Savannah Lions is a good card, but one that has been obsoleted a lot. Elite Vanguard while less "flavorful," is a better rarity for the effect and fits with tribal. Expedition Envoy is a great card that doesn't obsolete anything and yet has a different tribal synergy. That said Dryad Militant bothers me a lot. How can I justify reprinting Elite Vanguard is Dryad Militant exists?
Blade of the Sixth Pride is a great and flavorful card with one good tribal keyword and one... mediocre one. But then comes along Accorder Paladin; while being a knight is nowhere near as consistent a tribe as rebel, it does really kind of make it hard to justify printing the vanilla Blade of the Sixth Pride. At least Spirit of the Labyrinth has the good sense to be eraseable.
My solution: For a hypothetical ideal core set... bring back rebels! That said, I've only designed 2 white rebels at each rarity at present... I want my main white tribe to be soldiers, complete with human solider tokens, but I'm going to slip "rebel" onto miscellaneous creatures that need a boost for playability. Off-color rebels wouldn't be too bad, would it?
Commons: Blade of the Sixth Pride Ramosian Sergeant Errataed to be a Solider too. Because "sergeant" and all that. The shuffle effects of rebels slowed down games in masks, but I think my Hypothetical Ideal Core Set [HICS] will have enough removal to stop this from being a thing to worry about. I mean did you see Masks' removal? Pitfull.
Foriysian Hierarch2WW
Creature - Giant Cleric Rebel (R)
When ~ enters the battlefield, gain 4 life.
~ can block an additional creature each combat.
4/4
Now, if we're going to get rebels, I think we should see a return of Mercenaries as well.
Common: Skulking CuthroatB
Creature - Merfolk Mercenary Rogue (C)
<Some keyword I'm not sure it's appropriate to talk about>
1/1
Skulkan Persuader1B
Creature - Human Mercenary Rogue (C)
Pay 1 life, T: Search your library for a mercenary with a CMC of 1 or less and put it onto the battlefield. Shuffle.
2/1
Uncommon: Misgiving Imp1B
Creature - Imp Mercenary Rogue (U)
Flying
When ~ enters the battlefield you may put a creature card from a player's graveyard on top of their library.
1/1
Bloodpact Priestess2B
Creature - Human Mercenary Cleric (U)
Whenever a creature dies, each opponent loses 1 life and you gain life equal to the life lost in this way.
Pay 2 life, T: Search your library for a mercenary with a CMC of 2 or less and put it onto the battlefield. Shuffle.
1/3
I like the idea of mercenaries requiring the payment of life over mana here; it lets it be explosive and suicidal.
[mana]
By making this a cleric with a vaguely multiplayer life game effect it helps to "offs[/mana]et" some of that suicidal life-paying.
More importantly the effect is really a combo piece to go with Nantuko Husk
Rare: Skulkian Guild Leader1B
Legendary Creature - Merfolk Mercenary Assassin
Deathtouch
Pay X life, T: Search your library for a mercenary card with a CMC of X or less and put it onto the battlefield. Shuffle. T, Sacrifice a Mercenary: Destroy target creature.
2/1
Skulkian Bansheee3BB
Creature - Spirit Mercenary (R)
Flying
Whenever an opponent discards a card, they lose 2 life.
4/4
Both are in different environments, each of those environments have different needs. Sometimes I want to push the power of my 1 drop white cards, in other sets or white weenie would be too strong with Dryad Militant. Also I can't be shackled to the past, if I design a Golbin Piker then am I literally doomed forever to never make anything stronger?
I suggest reading some articles about why "Bad Cards" are a good thing.
I think you have to be opposed to power creep. Obsoleting a 2/1 for W that routinely sees play in nearly every format it's printed in "just because" is obscene.
What's to stop someone from printing a 3/1 for W? A 6/1 for W? 9/1 trample firstrike haste deathtouch for W? Power creep is the enemy; but power-normalization is good. Bringing up cards that wouldn't see play to levels where they would is a good thing. Goblin Piker doesn't work, but Kalonian Tusker does. I actually think a 2/2 goblin [something useful] for 1R would see some fringe play, and a 3/1 for 1R would see play. For conservativeness sake, I'd print the former first... and I'd expect it to see some highlander play for just being solid... but I'd be saving the 3/1 for 1R for later, knowing it could see print.
As for the articles about why "Bad cards" are a good thing - I have read those piles of lies.
1) All The Cards Cannot Be Good Response: Take any given list of standard-playable decks, a set constructed out of entirely those cards would be entirely standard playable. Hence all cards CAN be good.
2) Different Cards Appeal to Different Players Response: Sure. Find someone who will take my Mindless Nulls off my hand 100:1 for a dual land and we've got a deal. Wait, no one wants Mindless Null? So this card doesn't appeal to anybody, gotcha.
3) Diversity of Card Powers is Key to Discovery Response: Tell ya what, if Mindless Null is a counterexample to your position I'll just post Mindless Null. Mindless Null
5) Diversity of Power Rewards the More Skilled Player Response: I'm pretty sure the skilled player who relies upon her opponents drafting Mindless Null is a player magic can do without. Do you disagree?
6) People Like Finding “Hidden Gems” Response:Syphon Soul = "oh, wait, you can play magic with more than 2 players?" Mindless Null = "oh, wait, WOTC stole my money?" is not an acceptable discovery.
7) R&D is Only Human Response: "My bad" is admission of guilt; do you think the person who made Mindless Null thinks of it as a mistake? Because there's an article where they explain that it was initially a mistake, but they said "Nah, we like it this way"... so not so much a "My bad" as "I'm evil, and profanity to you for spending money on my product because I'm going to print a card I know is bad because it's bad and had every opportunity to fix it and didn't because, again, profanity in your direction."
I'm not trying to pick on you, but if your genuinely think magic needs bad cards you need to do better than appeal to an article that flat out lies to you. Truth is not relative to the speaker; if it was we wouldn't bother speaking.
Henry Stern entered cards into the Zendikar database and typed “” into Null’s casting cost field instead of its printed cost of “”.
Mindless Null’s casting cost was a mistake, plain, simple and easy to spot. When the developers saw the Null’s new cost, though, they thought it was funny, and insisted on keeping it. A Spineless Thug that might occasionally block is unexciting and uninteresting. But a Zombie that’s strictly worse than the base-line low Scathe Zombies? In one of the fastest limited blocks in Magic history? Who could forget that?
The developers multiverse notes were made public. So, why don’t we read them? Most of this conversation deals with whether they wanted to dump the “needs a vampire to block” rider.
HS 11/18 this loses its “flavor” text because we need a common vanilla
DB 11/20/08: FYI, M10 has 3/2 vanilla zombie for 2B.
sw 11/21: Not to mention I really dislike having to lose the text on this guy. There are so many guys right now that you would “think” about playing, and I feel not enough cards that are definite no’s.
KEN 11/21/2008: I’ll comment again that after seeing tons of upside staples (upside Canopy Spider, upside Shock, etc) it would be nice to fall on the other side of the spectrum once.
MJG 12/2/2008: I miss the flavorful “can’t block” text as well.
AF 1/4: “Flav-R-Text” is back. We gained a vanilla artifact to make up the difference.
Del 2/6: The drawback saves it from blocking Prized Unicorn.
Honestly I feel like the biggest issue with Rebels is their disconnect with their major color White. Rebels originate from a setting where Red was in control and White was rebelling against it, but in almost every other circumstance White is the least rebellious color of them all.
As for the idea of these two tribes, I feel like they need an identity that isn't tied to tutoring. Having an entire tribe of tutors just leads to repetitive gameplay, which was the main reason Rebels was such a powerful and consistent deck (well and also that Lin Sivvi had the old legend rule to protect her). At very least, I might mix up the abilities. Instead of having all the searches be tap abilities, maybe there are a few that trigger, or let you cheat only from your hand instead of your library.
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.
There are so many guys right now that you would “think” about playing, and I feel not enough cards that are definite no’s.
To clarify: Your opinion on this statement is that "definite no's" are actively harmful to the game?
I know the question is not directed at me but... yes.
I stop buying MTG when I realized about 95% of the content they sell are worthless. MTG boosters are like a sack of rotten potatoes with a eventual good one here and there.
The only people who buy MTG in the primary market are people who dont know what they are doing. It's a business model founded on the ignorance of it's customers. Now tell me this is not harmful...
HS is the inferior game but it has a far superior business model and accesibility. There is no way it won't be bigger then MTG down the line.
Both are in different environments, each of those environments have different needs. Sometimes I want to push the power of my 1 drop white cards, in other sets or white weenie would be too strong with Dryad Militant.
I think you have to be opposed to power creep. Obsoleting a 2/1 for W that routinely sees play in nearly every format it's printed in "just because" is obscene.
I don't know how to continue after the first line to your response to the first comment on your post is such an obviously fallacious statement. Not only do you start with a strawman (you turn "environments have different needs" into "just because"), but you go right on with an obviously hyperbolic slippery slope. Please, take into account the actual statements of others. Going onto a tangent about something else you make up serves nothing but your sense of self-importance.
BTW: Mindless Null does appeal to me. I woldn't trade it to you for a dual land even 100:1 though because I am saturated with Mindless Null and not with any given dual land (not even common ones). What now? (I would though consider a trade 1:1 for any 7th Ed. Scathe Zombies I have, which to you would be a 'strictly better' card.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Planar Chaos was not a mistake neither was it random. You might want to look at it again.
[thread=239793][Game] Level Up - Creature[/thread]
Honestly I feel like the biggest issue with Rebels is their disconnect with their major color White. Rebels originate from a setting where Red was in control and White was rebelling against it, but in almost every other circumstance White is the least rebellious color of them all.
As for the idea of these two tribes, I feel like they need an identity that isn't tied to tutoring. Having an entire tribe of tutors just leads to repetitive gameplay, which was the main reason Rebels was such a powerful and consistent deck (well and also that Lin Sivvi had the old legend rule to protect her). At very least, I might mix up the abilities. Instead of having all the searches be tap abilities, maybe there are a few that trigger, or let you cheat only from your hand instead of your library.
I actually thought of making a Homeslands-esque intra-color conflict, but white since white likes order I guess "Rebels" are white when the order is unfair/unjust? I don't know...
And yeah, the tutoring is my primary cause for concern here - I'm effectively making 6 new shuffle effects for my set. But they are FUN shuffle effects, so...
I don't know how to continue after the first line to your response to the first comment on your post is such an obviously fallacious statement.
It's not fallacious. Dryad Militant is a better card than Elite Vanguard. objectively. Now Doombringer's position was that "each of those environments had different needs", which is pretty vague.
But a satisfactory explanation for Dryad Militant is going to explain why it needed to be 2 colors, 2/1, and have the anti-graveyard ability. I'm not even worried about rarity here, so this should be super easy.
You just have to point to something about the environment that NEEDED the anti-graveyard ability in 2 colors... on a 2/1.... on turn 1. What? You're telling me that it's not that easy - that a 1/1 or a 1/3 with the same effect could have not obsoleted Elite Vanguard and had a similar effect on standard? Then Dryad Militant obsoleted Elite Vanguard "just because."
If you want to defend the "different environments" argument, you actually need to do some legwork. But before you bother doing that, make sure you have a story as to why Dryad Militant is justified by that argument. Because all evidence suggests it's not.
BTW: Mindless Null does appeal to me. I woldn't trade it to you for a dual land even 100:1 though because I am saturated with Mindless Null and not with any given dual land (not even common ones). What now? (I would though consider a trade 1:1 for any 7th Ed. Scathe Zombies I have, which to you would be a 'strictly better' card.)
So it appeals to you but you won't trade for it.
You do realize this means "it doesn't appeal to me."
But let's pretend it did. What about Mindless Null appeals to you? If it's the art - great? You could have the art on a better card. Is it the concept? Great. You could have had a 3/2 for 1B that couldn't block w/o vampires. Was it the fact that no one else liked it? Great! Because there cards designed for odd formats that no one likes - syphon soul gets a lot of hate, despite being really fun in multiplayer.
If you like the card because "haha, WOTC printed a card that is absolutely useless knowing it was absolutely useless because it would be funny for them to rip off their customers," well... let me just say that I don't think people like that should be the target audience for magic the gathering. Because that's just mean.
But a satisfactory explanation for Dryad Militant is going to explain why it needed to be 2 colors, 2/1, and have the anti-graveyard ability. I'm not even worried about rarity here, so this should be super easy.
You just have to point to something about the environment that NEEDED the anti-graveyard ability in 2 colors... on a 2/1.... on turn 1. What? You're telling me that it's not that easy - that a 1/1 or a 1/3 with the same effect could have not obsoleted Elite Vanguard and had a similar effect on standard? Then Dryad Militant obsoleted Elite Vanguard "just because."
RtR came just after Innistrad, that had a pretty strong graveyard theme, full of Flashback spells and, well, Snapcaster. It's two colors because the ability fits two colors and the block itself pushes that angle. It's a 2/1 because they probably couldn't justify printing both Elite Vanguard and Dryad Militant, due to sheet space, CMC space etc, and Elite Vanguard is a staple for a reason.
Trying to avoid "obsoleting" old cards for no good reason, especially staples, is both an exercise in futility, stifling and pointless. Magic's main design concern is Limited and, to a lesser degree, Standard. It's designed primarily and mainly with these formats and environments in mind and, in these formats, obsoleting is a non-issue because cards will eventually rotate out and power levels will return to normal.
I don't know how to continue after the first line to your response to the first comment on your post is such an obviously fallacious statement.
You just have to point to something about the environment that NEEDED the anti-graveyard ability in 2 colors... on a 2/1.... on turn 1. What? You're telling me that it's not that easy - that a 1/1 or a 1/3 with the same effect could have not obsoleted Elite Vanguard and had a similar effect on standard? Then Dryad Militant obsoleted Elite Vanguard "just because."
I never said your statement was wrong, just fallacious. And your current stance of putting the burden of proof on everyone else also reeks of such. I'll entertain you by giving you general ideas to consider. Notethat I do not accept your claim everyone else has to bring you proof - neither do I agree that Dryad Militant is necessarily better than Elite Vanguard. I know which card I prefer in my Human tribal deck (Human tribal introduced in the block just before RTR) and my weenie decks that employ flashback and similar mechanics (flashback also being a mechanic featuring in the block before RTR).
You are being to specific here. A single card can fill multiple needs e. g. it might not be strictly necessary for Dryad Militant to be a green-white hybrid. It could have been a monocolored white card, but there was a compound need to fill out the cycle of hybrid one-drops, so the card was not created monocolored.
Then again there might not have been the strict need to put the anti-graveyard ability on that specific card. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that the ability could have served its purpose as anti-graveyard clause on another card. Maybe you want to go through the set-file and find another place to put it, but wherever that new place is, it will change the overall set-dynamic - maybe the other card has too much text etc. Such needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. I won't invest that time. Just food for thought.
Now I can imagine that the reason the ability is on the card is twofold: a) An anti-graveyard clause on an otherwise already playable card is a reasonable security measure against a potentially too powerful strategy and b) since the ability is symmetric it makes Dryad Militant arguably not strictly better than Elite Vanguard.
Especially the first reason is weird, when you ask for strict necessity (a. k. a. capital-letters "NEEDED"): A security valve is not strictly necessary, but it can be greatly appreciated when the emergency it is designed for occurs. If you want to, you can address these ideas and how you expect people to satisfy your need for "legwork" regarding those issues.
BTW: Mindless Null does appeal to me. I woldn't trade it to you for a dual land even 100:1 though because I am saturated with Mindless Null and not with any given dual land (not even common ones). What now? (I would though consider a trade 1:1 for any 7th Ed. Scathe Zombies I have, which to you would be a 'strictly better' card.)
So it appeals to you but you won't trade for it.
You do realize this means "it doesn't appeal to me."
Your statement "you won't trade for it" is incorrect. I rejected one specific proposed trade (100 Mindless Nulls for 1 dual land). That does not equal a general rejection of trades involving me receiving Mindless Null. I even suggested to you another trade I would agree to.
Here an analogy for you: Kittens appeal to me. I wouldn't trade 100 of your Kittens for 1 of my adult cats. My environment is already saturated with felines. Introducing a large number of felines has no appeal to me, though I like them in general.
The modalites of the proposed specific trade did not appeal to me. That doesn't mean I "won't trade" for it.
But let's pretend it did. What about Mindless Null appeals to you? If it's the art - great? You could have the art on a better card. Is it the concept? Great. You could have had a 3/2 for 1B that couldn't block w/o vampires. Was it the fact that no one else liked it? Great! Because there cards designed for odd formats that no one likes - syphon soul gets a lot of hate, despite being really fun in multiplayer.
I liked it since it played quite well on the nostalgia for Scathe Zombies in addition to being a thematic card. If yo want to do some legwork, you can dig up my comments from back then, but I can give you the general gist without quoting myself:
The card could cost or get an additinal point of power or toughness and would likely not entirely destroy the play value. It is not known how much this would add to the regard of others, but it would make the card disappear from my radar since its stats reminiscent of a card from Magic's first edition brought it to the forefront my attention. I appreciate its design either way, but find additional appeal in the fact that I can contrast it with a specific other card.
For that metric I also would not have liked the card especially if it was e. g. a 2/2 with the same card text despite the text that it is terrible, so being a "bad card" alone is not a driving part of the appeal to me.
There is no way of knowing how much love the card would have found with the slightest of stat-changes by others, but it certainly endeared itself to me in a way most other terrible cards didn't. I want to suggest the principle "It's better to have a few people love the card than everyon feel indifferent about it" (paraphrased) applies here. It should be hard to find hard data on this for either side though.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Planar Chaos was not a mistake neither was it random. You might want to look at it again.
[thread=239793][Game] Level Up - Creature[/thread]
I never said your statement was wrong, just fallacious.
Semantics won't win you this. Either my statement is true or false. As it so happens my analysis is correct. If you'd like to disagree with something I said, fine. But semantic arguments without a point are a waste of both of our time.
And your current stance of putting the burden of proof on everyone else also reeks of such.
I call bull here.
My position is that each card should be playable somewhere.
If you think this position is unjustified - it's your job to make that argument, not mine. But let's not forget that I did address Mark's list of 7 ad hoc rationales for why bad cards exist, none of which included the now infamous "Haha, we think it's funny" justification for Mindless Null.
I know which card I prefer in my Human tribal deck (Human tribal introduced in the block just before RTR) and my weenie decks that employ flashback and similar mechanics (flashback also being a mechanic featuring in the block before RTR).
Your human tribal deck and your flashback deck.
Fair enough. Of course I assume you have decklists and aren't just making things up to support a losing position.
That said, I think WOTC really need to think about obsoleting vanilla creatures. Vanillas are good for limited and good for new players, so every time they obsolete one it makes new players and limited worse off.
You are being to specific here. A single card can fill multiple needs e. g. it might not be strictly necessary for Dryad Militant to be a green-white hybrid. It could have been a monocolored white card, but there was a compound need to fill out the cycle of hybrid one-drops, so the card was not created monocolored.
But not a need for a 2/1. My position was that it obsoleted a tier 1 constructed playable card for no reason. You've not addressed this aspect of it, instead you're trying for sophistry. Socrates' goal was to show his target that he was ignorant of some fact - do you think I'm ignorant of what you note here?
Then again there might not have been the strict need to put the anti-graveyard ability on that specific card. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that the ability could have served its purpose as anti-graveyard clause on another card.
Either the graveyard clause was important or it wasn't. If it wasn't, don't print it.
Assuming it was, they wanted it available to 2 colors on turn 1. Why? Don't know.
But if it's important and needs to be available in 2 colors on turn 1... why not make it a 1/2? Or make it a 0/4 defender? Or a 0/3?
Maybe you want to go through the set-file and find another place to put it, but wherever that new place is, it will change the overall set-dynamic - maybe the other card has too much text etc. Such needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. I won't invest that time. Just food for thought.
Nothing you've said has indicated that this needs to be a 2/1 or needs to obsolete an existing card.
Now I can imagine that the reason the ability is on the card is twofold: a) An anti-graveyard clause on an otherwise already playable card is a reasonable security measure against a potentially too powerful strategy and b) since the ability is symmetric it makes Dryad Militant arguably not strictly better than Elite Vanguard.
Yes, it's not strictly better in the most eclectic use of the term - the same rationale that lets Mindless Null not be strictly worse than Scathe Zombies. But in the practical sense, of "strictly better means better in 99.9+% of the situations," then yes - this is strictly better.
Especially the first reason is weird, when you ask for strict necessity (a. k. a. capital-letters "NEEDED"): A security valve is not strictly necessary
I liked it since it played quite well on the nostalgia for Scathe Zombies in addition to being a thematic card. If yo want to do some legwork, you can dig up my comments from back then, but I can give you the general gist without quoting myself:
I've quoted WOTC logs saying it was printed because it's "funny."
If you think a card that played nothing like a Gray Ogre is nostalgic because it reminds you of Gray Ogres... good for you. I'm sure some people like the taste of fecal matter when they think they're getting a coke. But most do not, and certainly not enough to have 50% of the cokes be filled with sewer contents.
See... I don't think you do appreciate the design. The design was a mistake and people laughed at it and kept it in.
You don't recognize this, and as such you don't appreciate the design - you appreciate the result. And the result is, again, bad. But you're apparently like bad things. And the fact that you like bad things does not make them good.
Make no mistake - I'm not out to hurt the feelings of masochists or the like - people can enjoy whatever they want. But you like it because it's bad. Nostalgia for when cards were bad, laughing at how cards are bad, or liking it because everyone else knows it's bad is not sufficient to make it good, and certainly not sufficient enough to print it.
WOTC literally defrauded us of our money, promising us playing cards and giving us something other than that.
There is no way of knowing how much love the card would have found with the slightest of stat-changes by others, but it certainly endeared itself to me in a way most other terrible cards didn't. I want to suggest the principle "It's better to have a few people love the card than everyon feel indifferent about it" (paraphrased) applies here. It should be hard to find hard data on this for either side though.
How about the principle "Don't print cards that people only like because everyone else hates them"?
Also, you JUST SAID there's no way of knowing whether people would feel the same if it was a 3/2 for 1B with that ability... and then suggested people'd feel indifferent about it. I can assure you, they would not feel indifferent about a 3/2 for 1B that could only occasionally block. People'd love that sucker in limited and maybe even in constructed. And if you're talking about the 2/2 for 1B and the same ability... it's already obsoleted, so yeah - step up or go home.
The only people who buy MTG in the primary market are people who dont know what they are doing.
And, you know, people who play limited. Oh and also casual players. Two very large groups there.
Seriously guys, ignoring large swaths of the player base because you personally disagree with the way they choose to play is not going to lead to better design.
I actually thought of making a Homeslands-esque intra-color conflict, but white since white likes order I guess "Rebels" are white when the order is unfair/unjust? I don't know...
Wizards probably wouldn't tie rebels to white if they did them nowadays, at very least they wouldn't have called them rebels.
And yeah, the tutoring is my primary cause for concern here - I'm effectively making 6 new shuffle effects for my set. But they are FUN shuffle effects, so...
Honestly shuffle effects in general are fine, its just shuffle effects at lower rarities that get annoying.
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 did not know there was something to be won. I have a feeling you are being extremely competitive and argumentative. That would explain why you assume I want to "win" "this". I just wanted to point out that the way you are talking to others leaves something to desired. And now that you state your belief that this conversation can be "won", I suspect you falsely assume that we are competing with each other.
The only thing I want to "win" is insight. I'm not trying to antagonize over this. We can both get that prize, but the way you state your position makes it harder.
Your human tribal deck and your flashback deck.
Fair enough. Of course I assume you have decklists and aren't just making things up to support a losing position.
I do not habitually record decklists for my decks made of canon cards.
I didn't even recall they were in Standard together. I care more about interactions with larger themes that appear on multiple cards than individual card interactions though.
Either the graveyard clause was important or it wasn't. If it wasn't, don't print it.
My point is the following: It is possible the clause is important, but the exact card it is printed on is not important, so there are multiple valid variants. It is possible that the same clause on a 3/4 for would have served as well, but that does not invalidate a 2/1 for . If two options can be valid, then the capital-letter "NEEDED" status for one of the variants might be a fiction. Sometimes a card fulfills a need that another card could fulfill and I do not know whether you accept this form of argumentation.
Assuming it was, they wanted it available to 2 colors on turn 1. Why? Don't know.
This is faulty reasoning. I actually stated that not all aspects of a card must align for the same purpose since most/all cards serve multiple purposes e. g. it might be just an acceptable coincidence that the clause appears on a green-white hybrid. It is more likely that the card in generally being powerful enough to be Standard playable was the driving factor - and a slightly different cost equally acceptable.
Nothing you've said has indicated that this needs to be a 2/1 or needs to obsolete an existing card.
Because it doesn't "need" to be. That's what I'm telling you. Crafting an environment is a task with more than one solution. There is no one card that is strictly necessary to exist in exactly that form if you move enough other pieces around. With that in mind how do you propose an argument in favor of Dryad Militant would be made? What do you require of an argument in its favor?
Right now the question to ask is to abstract to suggest a sufficient reply.
Especially the first reason is weird, when you ask for strict necessity (a. k. a. capital-letters "NEEDED"): A security valve is not strictly necessary
Now you sound like you work for an oil company.
Now you sound like you ignore the core of why your request has been denied in favor of a joke.
, but it can be greatly appreciated when the emergency it is designed for occurs.
Oh, I'm all for the 1/2 dryad with this effect. He's a soldier? Great! Throw him in my soldier deck as my 2nd 1 drop.
But he's not a 1/2, is he?
Ignoring that I have it on some authority that the card depicts a female and "he" is the one incorrect pronoun... I don't understand the point you are making. As I state otherwise: I don't think the effect is intrinsically linked to each other part of the design, but I can tell you that I have a vague suspicion that a 1/2 might not perform quite as well in an aggressive weenie deck as might have been required of the card at the time. Might be it would have.
Do you have data concerning that? Because I assume a person who makes bold assumptions about decklists has tried out all the variants from 1/2 to 0/4 with defender.
The card could cost or get an additinal point of power or toughness and would likely not entirely destroy the play value.
How could I argue this? Oh, wait, because what you're saying is wrong. It's false. It's analytically and empirically, false.
Can you please elaborate, because I thought you were suggesting an even more drastic strange by both reducing its cost AND increasing its power. So you say a lesser change would be more harmful to gameplay?
See... I don't think you do appreciate the design. The design was a mistake and people laughed at it and kept it in.
Keeping it in was a consicous decision though, right? I know I have read something about including nonintentional results into your design. I argue the conscious decision to leave a card unaltered after an unintentional change is as much design as the conscious decision to remove the unintentional change. Compare this e. g. with the unintentional change to Tarmogoyf's cost that accidentally reverted to an older version after returning to the card file in place of a removed cycle; the unintentional change was not caught by the people responsible and leaves us with a card that errs towards the other end of the spectrum.
And if you re-read the quote you dug up regarding their decision to keep the card, you will notice that their goal was to make a memorable card. They succeeded.
Make no mistake - I'm not out to hurt the feelings of masochists or the like - people can enjoy whatever they want. But you like it because it's bad. Nostalgia for when cards were bad, laughing at how cards are bad, or liking it because everyone else knows it's bad is not sufficient to make it good, and certainly not sufficient enough to print it.
Make no mistake - I would possibly like the card even if it was not strictly worse than Scathe Zombies. I do believe it would be possible to alter the design in such a way. That is why I insist that I do not like the card because it is "bad" (i. e. low-powered). Being "bad" and being appealing to me is just two things this card is - and while there are changes that can be made to it that remove both of these, that's not the only kind of change that could be made to it.
WOTC literally defrauded us of our money, promising us playing cards and giving us something other than that.
Isn't "literal" fraud something you could sue them over? Because I think they released a full card list of that set - they do that for a while now. Did they leave Mindless Null off that list?
Also Mindless Nullis a playing card. It is even Standard-legal as opposed to so many of those stupid Zendikar expditions they threw at us last block.
Also, you JUST SAID there's no way of knowing whether people would feel the same if it was a 3/2 for 1B with that ability... and then suggested people'd feel indifferent about it.
I made an assumption. I also think I did not intend to refer to your suggested stat changes, but the more slight stat changes I myself alluded to earlier.
And if you're talking about the 2/2 for 1B and the same ability... it's already obsoleted, so yeah - step up or go home.
But aren't you furious about obsoleting cards?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Planar Chaos was not a mistake neither was it random. You might want to look at it again.
[thread=239793][Game] Level Up - Creature[/thread]
My position is that all cards should be constructed playable in some format. Obsoleting cards makes the older cards unplayable, and thus is prima facie bad. The only situation where I think it is okay to obsolete old cards is when said cards are unplayable.
That said, I also like attempts to make unplayable cards playable. One of my first card designs was Bear Cave - a nonbasic land that tapped for G and gave bears you control +1/+1. This was before green's 3/3s for 2, so this would have been quite cool and possibly made Grizzly Bears playable in constructed, while not affecting limited.
To be honest, it's well-established at this point that Elite Vanguard does not represent the base line power level, and can be, and has been, obsoleted safely. Just as it is safe to obsolete Mindless Null without changing the power baseline, one can obsolete Elite Vanguard in the same way. There's a rather good Extra Credits video (as pretentious as they are) on this concerning Piloted Shredder and Hearthstone. I am fine with things like Dragon Hunter and Dryad Militant and things because they are such minor upgrades. I think to say that Expedition Envoy is fine, and Dryad Militant isn't is just odd. The graveyard hosing ability is incredibly, incredibly minor in most situations. In the same way that the Ally ability is less than 1 mana's worth, so is that hosing ability.
I stop buying MTG when I realized about 95% of the content they sell are worthless. MTG boosters are like a sack of rotten potatoes with a eventual good one here and there.
Casual players don't care, and pro players buy singles. It is also the model that almost every single TCG uses, even the ones that need it on an even smaller basis, like Hearthstone. Question the model if you like, but I don't see any reason to, when the whole "randomised contents and variable value for money" is something as old as time itself. This is true of the lottery. Of pachinko. Of fairground games. Of most things I can think of. Of course companies are capitalising on the tendency of humans to not act rationally/have perfect information/just be newbies to said hobby, but I don't really think there's anything wrong with that. Hell, MtG is one of the few TCGs that facilitates a whole new format out of the business premise (and I have absolutely no reason to be cynical about it because I would rather play Innistrad Limited over many of the ways you are 'supposed' to play the game otherwise). If your argument is to do with the 'definite no's, then I don't understand your argument. 'Definite no's are a complete rarity in MtG, so this 95% figure can't possibly refer to that.
Hearthstone shares lots of aspects, including the aspects you think are harmful. It has a booster pack system. It has lots of chaff amongst the playables. New players could potentially (and they do) spend gold and dust buying and crafting cards that are bad. If one wants to be cynical, one could be cynical about anything. Hearthstone is certainly not an exception.
The world is not divided between casuals and pros. Theres is a huge, highly relevant segment of players that are not casual but are not pro either.
Also, casuals DO care. Screwing someone in secret does not make screwing people guilt free.
Ex: If I spit in your soda and you never realize it I'm still an ********.
HS is miles better then MTG in this aspect. Cards that have zero chance of seen play in reasonable high ranks (lets say, 8 less) are exceptions. In MTG cards that are useful in FNM level constructed are exceptions.
Noone saying every card needs to be Siege Rhino. My opinion is that more cards should be constructed relevant (lets say 40% instead of the current 5%) and no card should be so bad as to be useless in all formats.
Oh boy, Been a while since we have had a Bad Cards are the worst fanboy. Reminds me of the Xyx and Gmail stupidness
First lets get a couple of things clear before I address your points directly:
Casual Constructed followed by Standard and Limited are by far the most popular and important formats. This must be kept in mind when designing the vast majority of products.
A set has to appeal to a large variety of different audiences, and not all cards will be for everyone.
Developing a set for limited is a time consuming task that dictates the majority of decision made at common. We have talked on our Bad Cards podcast how cards like Defensive Stance are deliberately made as bad cards because blue was too strong in limited late in development and so they didn't have time to rebalance all the blue commons. Thus a single bad blue card made the set better by evening out the colors. Which we have seen is important from the way green behaved in BFZ.
If I have a card made for limited it is irrelevant that it obsoletes a card from another set as those cards will nearly never be played together.
Ok now to rebut your points:
What's to stop someone from printing a 3/1 for W? A 6/1 for W? 9/1 trample firstrike haste deathtouch for W? Power creep is the enemy; but power-normalization is good. Bringing up cards that wouldn't see play to levels where they would is a good thing.
The needs of the different formats are what stops this as a 6/1 for W would be damaging to limited, standard and possibly older formats. However Elite Vanguard is firstly both not that playable in standard (or even some limited formats), so as Dryad Militant appears to be made for standard because of the flashback and graveyard themes of the previous black then pushing what was just below playable to fringe playable while supporting the multicolor themes of RTR block and being a safety valve to snapcaster or other flashback cards. Now your right that it could of been a 1/2 or maybe a 0/4 but thats risks the cards missing its design goal of being a standard player. Also note that as a card for standard that Elite Vanguard wasn't legal in that same standard environment and thus is both less relevant and a potential reason that they wanted the dryad as a 2/1 rather than a 1/2.
1) All The Cards Cannot Be Good Response: Take any given list of standard-playable decks, a set constructed out of entirely those cards would be entirely standard playable. Hence all cards CAN be good.
This argument has a few issues: 1): Within standard you have sideboard cards, niche cards, janky combos that are only good against specific decks etc. So even within the context of standard cards will be bad in relation to each other, or are you arguing that Virulent Plague is just as good as Siege Rhino? 2): Sets have to be designed for all formats in mind, not just standard. As I said before some cards are designed to make limited better, others are made for standard, some like Dark Petition see Legacy play without really touching standard.
2) Different Cards Appeal to Different Players Response: Sure. Find someone who will take my Mindless Nulls off my hand 100:1 for a dual land and we've got a deal. Wait, no one wants Mindless Null? So this card doesn't appeal to anybody, gotcha.
Putting aside how "bad" cards can make limited more balanced and thus are appealing to those who play that format, As SecretInfiltrator mentioned he found the card appealing, the fact that he won't trade it for a duel land isn't relevant as cards have diminishing returns on their value as your never going to play with your 101st copy. Like no matter how many Pithing Needles you offer me I'm unlikely to to trade for them despite liking the card as I don't need more than 4-8 copies.
Also the "tradability == appeal" argument breaks down even more when it comes to limited format cards as while I enjoy picking up an Isolation Zone in OGW draft and the card has brought me a lot of enjoyment I wouldn't trade for them.
3) Diversity of Card Powers is Key to Discovery Response: Tell ya what, if Mindless Null is a counterexample to your position I'll just post Mindless Null. Mindless Null
Note how you are not at all refuting this point, just making a little joke and pretending it doesn't exist.
Here's an example I've experienced first hand with my Sister of the appeal of discovery. A card like Boulder Salvo is a good card to someone who plays limited.. However she is using her Boulder Salvo in her casual Constructed deck (which remember is the most popular format.) and then found a Flame Slash in the Bulk commons of the LGS. That was a fun moment where she learnt about a new card and got a sense of progression as now her deck is slightly more powerful. Its worth keeping in mind here that printing Flame Slash in OGW is likely to make the set less appealing overall as most likely would skew the power balance in limited while robbing her of the achievement.
Mindless Null is from Zendikar which had an extremely powerful and fast BR or mono B aggressive deck, so you they to have ANOTHER insane cheap creature? Mindless Null saw minor play in limited just because the Black/X decks where so powerful that you sometimes just needed yet another body. For example in this draft thread
Its filler playable level can also be seen in certain set reviews:
After seeing this on the spoiler, I thought "Is Wotc serious?", but after drafting the set a bit, I can say it has it's uses. Blocking is less important in this format, so it's most times a grey ogre which is fine. At the end more like a filler, but still better than it looks on the paper. Better than some white and blue cards, for sure.
5) Diversity of Power Rewards the More Skilled Player Response: I'm pretty sure the skilled player who relies upon her opponents drafting Mindless Null is a player magic can do without. Do you disagree?
To a certain extent yes, MtG as your probably aware is a game with a huge amount of variance. Pro players can lose to an FNM newbie with the right luck which is part of what makes magic more approachable than a 100% skill based game like Chess. However limited draft is considered one of the most "skill testing" formats because of cards of weaker or higher power level. A flatter power level makes the drafting section less relevant and the format not as deep in the end.
6) People Like Finding “Hidden Gems” Response:Syphon Soul = "oh, wait, you can play magic with more than 2 players?" Mindless Null = "oh, wait, WOTC stole my money?" is not an acceptable discovery.
Interesting...did they hide the existence of Mindless Null in the spoiler?
Also considering the article you linked thats exactly the kinda hidden story gems behind the creation of a card that player with a design knack enjoy seeing.
7) R&D is Only Human Response: "My bad" is admission of guilt; do you think the person who made Mindless Null thinks of it as a mistake? Because there's an article where they explain that it was initially a mistake, but they said "Nah, we like it this way"... so not so much a "My bad" as "I'm evil, and profanity to you for spending money on my product because I'm going to print a card I know is bad because it's bad and had every opportunity to fix it and didn't because, again, profanity in your direction."
How does this make their point any less valid? If anything it could be argued it showcases exactly that they are human. Human designer enjoy little design jokes and get emotional attachment to what they create. Its hard to kill your designs and yet in the end ZEN ended up being a very popular set.
I am Gmail (and yes, the moderators know), so I think you know how this goes.
I really don't want to be sucked into this debate again. So take it for granted that when I design a card I intend it to be constructed playable somewhere.
If someone wants to design cards intended to be unplayable in all formats, that's their right. But just because one has the right to do a thing doesn't mean it is morally right to do that thing. If I own a diamond necklace, I have the right to throw it into the ocean. But given that if I sold the necklace and gave the money to starving children I could have saved dozens of lives, I think throwing it into the ocean is, objectively, morally wrong.
You might disagree. Maybe you think that morality doesn't apply to card game design, or you think that there is a set of options that is morally acceptable despite not being to anyone's benefit, or perhaps you just take the position that companies are morally obligated to make as much money as possible money even if they have to sell products that don't work to do so. But I would recommend you keep this in mind the next time you visit your physician, your grocery store, or your auto-mechanic.
I'm with labarith... crappy cards stink. Yes I know context and all that, but in the end he's right. Determination of card power levels are based on a formula that generates revenue and are otherwise arbitrary. Which is fine with me.
I'm surprisingly okay with mistakes... although I think they should err on the side of caution, as banning cards is always a bad thing. Something that has happened a lot more frequently of late (but yeah, not as bad as combo winter...).
But the idea of someone saying "We need to print this bad card so that people will need to buy more of our product" is quite frankly absurd. MTG has 5 colors and dozens of playable decks in each of dozens of formats. It's not that difficult to aim to have each card in a set playable in one of said decks. The person who is trying to complete their elf deck will then get cards dedicated to other decks, and will be prompted to try to complete those other decks as well - buying more product to do this. But if half of the cards in a pack are useless, then people aren't going to think about what decks they're supposed to go in - because, by stipulation, they're not designed to be constructed playable. And as such people will be less likely to buy new cards, and more likely to quit a game that doesn't "pay out" when you buy a pack.
It's funny how foils and alternate art cards really do push packs - opening a cool looking basic land in a booster pack is so much more thrilling than opening an objectively bad card, and trying to get all the variants of a card's art is a challenge - and one you'd love to engage in if the card is any good.
I'm with labarith... crappy cards stink. Yes I know context and all that, but in the end he's right. Determination of card power levels are based on a formula that generates revenue and are otherwise arbitrary. Which is fine with me.
Conspiracy theory stuff like this annoys me. Power level has less to do with revenue and more to do with crafting a solid product. And even just cutting this whole discussion of context aside, how good a card is is relative from player to player.
@labrinth Your examples used in the OP are just wrong and mostly arbitrary. Blade of the Sixth Pride is completely justifiable reprint because being a Rebel is a powerful thing and is not worse compared to Accorder Paladin's Battlecry. Especially because in the context of limited (which we are in when you talk set design) you are seeing a lot more of the blade vs. the paladin. You can't have Accorder Paladin at common unless you want a screwed up hyper aggressive set that isn't actually fun to play.
Also what does constructed unplayable even mean? Are we talking eternal formats? Standard? What is the benchmark for unplayable? What constitutes a bad card? Can you really ignore context when it's what determines power level overall?
Take Desecration Demon for example. It was considered unplayable junk on it's debut, and sees absolutely no play in Modern now that it's rotated. Yet for a period of time, despite the naysayers, after Innistrad block rotated out it was a standard staple and rose from junk to $10 rare. Does that make it a good card, despite how bad it was when it first was played and where it's played now?
You're right; we've only got proof of WOTC printing a single bad card because they thought it was funny. The motivation behind all of the other cards is still unknown.
Power level has less to do with revenue and more to do with crafting a solid product.
If the card is unplayable in every constructed format, then it is not a constructed playable product by definition.
My position is that printing unplayable cards is not okay. Do you disagree? I have no problem with "hidden gem" cards like Desecration Demon... but it is a 6/6 for 4 mana one sided the abyss, so I'm not really sure why anyone would think it's unplayable. At the very least it's playable in block, right?
Besides, the "junk" cards I'm more worried about are the commons, as at least "big fat silly rares" are still dinner table/highlander fun. But no one plays with half of the commons from new sets. You know it to be true - search gatherer to reminder yourself.
You're right; we've only got proof of WOTC printing a single bad card because they thought it was funny. The motivation behind all of the other cards is still unknown.
Power level has less to do with revenue and more to do with crafting a solid product.
If the card is unplayable in every constructed format, then it is not a constructed playable product by definition.
My position is that printing unplayable cards is not okay. Do you disagree? I have no problem with "hidden gem" cards like Desecration Demon... but it is a 6/6 for 4 mana one sided the abyss, so I'm not really sure why anyone would think it's unplayable. At the very least it's playable in block, right?
Besides, the "junk" cards I'm more worried about are the commons, as at least "big fat silly rares" are still dinner table/highlander fun. But no one plays with half of the commons from new sets. You know it to be true - search gatherer to reminder yourself.
I would posit that it is impossible to sustainably develop magic sets that have both great limited environments and also have 100% of their cards be constructed playable, especially due to the amount of commons you need to make limited work. It is also important to note that limited environments are improved when you put weaker options in. We used to have Doom Blade at common. It's not like Wizard's saw Doom Blade and said, "Let's make a profit and make Doom Blade an uncommon/make weaker versions." They realized that having really strong removal (and other cards) at common actually made limited play worse.
Most commons are heavily played in limited, and just because Tar Snare doesn't make it to your kitchen table doesn't mean it hasn't led to some memorable moments/wins/losses for a large portion of the playerbase, including myself.
Even ignoring limited you seem to be ignoring that a lot of formats you might not play do in fact exist and benefit from these unplayable commons.
1. Several game stores I know of run pauper standard in which a large majority of "unplayable" commons are in fact played.
2. Pauper/Peasant cube enthusiasts love pouring through the commons/uncommons each set for potential new upgrades or identical reprints to slot into cube.
3. People who craft their own cube environments definitely appreciate weaker options that might make other archetypes flourish more.
4. People who make their own draft simulators appreciate all cards in a set, especially mediocre commons that make the set flow.
Edit: The only TRULY bad cards are the ones that serve no purpose in the limited format it was printed in. These examples are very few and far betweem. The most recent to come to mind are Primal Visitation (though this one was really fringe as a 22-23 cut) or Prism Quarry. These are cards you can complain about.
First, Tar Snare in limited is no Echoing Decay or Last Gasp, both of which are better cards and have lead to cooler memorable moments. Especially echoing decay, which is "not as good" as Last Gasp in many situations, but far better in others. Also, both of those cards I mentioned were staples in their respective standards. They were also commons you could give to new players after draft to help them build a new deck.
1. Pauper doesn't play half of the commons in contemporary sets. In fact, it's notable for favoring old commons.
2. A set with 100% playable cards could easily include some designed for Pauper. In fact, pauper opens up lots of design opportunities. But one one runs Akroan Jailer,Akroan Sergeant, Artificer's Epiphany, Aspiring Aeronaut, or Aven Battle Priest... and that's just the "As" from a recent set.
3. I doubt people who craft their own cube environments appreciate Artificer's Epiphany... at least not as much as they appreciate Thirst for Knowledge.
4. I thought WOTC shut down all draft simulators... but that aside, again, I don't think anyone who made their own draft simulator ever said "You know what card really makes my simulated drafts flow appropriately? Artificer's Epiphany! I'm so glad I slotted that into my simulation instead of a mountain with pretty art. Also, draft simulators are not real printed cards, and you do not pay money for them." So, technically, I have no problem with simulator-runners wasting digital space that doesn't cost anyone a dime.
I think one of the biggest confusions here is that some people think by "constructed playable" I mean only tier 1 standard or legacy cards. I'm all for pauper playable, highlander playable, tribal playable, multiplayer playable, 2hg, commander, etc., etc. So if Aven Battle Priest was playable in one of those formats - GREAT! Print it! But if not... make a different card that IS playable in some format:
Aven Battle Priest 2.05W
Creature - Bird Rebel Cleric
Flying
When Aven Battle Priest 2.0 enters the battlefield, you gain 3 life for each opponent.
3/3
A simple change that makes the card... less bad? Even if your position was that Aven Battle Priestneeded to be a 3/3 flyer that gained you 3 life for 6 mana to balance the format, this version is better. And it could be good in multiplayer.
Simple, minor changes to any number of commons can make them comparably complex, comparably playable in limited, comparably unplayable in standard, yet playable in some non-standard format. And yeah, maybe someone at WOTC just didn't think "Multiplayer" when they designed Aven Battle Priest or playtested it for 6 months. If so... oops? But at the same time, I expect someone to be able to search gatherer and find Gideon's Lawkeeper and Goldmeadow Harrier before printing Akroan Jailer. That someone didn't is a source of great sorrow in the world. Or they could have just made the jailer 1/2...
Aven Battle Priest 2.05W
Creature - Bird Rebel Cleric
Flying
When Aven Battle Priest 2.0 enters the battlefield, you gain 3 life for each opponent.
3/3
A simple change that makes the card... less bad? Even if your position was that Aven Battle Priestneeded to be a 3/3 flyer that gained you 3 life for 6 mana to balance the format, this version is better. And it could be good in multiplayer.
I think this is the part that I don't understand.
The idea that useless cards suck is totally justified, but I honestly don't see how making a change like this is actually doing anything. This card is still bad and will still see 0 play outside of limited. Yes you opened up the potential for it to be played, but in reality it would still be trash. So why even bother? You can either have a bunch of simple and clean cards that are useless outside of limited, or a bunch of cards with extra text that are also still useless outside of limited.
I think your argument about the Akroan Jailer is at least a little bit more justified. There are simple ways of making the card different without making it more complicated (for instance, it could cost 3 to activate instead of 2W and now it's a tiny bit different as to not be strictly worse than Gideon's Lawkeeper), but the fact remains that it's just not worth anybody's time to do this when very few players agree with you that these cards are insulting or evil.
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.
Blade of the Sixth Pride is a great and flavorful card with one good tribal keyword and one... mediocre one. But then comes along Accorder Paladin; while being a knight is nowhere near as consistent a tribe as rebel, it does really kind of make it hard to justify printing the vanilla Blade of the Sixth Pride. At least Spirit of the Labyrinth has the good sense to be eraseable.
My solution: For a hypothetical ideal core set... bring back rebels! That said, I've only designed 2 white rebels at each rarity at present... I want my main white tribe to be soldiers, complete with human solider tokens, but I'm going to slip "rebel" onto miscellaneous creatures that need a boost for playability. Off-color rebels wouldn't be too bad, would it?
Commons:
Blade of the Sixth Pride
Ramosian Sergeant Errataed to be a Solider too. Because "sergeant" and all that. The shuffle effects of rebels slowed down games in masks, but I think my Hypothetical Ideal Core Set [HICS] will have enough removal to stop this from being a thing to worry about. I mean did you see Masks' removal? Pitfull.
Uncommons:
Kithkin ScrapperW
Creature - Kithkin Soldier Rebel
2/1
Yeah, Not quite I'm obsoleting Elite Vanguard because it's a kithkin, and being a rebel lets it compete with Dryad Militant.
Rare:
Lin Sivvi, Defiant Hero - Was playable once, can be again here.
Foriysian Hierarch 2WW
Creature - Giant Cleric Rebel (R)
When ~ enters the battlefield, gain 4 life.
~ can block an additional creature each combat.
4/4
Now, if we're going to get rebels, I think we should see a return of Mercenaries as well.
Common:
Skulking Cuthroat B
Creature - Merfolk Mercenary Rogue (C)
<Some keyword I'm not sure it's appropriate to talk about>
1/1
Skulkan Persuader 1B
Creature - Human Mercenary Rogue (C)
Pay 1 life, T: Search your library for a mercenary with a CMC of 1 or less and put it onto the battlefield. Shuffle.
2/1
Uncommon:
Misgiving Imp 1B
Creature - Imp Mercenary Rogue (U)
Flying
When ~ enters the battlefield you may put a creature card from a player's graveyard on top of their library.
1/1
Upping this to uncommon might not be such a bad idea, and adding "mercenary" seems like a good idea.
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/creativity/custom-card-creation/custom-set-creation-and/516746-hypothetical-ideal-core-250-250-v1-1#c1
Bloodpact Priestess 2B
Creature - Human Mercenary Cleric (U)
Whenever a creature dies, each opponent loses 1 life and you gain life equal to the life lost in this way.
Pay 2 life, T: Search your library for a mercenary with a CMC of 2 or less and put it onto the battlefield. Shuffle.
1/3
I like the idea of mercenaries requiring the payment of life over mana here; it lets it be explosive and suicidal.
[mana]
By making this a cleric with a vaguely multiplayer life game effect it helps to "offs[/mana]et" some of that suicidal life-paying.
More importantly the effect is really a combo piece to go with Nantuko Husk
Rare:
Skulkian Guild Leader 1B
Legendary Creature - Merfolk Mercenary Assassin
Deathtouch
Pay X life, T: Search your library for a mercenary card with a CMC of X or less and put it onto the battlefield. Shuffle.
T, Sacrifice a Mercenary: Destroy target creature.
2/1
Skulkian Bansheee3BB
Creature - Spirit Mercenary (R)
Flying
Whenever an opponent discards a card, they lose 2 life.
4/4
Thoughts?
Both are in different environments, each of those environments have different needs. Sometimes I want to push the power of my 1 drop white cards, in other sets or white weenie would be too strong with Dryad Militant. Also I can't be shackled to the past, if I design a Golbin Piker then am I literally doomed forever to never make anything stronger?
I suggest reading some articles about why "Bad Cards" are a good thing.
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
What's to stop someone from printing a 3/1 for W? A 6/1 for W? 9/1 trample firstrike haste deathtouch for W? Power creep is the enemy; but power-normalization is good. Bringing up cards that wouldn't see play to levels where they would is a good thing. Goblin Piker doesn't work, but Kalonian Tusker does. I actually think a 2/2 goblin [something useful] for 1R would see some fringe play, and a 3/1 for 1R would see play. For conservativeness sake, I'd print the former first... and I'd expect it to see some highlander play for just being solid... but I'd be saving the 3/1 for 1R for later, knowing it could see print.
As for the articles about why "Bad cards" are a good thing - I have read those piles of lies.
Look at the "classic": http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr5
1) All The Cards Cannot Be Good
Response: Take any given list of standard-playable decks, a set constructed out of entirely those cards would be entirely standard playable. Hence all cards CAN be good.
2) Different Cards Appeal to Different Players
Response: Sure. Find someone who will take my Mindless Nulls off my hand 100:1 for a dual land and we've got a deal. Wait, no one wants Mindless Null? So this card doesn't appeal to anybody, gotcha.
3) Diversity of Card Powers is Key to Discovery
Response: Tell ya what, if Mindless Null is a counterexample to your position I'll just post Mindless Null. Mindless Null
4) Power Levels Are Relative
Response: Birds of Paradise vs llanowar elves vs Skirk Prospector. These cards are all playable in different formats. Mindless Null is playable in no formats.
5) Diversity of Power Rewards the More Skilled Player
Response: I'm pretty sure the skilled player who relies upon her opponents drafting Mindless Null is a player magic can do without. Do you disagree?
6) People Like Finding “Hidden Gems”
Response: Syphon Soul = "oh, wait, you can play magic with more than 2 players?" Mindless Null = "oh, wait, WOTC stole my money?" is not an acceptable discovery.
7) R&D is Only Human
Response: "My bad" is admission of guilt; do you think the person who made Mindless Null thinks of it as a mistake? Because there's an article where they explain that it was initially a mistake, but they said "Nah, we like it this way"... so not so much a "My bad" as "I'm evil, and profanity to you for spending money on my product because I'm going to print a card I know is bad because it's bad and had every opportunity to fix it and didn't because, again, profanity in your direction."
I'm not trying to pick on you, but if your genuinely think magic needs bad cards you need to do better than appeal to an article that flat out lies to you. Truth is not relative to the speaker; if it was we wouldn't bother speaking.
PS, for reference:
http://www.jmgariepy.com/2013/02/01/2013-update-the-10-most-reviled-magic-cards-according-to-gatherer-part-two/
As for the idea of these two tribes, I feel like they need an identity that isn't tied to tutoring. Having an entire tribe of tutors just leads to repetitive gameplay, which was the main reason Rebels was such a powerful and consistent deck (well and also that Lin Sivvi had the old legend rule to protect her). At very least, I might mix up the abilities. Instead of having all the searches be tap abilities, maybe there are a few that trigger, or let you cheat only from your hand instead of your library.
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
I know the question is not directed at me but... yes.
I stop buying MTG when I realized about 95% of the content they sell are worthless. MTG boosters are like a sack of rotten potatoes with a eventual good one here and there.
The only people who buy MTG in the primary market are people who dont know what they are doing. It's a business model founded on the ignorance of it's customers. Now tell me this is not harmful...
HS is the inferior game but it has a far superior business model and accesibility. There is no way it won't be bigger then MTG down the line.
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras
I don't know how to continue after the first line to your response to the first comment on your post is such an obviously fallacious statement. Not only do you start with a strawman (you turn "environments have different needs" into "just because"), but you go right on with an obviously hyperbolic slippery slope. Please, take into account the actual statements of others. Going onto a tangent about something else you make up serves nothing but your sense of self-importance.
BTW: Mindless Null does appeal to me. I woldn't trade it to you for a dual land even 100:1 though because I am saturated with Mindless Null and not with any given dual land (not even common ones). What now? (I would though consider a trade 1:1 for any 7th Ed. Scathe Zombies I have, which to you would be a 'strictly better' card.)
Finally a good white villain quote: "So, do I ever re-evaluate my life choices? Never, because I know what I'm doing is a righteous cause."
Factions: Sleeping
Remnants: Valheim
Legendary Journey: Heroes & Planeswalkers
Saga: Shards of Rabiah
Legends: The Elder Dragons
Read up on Red Flags & NWO
I actually thought of making a Homeslands-esque intra-color conflict, but white since white likes order I guess "Rebels" are white when the order is unfair/unjust? I don't know...
And yeah, the tutoring is my primary cause for concern here - I'm effectively making 6 new shuffle effects for my set. But they are FUN shuffle effects, so...
Resounding yes.
Making a card that is designed for multiplayer and "definitely not" for limited? Sure, that's playable in multiplayer.
It's not fallacious.
Dryad Militant is a better card than Elite Vanguard. objectively. Now Doombringer's position was that "each of those environments had different needs", which is pretty vague.
But a satisfactory explanation for Dryad Militant is going to explain why it needed to be 2 colors, 2/1, and have the anti-graveyard ability. I'm not even worried about rarity here, so this should be super easy.
You just have to point to something about the environment that NEEDED the anti-graveyard ability in 2 colors... on a 2/1.... on turn 1. What? You're telling me that it's not that easy - that a 1/1 or a 1/3 with the same effect could have not obsoleted Elite Vanguard and had a similar effect on standard? Then Dryad Militant obsoleted Elite Vanguard "just because."
If you want to defend the "different environments" argument, you actually need to do some legwork. But before you bother doing that, make sure you have a story as to why Dryad Militant is justified by that argument. Because all evidence suggests it's not.
So it appeals to you but you won't trade for it.
You do realize this means "it doesn't appeal to me."
But let's pretend it did. What about Mindless Null appeals to you? If it's the art - great? You could have the art on a better card. Is it the concept? Great. You could have had a 3/2 for 1B that couldn't block w/o vampires. Was it the fact that no one else liked it? Great! Because there cards designed for odd formats that no one likes - syphon soul gets a lot of hate, despite being really fun in multiplayer.
If you like the card because "haha, WOTC printed a card that is absolutely useless knowing it was absolutely useless because it would be funny for them to rip off their customers," well... let me just say that I don't think people like that should be the target audience for magic the gathering. Because that's just mean.
RtR came just after Innistrad, that had a pretty strong graveyard theme, full of Flashback spells and, well, Snapcaster. It's two colors because the ability fits two colors and the block itself pushes that angle. It's a 2/1 because they probably couldn't justify printing both Elite Vanguard and Dryad Militant, due to sheet space, CMC space etc, and Elite Vanguard is a staple for a reason.
Trying to avoid "obsoleting" old cards for no good reason, especially staples, is both an exercise in futility, stifling and pointless. Magic's main design concern is Limited and, to a lesser degree, Standard. It's designed primarily and mainly with these formats and environments in mind and, in these formats, obsoleting is a non-issue because cards will eventually rotate out and power levels will return to normal.
I never said your statement was wrong, just fallacious. And your current stance of putting the burden of proof on everyone else also reeks of such. I'll entertain you by giving you general ideas to consider. Notethat I do not accept your claim everyone else has to bring you proof - neither do I agree that Dryad Militant is necessarily better than Elite Vanguard. I know which card I prefer in my Human tribal deck (Human tribal introduced in the block just before RTR) and my weenie decks that employ flashback and similar mechanics (flashback also being a mechanic featuring in the block before RTR).
You are being to specific here. A single card can fill multiple needs e. g. it might not be strictly necessary for Dryad Militant to be a green-white hybrid. It could have been a monocolored white card, but there was a compound need to fill out the cycle of hybrid one-drops, so the card was not created monocolored.
Then again there might not have been the strict need to put the anti-graveyard ability on that specific card. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that the ability could have served its purpose as anti-graveyard clause on another card. Maybe you want to go through the set-file and find another place to put it, but wherever that new place is, it will change the overall set-dynamic - maybe the other card has too much text etc. Such needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. I won't invest that time. Just food for thought.
Now I can imagine that the reason the ability is on the card is twofold: a) An anti-graveyard clause on an otherwise already playable card is a reasonable security measure against a potentially too powerful strategy and b) since the ability is symmetric it makes Dryad Militant arguably not strictly better than Elite Vanguard.
Especially the first reason is weird, when you ask for strict necessity (a. k. a. capital-letters "NEEDED"): A security valve is not strictly necessary, but it can be greatly appreciated when the emergency it is designed for occurs. If you want to, you can address these ideas and how you expect people to satisfy your need for "legwork" regarding those issues.
Your statement "you won't trade for it" is incorrect. I rejected one specific proposed trade (100 Mindless Nulls for 1 dual land). That does not equal a general rejection of trades involving me receiving Mindless Null. I even suggested to you another trade I would agree to.
Here an analogy for you: Kittens appeal to me. I wouldn't trade 100 of your Kittens for 1 of my adult cats. My environment is already saturated with felines. Introducing a large number of felines has no appeal to me, though I like them in general.
The modalites of the proposed specific trade did not appeal to me. That doesn't mean I "won't trade" for it.
I liked it since it played quite well on the nostalgia for Scathe Zombies in addition to being a thematic card. If yo want to do some legwork, you can dig up my comments from back then, but I can give you the general gist without quoting myself:
The card could cost or get an additinal point of power or toughness and would likely not entirely destroy the play value. It is not known how much this would add to the regard of others, but it would make the card disappear from my radar since its stats reminiscent of a card from Magic's first edition brought it to the forefront my attention. I appreciate its design either way, but find additional appeal in the fact that I can contrast it with a specific other card.
For that metric I also would not have liked the card especially if it was e. g. a 2/2 with the same card text despite the text that it is terrible, so being a "bad card" alone is not a driving part of the appeal to me.
There is no way of knowing how much love the card would have found with the slightest of stat-changes by others, but it certainly endeared itself to me in a way most other terrible cards didn't. I want to suggest the principle "It's better to have a few people love the card than everyon feel indifferent about it" (paraphrased) applies here. It should be hard to find hard data on this for either side though.
Finally a good white villain quote: "So, do I ever re-evaluate my life choices? Never, because I know what I'm doing is a righteous cause."
Factions: Sleeping
Remnants: Valheim
Legendary Journey: Heroes & Planeswalkers
Saga: Shards of Rabiah
Legends: The Elder Dragons
Read up on Red Flags & NWO
Semantics won't win you this. Either my statement is true or false. As it so happens my analysis is correct. If you'd like to disagree with something I said, fine. But semantic arguments without a point are a waste of both of our time.
I call bull here.
My position is that each card should be playable somewhere.
If you think this position is unjustified - it's your job to make that argument, not mine. But let's not forget that I did address Mark's list of 7 ad hoc rationales for why bad cards exist, none of which included the now infamous "Haha, we think it's funny" justification for Mindless Null.
Your human tribal deck and your flashback deck.
Fair enough. Of course I assume you have decklists and aren't just making things up to support a losing position.
That said, I think WOTC really need to think about obsoleting vanilla creatures. Vanillas are good for limited and good for new players, so every time they obsolete one it makes new players and limited worse off.
That said, your argument sounds an awful lot like Mindless Null can't block Prized Unicorn to me.
But not a need for a 2/1. My position was that it obsoleted a tier 1 constructed playable card for no reason. You've not addressed this aspect of it, instead you're trying for sophistry. Socrates' goal was to show his target that he was ignorant of some fact - do you think I'm ignorant of what you note here?
Either the graveyard clause was important or it wasn't. If it wasn't, don't print it.
Assuming it was, they wanted it available to 2 colors on turn 1. Why? Don't know.
But if it's important and needs to be available in 2 colors on turn 1... why not make it a 1/2? Or make it a 0/4 defender? Or a 0/3?
Nothing you've said has indicated that this needs to be a 2/1 or needs to obsolete an existing card.
Yes, it's not strictly better in the most eclectic use of the term - the same rationale that lets Mindless Null not be strictly worse than Scathe Zombies. But in the practical sense, of "strictly better means better in 99.9+% of the situations," then yes - this is strictly better.
Now you sound like you work for an oil company.
Oh, I'm all for the 1/2 dryad with this effect. He's a soldier? Great! Throw him in my soldier deck as my 2nd 1 drop.
But he's not a 1/2, is he?
I've quoted WOTC logs saying it was printed because it's "funny."
If you think a card that played nothing like a Gray Ogre is nostalgic because it reminds you of Gray Ogres... good for you. I'm sure some people like the taste of fecal matter when they think they're getting a coke. But most do not, and certainly not enough to have 50% of the cokes be filled with sewer contents.
How could I argue this? Oh, wait, because what you're saying is wrong. It's false. It's analytically and empirically, false.
See... I don't think you do appreciate the design. The design was a mistake and people laughed at it and kept it in.
You don't recognize this, and as such you don't appreciate the design - you appreciate the result. And the result is, again, bad. But you're apparently like bad things. And the fact that you like bad things does not make them good.
Make no mistake - I'm not out to hurt the feelings of masochists or the like - people can enjoy whatever they want. But you like it because it's bad. Nostalgia for when cards were bad, laughing at how cards are bad, or liking it because everyone else knows it's bad is not sufficient to make it good, and certainly not sufficient enough to print it.
WOTC literally defrauded us of our money, promising us playing cards and giving us something other than that.
How about the principle "Don't print cards that people only like because everyone else hates them"?
Also, you JUST SAID there's no way of knowing whether people would feel the same if it was a 3/2 for 1B with that ability... and then suggested people'd feel indifferent about it. I can assure you, they would not feel indifferent about a 3/2 for 1B that could only occasionally block. People'd love that sucker in limited and maybe even in constructed. And if you're talking about the 2/2 for 1B and the same ability... it's already obsoleted, so yeah - step up or go home.
Seriously guys, ignoring large swaths of the player base because you personally disagree with the way they choose to play is not going to lead to better design.
Wizards probably wouldn't tie rebels to white if they did them nowadays, at very least they wouldn't have called them rebels.
Honestly shuffle effects in general are fine, its just shuffle effects at lower rarities that get annoying.
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
I did not know there was something to be won. I have a feeling you are being extremely competitive and argumentative. That would explain why you assume I want to "win" "this". I just wanted to point out that the way you are talking to others leaves something to desired. And now that you state your belief that this conversation can be "won", I suspect you falsely assume that we are competing with each other.
The only thing I want to "win" is insight. I'm not trying to antagonize over this. We can both get that prize, but the way you state your position makes it harder.
I do not habitually record decklists for my decks made of canon cards.
I didn't even recall they were in Standard together. I care more about interactions with larger themes that appear on multiple cards than individual card interactions though.
My point is the following: It is possible the clause is important, but the exact card it is printed on is not important, so there are multiple valid variants. It is possible that the same clause on a 3/4 for would have served as well, but that does not invalidate a 2/1 for . If two options can be valid, then the capital-letter "NEEDED" status for one of the variants might be a fiction. Sometimes a card fulfills a need that another card could fulfill and I do not know whether you accept this form of argumentation.
This is faulty reasoning. I actually stated that not all aspects of a card must align for the same purpose since most/all cards serve multiple purposes e. g. it might be just an acceptable coincidence that the clause appears on a green-white hybrid. It is more likely that the card in generally being powerful enough to be Standard playable was the driving factor - and a slightly different cost equally acceptable.
Because it doesn't "need" to be. That's what I'm telling you. Crafting an environment is a task with more than one solution. There is no one card that is strictly necessary to exist in exactly that form if you move enough other pieces around. With that in mind how do you propose an argument in favor of Dryad Militant would be made? What do you require of an argument in its favor?
Right now the question to ask is to abstract to suggest a sufficient reply.
Now you sound like you ignore the core of why your request has been denied in favor of a joke.
Ignoring that I have it on some authority that the card depicts a female and "he" is the one incorrect pronoun... I don't understand the point you are making. As I state otherwise: I don't think the effect is intrinsically linked to each other part of the design, but I can tell you that I have a vague suspicion that a 1/2 might not perform quite as well in an aggressive weenie deck as might have been required of the card at the time. Might be it would have.
Do you have data concerning that? Because I assume a person who makes bold assumptions about decklists has tried out all the variants from 1/2 to 0/4 with defender.
Can you please elaborate, because I thought you were suggesting an even more drastic strange by both reducing its cost AND increasing its power. So you say a lesser change would be more harmful to gameplay?
Keeping it in was a consicous decision though, right? I know I have read something about including nonintentional results into your design. I argue the conscious decision to leave a card unaltered after an unintentional change is as much design as the conscious decision to remove the unintentional change. Compare this e. g. with the unintentional change to Tarmogoyf's cost that accidentally reverted to an older version after returning to the card file in place of a removed cycle; the unintentional change was not caught by the people responsible and leaves us with a card that errs towards the other end of the spectrum.
And if you re-read the quote you dug up regarding their decision to keep the card, you will notice that their goal was to make a memorable card. They succeeded.
Make no mistake - I would possibly like the card even if it was not strictly worse than Scathe Zombies. I do believe it would be possible to alter the design in such a way. That is why I insist that I do not like the card because it is "bad" (i. e. low-powered). Being "bad" and being appealing to me is just two things this card is - and while there are changes that can be made to it that remove both of these, that's not the only kind of change that could be made to it.
Isn't "literal" fraud something you could sue them over? Because I think they released a full card list of that set - they do that for a while now. Did they leave Mindless Null off that list?
Also Mindless Null is a playing card. It is even Standard-legal as opposed to so many of those stupid Zendikar expditions they threw at us last block.
I made an assumption. I also think I did not intend to refer to your suggested stat changes, but the more slight stat changes I myself alluded to earlier.
But aren't you furious about obsoleting cards?
Finally a good white villain quote: "So, do I ever re-evaluate my life choices? Never, because I know what I'm doing is a righteous cause."
Factions: Sleeping
Remnants: Valheim
Legendary Journey: Heroes & Planeswalkers
Saga: Shards of Rabiah
Legends: The Elder Dragons
Read up on Red Flags & NWO
My position is that all cards should be constructed playable in some format. Obsoleting cards makes the older cards unplayable, and thus is prima facie bad. The only situation where I think it is okay to obsolete old cards is when said cards are unplayable.
That said, I also like attempts to make unplayable cards playable. One of my first card designs was Bear Cave - a nonbasic land that tapped for G and gave bears you control +1/+1. This was before green's 3/3s for 2, so this would have been quite cool and possibly made Grizzly Bears playable in constructed, while not affecting limited.
The world is not divided between casuals and pros. Theres is a huge, highly relevant segment of players that are not casual but are not pro either.
Also, casuals DO care. Screwing someone in secret does not make screwing people guilt free.
Ex: If I spit in your soda and you never realize it I'm still an ********.
HS is miles better then MTG in this aspect. Cards that have zero chance of seen play in reasonable high ranks (lets say, 8 less) are exceptions. In MTG cards that are useful in FNM level constructed are exceptions.
Noone saying every card needs to be Siege Rhino. My opinion is that more cards should be constructed relevant (lets say 40% instead of the current 5%) and no card should be so bad as to be useless in all formats.
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras
First lets get a couple of things clear before I address your points directly:
Ok now to rebut your points:
The needs of the different formats are what stops this as a 6/1 for W would be damaging to limited, standard and possibly older formats. However Elite Vanguard is firstly both not that playable in standard (or even some limited formats), so as Dryad Militant appears to be made for standard because of the flashback and graveyard themes of the previous black then pushing what was just below playable to fringe playable while supporting the multicolor themes of RTR block and being a safety valve to snapcaster or other flashback cards. Now your right that it could of been a 1/2 or maybe a 0/4 but thats risks the cards missing its design goal of being a standard player. Also note that as a card for standard that Elite Vanguard wasn't legal in that same standard environment and thus is both less relevant and a potential reason that they wanted the dryad as a 2/1 rather than a 1/2.
This argument has a few issues:
1): Within standard you have sideboard cards, niche cards, janky combos that are only good against specific decks etc. So even within the context of standard cards will be bad in relation to each other, or are you arguing that Virulent Plague is just as good as Siege Rhino?
2): Sets have to be designed for all formats in mind, not just standard. As I said before some cards are designed to make limited better, others are made for standard, some like Dark Petition see Legacy play without really touching standard.
Putting aside how "bad" cards can make limited more balanced and thus are appealing to those who play that format, As SecretInfiltrator mentioned he found the card appealing, the fact that he won't trade it for a duel land isn't relevant as cards have diminishing returns on their value as your never going to play with your 101st copy. Like no matter how many Pithing Needles you offer me I'm unlikely to to trade for them despite liking the card as I don't need more than 4-8 copies.
Also the "tradability == appeal" argument breaks down even more when it comes to limited format cards as while I enjoy picking up an Isolation Zone in OGW draft and the card has brought me a lot of enjoyment I wouldn't trade for them.
Note how you are not at all refuting this point, just making a little joke and pretending it doesn't exist.
Here's an example I've experienced first hand with my Sister of the appeal of discovery. A card like Boulder Salvo is a good card to someone who plays limited.. However she is using her Boulder Salvo in her casual Constructed deck (which remember is the most popular format.) and then found a Flame Slash in the Bulk commons of the LGS. That was a fun moment where she learnt about a new card and got a sense of progression as now her deck is slightly more powerful. Its worth keeping in mind here that printing Flame Slash in OGW is likely to make the set less appealing overall as most likely would skew the power balance in limited while robbing her of the achievement.
Mindless Null is from Zendikar which had an extremely powerful and fast BR or mono B aggressive deck, so you they to have ANOTHER insane cheap creature? Mindless Null saw minor play in limited just because the Black/X decks where so powerful that you sometimes just needed yet another body. For example in this draft thread
Its filler playable level can also be seen in certain set reviews:
To a certain extent yes, MtG as your probably aware is a game with a huge amount of variance. Pro players can lose to an FNM newbie with the right luck which is part of what makes magic more approachable than a 100% skill based game like Chess. However limited draft is considered one of the most "skill testing" formats because of cards of weaker or higher power level. A flatter power level makes the drafting section less relevant and the format not as deep in the end.
Interesting...did they hide the existence of Mindless Null in the spoiler?
Also considering the article you linked thats exactly the kinda hidden story gems behind the creation of a card that player with a design knack enjoy seeing.
How does this make their point any less valid? If anything it could be argued it showcases exactly that they are human. Human designer enjoy little design jokes and get emotional attachment to what they create. Its hard to kill your designs and yet in the end ZEN ended up being a very popular set.
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
I am Gmail (and yes, the moderators know), so I think you know how this goes.
I really don't want to be sucked into this debate again. So take it for granted that when I design a card I intend it to be constructed playable somewhere.
If someone wants to design cards intended to be unplayable in all formats, that's their right. But just because one has the right to do a thing doesn't mean it is morally right to do that thing. If I own a diamond necklace, I have the right to throw it into the ocean. But given that if I sold the necklace and gave the money to starving children I could have saved dozens of lives, I think throwing it into the ocean is, objectively, morally wrong.
You might disagree. Maybe you think that morality doesn't apply to card game design, or you think that there is a set of options that is morally acceptable despite not being to anyone's benefit, or perhaps you just take the position that companies are morally obligated to make as much money as possible money even if they have to sell products that don't work to do so. But I would recommend you keep this in mind the next time you visit your physician, your grocery store, or your auto-mechanic.
Peace and good tidings to you.
But the idea of someone saying "We need to print this bad card so that people will need to buy more of our product" is quite frankly absurd. MTG has 5 colors and dozens of playable decks in each of dozens of formats. It's not that difficult to aim to have each card in a set playable in one of said decks. The person who is trying to complete their elf deck will then get cards dedicated to other decks, and will be prompted to try to complete those other decks as well - buying more product to do this. But if half of the cards in a pack are useless, then people aren't going to think about what decks they're supposed to go in - because, by stipulation, they're not designed to be constructed playable. And as such people will be less likely to buy new cards, and more likely to quit a game that doesn't "pay out" when you buy a pack.
It's funny how foils and alternate art cards really do push packs - opening a cool looking basic land in a booster pack is so much more thrilling than opening an objectively bad card, and trying to get all the variants of a card's art is a challenge - and one you'd love to engage in if the card is any good.
@labrinth Your examples used in the OP are just wrong and mostly arbitrary. Blade of the Sixth Pride is completely justifiable reprint because being a Rebel is a powerful thing and is not worse compared to Accorder Paladin's Battlecry. Especially because in the context of limited (which we are in when you talk set design) you are seeing a lot more of the blade vs. the paladin. You can't have Accorder Paladin at common unless you want a screwed up hyper aggressive set that isn't actually fun to play.
Also what does constructed unplayable even mean? Are we talking eternal formats? Standard? What is the benchmark for unplayable? What constitutes a bad card? Can you really ignore context when it's what determines power level overall?
Take Desecration Demon for example. It was considered unplayable junk on it's debut, and sees absolutely no play in Modern now that it's rotated. Yet for a period of time, despite the naysayers, after Innistrad block rotated out it was a standard staple and rose from junk to $10 rare. Does that make it a good card, despite how bad it was when it first was played and where it's played now?
If the card is unplayable in every constructed format, then it is not a constructed playable product by definition.
My position is that printing unplayable cards is not okay. Do you disagree? I have no problem with "hidden gem" cards like Desecration Demon... but it is a 6/6 for 4 mana one sided the abyss, so I'm not really sure why anyone would think it's unplayable. At the very least it's playable in block, right?
Besides, the "junk" cards I'm more worried about are the commons, as at least "big fat silly rares" are still dinner table/highlander fun. But no one plays with half of the commons from new sets. You know it to be true - search gatherer to reminder yourself.
Most commons are heavily played in limited, and just because Tar Snare doesn't make it to your kitchen table doesn't mean it hasn't led to some memorable moments/wins/losses for a large portion of the playerbase, including myself.
Even ignoring limited you seem to be ignoring that a lot of formats you might not play do in fact exist and benefit from these unplayable commons.
1. Several game stores I know of run pauper standard in which a large majority of "unplayable" commons are in fact played.
2. Pauper/Peasant cube enthusiasts love pouring through the commons/uncommons each set for potential new upgrades or identical reprints to slot into cube.
3. People who craft their own cube environments definitely appreciate weaker options that might make other archetypes flourish more.
4. People who make their own draft simulators appreciate all cards in a set, especially mediocre commons that make the set flow.
Edit: The only TRULY bad cards are the ones that serve no purpose in the limited format it was printed in. These examples are very few and far betweem. The most recent to come to mind are Primal Visitation (though this one was really fringe as a 22-23 cut) or Prism Quarry. These are cards you can complain about.
1. Pauper doesn't play half of the commons in contemporary sets. In fact, it's notable for favoring old commons.
2. A set with 100% playable cards could easily include some designed for Pauper. In fact, pauper opens up lots of design opportunities. But one one runs Akroan Jailer,Akroan Sergeant, Artificer's Epiphany, Aspiring Aeronaut, or Aven Battle Priest... and that's just the "As" from a recent set.
3. I doubt people who craft their own cube environments appreciate Artificer's Epiphany... at least not as much as they appreciate Thirst for Knowledge.
4. I thought WOTC shut down all draft simulators... but that aside, again, I don't think anyone who made their own draft simulator ever said "You know what card really makes my simulated drafts flow appropriately? Artificer's Epiphany! I'm so glad I slotted that into my simulation instead of a mountain with pretty art. Also, draft simulators are not real printed cards, and you do not pay money for them." So, technically, I have no problem with simulator-runners wasting digital space that doesn't cost anyone a dime.
I think one of the biggest confusions here is that some people think by "constructed playable" I mean only tier 1 standard or legacy cards. I'm all for pauper playable, highlander playable, tribal playable, multiplayer playable, 2hg, commander, etc., etc. So if Aven Battle Priest was playable in one of those formats - GREAT! Print it! But if not... make a different card that IS playable in some format:
Aven Battle Priest 2.0 5W
Creature - Bird Rebel Cleric
Flying
When Aven Battle Priest 2.0 enters the battlefield, you gain 3 life for each opponent.
3/3
A simple change that makes the card... less bad? Even if your position was that Aven Battle Priest needed to be a 3/3 flyer that gained you 3 life for 6 mana to balance the format, this version is better. And it could be good in multiplayer.
Simple, minor changes to any number of commons can make them comparably complex, comparably playable in limited, comparably unplayable in standard, yet playable in some non-standard format. And yeah, maybe someone at WOTC just didn't think "Multiplayer" when they designed Aven Battle Priest or playtested it for 6 months. If so... oops? But at the same time, I expect someone to be able to search gatherer and find Gideon's Lawkeeper and Goldmeadow Harrier before printing Akroan Jailer. That someone didn't is a source of great sorrow in the world. Or they could have just made the jailer 1/2...
The idea that useless cards suck is totally justified, but I honestly don't see how making a change like this is actually doing anything. This card is still bad and will still see 0 play outside of limited. Yes you opened up the potential for it to be played, but in reality it would still be trash. So why even bother? You can either have a bunch of simple and clean cards that are useless outside of limited, or a bunch of cards with extra text that are also still useless outside of limited.
I think your argument about the Akroan Jailer is at least a little bit more justified. There are simple ways of making the card different without making it more complicated (for instance, it could cost 3 to activate instead of 2W and now it's a tiny bit different as to not be strictly worse than Gideon's Lawkeeper), but the fact remains that it's just not worth anybody's time to do this when very few players agree with you that these cards are insulting or evil.
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
We've got a lot of sinners in these here forums.
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