Dominaria Card Image Gallery

[Spiderman]

Well.... not yet, but there's already a preview card from Aaron Forsythe due to the leak: Phrexian Scriptures

Edited 3/28/18: Now here's the Card Image Gallery

 

[Oversoul]

Yikes. I keep hearing how there's a lot riding on this set, and I'm wondering how they haven't blown it. Players were pretty clear with Kamigawa that "legendary matters" is not fun. I get the temptation to push it with the popularity of Commander and all that, but it failed spectacularly the last time they tried it and these new "legendary matters" cards do not look fun to me. I was hopeful for this set. Maybe I still am. But I see a bunch of "legendary matters" cards and I think, "Oh no."

 

[omarcheek]

I also heard about this card. I do not want it yet

 

[Psarketos]

Having examined the full spoilers to this point, there are some mildly interesting combo pieces, legendary sorceries and sagas are fun to some extent, and I am happy to see Jaya and Teferi. The set does seem very lackluster mechanically, with the flavor elements something I am happy to read about and never incorporate into my own decks.

One element that will change Magic slightly going forward are the three of a single color cost cards, WWW or RRR like Goblin Chainwhirler. Monocolored aggro strategies will get a bit more flavorful and powerful with that particular new twist.

 

[Spiderman]

Monday 3/26/18 cards:

Blake Rasmussen's cards: Wizard's Lightning and Retort

 

[Oversoul]

Monday 3/26/18 cards:

Blake Rasmussen's cards: Wizard's Lightning and Retort

Those cards are really emblematic of the disappointment I have for most of the recent sets. Counterspell and Lightning Bolt were old core set staples, so new cards with similar effects are inevitably going to be judged against them. WotC have decided that those cards are too strong to appear in Standard sets anymore (this is a bad decision on their part). But even with that policy, they can't just stick to some appropriately costed new normal, like Shock or whatever. Instead, they keep innovating all these fantastic new ways to make strictly worse cards. This isn't too hard to figure out...

See that? That's bad. It's a waste. They took an interesting new mechanic with great potential and implemented it such that the card always sucks. Yeah, Fiery Impulse is always worse than Lightning Bolt even if you jump through its hoops, while Wizard's Lightning actually becomes equal to Lightning Bolt if you jump through its hoops. But the problem is the same in both cases. Jumping through hoops should be something that one can circumvent or something that comes with real payoff. They've done it right before and they've done it right several times. Here are some more worse-than-Bolt cards...

All of those cards are fine. All of them use different mechanics. None of them are quite as versatile as the original Lightning Bolt, but they can be made to work and I'd happily use any of them. So even if you think that Lightning Bolt is just too good to be in the game, at least compromise with something that has its own points of interest. A 2R version of Bolt that just becomes regular Bolt if you happen to control a wizard feels fundamentally disconnected from what players are after. If this is a tribal-themed set and it's got to be something to do with wizards, then make it more powerful when you control a wizard.

 

[Spiderman]

I haven't really thought about the whole issue so I don't really have a firm opinion on it, but reading what you wrote, what came to mind in that they (WOTC) have several environments they have to think of/design for and these cards seem to be part of that. Sure, this is a stricter weaker Lightning Bolt-clone-type card, if you had access to all of the cards. But if you narrow it down to Limited or Block Constructed (just as a sweeping example as I have no idea really what cards were in Ixalan overall), they could fit.

Mark Rosewater is either doing right now or has done articles about what it takes or goes into designing cards for sets and having to satisfy many requirements, of which environments and player types are pretty major considerations. So yeah, you can look at these cards and judge them based on past and better cards/effects and sure, they're not going into any Vintage decks. But you really have to look at the Big Picture and where and what kind of situations might use these cards.

 

[Oversoul]

I haven't really thought about the whole issue so I don't really have a firm opinion on it, but reading what you wrote, what came to mind in that they (WOTC) have several environments they have to think of/design for and these cards seem to be part of that. Sure, this is a stricter weaker Lightning Bolt-clone-type card, if you had access to all of the cards. But if you narrow it down to Limited or Block Constructed (just as a sweeping example as I have no idea really what cards were in Ixalan overall), they could fit.

Mark Rosewater is either doing right now or has done articles about what it takes or goes into designing cards for sets and having to satisfy many requirements, of which environments and player types are pretty major considerations. So yeah, you can look at these cards and judge them based on past and better cards/effects and sure, they're not going into any Vintage decks. But you really have to look at the Big Picture and where and what kind of situations might use these cards.

What might get lost in the context of discussions here at the CPA is that in many other places, there are at least a few vocal detractors of just about everything WotC does, people who criticize everything and act like they just can't get anything right. I consider my own stance to be much more tempered. I do not believe that WotC can't get anything right. I think they've gotten lots of things right. I also think that they've been consistently failing to get certain things right even after players have repeatedly and publicly provided helpful feedback, so that can be frustrating. Anyway, in this case, I contend that I am looking at the big picture and have been analyzing the big picture a great deal, while WotC are the ones not looking at the big picture. I can't really prove that this is the case, and it's subjective anyway. Still, I'm comfortable throwing that back at them. One of my most serious complaints is that WotC seem to be ignoring the big picture. And this set is taking huge amounts of flack, so I'm not the only one who's disappointed. From what else I've seen, my criticisms are comparatively mild. But I think a lot of the harsher criticisms are spot-on anyway. They made spells that are not overly powerful but are merely OK, and to cast them you have to control a legendary creature or planeswalker. That isn't fun! People want to be able to cast powerful spells. They don't want to have to have a legendary creature on the board first. It's too severe a constraint. It makes the spells feel weak. If the spells were some amazing level of value with that constraint, then maybe it'd be interesting to explore. But they're not. They're just OK. They'd be fine if not for the constraint, but the constraint is there and it's all just too much. Cards that get better if I have more wizards could be exciting because they might make wizard-tribal have potential. Cards that are just rehashes of existing generic staples, but are overcosted garbage if I don't control a wizard? No, that's bad.

They've even done the tribe-dependent damage stuff and had it work well before...

There are a lot of ways to make cards that are some variation on Lightning Bolt. They don't always have to hit the power level of the original, but WotC have successfully made variants in the past that contributed something meaningful to the game, to the big picture. I don't think this new one achieves that.

Setting aside the specific example of Bolt variants, plenty of people have made the case that WotC have been too narrowly focused in their design choices, that they really aren't looking at or understanding different formats. Yes, it would seem like they'd have several environments they have to think of and design for, but all evidence I've seen has pointed to them doing very little actual work of that sort. I've been following Legacy in particular over the years, and the Legacy playerbase, from what evidence they've seen, are generally of the impression that WotC do not understand how Legacy works and that they've paid very little attention to the format for well over a decade. With Standard, members of the community have correctly pointed out problems before they arose, problems that WotC failed to spot. And not just to the extent of "anyone makes mistakes" but more approaching a consistent pattern of failing to comprehend the environment. They've attempted to patch that deficiency with the new "Play Design" team, and that's because Standard is their flagship format. In Modern, players have petitioned for ban list changes and been told by WotC employees that they were flat-out wrong. I don't follow Modern closely, but given what I've seen with Legacy and Vintage, I'm inclined to think that the players know better than the company at this point. There have been some tacit admissions and general rumors that almost all members of R&D do not play Standard, and anecdotes from ex-employees suggest that within WotC, they mostly play Booster Draft.

 

[Psarketos]

Oversoul, I agree with your general theme, but with a few caveats. First, Searing Blaze is exactly what a card that is inspired by Lightning Bolt but not actually Lightning Bolt should be, and is often a Counterspell + Lightning Bolt effectively against a wide range of creature strategies. It is a critical component of my zero nonland permanent Naya Burn, as is Lightning Bolt - they simply serve different functions, with original Bolt maximizing flexibility and efficiency while Blaze allows me to engage effective creature defense while not detracting in any way from the main aggro strategy of reducing opponent life total. Example: "Spell Queller in response to your Anger of the Gods." Next Turn: "Clifftop Retreat, Searing Blaze your Spell Queller, exile all those fragile humans, 3 to the dome, Lightning Helix for victory." You did not mention Lightning Helix, so I am going to presume that, like myself, you consider it the pinnacle of card design and beyond reproach

So my argument is that Searing Blaze got the balance you are looking for exactly right, as does Lightning Helix (while also diverging in function enough to not be a clone, or even a same situations of deck building type comparison). Why those cards are exceptions to the often underwhelming counterexamples is easy to see - Lightning Bolt is as broken as a card can be in Modern, and as format shaping, without getting outright banned. If it were not a core of the game from the very beginning, but had been printed in a later set, there is no doubt in my mind that it would be on the Modern banned list. Article example of why, from just yesterday - https://www.channelfireball.com/articles/lightning-bolt-reigns-in-modern-who-are-the-winners/

Edit - One last point where I would agree with you is on the general feeling of the existing formats slowly failing due to lack of maintenance and care. While the announcement for Brawl is a welcome addition to the supported formats in my view, it is not sufficient in itself - the game needs another format that has fewer of the flaws of Standard attached, even if it is not strictly Eternal. Extended was very cool for this, though I may be in a minority in thinking that. There are lots of great options, and none of them exclude giving more care and attention to the existing formats as well. TL;DR - You are absolutely right that Wizards needs to provide more attention and care to Magic as a game of formats if the game is going to be healthy and thrive in the long term.

 

[Spiderman]

<shrug> Like I said before, I don't really have a vested interest in this. Especially that I don't know what others are saying elsewhere as the CPA is the only place I go that has player opinions.

*However*, when you say "plenty of people have made the case" etc., to me, it sounds like while their views may certainly be valid from "where they're standing", they may not be seeing the Big Picture either. The Big Picture, in this case (and not what I referred to in my previous post), is all the data that WOTC sees from everywhere Magic is being played and kept track, decklists, and general player sentiment.

IMO, unless you have actually been in the design environment and have talked to "everyone" and have seen "everything", you simply do not know what's going on. You can make guesses and form opinions obviously from what you see, of course. And I understand that's all what this is, ultimately. Just for some reason, your initial post just "triggered" something in me that I had to respond

It reminds me of another game forum I frequent: Gems of War. There's probably around 100 active posters out of around 50K players (and that's probably on the *very* conservative side), yet most of the posters seem to assume that whatever "they" say or what the majority of the discussion is, that's how *all* players feel (like if a troop needs nerfing or whatever game improvement seems to be needed, stuff like that). And since most are longtime players, they feel they "know the game" and what's best. And maybe they do, for some of the things. It's the common assumption that they speak for all players is what bugs me.

/rant over that I didn't even know I started when I began

 

[Psarketos]

I think I agree with what Oversoul has said on the topic of Big Picture before to some extent, in that the people who design Magic may be getting a bit more push to focus on what moves booster packs in the here and now than is healthy for the game in the long run (the omnipresent corporate tendency to maximize immediate profit at the expense of long term potential). Definitely agree with you, Spiderman, that we should be cautious and generous in attributing motive and understanding of factors where we do not have all the data, and this Big Picture consideration certainly qualifies. Being someone who has scoured the public domain on Magic opinions in the past few months, Oversoul definitely has learned company in the opinion that Wizards can and should be doing more to correct certain mistakes and prevent them in future, and that a push by marketing people combined with a lack of large enough scale (in time and across market) vision has left Magic behind where it could be as a broadly played game.

Rosewater et al clearly love the work they do, love the game, and deserve feedback that reflects an appreciation for both their efforts and the difficulties they face in balancing something that is so widely public. Constructive criticism (when appropriately formulated and communicated) can be a form of appreciation too, and given how prolific he is on the topic, I think Oversoul is coming from a place where he wants the best for the game that he shares an affection for with those same designers

 

[Oversoul]

Well, I was confining myself to monored cards in that example because multicolored cards add their own considerations. As it happens, I think that Lightning Helix is good card design, and I think I very briefly mentioned that in the memories thread for Lim-Dûl's Vault.

Maybe I should be more clear about why I think Wizard's Lightning (focusing on just the one card for now because in the technical details, the blue one functions very differently) is bad card design. These are the two closest cards to what it does...

The first one is good. Very good, as Psarketos points out. Its existence (thanks to its M10 reprint) shapes Modern. It's a staple in Vintage and Legacy as well. But as strong as it is, there are some other, similar spells that are just slightly different. Reduce the damage by 1 and you get Shock, which is generally thought of as OK. Increase the cost by 1 and you get Lightning Strike, which is also generally OK.

The second card is mediocre, but has some modest utility because the damage can be split. Usually 2R is just too much mana for 3 damage, even with the potential to split it between targets.

Galvanic Blast, for instance, is good design because even in an environment without Lightning Bolt, a red deck can get a card that functions as Shock, but if you turn on Metalcraft, then it's better than Lightning Bolt. Most red decks can't turn on Metalcraft that easily, but this was an artifact-heavy block. Anyone with an artifact-heavy red deck would be happy to have a 4-damage Bolt, and it's flexible because if they need it in a pinch, it's Shock even without Metalcraft. Let's take another example of good design. Searing Blaze costs RR, but it only deals 1 damage to a player and 1 damage to a creature. So it's slightly cheaper than Arc Lightning, but more color-restricted. It's only 2 damage total and it has to be split, which is less flexible than Arc Lightning. It's also an instant instead of a sorcery, which gives it an advantage over Arc Lightning. So that's mediocre, but potentially useful in a pinch. With Landfall, it deals 3 damage to a player and 3 damage to a creature, for a total of up to 6 damage. Landfall is pretty easy to turn on, and it was a land-themed block, including the option to use fetchlands. In an aggressive deck, Searing Blaze can clear a blocker and hurt the opponent. In a slower deck it can make an advantageous long-term trade. With both of those cards, you have a very powerful effect that requires jumping through some hoop, achieving some board state, but if you really need the effect and can't meet the condition, you still get a weaker version of the same card.

Wizard's Lightning can't be more powerful than Lightning bolt. There's no 4 damage option or 3 to a player and 3 to a creature option. It's just regular Lightning Bolt. But it costs as much as Arc Lightning. But not if you control a wizard, which you very well may not. The kind of deck that could use a card that takes wizards to unlock would be a tribal wizards deck. And in that case, the appropriate perk would be to have damage scale with wizards, like Goblin War Strike does. Er, it does it with goblins. But you know what I mean. If it's not going to scale, then it should have something to make it exciting when the condition is met. Have it deal more damage or have it damage multiple targets or something. Making it more mediocre than Arc Lightning unless one jumps through a hoop that's more demanding than Metalcraft or Landfall, and only getting regular Lightning Bolt as payoff? That's dull and unappealing.

 

[Psarketos]

Two other examples that I appreciate having in the design space yet do not use very often. Both are less powerful than Lightning Bolt, in my analysis, while also being great cards that provide something Lightning Bolt does not.

 

[Spiderman]

I think WOTC does a fairly good job of communicating to the public of how and why they make their decisions, what goes into the design process, etc,. as much as they can without giving away too many specifics that you'd have to know by working for them. Mark and whoever does the Friday article about designing (used to be Sam Stoddard, can't remember who it is now without looking ) are the main sources. I mean, there's the Future League, the Future Future League, and other various test areas/environments. And they acknowledge that the process isn't always perfect, that the thousands of players can and will think of combos and interactions that they didn't.

https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/latest-developments/standard-power-level-2016-02-05

I did a quick search before I'm leaving for the day about lightning bolt and this is a fairly recent article. He even mentions Lightning Strike that is just 1 colorless more than Lightning Bolt but that it's leaving (and hints at Bolt's return). And he says why it's being removed ("boring" (?!)). But he also touches on the "old staples" like Counterspell, Swords to Plowshares, and why they were ultimately removed - to open up design space and room for other cards. I also remember Mark also speaking about it but can't look for it right now.

So going back to Wizard's Lightning and Retort - yeah, they may seem bad overall. But they could fit a niche and while they may not be on the level of Goblin Grenade, that kind of level may never be revisited again anyway so they're trying this.

Which also brings to mind an article they did (Mark?) on why they print "bad cards". I guess another search...

 

[Oversoul]

<shrug> Like I said before, I don't really have a vested interest in this. Especially that I don't know what others are saying elsewhere as the CPA is the only place I go that has player opinions.

Sure. What I was getting at was that the community here is small and insular, and it's not really representative of what's out there. I've seen a range of responses and receptions to these things. Some people are extremely critical and some people are pleasantly optimistic about everything. Most, though, are somewhere in-between. I feel like my own commentary here has been more critical, but I want to note that, from what I've seen elsewhere, I'm the soul of congeniality. And if you're not seeing that more aggressive reception to Magic sets lately, you might get the idea that I'm particularly critical. Maybe I am, but it depends on context?

*However*, when you say "plenty of people have made the case" etc., to me, it sounds like while their views may certainly be valid from "where they're standing", they may not be seeing the Big Picture either. The Big Picture, in this case (and not what I referred to in my previous post), is all the data that WOTC sees from everywhere Magic is being played and kept track, decklists, and general player sentiment.

You keep using the phrase "Big Picture." I might be reading too much into it, but my first response was to think that "big picture" is just a generic expression to refer to an emphasis on scope, on trying to capture more of the details of a particular situation instead of honing in on one specific thing. You make it sound more like a title, but maybe that's how you mean it? If you think of it as something proprietary, as something bound to or belonging to Wizards of the Coast, then I could see why you'd respond the way you have. The way I think of the big picture, of scope, it's something that primarily applies to games, well, everywhere. It's not confined within the walls of WotC HQ.

IMO, unless you have actually been in the design environment and have talked to "everyone" and have seen "everything", you simply do not know what's going on. You can make guesses and form opinions obviously from what you see, of course. And I understand that's all what this is, ultimately. Just for some reason, your initial post just "triggered" something in me that I had to respond

Seems like that old saw about a critic not being allowed to comment on the quality of an omelette until he has the power to lay an egg. I don't think I need inside information to comment on the contents of new Magic sets.

It reminds me of another game forum I frequent: Gems of War. There's probably around 100 active posters out of around 50K players (and that's probably on the *very* conservative side), yet most of the posters seem to assume that whatever "they" say or what the majority of the discussion is, that's how *all* players feel (like if a troop needs nerfing or whatever game improvement seems to be needed, stuff like that). And since most are longtime players, they feel they "know the game" and what's best. And maybe they do, for some of the things. It's the common assumption that they speak for all players is what bugs me.

Uh, OK. But I don't speak for all players. I speak for myself alone. However, some of what I've said reflects what I've heard others say. Really, just about the only things I've heard anyone say. Like, the convoluted "legendary matters" theme in Kamigawa Block not being fun. I've heard that lots of times. Was it from 100 people? I don't know. So what, though?

I think WOTC does a fairly good job of communicating to the public of how and why they make their decisions, what goes into the design process, etc,. as much as they can without giving away too many specifics that you'd have to know by working for them. Mark and whoever does the Friday article about designing (used to be Sam Stoddard, can't remember who it is now without looking ) are the main sources. I mean, there's the Future League, the Future Future League, and other various test areas/environments. And they acknowledge that the process isn't always perfect, that the thousands of players can and will think of combos and interactions that they didn't.

At one point, I posted that article dissecting the publicly available information about the process of the Future Future League, I sincerely hope that the advent of the Play Design team has led to improvements, but that's pretty recent. The picture painted for what was going on until just recently, well, it was grim. The "Copycat" combo was a particularly striking example, because multiple pro players spotted the combo and began trying to build around it within seconds of the card being spoiled. The concept that R&D only has so many people and that the sheer numbers of the playerbase will unlock things they never discovered is totally valid, but that doesn't carry over to the point when someone can spot an infinite combo within seconds and your whole team failed to notice it when it was what they did for a living.

I did a quick search before I'm leaving for the day about lightning bolt and this is a fairly recent article. He even mentions Lightning Strike that is just 1 colorless more than Lightning Bolt but that it's leaving (and hints at Bolt's return). And he says why it's being removed ("boring" (?!)). But he also touches on the "old staples" like Counterspell, Swords to Plowshares, and why they were ultimately removed - to open up design space and room for other cards. I also remember Mark also speaking about it but can't look for it right now.

So going back to Wizard's Lightning and Retort - yeah, they may seem bad overall. But they could fit a niche and while they may not be on the level of Goblin Grenade, that kind of level may never be revisited again anyway so they're trying this.

Which also brings to mind an article they did (Mark?) on why they print "bad cards". I guess another search...

You mean the "When Cards Go Bad" article? I remember that one. It was a very well-written article that didn't actually address the main complaint players seem to have about bad cards.

 

[Oversoul]

Here's the article I mentioned earlier, since I forget where/when/if I linked to it at the CPA: https://www.mtggoldfish.com/articles/future-future-league-failures-and-fixes

That was about a year ago. I suspect that it's gotten better in the meantime. Why bring it up, then? Well, it's an illustrative example of how the mere existence of the Future Future League (or something like it) isn't necessarily a sign that WotC have prepared for the future. The fact that they have a program and that it has a funny name doesn't help if the program doesn't actually do anything useful. Now they have "Play Design" with people explicitly working on testing new sets for the Standard environment. So that's an improvement.

 

[Oversoul]

Just because I'm worried that perhaps I'm not being clear enough...

I remember Mark Rosewater's "When Cards Go Bad" article. I agreed with most of what he said, but took issue with just one thing, and it was a fairly big thing. But that's a bit of a tangent and I don't think it really applies here. Might start another thread on it at some point. Let me see, here's the article: https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/when-cards-go-bad-2002-01-28

What I called Wizard's Lightning (and Wizard's Retort too, but I don't think it applies as much to that card), wasn't a bad card, but a bad design. I hope that distinction was clear, but if not, I want to rectify that now. A card can be "good" in the sense of being powerful or impactful, but have a design that detracts from the overall experience of the game. Of course there's no objective standard from that, but the example I'd cite first is Mental Misstep, which was banned in both Modern and Legacy, not because it dominated those formats, but because the cascading effects its usage had on deck construction and gameplay made the game unappealing to most people. I'd say that Mental Misstep was a design mistake, that it wasn't a good idea to print the card, but it's not a "bad card" in the traditional sense. When I think "bad card" I think of something like Wood Elemental. So I'd distinguish between...

"Bad card": a card that is egregiously weak, overcosted, implausibly situational in its function, etc.
"Bad card design": Application of game mechanics in such a way that it makes a card that causes problems or doesn't do what it should be doing.

 

[Spiderman]

I'm the soul of congeniality.

LOL

And if you're not seeing that more aggressive reception to Magic sets lately, you might get the idea that I'm particularly critical. Maybe I am, but it depends on context?

Oh, I'm sure it does. You're the only one who's really been posting anything for a while now except with the recent addition of Psarketos joining in. And frankly, you have a fairly common theme of commenting when you disagree with WOTC (although to be sure, usually if someone agrees with something or someone, they usually don't initiate posts/threads "cheerleading" it, only in responses). And I usually don't respond because I don't have any knowledge about what else is being said about things. But like I said, for some reason I felt compelled here. Maybe it was a "leak" from the Gems of War forums because I read there a lot also and the negative attitude there has been pretty strong lately

You keep using the phrase "Big Picture."

You may be reading more into it - I simply meant that there are a lot of decisions and things of how and why cards get made and get through the design and development process and if these cards made it all this way, they may have a purpose or function that you're not aware of when judging them right now. I certainly didn't mean it as proprietary or specifically belong to WOTC.

Seems like that old saw about a critic not being allowed to comment on the quality of an omelette until he has the power to lay an egg. I don't think I need inside information to comment on the contents of new Magic sets.

I know, and I covered that in my second and third sentence of what you quoted for this as the response.

But I don't speak for all players. I speak for myself alone. However, some of what I've said reflects what I've heard others say. Really, just about the only things I've heard anyone say.

Right, I didn't mean to say that YOU in particular are speaking for everyone. Just that the group that shares the similar opinion kind of conflates it to "we have x people who agree with each other and see it this way so the game should be changing to accommodate us/fix what we perceive to be wrong" - that sort of thing. And again, I'm not saying YOU are specifically calling for any actions that WOTC needs to make or do, this is just a general "herd" mentality that I've noticed on other forums of late.

The picture painted for what was going on until just recently, well, it was grim....

Well, it's an illustrative example of how the mere existence of the Future Future League (or something like it) isn't necessarily a sign that WotC have prepared for the future.

So call me a (natural) skeptic, but what's the author's "credentials"? Did he used to work there or is this just his observations? Is this just one particular example where the playtesting happened to "fail" for this particular block or is it consistent and widespread? Are the participants in the FFL the same as in previous times or has there been changeover (aside from knowing who exactly are the participants and their experience with Magic)?

Sure, it's a good (fairly) current observation, especially since (again) I don't know what else has been said about the FFL. We never hear (that I know of) about combos that may have been stopped/discovered during testing and cards fixed/not released. We only hear about what got through. Is that an excuse? Mmm... perhaps not, but since we don't know the full story behind the FFL, I don't think we can really fully "judge" them on their effectiveness. Unless you take the stance that things could be *a lot* worse if it didn't exist and they're stopping more than gets through in which case you'd be on the more "positive" side towards them.

It was a very well-written article that didn't actually address the main complaint players seem to have about bad cards.

See? There's that generalization trigger again. What players? What percentage of players? Who are these "players"? The "100"? And what main complaint?

 

[Oversoul]

Oh, I'm sure it does. You're the only one who's really been posting anything for a while now except with the recent addition of Psarketos joining in. And frankly, you have a fairly common theme of commenting when you disagree with WOTC (although to be sure, usually if someone agrees with something or someone, they usually don't initiate posts/threads "cheerleading" it, only in responses). And I usually don't respond because I don't have any knowledge about what else is being said about things. But like I said, for some reason I felt compelled here. Maybe it was a "leak" from the Gems of War forums because I read there a lot also and the negative attitude there has been pretty strong lately

I mean, I do think you're right that when I agree with them about something, there's not as much to be said. But I have, here and there, voiced my approval for some of the decisions they've made. I even wrote an article that was a retrospective look at good moves they'd pulled over the years, including some that I didn't appreciate at the time, specifically for the reason you've noted. I think that's appropriate though. If I like something they've done, a simple "I like this" should suffice. If I dislike something they've done, it's more meaningful to explain why than to just say, "This is bad."

You may be reading more into it - I simply meant that there are a lot of decisions and things of how and why cards get made and get through the design and development process and if these cards made it all this way, they may have a purpose or function that you're not aware of when judging them right now. I certainly didn't mean it as proprietary or specifically belong to WOTC.

That may be true, but I wonder how much it really matters. I'm reminded of one of their articles, I forget who wrote it, talking about the card Damnation. It was, by far, the most requested reprint by the players. It came up all of the time. Some people were even angry that they refused to reprint it, but more generally, there was commentary pouring in from all over the place calling for a Damnation reprint. Now, in my view, the company doesn't really have an obligation to reprint any particular card, nor to tell anyone when or if they ever will, although it is prudent to reprint cards, especially ones for which the demand far exceeds the supply, just to make more of the game more accessible to more people. But what ultimately happened was that once the card was announced for Modern Masters 2017, they put out an article explaining the history of their ideas for reprinting the card, of all the times they were planning to reprint it but backed down, and so on. It was like they felt bad and wanted to justify why it hadn't happened. I don't think it really needs justification, but my point is that none of that insider information really matters. What matters is the result. There were things happening behind the scenes and the players asking about a Damnation reprint didn't know any of that at the time. But who cares? Not me. The whole article was all so much hot air. Maybe if you're interested in getting some insight into the company's operations those details are interesting, but otherwise, it's completely immaterial.

Right, I didn't mean to say that YOU in particular are speaking for everyone. Just that the group that shares the similar opinion kind of conflates it to "we have x people who agree with each other and see it this way so the game should be changing to accommodate us/fix what we perceive to be wrong" - that sort of thing. And again, I'm not saying YOU are specifically calling for any actions that WOTC needs to make or do, this is just a general "herd" mentality that I've noticed on other forums of late.

Well, I don't think anything I wrote reads like I'm appealing to popularity, but if you read it that way, I'll note that is not my intention. While I have noticed a lot of griping about certain spoilers from this set (a lot of players are ragging on the look and playability of the "saga" cards), my criticism of Wizard's Lightning was my own immediate reaction to seeing the card for the first time. For all I know, I'm the only one in the world who's had anything negative to say about that particular card. Probably not, but I mean that I was just stating my own reaction when I was elaborating on why I didn't like the card design.

So call me a (natural) skeptic, but what's the author's "credentials"? Did he used to work there or is this just his observations? Is this just one particular example where the playtesting happened to "fail" for this particular block or is it consistent and widespread? Are the participants in the FFL the same as in previous times or has there been changeover (aside from knowing who exactly are the participants and their experience with Magic)?

Well, I don't want to quell your skepticism. I think skepticism is important. But did you read the article and look into what he was saying? He runs one of the biggest Magic websites in the world, so this isn't just some random guy making stuff up. He draws information from officially published material from WotC and he links to articles (mostly by Sam Stoddard) throughout the text. I don't think that the extrapolations he makes or the conclusions he draws are a stretch at all. In fact, I think his commentary is rather conservative on the matter. Perhaps you don't. Is there something specific in what he said that is triggering your spider senses?

Sure, it's a good (fairly) current observation, especially since (again) I don't know what else has been said about the FFL. We never hear (that I know of) about combos that may have been stopped/discovered during testing and cards fixed/not released. We only hear about what got through. Is that an excuse? Mmm... perhaps not, but since we don't know the full story behind the FFL, I don't think we can really fully "judge" them on their effectiveness. Unless you take the stance that things could be *a lot* worse if it didn't exist and they're stopping more than gets through in which case you'd be on the more "positive" side towards them.

Well, that's a good point. It's in the nature of the WotC process. One group of people design the cards in a new set, and then a second group of people get control of the set and make their own adjustments. And those people have the same issue as people who are professional editors for magazines or continuity monitors for movies and other people with similar jobs: your contribution is invisible if you're doing a good job and people only notice you when you mess up.

See? There's that generalization trigger again. What players? What percentage of players? Who are these "players"? The "100"? And what main complaint?

The article is really old (although it's one of the ones Mark Rosewater revisits the most in his other material), so I had no especial reason to go into this until now. Mainly I remember listening to his podcast based on that article a few years ago and being annoyed that he was completely missing the point. I'll re-read the article and start a thread about it later. His podcast is probably my favorite, but occasionally I find myself zealously arguing with him even though he never listens to what I'm saying!

 

[Spiderman]

But I have, here and there, voiced my approval for some of the decisions they've made. I even wrote an article that was a retrospective look at good moves they'd pulled over the years, including some that I didn't appreciate at the time, specifically for the reason you've noted.

You've written so much, I've really forgotten. That's why I gave myself a little "out" when I said "fairly common"

I think that's appropriate though. If I like something they've done, a simple "I like this" should suffice. If I dislike something they've done, it's more meaningful to explain why than to just say, "This is bad."

Oh sure, like I said, if you agree with someone, there's no need to go into further detail. Disagreeing by nature needs more explanation.

That may be true, but I wonder how much it really matters.

It's true, it may not, or it may. That's the Problem, we'll never know unless the knowledge is given later (like in your Damnation example). Now, I probably read the article although I don't remember it, but just as an example, my take on just your explanation is that they wanted to reprint Damnation when the players wanted it but couldn't because of whatever reasons but now they can. Players couldn't know it at the time until now. So I find that kind of stuff interesting (when I read it, not really to remember it later unless it *really* sticks out) and perhaps others too - it's why people go over now-non-classified information from the government, after all. What happened during those events that people couldn't know back then but it's why things happened the way they did. That kind of thing.

Well, I don't think anything I wrote reads like I'm appealing to popularity, but if you read it that way, I'll note that is not my intention

No no, I know it wasn't. I was just trying to expound on the whole "conflate" thing.

But did you read the article and look into what he was saying? He runs one of the biggest Magic websites in the world, so this isn't just some random guy making stuff up.

I did read the article but I don't know anything about the guy. Running one of biggest Magic websites isn't bad. So kind of like today's Mike Flores or the Dojo. Nothing specific, I'm just wary of articles that back up one view while not knowing what else is being said for the opposite view/rebuttals/the other side

I had no especial reason to go into this until now. Mainly I remember listening to his podcast based on that article a few years ago and being annoyed that he was completely missing the point. I'll re-read the article and start a thread about it later.

Ah, don't worry about it. Unless you really want to