expect everyone to accept it. So basically, simply by not reading that book, you can't do good design? The second you use absolutes, you lose the argument, hands down.
Now, that part aside, you and I agree that good games inspire passion, and that (some) good games change and evolve. Unless you're going to try to argue that Chess is a bad game, it's NOT a given that a good game needs to change and evolve. That is not to say that you can't take a good game, change it / evolve it, and have another good game - Archon from Chess, for instance - but it is definitely NOT a requirement.
Unfortunately, that seems to be the end to our agreements, as I am very much against the idea that so long as a card doesn't win by itself, it must therefore be in a "pushable" area. Your arguments are all based upon and dependent on *YOUR* personal opinions and wants, whereas Mark Rosewater and Wizards do not design the game specifically for *you*. This is why I said that the article felt whiny - because it was "this card is bad because I don't like X or Y about it" rather than "This card is badly designed because it warps a specific metagame or deck type" or "this card is bad because it doesn't properly fit the theme of the set".
Part of selling a product is ensuring that said product will last. Part of selling a product like MTG is ensuring that as many people as possible like it, both older and newer generations.
Part of selling a product like Dark Ascension is ensuring that as many archetypes and formats are supported by the cards in the set - and I feel (as do a lot of others) that that goal was reached.
So now it's not about what I think makes a good designer or good design, it's about your arbitrary opinion that I'm a bad designer just because? You can't have it both ways. You can't say I'm bad designer because I don't have work recognized or know the field, and then when I give examples of work and prove I *DO* know the field, 'doubt it's required'.
The point of designing magic is to make a good game. Good games inspire passion. Good games change and evolve. Magic can change by pushing limits or redefining them. I don't think making a good curse deck viable in block is 'power creep'. I think it's using new design space... but at the same time making the curse deck competitive *does* require it be powerful. Part of my personal design philosophy is if a card can't win by itself, and changes the style of play an opponent uses, then that is a 'pushable' area that won't result in 'power creep'. You need to remember standard has bad countermagic and other formats have Aether Vial and spells which 'can't be countered' and two card win-the-game combos, some of which have flash. So despite your protests, WW for Rule of Law isn't broken. It isn't even as good as Counterbalance.
Part of selling a product is making people passionate about it. Artificial controversy over a previously 'undone' design is great way to do this. Design doesn't exist in a vacuum, marketing also matters! That's why I stress making both good sets and sets that *sell*.
To get cards with apostrophes to show up, you have to edit the article in html mode, then find the word with the apostrophe. You'll find that the site has inserted the html code for apostrophe (& apos ; but without the spaces). Delete the html code, put in an apostrophe, and the card will show up.
I never once said Making Magic articles are the pinnacle of design advice. I mentioned it because it shows the motivations that underlie a lot of the choices MTG designers make / are sometimes forced to make. Additionally, no matter who wrote it, no book is the end-all, be-all that you claim "The Art of Game Design" is. Case in point, Gary Gynax, Steve Jackson, Richard Garfield, and countless others have designed dozens of great, heavily played games before Jesse Schell wrote that book, so I doubt it's required reading.
I think a lot of people agreed with what I said, so I don't need to rehash those arguments, but I really think what clinched my argument for me is this :
But even if I'm wrong, part of making a set exciting is pushing limitations. If they printed Curse of Law, and people said it was super broken like you just did, but it turned out to be not such a big deal like I think... it would really sell the set! That sort of exciting controversy is missing in Dark Ascension, except for maybe Graf's cage.
The point of Magic designing is not to stir controversy at every turn. If they did, the game would die because it would advance to a point of ridiculousness. Those of us that have been playing since the days of the Dark - like myself - have already had issues adjusting to the "power creep" that permeates every set. Now you say that it should be even faster? If they went with "pushing limits" every single set, you'll end up with Primeval Titans as commons and god-knows-what as rares. Maybe they have just learned from the Big-Jace fallout, and have lightened up a bit on the power levels just to be cautious.
About the only defense you threw out that I actually agree with is that the block is likely trying to grab some of the dark-fantasy themes that have been flying around as late. The difference, however, is that I think it's somewhat inevitable, and ultimately I'm fine with it as long as they don't sell out in the process - and to me, they haven't.
Wait, you really expect every vanilla creature in non-core sets to be CONSTRUCTED-playable??
The bar for constructed playability for vanilla creatures is outrageously high - even french vanilla (it took months to realize that a conditional 3/2 flyer for 1 is pretty amazing in the right deck). Put another way: would Serendib Efreet see constructed play in standard today?
Vanilla creatures are necessary to fill holes in limited. Since limited is one of the key driving forces behind pack sales (as well as a strong portion of high-level organized play), raising the bar to constructed playability would either:
A - Take a dump all over one of the cornerstones of current play
B - Require inelegant additions of low-power/no-utility text just to make them non-vanilla (and unnecessarily eat up future design space)
I appreciate that you've designed a bunch of cards and submitted some of them to GDS, but while you're clearly well-versed in design theory, it seems like you're absolutely missing the mark on actual application to a set, at least in a 'holistic' sense.
'Curse of Law' at WW would be fair in legacy/modern. In standard, there are not enough cheap counterspells to stop everything, especially with all the flash, flashback, and instants going around. Plus you'd have to be heavy white, which doesn't have counterspells on it's own (Mana Tithe ignored). Plus it's not like Curse of Law is ever winning the game by doing damage or milling.
But even if I'm wrong, part of making a set exciting is pushing limitations. If they printed Curse of Law, and people said it was super broken like you just did, but it turned out to be not such a big deal like I think... it would really sell the set! That sort of exciting controversy is missing in Dark Ascension, except for maybe Graf's cage.
I've designed cards since I first started playing in 1994, participated in the their GDS searches, and won a few design contests along the way. I've designed my own games (mostly video games). Have *you* read "The Art of Game Design" by Jesse Schell from cover to cover? If not, you don't have a clear picture of what good design can be, especially if you believe "Making Magic" articles are the pinnacle of design advice.
Warned readers at the beginning that it would be a critical article.
I disagree that set-specific enablers should be useless outside their sets. I also disagree that vanilla creatures are necessary in non-base edition sets. They are fine if constructed playable, but I've never played Hill Giant in constructed, even with cards that pump Giants.
The term "Generic Monsters" was used in the table describing the monsters in 'The Dark' from 1994, referring to Leviathan, Frankenstein's Monster, Nameless Race, Goblin Hero, and other generic or easily-recognizable-as-real-world-analogue monsters. DKA is trying to cash in on the current vampire/zombie/werewolf fad in fantasy fiction. I thought people could get that. Maybe I was wrong.
The 'arguments therein' you dislike are disputes on fundamental design theory, which I could write about, but is off topic in a set critique article. See... we aren't talking about DKA right now. I think if DKA followed my advice, it would have much stronger sales.
As to how it was written, I'm always open to advice on improvement... can you give specifics which do NOT involve opinions you disagree with?
While I agree that the final reveal of the set was pretty dissappointing given that the previews had led us to expect something awesome, I disagree that it is as bad as "The Dark". Fisrts off, you are missing quite a few cards that are playable outside major formats (there is A LOT here for commander players) and your list of Dark "playables" takes the term playable pretty loosely. Even back then, half those cards never made the cut into actual decks.
I also think that you might have gone a bit far on a lot of the redos o the cards. A non-symmetrical Rule of Law for WW would be very busted, talk about major tempo!. You could soft lock the other player out turn 2 with this + couterspells. If the accepted cost for this effect on a symmetrical card is 3, then 4 for the nonsymmetrical version is a fine deal, especially when it gets the bonus of being a curse that can go with other curses.
Admittedly, most of the complaints were backed up at least, but the overall feel was very whiny to me. And I disagree with a number of the complaints to begin with.
I think, if you're going to write an article detailing design, you should first have at least a modicum of design experience - whether vicariously or physically - and I feel a lot of what you're saying should be done is the opposite of good design. Have you read the Making Magic columns or the various other design forums at the Wizard's site? Or have you tried making cards yourself in the monthy Custom Card contest in the MTGO Forums? I think it would do you good to see the difference between designing for yourself / your play style and designing for the world at large. It would also show you about the idea of designing as a whole set vs designing individual cards.
I think that Dark Ascension, while not outstanding, had a number of really well-thought-out design choices - and some questionable ones too - but the overall feel to me was positive. I agree about the the demon sword 1000%, and I agree that both cats should have had undying just for the flavor of it, but some of your complaints, like "wasted white common" or "generic monsters" is pointless. And then you have to think about the themes of the set - complaining about Shattered Perception, in a block that needs things in a graveyard? Or "We don't need more hill giants" when it's a wolf in a block that pumps wolves, and you also need common vanilla creatures in every set?
I think this could have been a great article, but how it was written and the arguments therein left me wanting.
Hey you stole my article for next week! XD Guess I'll be writing about new archetypes instead. Should be fun.
Good read, but I've recently fallen off the BW Tokens will rule block bandwagon. No doubt the deck will be fantastic, but I kind of think other decks will be in a good position to handle it. Guess we'll see... in a month...
While I may not agree with your assessment I actually really enjoyed the editorial
I think its a tough sell on your comparison of "playable" cards due to the difference in set size (and I think your math was slightly off as I counted 29/158), but I do feel you left out some playable commons at the least in undying evil (which you didn't count as playable, but applauded at the end) and stormbound geist
I am a drafting fan so my picks will be what I would like to draft with.
p1p1 1. Sorin-he is the guy to have
p1p2 2. skirsdag flayer
p2p1 3. ravenous demon
p3p1 4. increasing devotion
p3p2 5. tragic slip-this is my favorite card printed in the set
That would give me a decent form of synergy I suppose. I hope I can get this list in a 64 player thing,
see you all in the limited room!
joey456(mtgo username)
Hey guys, thanks for the comments and the interesting discussion. I just wanted to point out that the point behind the article was to show 2 very different, yet very powerful decks. This was not only to give people ideas about how they may increase their own power levels in their deck, but also to see how these types of decks could be answered. Like I pointed out in the article, the Riku deck is a port of a real life deck made to fight in a very competitive metagame. And I know that the Karador deck has been tweaked over and over for the past couple months to get it at the point it is today, all while keeping 30 basic lands. While at first glance the decks may appear to just be a bunch of powerful spells smashed together, I think that both of them deserve attention for being good at what they are trying to accomplish.
As for my decks, I'm trying to get at least 2 or 3 together right now. But my time commitments have spread me thin. I'm going to try and keep providing Commander content, whether through decks or reviews. And no worries monkey, I know what you meant.
I'm sorry if my post came across as saying anything bad about Leviathan. He's a stand-up guy. Every time I've played with him I've had a blast. He builds decks that are fair, powerful, and fun both to play with and against. His knowledge of commander is extensive and he went above and beyond when I asked him for advice on some of my commander decks.
He is one of the finest writers on the site and I'm always happy when I check and find a new article. Because Leviathan is such a great commander deck builder, I'd much rather read about his home-brew decks. I understand how much time it takes to research and write these articles and know that isn't always possible.
Most of the commander players abide by the gentleman's agreement. Unfortunately there is a percentage that play the handful of most powerful deck types in the format. Because you are playing against usually 3 other players you run into those same deck types almost every game. That gets old.
On both his assessment of Leviathan and the fact that there are plenty of not-so-ruinous decks out there. I've been off my game as late, with work and life asking far too much of me, but I still find time now and again to throw down the virtual gauntlet and sling spells with my fellow MTGO Commanders, and I have yet to find that many Rikus around to support your judgments. That being said, I do find that there are more and more stale decks out there than there were when I first started playing Commander.
I think (and I've been writing an article to follow up my first one on this exact topic) that the problem stems mainly from the fact that so few people have really sat down and read the EDH site. There are two phrases in particular I always focus on :
That vision is predicated on a social contract: a gentleman's agreement which goes beyond these rules to includes a degree of interactivity between players.
and
When running a competitive commander event, the recommended list of cards to avoid (under the primary deckbuilding rules) is one place to start. It is not however, nor is it intended to be, comprehensive. There are a great many uninteresting uses for the cards not listed there, and additional structure is required to keep degeneracy in check.
Note that even in Competitive Commander, there still should be that gentleman's agreement - and far far far too many of these stale-deck players do not realize that.
Despite all the broken decks that roam the wilds of MTGO there are plenty of not so ruinous decks that wait to be discovered. I think what separates Leviathan from other Commander aficionados is his ability to find decks that are both "fair" and fun to play while being relatively unique.
Thalia, Guardian of Thraben (White Weenie booster.)
Call to the Kindred (Something about the junk rare lover in me wants to break this card so bad.)
Curse of Misfortunes (Again, junk rare lover speaking. This just seems like such an easy way to cripple your opponent.)
Moonveil Dragon (I doubt this will be a junk rare, but I love it all the same.)
Feed the Pack (Parallel Lives + Undying + This = Budget rare paradise.)
Decks like these are the reason I rarely play commander anymore.
It seems like I run into the Riku deck every other game. While the one you shared is very powerful, they all play the same. Ramp out a bunch of land, play and copy big spells, especially the blue extra turn spells.
The second deck type sees a lot of play too. Games that I don't run into Riku I think I run into a "no matter how often you kill my dudes, they are always coming back" deck.
I appreciate how hard it must be to write commander articles. The format is stale and dominated by a handful of deck strategies that you run into almost every game. Aside from that sour note, I'd love to see some unique deck creations in future articles. Even if they don't win very often they are usually fun to play and make interesting reads.
Another good episode guys. I opted out of Rishadan Port from xkorpio's list because I couldn't think of a game position where I would have to tap down a land. Mana bases are so good right now with Workshop decks pushed out of the format that even Wasteland feels like a wasted slot. In fact, Wasteland was only useful to shut down other Wastelands from killing my Mutavaults. Card availability of Rishadan Port was not a problem ;)
Tarmogoyf wrecked me and I was reminded that no matter how good Fish may be against a perceived metagame, a big dumb green creature still stops it dead in its tracks without a lord for Islandwalk.
Waterfront Bouncer should have been more awesome than it was, and I wished it was a 2/2 split of Waterfront Bouncer and Merrow Reejery. Islandwalk is your primary win condition in this deck and without Islandwalk your dudes are bears. Holding Aether Vial on 2 was great, though. Bumping a Vial from 2 to 3 is always a big decision in traditional Fish builds.
Gilded Drake didn't come up but I thought it would be a nice sting on Oath which is the deck I expected in larger numbers than what appeared. Aether Spellbomb copied from xkorpio and while he may have had luck with them, Seal of Removal would have been better. Oh wait ... xkorpio is already ahead of me on that!
Fish is awesome. If WOTC prints another decent Merfolk at UU or less it could be a tier 1 contender for years to come.
-Paul
Big Congrats on Episode 50! I have to admit since I am not a classic tourney player I listen sporadically but the work you guys do every week is imho very important. Keep it up and Thanks.
Jyalt, you are generally an outstanding writer and I usually look forward to your articles. This one, however, even before I opened it, made me cringe a little. Why? Because the set was just spoiled and it hasn't for most of us had time to really settle into our consciousnesses and here you are preparing to deride it and its designers.
I am in agreement with some of your assessments of cards and disagree with a bunch of others. I won't argue about who is the best qualified to make sets because everyone has opinions and to me this seems to be somewhat of a matter of opinion.
(We can talk till we are blue in the face about what the correct criteria are for determining this and you might actually even be totally correct but that won't be convincing by itself. Game Design is not a science as of now.)
Also many mtg players have some experience either as designers or expert users of game design and have at least some intuitive knowledge of what works and what doesn't. For those of us who have done deeper work in the field this is even more true.)
One of the patterns we have seen with Wizards when it comes to set power over a long period of time is there is an ebb and flow to power creep. Sometimes a set comes out like Urza's Saga and everyone freaks out, and then we get sets like Mercadian Masques. And then Invasions and so on. This pattern repeats itself over and over again in the history of sets.
To complain that this set is as bad as the Dark was is really imho missing the mark. Not that I hated the Dark at all. When I opened Dark packs I really enjoyed finding Frankenstein s monster and Maze of Ith. I loved the Elves of Dark Shadow and Witch Hunter. There were plenty of less spectacular cards but also plenty of interesting stuff.
However, back then, set design was very primitive without much nuance at all. Mirage is probably the first time a magic set seemed gel. In my opinion DKA is fairly good for what it is. It is the 2nd set of a cycle and imho is fairly spot on. I don't care for the art the way I did ISD (Wow!! that set has lots of great art!) but everyone has different tastes.
I agree that excitement is important for initial sales and if a person really loves a set deeply they will likely get very involved with it. But I don't agree that a set always needs to knock our socks off. (Wasn't Grafdigger's Cage a good enough example of that?) I don't see DKA as being boring but then again there are at least a dozen cards I really like a lot (which seems to be about the right number per set for me).
I think one of the reasons this article gets me down is the highly negative tone your text seems to take only marginally lightening up at the end with the few things you do like about the set. If you'd started with that, maybe this wouldn't feel so much like just a rant from a disgruntled player.
In fact this article reminded me a lot of the one by Blau from last year after the GDS was over. He had some legitimate points but they seemed to drown in the vitriol of his personal vendetta against Mark Rosewater. I get it. Not everyone loves the guy but really...is he solely responsible for all the ills players perceive?
My preference would have been that you take a more neutral stance and actually maybe go with a positive tone so that your criticisms could be taken more seriously.
By the way if you are going to tell us you have designed games you know your audience is going to want to check them out. Why not post some links?
Thanks for writing.
Have you ever watched "Thank you for Smoking"? Your arguments are very reminiscent of it. My issue was never with your "proof of knowledge" - it was with this line :
Have *you* read "The Art of Game Design" by Jesse Schell from cover to cover? If not, you don't have a clear picture of what good design can be, especially if you believe "Making Magic" articles are the pinnacle of design advice.
Had your argument basically said "I've done X and Y and Z", you would have been fine. But then you throw in a clearly false statement and expect everyone to accept it. So basically, simply by not reading that book, you can't do good design? The second you use absolutes, you lose the argument, hands down.
Now, that part aside, you and I agree that good games inspire passion, and that (some) good games change and evolve. Unless you're going to try to argue that Chess is a bad game, it's NOT a given that a good game needs to change and evolve. That is not to say that you can't take a good game, change it / evolve it, and have another good game - Archon from Chess, for instance - but it is definitely NOT a requirement.
Unfortunately, that seems to be the end to our agreements, as I am very much against the idea that so long as a card doesn't win by itself, it must therefore be in a "pushable" area. Your arguments are all based upon and dependent on *YOUR* personal opinions and wants, whereas Mark Rosewater and Wizards do not design the game specifically for *you*. This is why I said that the article felt whiny - because it was "this card is bad because I don't like X or Y about it" rather than "This card is badly designed because it warps a specific metagame or deck type" or "this card is bad because it doesn't properly fit the theme of the set".
Part of selling a product is ensuring that said product will last. Part of selling a product like MTG is ensuring that as many people as possible like it, both older and newer generations.
Part of selling a product like Dark Ascension is ensuring that as many archetypes and formats are supported by the cards in the set - and I feel (as do a lot of others) that that goal was reached.
Rofl at Deprecated Entities eh? Nice catch!
So now it's not about what I think makes a good designer or good design, it's about your arbitrary opinion that I'm a bad designer just because? You can't have it both ways. You can't say I'm bad designer because I don't have work recognized or know the field, and then when I give examples of work and prove I *DO* know the field, 'doubt it's required'.
The point of designing magic is to make a good game. Good games inspire passion. Good games change and evolve. Magic can change by pushing limits or redefining them. I don't think making a good curse deck viable in block is 'power creep'. I think it's using new design space... but at the same time making the curse deck competitive *does* require it be powerful. Part of my personal design philosophy is if a card can't win by itself, and changes the style of play an opponent uses, then that is a 'pushable' area that won't result in 'power creep'. You need to remember standard has bad countermagic and other formats have Aether Vial and spells which 'can't be countered' and two card win-the-game combos, some of which have flash. So despite your protests, WW for Rule of Law isn't broken. It isn't even as good as Counterbalance.
Part of selling a product is making people passionate about it. Artificial controversy over a previously 'undone' design is great way to do this. Design doesn't exist in a vacuum, marketing also matters! That's why I stress making both good sets and sets that *sell*.
To get cards with apostrophes to show up, you have to edit the article in html mode, then find the word with the apostrophe. You'll find that the site has inserted the html code for apostrophe (& apos ; but without the spaces). Delete the html code, put in an apostrophe, and the card will show up.
I never once said Making Magic articles are the pinnacle of design advice. I mentioned it because it shows the motivations that underlie a lot of the choices MTG designers make / are sometimes forced to make. Additionally, no matter who wrote it, no book is the end-all, be-all that you claim "The Art of Game Design" is. Case in point, Gary Gynax, Steve Jackson, Richard Garfield, and countless others have designed dozens of great, heavily played games before Jesse Schell wrote that book, so I doubt it's required reading.
I think a lot of people agreed with what I said, so I don't need to rehash those arguments, but I really think what clinched my argument for me is this :
But even if I'm wrong, part of making a set exciting is pushing limitations. If they printed Curse of Law, and people said it was super broken like you just did, but it turned out to be not such a big deal like I think... it would really sell the set! That sort of exciting controversy is missing in Dark Ascension, except for maybe Graf's cage.
The point of Magic designing is not to stir controversy at every turn. If they did, the game would die because it would advance to a point of ridiculousness. Those of us that have been playing since the days of the Dark - like myself - have already had issues adjusting to the "power creep" that permeates every set. Now you say that it should be even faster? If they went with "pushing limits" every single set, you'll end up with Primeval Titans as commons and god-knows-what as rares. Maybe they have just learned from the Big-Jace fallout, and have lightened up a bit on the power levels just to be cautious.
About the only defense you threw out that I actually agree with is that the block is likely trying to grab some of the dark-fantasy themes that have been flying around as late. The difference, however, is that I think it's somewhat inevitable, and ultimately I'm fine with it as long as they don't sell out in the process - and to me, they haven't.
Counterlash is the blue EDH card, not Counterslash. Best EDH card in the set IMO.
Wait, you really expect every vanilla creature in non-core sets to be CONSTRUCTED-playable??
The bar for constructed playability for vanilla creatures is outrageously high - even french vanilla (it took months to realize that a conditional 3/2 flyer for 1 is pretty amazing in the right deck). Put another way: would Serendib Efreet see constructed play in standard today?
Vanilla creatures are necessary to fill holes in limited. Since limited is one of the key driving forces behind pack sales (as well as a strong portion of high-level organized play), raising the bar to constructed playability would either:
A - Take a dump all over one of the cornerstones of current play
B - Require inelegant additions of low-power/no-utility text just to make them non-vanilla (and unnecessarily eat up future design space)
I appreciate that you've designed a bunch of cards and submitted some of them to GDS, but while you're clearly well-versed in design theory, it seems like you're absolutely missing the mark on actual application to a set, at least in a 'holistic' sense.
'Curse of Law' at WW would be fair in legacy/modern. In standard, there are not enough cheap counterspells to stop everything, especially with all the flash, flashback, and instants going around. Plus you'd have to be heavy white, which doesn't have counterspells on it's own (Mana Tithe ignored). Plus it's not like Curse of Law is ever winning the game by doing damage or milling.
But even if I'm wrong, part of making a set exciting is pushing limitations. If they printed Curse of Law, and people said it was super broken like you just did, but it turned out to be not such a big deal like I think... it would really sell the set! That sort of exciting controversy is missing in Dark Ascension, except for maybe Graf's cage.
I've designed cards since I first started playing in 1994, participated in the their GDS searches, and won a few design contests along the way. I've designed my own games (mostly video games). Have *you* read "The Art of Game Design" by Jesse Schell from cover to cover? If not, you don't have a clear picture of what good design can be, especially if you believe "Making Magic" articles are the pinnacle of design advice.
Warned readers at the beginning that it would be a critical article.
I disagree that set-specific enablers should be useless outside their sets. I also disagree that vanilla creatures are necessary in non-base edition sets. They are fine if constructed playable, but I've never played Hill Giant in constructed, even with cards that pump Giants.
The term "Generic Monsters" was used in the table describing the monsters in 'The Dark' from 1994, referring to Leviathan, Frankenstein's Monster, Nameless Race, Goblin Hero, and other generic or easily-recognizable-as-real-world-analogue monsters. DKA is trying to cash in on the current vampire/zombie/werewolf fad in fantasy fiction. I thought people could get that. Maybe I was wrong.
The 'arguments therein' you dislike are disputes on fundamental design theory, which I could write about, but is off topic in a set critique article. See... we aren't talking about DKA right now. I think if DKA followed my advice, it would have much stronger sales.
As to how it was written, I'm always open to advice on improvement... can you give specifics which do NOT involve opinions you disagree with?
While I agree that the final reveal of the set was pretty dissappointing given that the previews had led us to expect something awesome, I disagree that it is as bad as "The Dark". Fisrts off, you are missing quite a few cards that are playable outside major formats (there is A LOT here for commander players) and your list of Dark "playables" takes the term playable pretty loosely. Even back then, half those cards never made the cut into actual decks.
I also think that you might have gone a bit far on a lot of the redos o the cards. A non-symmetrical Rule of Law for WW would be very busted, talk about major tempo!. You could soft lock the other player out turn 2 with this + couterspells. If the accepted cost for this effect on a symmetrical card is 3, then 4 for the nonsymmetrical version is a fine deal, especially when it gets the bonus of being a curse that can go with other curses.
and less "editorial".
Admittedly, most of the complaints were backed up at least, but the overall feel was very whiny to me. And I disagree with a number of the complaints to begin with.
I think, if you're going to write an article detailing design, you should first have at least a modicum of design experience - whether vicariously or physically - and I feel a lot of what you're saying should be done is the opposite of good design. Have you read the Making Magic columns or the various other design forums at the Wizard's site? Or have you tried making cards yourself in the monthy Custom Card contest in the MTGO Forums? I think it would do you good to see the difference between designing for yourself / your play style and designing for the world at large. It would also show you about the idea of designing as a whole set vs designing individual cards.
I think that Dark Ascension, while not outstanding, had a number of really well-thought-out design choices - and some questionable ones too - but the overall feel to me was positive. I agree about the the demon sword 1000%, and I agree that both cats should have had undying just for the flavor of it, but some of your complaints, like "wasted white common" or "generic monsters" is pointless. And then you have to think about the themes of the set - complaining about Shattered Perception, in a block that needs things in a graveyard? Or "We don't need more hill giants" when it's a wolf in a block that pumps wolves, and you also need common vanilla creatures in every set?
I think this could have been a great article, but how it was written and the arguments therein left me wanting.
Hey you stole my article for next week! XD Guess I'll be writing about new archetypes instead. Should be fun.
Good read, but I've recently fallen off the BW Tokens will rule block bandwagon. No doubt the deck will be fantastic, but I kind of think other decks will be in a good position to handle it. Guess we'll see... in a month...
While I may not agree with your assessment I actually really enjoyed the editorial
I think its a tough sell on your comparison of "playable" cards due to the difference in set size (and I think your math was slightly off as I counted 29/158), but I do feel you left out some playable commons at the least in undying evil (which you didn't count as playable, but applauded at the end) and stormbound geist
I am a drafting fan so my picks will be what I would like to draft with.
p1p1 1. Sorin-he is the guy to have
p1p2 2. skirsdag flayer
p2p1 3. ravenous demon
p3p1 4. increasing devotion
p3p2 5. tragic slip-this is my favorite card printed in the set
That would give me a decent form of synergy I suppose. I hope I can get this list in a 64 player thing,
see you all in the limited room!
joey456(mtgo username)
Hey guys, thanks for the comments and the interesting discussion. I just wanted to point out that the point behind the article was to show 2 very different, yet very powerful decks. This was not only to give people ideas about how they may increase their own power levels in their deck, but also to see how these types of decks could be answered. Like I pointed out in the article, the Riku deck is a port of a real life deck made to fight in a very competitive metagame. And I know that the Karador deck has been tweaked over and over for the past couple months to get it at the point it is today, all while keeping 30 basic lands. While at first glance the decks may appear to just be a bunch of powerful spells smashed together, I think that both of them deserve attention for being good at what they are trying to accomplish.
As for my decks, I'm trying to get at least 2 or 3 together right now. But my time commitments have spread me thin. I'm going to try and keep providing Commander content, whether through decks or reviews. And no worries monkey, I know what you meant.
I'm sorry if my post came across as saying anything bad about Leviathan. He's a stand-up guy. Every time I've played with him I've had a blast. He builds decks that are fair, powerful, and fun both to play with and against. His knowledge of commander is extensive and he went above and beyond when I asked him for advice on some of my commander decks.
He is one of the finest writers on the site and I'm always happy when I check and find a new article. Because Leviathan is such a great commander deck builder, I'd much rather read about his home-brew decks. I understand how much time it takes to research and write these articles and know that isn't always possible.
Most of the commander players abide by the gentleman's agreement. Unfortunately there is a percentage that play the handful of most powerful deck types in the format. Because you are playing against usually 3 other players you run into those same deck types almost every game. That gets old.
Good to see coverage and that the meta is slowly looking more and more like that from Daily Events.
On both his assessment of Leviathan and the fact that there are plenty of not-so-ruinous decks out there. I've been off my game as late, with work and life asking far too much of me, but I still find time now and again to throw down the virtual gauntlet and sling spells with my fellow MTGO Commanders, and I have yet to find that many Rikus around to support your judgments. That being said, I do find that there are more and more stale decks out there than there were when I first started playing Commander.
I think (and I've been writing an article to follow up my first one on this exact topic) that the problem stems mainly from the fact that so few people have really sat down and read the EDH site. There are two phrases in particular I always focus on :
That vision is predicated on a social contract: a gentleman's agreement which goes beyond these rules to includes a degree of interactivity between players.
and
When running a competitive commander event, the recommended list of cards to avoid (under the primary deckbuilding rules) is one place to start. It is not however, nor is it intended to be, comprehensive. There are a great many uninteresting uses for the cards not listed there, and additional structure is required to keep degeneracy in check.
Note that even in Competitive Commander, there still should be that gentleman's agreement - and far far far too many of these stale-deck players do not realize that.
Despite all the broken decks that roam the wilds of MTGO there are plenty of not so ruinous decks that wait to be discovered. I think what separates Leviathan from other Commander aficionados is his ability to find decks that are both "fair" and fun to play while being relatively unique.
MTGO Username: ddmdandaman
Thalia, Guardian of Thraben (White Weenie booster.)
Call to the Kindred (Something about the junk rare lover in me wants to break this card so bad.)
Curse of Misfortunes (Again, junk rare lover speaking. This just seems like such an easy way to cripple your opponent.)
Moonveil Dragon (I doubt this will be a junk rare, but I love it all the same.)
Feed the Pack (Parallel Lives + Undying + This = Budget rare paradise.)
Great article and it's good to see you back.
Decks like these are the reason I rarely play commander anymore.
It seems like I run into the Riku deck every other game. While the one you shared is very powerful, they all play the same. Ramp out a bunch of land, play and copy big spells, especially the blue extra turn spells.
The second deck type sees a lot of play too. Games that I don't run into Riku I think I run into a "no matter how often you kill my dudes, they are always coming back" deck.
I appreciate how hard it must be to write commander articles. The format is stale and dominated by a handful of deck strategies that you run into almost every game. Aside from that sour note, I'd love to see some unique deck creations in future articles. Even if they don't win very often they are usually fun to play and make interesting reads.
Great, you're back!