I'm downloading this right now but I won't be able to listen to it until later tonight. Anyway, it promises to be very interesting just from the title! Further feedback may come after I listen to it.
EDIT: Sorry but between real life and MCC and CCL judgings I've only been able to listen to this now. This has been interesting, especially pointing out strengths and weaknesses of mechanics, the interactions between them, and how their presence reflects on the design of both the set and single cards. My vote is definitely do this every set.
MCC - Winner (6): Oct 2014, Apr Nov 2017, Jan 2018, Apr Jun 2019 || Host (15): Dec 2014, Apr Jul Aug Dec 2015, Mar Jul Aug Oct 2016, Feb Jul 2017, Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) || Judge (34): every month from Nov 2014 to Nov 2016 except Oct 2015, every month from Feb to Jul 2017 except Apr 2017, then Oct 2017, May Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) CCL - Winner (3): Jul 2016 (tied with Flatline), May 2017, Jul 2019 (last one here) || Host (5): Feb 2015, Mar Apr May Jun 2016 DCC - Winner (1): Mar 2015 (tied with Piar) || Host (3): May Oct 2015, Jan 2016
• The two public custom sets I've been part a part of the design team for: "Brotherhood of Ormos" - Blog post with all info - set thread - design skeleton / card list || "Extinctia: Homo Evanuit" - Blog post with all info - set thread - card list spreadsheet
• "The Lion's Lair", my article series about MTG and custom card design in particular. Latest article here. Here is the article index.Rather outdated by now, and based on the old MCC rubric, but I'm leaving this here for anybody that might be interested anyway.
• My only public attempt at being a writer: the story of my Leonin custom planeswalker Jeff Lionheart. (I have a very big one that I'm working on right now but that's private for now, and I don't know if I will ever actually publish it, and I also have ideas for multiple future ones, including one where I'm going to reprise Jeff.)
I liked this, but wish there were more lesson for custom card designers. There's already a lot of discussion from the mainstream Magic community about the quality of the mechanics; what I would be more interested in is more talk about how these mechanics compare to custom mechanics, or what kind of things we can learn about making new mechanics from how Wizards designed these mechanics, etc.
That said, it was very smart and interesting and wonderful.
This was really great - I think that you should do it every set. In addition, maybe you could also review cards from the set that are especially good/bad/interesting designs.
This was a good review, but I'm always curious as to why set reviews (especially those focused on design) come out so early, especially before a set has been released. I mean, there's a lot you can tell by reading the cards and playing at prerelease, but a lot of the truly ingenious designs don't reveal themselves until we're well into drafting the set proper. Perhaps it's just my limited side that always feels like a set review should come after a set as a retrospective, at least the ones who's goal is not to help players playing the format.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"In the beginning, MTG Salvation switched to a new forum format.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
It was at that moment that I realized: I'm kinda just making these things up. We can just write the rules the way we want them to work. People will have fun, and people will get it.
I'm inclined to agree with MOON-E. Brad Nelson and Evan Erwin are two of the best professional Magic players around and they are still wrong about cards as much as they are right.
This was a good review, but I'm always curious as to why set reviews (especially those focused on design) come out so early, especially before a set has been released. I mean, there's a lot you can tell by reading the cards and playing at prerelease, but a lot of the truly ingenious designs don't reveal themselves until we're well into drafting the set proper. Perhaps it's just my limited side that always feels like a set review should come after a set as a retrospective, at least the ones who's goal is not to help players playing the format.
I think as designers on the outside it's important to do both. We should look at a set preemptively, see how well we can evaluate based on our skills, mental math, and understanding of good play. Then coming back to it after and seeing what arose that we anticipated and that we did not helps us grow.
I was a little worried when I started listening that it was going to be a love fest with the talk about exploit. I agree it's a good mechanic, but it looks horrible to new players who already lean toward not liking to sac things and leading to some poor decision on the play for them too. I think your evaluations overall were well thought out (though I might of ranked dash below bolster as the worst of the core mechanics because the synergy with raid is much weaker due to the mana investment between the two,) BUT I feel like you missed talking about a major mechanic...
...Dragons. It's design heavily focuses around dragons, with more dragons in this one set than the last 2 blocks and core sets combined, but there wasn't any talk about the mechanics and ideas they used to make dragons matter, interact with their keyword abilities, or otherwise meet their design goals. I realize that, on top of everything else you reviewed, that's longer then what your aiming the podcost to be, but It's hard to look at this as a "Design Review" of Dragons of Tarkir when there was very little mechanical talk about the set's namesake, Dragons.
I was half expecting for some talk about Dragons and parallels to be drawn to Avacynn Restored in its designs to show what wizards had learned from their mistakes in terms of promoting a single tribe, making it matter, and not making the worst limited environment in contemporary magic design (basically.) Plus any concerns you had on the matter in there execution this go round. Was that something you guys considered for this review? What are your thoughts on the executions on this new "Dragons" set versus the prior "Angel" one?
We actually recorded this before the pre-release. As IcariiFa guessed, we're planning to do our predictions as well as our retrospective once we've had time to play the set for a good while. While it's very difficult to eyeball a mechanic and, through mental playtesting alone, get it right - you should always TRY to do that if you want to improve as a designer. It's also a great way to put our analysis in a place where you all can explore it yourselves. Often you'll never get to play with the cards or mechanics we're analyzing. In Dragons of Tarkir, you can not only explore it yourselves - but there's going to be hundreds of thousands of games played all over the world. We'll be able to follow up on our initial predictions, compare them to the reality of gameplay and explore any things we missed and why we missed them.
I do wish we'd been able to work in talking about the way they made dragons matter in this podcast. We just felt that it wasn't quite as important as talking about the mirrored versions of all the mechanis from Khans. I have a hunch we'll be talking about them more during the next podcast.
Great podcast! I really enjoyed it and I think you should do this for every set. I think it's useful to us as custom card designers to hear the two of you talk about how the design concepts you discuss from week to week are being used (or not being used) in professionally-designed Magic products.
I agree with most of your thoughts on the mechanics you discussed. I'm a big fan of both evoke and Viashino Sandscout, so I really like both dash and exploit. I was disappointed that your discussion of Formidable didn't include talk about whether or not this is "win-more" mechanic, since that's a common criticism I have seen about it. Also, I'd really appreciate some discussion on the show of what "win-more" really means, since my understanding how to effectively use the concept is fuzzier than I would like it to be.
I do wish we'd been able to work in talking about the way they made dragons matter in this podcast. We just felt that it wasn't quite as important as talking about the mirrored versions of all the mechanis from Khans. I have a hunch we'll be talking about them more during the next podcast.
I'm glad to hear that because I agree wholeheartedly with IcariiFA's opinion on this.
Win-more is a fallacy. there is no such thing. just because you have biggest creature or most creatures, you're not guaranteed to win. there are many situations, formats, archetypes, etc. that favor different board positions. e.g. in multiplayer, how is formidable win-more? in limited, board stalls are very common. things like formidable help break those stalls. then counter-arguments like dies to removal and sweepers also proves this fallacy. that is, once you lose the biggest creature, you lose the formidable status and you're no longer in a position to win.
Win-more is a great topic for discussion. It has more to do with MTG strategy than design, but it's important to understand - especially because it doesn't translate clearly to all games. Netrunner, for example, thrives off cards that most would consider "win more" if they existed in MTG.
Then they aren't "win more". Investing more resources into a winning strategy than is needed is unnecessary and frivolous. "Win more" is NOT a fallacy, it is the idea that cards whose only purpose is to advance you towards an inevitable victory are unnecessary once that victory has been confirmed inevitable. In the area of design, it would be interesting to discuss what makes a card or mechanic winmore. Does it have to do with efficiency (such as with Sweep)? Does it have to do with timing (such as with most big creatures)? Are there aspects of play other than efficiency or timing which control whether a card is winmore?
In the specific case of Formidable, the mechanic itself is not winmore. The specific cards using Formidable are not winmore. Winmore is a relative condition, determined by the specific interactions between your deck and your opponent's deck. Casting Lightning Bolt on an opponent at 1 while you have Shock in hand is a great example of winmore. It is better to hold the Bolt back because it is a more efficient (and therefore more powerful) card, simply the Shock will suffice. The correct choice in Magic, like the correct choice in any strategic scenario, is always going to be the maximally efficient, minimally powerful option. You could use a howitzer to take out that car, but if you have a bazooka it's just as powerful (the car will still be removed) but far more efficient (a bazooka is far more replacable once it's position is revealed, "spent", than a howitzer). The trick to designing cards that aren't winmore is to design cards (or groups of cards) that are unique in a given environment.
DIRECT DOWNLOAD
Podcast archive link
RSS feed
iTunes Channel
Player.FM Channel
In this episode:
Contact details:
Reuben Covington
Twitter: @reubencovington
Email: reubencovington@gmail.com
MTGsalvation Account: Doombringer
Dan Felder
Email: minimallyexceptional@gmail.com
MTGsalvation Account: Stairc
Card Renders
None this week
Are you designing commons? Check out my primer on NWO.
Interested in making a custom set? Check out my Set skeleton and archetype primer.
I also write articles about getting started with custom card creation.
Go and PLAYTEST your designs, you will learn more in a single playtests than a dozen discussions.
My custom sets:
Dreamscape
Coins of Mercalis [COMPLETE]
Exodus of Zendikar - ON HOLD
EDIT: Sorry but between real life and MCC and CCL judgings I've only been able to listen to this now. This has been interesting, especially pointing out strengths and weaknesses of mechanics, the interactions between them, and how their presence reflects on the design of both the set and single cards. My vote is definitely do this every set.
MCC - Winner (6): Oct 2014, Apr Nov 2017, Jan 2018, Apr Jun 2019 || Host (15): Dec 2014, Apr Jul Aug Dec 2015, Mar Jul Aug Oct 2016, Feb Jul 2017, Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) || Judge (34): every month from Nov 2014 to Nov 2016 except Oct 2015, every month from Feb to Jul 2017 except Apr 2017, then Oct 2017, May Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here)
CCL - Winner (3): Jul 2016 (tied with Flatline), May 2017, Jul 2019 (last one here) || Host (5): Feb 2015, Mar Apr May Jun 2016
DCC - Winner (1): Mar 2015 (tied with Piar) || Host (3): May Oct 2015, Jan 2016
• The two public custom sets I've been part a part of the design team for:
"Brotherhood of Ormos" - Blog post with all info - set thread - design skeleton / card list || "Extinctia: Homo Evanuit" - Blog post with all info - set thread - card list spreadsheet
• "The Lion's Lair", my article series about MTG and custom card design in particular. Latest article here. Here is the article index. Rather outdated by now, and based on the old MCC rubric, but I'm leaving this here for anybody that might be interested anyway.
• My only public attempt at being a writer: the story of my Leonin custom planeswalker Jeff Lionheart. (I have a very big one that I'm working on right now but that's private for now, and I don't know if I will ever actually publish it, and I also have ideas for multiple future ones, including one where I'm going to reprise Jeff.)
That said, it was very smart and interesting and wonderful.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
Comic Book Set
Archester: Frontier of Steam (A steampunk set!)
A Good Place to Start Designing
GWU Rafiq
RWB Zurgo
WBG Ghave
WUB Oloro
WBR Kaalia (Archived)
My Blog, currently working on series about my custom set Cazia.
Steam Trades - I play Dota 2, CS:GO, TF2, and trade cards heavily. Add me if you like.
I think as designers on the outside it's important to do both. We should look at a set preemptively, see how well we can evaluate based on our skills, mental math, and understanding of good play. Then coming back to it after and seeing what arose that we anticipated and that we did not helps us grow.
I was a little worried when I started listening that it was going to be a love fest with the talk about exploit. I agree it's a good mechanic, but it looks horrible to new players who already lean toward not liking to sac things and leading to some poor decision on the play for them too. I think your evaluations overall were well thought out (though I might of ranked dash below bolster as the worst of the core mechanics because the synergy with raid is much weaker due to the mana investment between the two,) BUT I feel like you missed talking about a major mechanic...
...Dragons. It's design heavily focuses around dragons, with more dragons in this one set than the last 2 blocks and core sets combined, but there wasn't any talk about the mechanics and ideas they used to make dragons matter, interact with their keyword abilities, or otherwise meet their design goals. I realize that, on top of everything else you reviewed, that's longer then what your aiming the podcost to be, but It's hard to look at this as a "Design Review" of Dragons of Tarkir when there was very little mechanical talk about the set's namesake, Dragons.
I was half expecting for some talk about Dragons and parallels to be drawn to Avacynn Restored in its designs to show what wizards had learned from their mistakes in terms of promoting a single tribe, making it matter, and not making the worst limited environment in contemporary magic design (basically.) Plus any concerns you had on the matter in there execution this go round. Was that something you guys considered for this review? What are your thoughts on the executions on this new "Dragons" set versus the prior "Angel" one?
We actually recorded this before the pre-release. As IcariiFa guessed, we're planning to do our predictions as well as our retrospective once we've had time to play the set for a good while. While it's very difficult to eyeball a mechanic and, through mental playtesting alone, get it right - you should always TRY to do that if you want to improve as a designer. It's also a great way to put our analysis in a place where you all can explore it yourselves. Often you'll never get to play with the cards or mechanics we're analyzing. In Dragons of Tarkir, you can not only explore it yourselves - but there's going to be hundreds of thousands of games played all over the world. We'll be able to follow up on our initial predictions, compare them to the reality of gameplay and explore any things we missed and why we missed them.
I do wish we'd been able to work in talking about the way they made dragons matter in this podcast. We just felt that it wasn't quite as important as talking about the mirrored versions of all the mechanis from Khans. I have a hunch we'll be talking about them more during the next podcast.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
I agree with most of your thoughts on the mechanics you discussed. I'm a big fan of both evoke and Viashino Sandscout, so I really like both dash and exploit. I was disappointed that your discussion of Formidable didn't include talk about whether or not this is "win-more" mechanic, since that's a common criticism I have seen about it. Also, I'd really appreciate some discussion on the show of what "win-more" really means, since my understanding how to effectively use the concept is fuzzier than I would like it to be.
I'm glad to hear that because I agree wholeheartedly with IcariiFA's opinion on this.
........................
Win-more is a great topic for discussion. It has more to do with MTG strategy than design, but it's important to understand - especially because it doesn't translate clearly to all games. Netrunner, for example, thrives off cards that most would consider "win more" if they existed in MTG.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
In the specific case of Formidable, the mechanic itself is not winmore. The specific cards using Formidable are not winmore. Winmore is a relative condition, determined by the specific interactions between your deck and your opponent's deck. Casting Lightning Bolt on an opponent at 1 while you have Shock in hand is a great example of winmore. It is better to hold the Bolt back because it is a more efficient (and therefore more powerful) card, simply the Shock will suffice. The correct choice in Magic, like the correct choice in any strategic scenario, is always going to be the maximally efficient, minimally powerful option. You could use a howitzer to take out that car, but if you have a bazooka it's just as powerful (the car will still be removed) but far more efficient (a bazooka is far more replacable once it's position is revealed, "spent", than a howitzer). The trick to designing cards that aren't winmore is to design cards (or groups of cards) that are unique in a given environment.
GWU Rafiq
RWB Zurgo
WBG Ghave
WUB Oloro
WBR Kaalia (Archived)
My Blog, currently working on series about my custom set Cazia.
Steam Trades - I play Dota 2, CS:GO, TF2, and trade cards heavily. Add me if you like.