COK preview cards

Spiderman

Administrator
Staff member
Originally posted by train
It's also WoTC's "proving grounds" for how the set is accepted... any negative response in the masses is supposedly "taken into consideration"
What do you mean? The sets already been printed and released... pretty much the only thing they can do is recall the boxes of product, but that would cause.... MAYHEM! :)
 
T

train

Guest
WoTC supposedly uses the response to the cards at these events as a primer to how the set in general is accepted...

they know the tourney and casual players are going to be there - and they look to see how the concepts interact with the players...

They can't change anything of course... but they look at it...
(I remember reading this in a WoTC article, and will try finding it a little later...)
 

Spiderman

Administrator
Staff member
That's okay, I thought you meant they could change it somehow after getting feedback from the Prereleases.
 
T

train

Guest
Oh... okay...

I did find one article where they wanted to know what you thought of pre-releases... and I guess I'll finish researching it just 'cause...:cool:
 
I

Istanbul

Guest
At last, a set inspired by Busta Rhymes.

Flipmode Squad in effect, y'all...
 
E

Exaulted_Leader

Guest
I don't know if it's more the card or the concept, but I think this rat with the secret identity is cool. Look, I'm a 1/1 weenie that wrecks your game plan, and when I've completed that task, I'm a 3/3 'stick that wrecks your life total. Oh, yeah - and at a converted mana cost of 1B, I'm actually playable!

...Is the disruption ability too mana heavy, though? I know, it's only two mana - but it'd have been more awesome if it were just T: .
 

Spiderman

Administrator
Staff member
I agree. There hasn't been an instant discard in a while (I think), so this looks safe (well, safer than just Tap)
 

Spiderman

Administrator
Staff member
Mark Gottlieb's article

I can't save the picture anymore. It keeps coming up as an untitled bitmap instead of the named jpeg it used to be. Am I doing something wrong or did WOTC change how they do their pictures? What'd you do, Mikeymike?
 
M

Mikeymike

Guest
I saved the imag down to my hard-drive, opened it up in Photoshop, and re-saved the file as a JPEG (though this time I dropped a little image quality, bringing the file size down a bit). Not sure exactly why it worked to be perfectly frank.

Hopefully this attachment works....

I like the card, it is like a cross between Intuition and Fact or Fiction, but fixed. Solid, but not appearing to be entirely broken.
 

Attachments

Spiderman

Administrator
Staff member
Well, I don't have Photoshop so it looks like it'll be up to you or someone else who has it to keep posting the pictures directly here...
 

Oversoul

The Tentacled One
Oh great, white gets another Savannah Lions to play with...

Gifts Ungiven is pretty similar to Intuition, which is rather broken. It does cost more, and can't play games with Accumulated Knowledge, but I'm sure someone can find some way to break it...
 
N

Nightstalkers

Guest
Part of me screams "Its a f****** 2/2 vanilla that is not only rare, but a legend as well?! What the bloody f*** is going on inside their f****** heads?!"


While the insightful mind says: "Okay, they're up to something because there is no chance in the nine hells that WotC would print a 2/2 vanilla critter that is a legend... And a rare. There has to be some card that will interface with this one to create some kind of an effect."
 
E

Exaulted_Leader

Guest
I'm at a loss for words. I was so excited - giddy, even - with the approach of Kamigawa. Gorgeous art! Ninja-themed! Legends all over the place!

...Then Aaron Forsythe had to go and wreck it for me.

Here's a link to his article (and the new preview card):

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/daily/af31

First, let's examine our new toy - Ismaru, Hound of Konda.

W
Legendary Creature - Hound
2/2

That's it? A vanilla 2/2 for W with an anagram of 'Samurai' as a name that I can't have multiple copies of on the board? Give me a freakin' break!

Part of the idea behind Legends in the first place was that they weren't just vanilla. They have a whole ton of yummy mechanical flavor!. They were tangy, fruity... they were like that new rat guy, Shortfang the Odious. THAT'S a Legend!

This, of course, is hardly even a glancing blow when coming against my anticipation of the new set. There's got to be at least a few duds in the previews - and stuff like Hold the Line and Ismaru can easily be overshadowed by the other goodies we've been shown.

The rest of the article, however, has largely blown my eagerness to get my hands on it right out of the water. Foremostly, we come across this little gem of inspiration:

'...but flavor no longer drivers the bus as far as rules go...'

The HELL is THAT supposed to mean?

As a statement that more or less set the trend for the rest of the article, it's single-handedly soured the deal for me as far as CoK's coming release is concerned (...and really made me wish I could take back all of the defending I did for it on Starcitygames.com, against everyone who saw it coming). How does a statement like this ever slip by WotC's website editor(s) for an article promoting a set who's very appeal is supposed to be flavour!?

Before I get started, I'd like to just state two very important opinions of mine:

1): I like that the Legend rule was changed. The old rule, IMHO, was unhealthy for an environment that supported even a limited number of Legends. I DO NOT like the WAY it was changed (there are so many other options - and this one doesn't push the envelope).

2): I think that flavour is the heart and soul of Magic: the Gathering. I think it's the reason the game thrives and survives, and why all of the clones to have followed were failures. I know that it's the reason I play MtG. If I wanted to play something with a lot of depth, complexity and intellectual challenge, I'd play chess or poker.

The idea that flavour is 'no longer driving the bus' is both scary and dangerous. If the game loses the only thing it has going for it, it'll evaporate. Fast.

Later that day, after the event had ended, Magic designer and Pro Tour front man Mark Rosewater was hanging out with some players discussing the "legend rule" and the problems it caused, especially in tournaments. Justin Gary and Zvi Mowshowitz were tossing out ideas for potential fixes, and Rosewater was shooting them all down. But then Zvi struck gold.
You know what I'd like to know? How many ideas were 'shot down' before the existing one was suggested. If a competitive player like Zvi is making suggestions to improve the game, and you know he's both a good customer and devoted player, you don't just shoot down everything he says until you hear what you want to hear.

And you especially don't then use him for your reason as to why you arrived at a final decision.

Flash back even further, to the development of Onslaught. Many cards in that set, such as Imagecrafter, can change other creatures' types. But because some types—namely Legend and Wall—have rules attached to them, we had to put riders on the cards to prevent players from choosing those types. So instead of Imagecrafter saying "T: Choose a creature type. Target creature's type becomes that type until end of turn," it says "T: Choose a creature type other than Legend or Wall. Target creature's type becomes that type until end of turn." It was annoying to have to print that limitation multiple times, and that line of text started the debate of whether we should have creature types with "rules baggage" at all.
I can think of two cards off-hand that had to include these riders (the two that are also displayed in the article) - Imagecrafter and Artificial Evolution.

My question: What's more annoying - to add a small rider to two cards every now and then, or to errata a new keyword onto every card that been printed as a Wall, then re-evaluate and errata every card that interacts with that particular creature type?

Additionally, "Legend" was a creature type, but "Legendary"—as in Legendary Land and Legendary Artifact—was a supertype. This weirdness was grandfathered from the Legends set, and doesn't make a lot of sense when compared to how we handle subtypes and supertypes under our current system.
Yeah, actually, it did make sense. That way you could have a creature with no other type than 'Legend', you could get creative with the host of cards that changed creature types and you could use them in conjunction with all the tribal cards introduced in Onsalught.

It's the change, actually, that doesn't make any sense. Changing the Legend rule, that makes sense. Leaving Legend as a creature type was not confusing, nor awkward, and it made more sense in terms of flavor (The characters are the Legends - their tools, lands and deeds are Legendary).

In one fell swoop, we could fix the subtype/supertype problem, fix the "creature types with hidden rules" problem
What 'problem'? Did it create loopholes int he mechanics? Did it somehow break the game? Were players crying-out for a change from sub-type to supertype?

In order to remove hidden rules baggage from all creature types, we had to alter the rules for something other than Legends. The creature type "Wall" now no longer implies anything, and instead all existing Walls are being errataed to have a keyword:
The rules for the creature type "Wall" have been changed. Although the creature type Wall still exists, it no longer has any rules meaning. Instead, all creatures that had the creature type Wall now also have the defender ability.

Steel Wall (_Mirrodin_(R) card with its new Oracle wording)
{1}
Artifact Creature -- Wall
0/4
Defender (This creature can't attack.)

Note that no creatures in the Champions of Kamigawa set have the defender ability. This rules change is being made at this time in order to eliminate all rules inherent to specific creature types.

Bet you didn't expect that!
Yeah. I'll bet that nobody expected that, seeing as there wasn't a press release about it, any form of advance warning, no poll, no official announcement... nothing. It's like they just tried to slip one by, IMHO, by throwing it in at the bottom of a preview article.

For such a major change, I'd think they could be a little more vocal and forthcoming about it.

'In order to remove hidden rules baggage from all creature types, we had to alter the rules for something other than Legends'. I'd like to examine this statement in particular, because of what it implies. Because they got rid of the Legends creature type, they 'had' to unload the Wall creature type? What's the justification for this?

Same thing wi(th) Walls… many players attacked with Carnivorous Plant back in the Fourth Edition days because it was not intuitive that this huge creature shouldn't be able to attack.
We fixed the Wall problem (sort of) with reminder text, but the issue of types with their own rules still loomed, especially with Legends.
How was it an 'issue'? The mechanic, if anything, made Walls unique. They were a creature type that actually meant something, and had an impact on the game. Reminder text DID solve the problem - not just 'sort of'. What instances since way back in 4th Edition have there been of competent players not realizing that Walls cannot attack (there are instances I can recall of players attacking with Sunwebs not realizing it was a wall - but that's a different problem entirely, largely fixed by the new card faces and fonts)?

This new mechanic ruins certain ideas entirely, confines creativity rather than expanding it, and - IMHO - is very, very ugly to read. 'Defender'? That's the best R&D can come up with? That's not just taking flavor away from the wheel - that's kicking it to the curb.

'On-Guard', 'Fortified', 'Immobile', 'Sentry', 'Sentinel', 'Forbidding', 'Impeding'... These are all words that would largely encompass the same meaning, but don't sound like they were developed for players ages 7-10. I'm sure many of you can think of some even better keywords, if the whole change were really necessary.

Further, in what way is the Wall rule at all similar to the Legend rule? With this instance in mind, how far-fetched is it to guess that Wizards might continue the trend of, 'Well, while we're changing mechinc X, may as well change mechanic Y, since it shares an inconsequential trait with mechanic Y'? This kind of deconstruction is, IMHO, very unhealthy for the game - especially if flavor is just thrown to the backseat in the R&D room.


Finally, where were the friggin' polls?

With all of Wizards new hype about 'giving' the game to the players', and in light of promotions like 'Selecting 9th Edition', couldn't they even ask players what they thought about changing the wall and Legend types? That way R&D could focus on some more pressing health issues - like making sure they don't pull another Skullclamp boner.

At present, it's almost a guarantee that my playing group is going to completely veto the rules introduced by CoK. And that's a shame.
 
N

Nightstalkers

Guest
Originally posted by Exaulted_Leader
I can think of two cards off-hand that had to include these riders (the two that are also displayed in the article) - Imagecrafter and Artificial Evolution.
Don't forget Mistform Mutant and Standardize :D

The rules for the creature type "Wall" have been changed. Although the creature type Wall still exists, it no longer has any rules meaning. Instead, all creatures that had the creature type Wall now also have the defender ability.

Steel Wall (_Mirrodin_(R) card with its new Oracle wording)
{1}
Artifact Creature -- Wall
0/4
Defender (This creature can't attack.)

Note that no creatures in the Champions of Kamigawa set have the defender ability. This rules change is being made at this time in order to eliminate all rules inherent to specific creature types.
I swear, if they print that s*** (yes, I call it s***) on a card, someone should get the darwin award! It is common sense, if it is a wall, it cannot attack. You don't see a wall of bricks stomp after some poor innocent homeless dude for opening up his drawers and taking a leak on it, do you? If ya do, please hook me up with whatever int he nine hells you are smoking so that I can see some of that crazy s***.



Okay, now to come to WotC's defense... Kinda...


Well folks, we have two creature types that are knit to a specific, almost unlisted rule. Whats to stop them from later on changing it so that all Clerics have "reduce 1 dmg from any source to any target" or even a Skeletons creature type having "B: Regenerate"? I ask you, what is preventing them from just doing that and tacking on a special little additive to every creature type?


Oh, and the Legends ruling... where is it... Aha, here it be:

420.5e - If two or more permanents with the same name have the subtype Legend or the supertype legendary, all except the one that has been a Legend or legendary permanent with that name the longest are put into their owners' graveyards. This is called "the Legend rule." In the event of a tie, each Legend or legendary permanent with the same name is put into its owner's graveyard. (If two permanents have the same name but only one is a Legend or is legendary, this rule doesn't apply.)
[CompRules 2003/07/01]
whats so hard to understand? Everything in M:TG is kinda not worded as to be the same thing. Sure spells can be the same because anyone can really cast them... Like, Moron's Fireball can be cast over and over again because... well... Moron found out how to cast it, and I guess others would duplicate it.

But what the fricking sludge muckies is with this? Stab me in the toe if you think I'm wrong about this... but... If our president was making a speech and then the same president, only another body walks up to give a speech all the while another president walks up from the other end of the stage to give a speech at the podium... wouldn't that seem a bit odd to you? Isn't it physically impossible to have that sorta thing happen?

Oh sure you'd just jury rig the creature type Clone to be able to take anything and not be adversely affected by it... but what is your goal? If someone has the absense of that much common sense, why in the blazes are you playing a card game based on strategy and card play? I can teach any idiot how to play M:TG, teach them how to play a deck or two... but what about when they get handed a deck out of the blue, look through it, and go to play? If they stare dully at the cards wondering how the heck they should play... what much good are they? If they can't figure out that this card could interact with this card... or that this card is good for stopping this card... Its like arguing with a bloody river!


One thing I'd like to get off my bloody chest:
A creature can't attack unless it has been under its controller's control since the start of his or her most recent turn. This rule is informally called the "summoning sickness" rule. Ignore this rule for creatures with haste (see Rule 502.5).
Informally? WTF?! It was printed on the very first cards that it was called "Summoning Sickness" and now you want to give it some other name? Oh, and reduce the old one as an informality? Thats like going back and reducing M&Ms to Circular Chocolate Balls Covered in Candy Coatings.
 
N

Notepad

Guest
The wall thing is insane. Goin back to errata all the walls, is definitely one of the most bone-headed decisions WotC has made. Hopefully they have time to reverse it.

We need public outcry over this.
 
Top