If your position is that WOTC has a list that they post online that people who buy packs don't have immediate access to, note the underlined text.
Information assymetry by inconvenience. So that's your claim. So this would apply indepently on the quality of the content, correct?
One way to not be fraudulent then would be to have a full card list with full card text printed on every booster pack. Or can you suggest a better method?
As for what's on the description on the package - look it up! Why are you outsourcing the things to other people?
Your claiming fraud. I make no claim either way, but - just as you would - I request evidence for claims claims that seem doubtful to me. I assume you actually have evaluated the description on the package in the context of fraud and "aren't just making things up to support a losing position".
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]
@labarith
People who don't view the card list before purchasing cards should be quite aware that they don't what cards they will get, and might not want all of them.
I really don't see where the card list comes into it.
If you tell me you're selling me medicine for my cold, and it's not medicine for my cold, the fact you noted online that there was a chance it wasn't medicine for my cold doesn't make it any less fraud.
Find me an example of MtG products marketed as containing only cards playable in competitive constructed formats. What's that? You can't? I wonder why. The products are marketed as containing cards for use in a game. There are no cards in any MtG product that are not usable in a game. It's not fraud and that you think it is is worrying for me considering the fact that this practice has been going on for decades in plain sight and no legal action has been taken. Do you really think you've caught on to illegal practice happening in broad daylight for years, unchecked? Really?
You say I'm under a false impression, but you haven't demonstrated it. My Aven Battle Priest 2.0 example shows that WOTC could make functionally better cards w/o affecting limited. Thus I am under the demonstrably correct impression that WOTC could make better cards w/o affecting limited.
Untrue for reasons Doombringer noted. And also keep in mind, I said *feasibly*, so showing things are possible is not enough.
You say "Until you can front up the testing to show that it is, you have nothing." - but I have done the testing. We all have. If you take the cards from standard, you have a 100% constructed playable set.
And we've all played limited and seen how it works. Anyone who is familiar with limited should probably be aware of the fact that it is built on a power gradient. So show this can feasibly be done while adding a significant number of constructed playable cards. Then, you'll need to show it's a highly comparable quality of a limited format to a regular WotC set.
If your position is "limited needs to have unplayable cards for reason X," you put the burden of proof on yourself, not me.
And the existence of WoTC's sets success in limited doesn't constitute evidence for this already?
You have to come up with an example of a card that is "bad for limited" AND that cannot be improved for constructed in some format (tribal highlander, h2g, pauper, etc.). If you cannot come up with just ONE CARD to demonstrate this, then why should we believe it's true of more than one card?
Defensive Stance as has been mentioned. Improving this without improving it's power in limited would have other drawbacks. Apply for almost all bad limited cards. It's the same story.
And "R+D had decades of experience" is probably actually not true, as they have a rotating cast that don't work on everything.
At least a few members of R&D have been there for more than fifteen years, Rosewater more than twenty. And the experience is passed down.
But what we do know is that they're prone to printing cards "for a laugh" - Mindless Null.
'Prone'? Because one card was printed at least in part because it was funny? It's not like Mindless Null was done to spite the players, anyway, and that's only one example, which was protested anyway.
Either WOTC is engaging in fraud, or they are not.
Take it to court, see how you go. Talk to me then.
Either it is good game design to print cards that cannot be played or it is not
When they print a card that can't be played, let me know.
Either a certain percentage of cards in limited have to be exactly as constructed unviable as they are printed, or they do not
It's not about necessity; R&D aren't gods, they work on a budget, on a time-limit and with human fallibility.
Information assymetry by inconvenience. So that's your claim. So this would apply indepently on the quality of the content, correct?
My claim is that (a) printing game cards not usable in said game is fraud, (b) it's bad game design, (c) it's wasteful, (d) it hurts the audience, etc.
Your claim seems to be that you've consented to it, so it's acceptable. (1) This is not how consent works (see the consent argument above), and (2) even if it was it's still (b), (c), and (d).
You COULD go about arguing that the consent argument is true. But that won't prove your point, so instead I suggest doing the following which WOULD actually prove that bad cards are a necessary part of the game "for limited's sake." And if it's true, then it should be EASY to demonstrate it's truth.
So, please, ANYBODY who wants to keep up this discussion - find me a common card from an expansion that never saw constructed play that would have warped the limited format if it was constructed playable. Just one. And then you'll have proven your point. There's a clear path to victory - all you need to do is do this one thing that so many people are saying is so easy to do... and yet not doing.
Once again, Innistrad Limited would be undeniably worse without Fortress Crab. And, yes, in its current form. And, yes, it is a well-designed card. Partially of virtue of being a vanilla. And, yes, it would probably be worse designed if it were a Spirit Zombie Crab Warrior Rebel with some ridiculous trinket text so it's playable in, I don't know, the additional format of Tiny Leaders. Innistrad Limited is not immoral.
And can we please stop using the word fraud. It's physically not fraud in any legal sense of the word. It's harmful to arguments, and forces other people to address the hyperbole leading to complete sidetracking.
And to repeat what I said earlier, they haven't promised you a six pack of Pepsi. You've gone and bought from the Mystery Soda Machine.
Fortress Crab 2.0 3U
Creature - Crab Warrior (C)
Fortress Crab gets +6/+1 if you control a Fortification.
1/6
* This is objectively better than Fortress Crab in every sense except that it takes longer to read. If your position is that Fortress Crab HAD TO BE vanilla for the flow of limited, then you're saying there are no other cards in the format that could be printed w/o text in it's stead in exchange for +1/+0 or something. Which is just silly.
Fraud is a broad term that refers to a variety of offenses involving dishonesty or "fraudulent acts". In essence, fraud is the intentional deception of a person or entity by another made for monetary or personal gain.
WOTC says Fortress Crab is a card for their CCG, but it is not constructed playable so it is not a card for their game, is it? It's a subtle point, but one you seem to be missing in favor of "If I play it in limited, it's okay."
And I'd be willing to accept that if you talk about a SINGLE CARD that cannot be improved without warping limited.
Finally, stop repeating from earlier. They have promised you 15 additional game cards, not mystery "maybe they're game cards maybe they're garbage." Repeating yourself doesn't make your points any less succeptable to critiism - Sorry.
Defensive Stance as has been mentioned. Improving this without improving it's power in limited would have other drawbacks. Apply for almost all bad limited cards. It's the same story.
Arabian Nights had a basic Mountain in the common slot.
If your position is Defensive Stance is absolute garbage because ANY OTHER CARD WOULD HAVE WARPED THE FORMAT, then (a) I don't believe you because you have provided no evidence, and (b) then print a basic Mountain in that slot with a picture of a dragon on it.
I can guarantee you that a cool looking mountain would see far more constructed play than Defensive Stance and far more limited play than Defensive Stance and mihgt actually be drafted over other cards in the pack in a casual draft.
You say it applies for "almost all bad cards in limited" - prove it. Find me ONE CARD that is bad and then TELL ME A STORY about why it would warp limited if it was a Mountain, Ornathopter, or the like.
Labarith, your thread is entitled "[HICS] Rebels and Mercenaries: A solution or a problem?"
Inside this thread I have found many other comments of yours besides JUST things about rebels or mercenaries. You may think they have surrported your initial post and made your argument better. Many others may agree. However, I don't. I did not expect to see the exact content that I found. I also expected your cards would be designed in accordance with WOTC standards. While you may never have said that, I expected it anyway.
Under your argument, you have committed fraud. You are immoral.
I will await compensation for your criminal activity in this thread. PM me to discuss the terms.
WOTC says Fortress Crab is a card for their CCG, but it is not constructed playable so it is not a card for their game, is it?
There is a difference between "playable" and "competitive". By mixing up the two terms the discussion gets misleading
According to a dictionary (applicable definition chosen):
playable - capable of or suitable for being played
competitive - well suited for competition; having a feature that makes for successful competition
Here is the issue: To be capable of being played in a game a game piece (card) generally only needs to work within the rules. This the cards sold by WotC do and hence they are playable. One might argue though that Stoneforge Mystic is more fraudulent than Mindless Null since it was actually banned and hence not playable - at least in sanctioned tournaments of a specific format.
What do you think about banned cards in that regard?
To be competitive goes further than just playable, but I do not see where there is a moral obligation that every card is competitive in Constructed - "Constructed" itself, btw, is a term that is surprisingly open to interpretation.
---
While I do not intend to use your "clear path to victory", I want to point out to you that there is a flaw in your proposal: You claim that every card of a set can be Constructed playable without hurting Limited. So demandig that only one card changed warps Limited for your "clear path to victory" is not taking into account the repeatedly stated fact that the philosophy you proposed if applied to all cards in a set has a compound effect. It's not the individual card that matters, but the set as a whole.
This, btw, is also the reason your earlier questions about individual cards could not be adequately answered: No one claims that it is impossible to choose a single given card and make it Constructed playable (though any individual changed card may have a more or less noticeable impact). The issue suggested is that repeating this process for every single card creates a problem.
So while any example fulfilling the conditions of the "clear path to vistory" would necessarily be sufficient to disprove you, it is not a necessary condition and actually quite unlikely to be found with any reasonable effort. Just to put things into perspective.
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]
Look at your definition of playable - "playable - capable of or suitable for being played"
Is Defensive Stance "suitable for being played"? If you were defending WOTC in a court case, you'd argue that it meets the bare minimum definition - IE, a player won't be disqualified from an event for playing it. I'm not sure this would win the case - in fact I sure hope it wouldn't - but that's not the point, is it?
Do you think as a game company WOTC should be concerned with printed the bare minimum?
At the end of the day Defensive Stance is a card a lot of players threw away after opening it. Was WOTC's goal to produce a product people would throw away? I hope not.
And regarding the clear path to victory, it should be clear at this point that there is no such path. Magic is a robust game with lots of formats, lots of old cards you could reprint, lots of players hungry for variant basic lands, etc, etc, etc. There is finite design space, but so much room in that design space and so many outs that it is uncontroversially true that bad cards are unjustified. So instead of arguing that they're needed for the game, you're stuck arguing that WOTC doesn't have to bring their A game to a set. And that's a really odd position to defend.
Labarith, your thread is entitled "[HICS] Rebels and Mercenaries: A solution or a problem?"
Inside this thread I have found many other comments of yours besides JUST things about rebels or mercenaries. You may think they have surrported your initial post and made your argument better. Many others may agree. However, I don't. I did not expect to see the exact content that I found. I also expected your cards would be designed in accordance with WOTC standards. While you may never have said that, I expected it anyway.
Under your argument, you have committed fraud. You are immoral.
I will await compensation for your criminal activity in this thread. PM me to discuss the terms.
Well, someone's trying. I respect the effort, sarcasm and all.
That said, my thread title says "Rebels and Mercenaies - a Solution or a Problem?," where the solution is to WOTC obsoleting quality cards for no reason. Broadly speaking, it is a solution to problematic pratices WOTC engages in, such as printing bad cards - in fact, my initial contention was that by making things rebels and printing rebel support we're not printing bad cards in [HICS].
That said, I've refunded your entrance fee x 3 to compensate you for perceived discomfort. I hope that you'll continue to support my threads in the future, and just remember - the customer is always right unless they're the only one left.
My thread title says "Rebels and Mercenaies - a Solution or a Problem?," where the solution is to WOTC obsoleting quality cards for no reason.
That wasn't the discussion I expected to find. I also expected better arguments than you provided. While the arguments might be fine for making your points under your perspective, they aren't good at what I want you to be arguing for. Like how cards are made for different types of players or experiences than you, as have posted repeatedly in this thread alone. If you aren't supporting my desires specifically with your every argument, I view it as fraud.
You have committed fraud under your argument. Please contact me privately to compensate me for your criminal activity.
Broadly speaking, it is a solution to problematic pratices WOTC engages in, such as printing bad cards - in fact, my initial contention was that by making things rebels and printing rebel support we're not printing bad cards in [HICS].
I still consider the cards you've been advocating to be poorly designed and not competitive in vintage, which is a format that I happen to care about. Until you make all your cards tier 1 vintage-competitive without warping limited, I will consider your set to be fradulent. Please contact me once you have done so.
That said, I've refunded your entrance fee x 3 to compensate you for perceived discomfort. I hope that you'll continue to support my threads in the future, and just remember - the customer is always right unless they're the only one left.
I'm seeking punitive damages for your criminal activity. Additionally, I have yet to recieve the refund of my time even 1x - let alone 3x. But in any case, if you sincerely admit you have committed fraud in this thread and that your behavior has been immoral - then I'll accept that as a start.
If you were defending WOTC in a court case, you'd argue that it meets the bare minimum definition - IE, a player won't be disqualified from an event for playing it.
That is not the sole argument to be made, but sufficient. Hence no one is actually suing WotC - unless you just decide to not talk about ongoing legal procedure openly.
I actually pointed out that this is not even true for every card you can open in a booster. Please, why don't you pick up on my example? I want to better understand your perspective and think a comment on the status of banned cards i. e. cards that are unplayable for being "too strong" rather than "too weak" would be enlightening.
I'm not sure this would win the case - in fact I sure hope it wouldn't
I see you fear to have wasted your legal fees on this.
but that's not the point, is it?
It isn't? It certainly is part of the larger argument.
Do you think as a game company WOTC should be concerned with printed the bare minimum?
Please restate. I am not certain what you want to express.
At the end of the day Defensive Stance is a card a lot of players threw away after opening it. Was WOTC's goal to produce a product people would throw away? I hope not.
Here is the thing: Is it morally reprehensible to create a product of which a subset of costumers will throw away part after opening it? By its nature Magic is many games disguised as a single one. And one of those games requires a power gradient and clear signaling. But that has been pointed out to you. Do you think it would be better to split up the several games Magic is? Ethically? Economically? Ecologically?
it is uncontroversially true that bad cards are unjustified.
I suggest that the discussion in this thread disproves this claim. What is it we are having here if not a prolonged public dispute concerning a matter of opinion i. e. a controversy?
So instead of arguing that they're needed for the game, you're stuck arguing that WOTC doesn't have to bring their A game to a set. And that's a really odd position to defend.
I'm not stuck arguing that WotC doesn't have to bring their A game to a set - not for the overall success and quality of the game. Their B game or C game though is entirely sufficient to not commit fraud. Which is loaded language you brought into this discussion and a point you decided to stick with.
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]
Do you think a game company should be concerned with printing the bare minimum to avoid a successful lawsuit, or you do think they should be concerned with creating products that people will enjoy?
Do you think someone at WOTC said "Defensive Stance is a card that a significant portion of our customers will enjoy, so let's print it."? No, of course you don't.
And that's just the point. You can't seriously tell me that cards like this are good, good for the game, good for customers, or not a waste of trees. So instead you have to make arguments like we're willing victims, WOTC has done nothing legally wrong, WOTC needs bad cards to balance limited and thus because limited is important, bad cards are essential, etc, etc, etc. But why? Why are you lobbying to defend cards like Defensive Stance? You demonstrably don't get a better limited environment, you demonstrably don't attract new players, so forth and so on.
Yeah, it's easy to argue that WOTC shouldn't be going to jail for Defensive Stance. I wouldn't want them to either. But I sure as heck don't want them to print another Defensive Stance. What scares me is that you seem to act as though you want them to print another Defensive Stance - but you'll never be happy opening it, and never want it passed to you in draft. So you say one thing that is demonstrably false - you don't want it to be printed because you don't want it.
You can't seriously tell me that cards like this are good, good for the game, good for customers, or not a waste of trees.
Yep, we can. For lots of reasons. Just one of which is that it's the only way to efficiently nerf a color late in the deveopment cycle by a tiny fraction. You can't increase all the cards in a color's mana cost by 1/36th. And color balance is a good thing, wouldn't you agree?
Now Labarith, your example cards are STILL not playable in tier 1 vintage decks. Vintage is supposedly the format where all cards are legal. Why are cards that are too weak for vintage okay under your argument?
Why are you lobbying to defend cards like Defensive Stance? You demonstrably don't get a better limited environment
Demonstration required.
Yeah, it's easy to argue that WOTC shouldn't be going to jail for Defensive Stance.
So is it fraud or not? Make up your mind.
hat scares me is that you seem to act as though you want them to print another Defensive Stance - but you'll never be happy opening it, and never want it passed to you in draft. So you say one thing that is demonstrably false - you don't want it to be printed because you don't want it.
'I don't want to own a copy of the card' is completely tangential to 'I want the card to exist in set'. I can hold both positions on Defensive Stance without contradiction. The reason for the card to exist is not correlated to any expectation that players will want it. It exists to make limited play well and act as a learning tool. The occasional card that is unplayable to the extent of Defensive Stance is perfectly acceptable. MtG's business model is not ideal for the customer, but a part of that is simply WotC needing to make a good profit, and that's okay. The game developers need to make a living somehow and it's not like you'd anything drastically different in the same position. WotC is not a charity. If you as a customer are not willing to pay the prices they have set, then don't, but obviously people are okay with the trade off, and WotC shouldn't need to be guilty about that. What they haven't done is intentionally make useless cards that create poor gameplay.
Why are you lobbying to defend cards like Defensive Stance? You demonstrably don't get a better limited environment, you demonstrably don't attract new players, so forth and so on.
Also you are still ignore the very important comprehension complexity, aesthetic elegance and focus costs that most of your designs and all of your redesigns have.
Ok, I think we had our shot at making this a reasonable discussion and it hasn't worked out. I'm not going to forbid anyone from ever mentioning bad cards again, but any attempts to derail other threads with this topic or any new threads created on this topic may be treated as trolling and will be dealt with accordingly.
Let me know if there are any questions, thanks.
-GM
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
<3 Sally 4eva
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Information assymetry by inconvenience. So that's your claim. So this would apply indepently on the quality of the content, correct?
One way to not be fraudulent then would be to have a full card list with full card text printed on every booster pack. Or can you suggest a better method?
Your claiming fraud. I make no claim either way, but - just as you would - I request evidence for claims claims that seem doubtful to me. I assume you actually have evaluated the description on the package in the context of fraud and "aren't just making things up to support a losing position".
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
Find me an example of MtG products marketed as containing only cards playable in competitive constructed formats. What's that? You can't? I wonder why. The products are marketed as containing cards for use in a game. There are no cards in any MtG product that are not usable in a game. It's not fraud and that you think it is is worrying for me considering the fact that this practice has been going on for decades in plain sight and no legal action has been taken. Do you really think you've caught on to illegal practice happening in broad daylight for years, unchecked? Really?
Untrue for reasons Doombringer noted. And also keep in mind, I said *feasibly*, so showing things are possible is not enough.
And we've all played limited and seen how it works. Anyone who is familiar with limited should probably be aware of the fact that it is built on a power gradient. So show this can feasibly be done while adding a significant number of constructed playable cards. Then, you'll need to show it's a highly comparable quality of a limited format to a regular WotC set.
And the existence of WoTC's sets success in limited doesn't constitute evidence for this already?
Defensive Stance as has been mentioned. Improving this without improving it's power in limited would have other drawbacks. Apply for almost all bad limited cards. It's the same story.
At least a few members of R&D have been there for more than fifteen years, Rosewater more than twenty. And the experience is passed down.
'Prone'? Because one card was printed at least in part because it was funny? It's not like Mindless Null was done to spite the players, anyway, and that's only one example, which was protested anyway.
Take it to court, see how you go. Talk to me then.
When they print a card that can't be played, let me know.
It's not about necessity; R&D aren't gods, they work on a budget, on a time-limit and with human fallibility.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
My claim is that (a) printing game cards not usable in said game is fraud, (b) it's bad game design, (c) it's wasteful, (d) it hurts the audience, etc.
Your claim seems to be that you've consented to it, so it's acceptable. (1) This is not how consent works (see the consent argument above), and (2) even if it was it's still (b), (c), and (d).
You COULD go about arguing that the consent argument is true. But that won't prove your point, so instead I suggest doing the following which WOULD actually prove that bad cards are a necessary part of the game "for limited's sake." And if it's true, then it should be EASY to demonstrate it's truth.
Fortress Crab 2.0 3U
Creature - Crab Warrior (C)
Fortress Crab gets +6/+1 if you control a Fortification.
1/6
* This is objectively better than Fortress Crab in every sense except that it takes longer to read. If your position is that Fortress Crab HAD TO BE vanilla for the flow of limited, then you're saying there are no other cards in the format that could be printed w/o text in it's stead in exchange for +1/+0 or something. Which is just silly.
WOTC says Fortress Crab is a card for their CCG, but it is not constructed playable so it is not a card for their game, is it? It's a subtle point, but one you seem to be missing in favor of "If I play it in limited, it's okay."
And I'd be willing to accept that if you talk about a SINGLE CARD that cannot be improved without warping limited.
Finally, stop repeating from earlier. They have promised you 15 additional game cards, not mystery "maybe they're game cards maybe they're garbage." Repeating yourself doesn't make your points any less succeptable to critiism - Sorry.
Arabian Nights had a basic Mountain in the common slot.
If your position is Defensive Stance is absolute garbage because ANY OTHER CARD WOULD HAVE WARPED THE FORMAT, then (a) I don't believe you because you have provided no evidence, and (b) then print a basic Mountain in that slot with a picture of a dragon on it.
I can guarantee you that a cool looking mountain would see far more constructed play than Defensive Stance and far more limited play than Defensive Stance and mihgt actually be drafted over other cards in the pack in a casual draft.
You say it applies for "almost all bad cards in limited" - prove it. Find me ONE CARD that is bad and then TELL ME A STORY about why it would warp limited if it was a Mountain, Ornathopter, or the like.
Inside this thread I have found many other comments of yours besides JUST things about rebels or mercenaries. You may think they have surrported your initial post and made your argument better. Many others may agree. However, I don't. I did not expect to see the exact content that I found. I also expected your cards would be designed in accordance with WOTC standards. While you may never have said that, I expected it anyway.
Under your argument, you have committed fraud. You are immoral.
I will await compensation for your criminal activity in this thread. PM me to discuss the terms.
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
There is a difference between "playable" and "competitive". By mixing up the two terms the discussion gets misleading
According to a dictionary (applicable definition chosen):
Here is the issue: To be capable of being played in a game a game piece (card) generally only needs to work within the rules. This the cards sold by WotC do and hence they are playable. One might argue though that Stoneforge Mystic is more fraudulent than Mindless Null since it was actually banned and hence not playable - at least in sanctioned tournaments of a specific format.
What do you think about banned cards in that regard?
To be competitive goes further than just playable, but I do not see where there is a moral obligation that every card is competitive in Constructed - "Constructed" itself, btw, is a term that is surprisingly open to interpretation.
---
While I do not intend to use your "clear path to victory", I want to point out to you that there is a flaw in your proposal: You claim that every card of a set can be Constructed playable without hurting Limited. So demandig that only one card changed warps Limited for your "clear path to victory" is not taking into account the repeatedly stated fact that the philosophy you proposed if applied to all cards in a set has a compound effect. It's not the individual card that matters, but the set as a whole.
This, btw, is also the reason your earlier questions about individual cards could not be adequately answered: No one claims that it is impossible to choose a single given card and make it Constructed playable (though any individual changed card may have a more or less noticeable impact). The issue suggested is that repeating this process for every single card creates a problem.
So while any example fulfilling the conditions of the "clear path to vistory" would necessarily be sufficient to disprove you, it is not a necessary condition and actually quite unlikely to be found with any reasonable effort. Just to put things into perspective.
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
Look at your definition of playable - "playable - capable of or suitable for being played"
Is Defensive Stance "suitable for being played"? If you were defending WOTC in a court case, you'd argue that it meets the bare minimum definition - IE, a player won't be disqualified from an event for playing it. I'm not sure this would win the case - in fact I sure hope it wouldn't - but that's not the point, is it?
Do you think as a game company WOTC should be concerned with printed the bare minimum?
At the end of the day Defensive Stance is a card a lot of players threw away after opening it. Was WOTC's goal to produce a product people would throw away? I hope not.
And regarding the clear path to victory, it should be clear at this point that there is no such path. Magic is a robust game with lots of formats, lots of old cards you could reprint, lots of players hungry for variant basic lands, etc, etc, etc. There is finite design space, but so much room in that design space and so many outs that it is uncontroversially true that bad cards are unjustified. So instead of arguing that they're needed for the game, you're stuck arguing that WOTC doesn't have to bring their A game to a set. And that's a really odd position to defend.
Well, someone's trying. I respect the effort, sarcasm and all.
That said, my thread title says "Rebels and Mercenaies - a Solution or a Problem?," where the solution is to WOTC obsoleting quality cards for no reason. Broadly speaking, it is a solution to problematic pratices WOTC engages in, such as printing bad cards - in fact, my initial contention was that by making things rebels and printing rebel support we're not printing bad cards in [HICS].
That said, I've refunded your entrance fee x 3 to compensate you for perceived discomfort. I hope that you'll continue to support my threads in the future, and just remember - the customer is always right unless they're the only one left.
That wasn't the discussion I expected to find. I also expected better arguments than you provided. While the arguments might be fine for making your points under your perspective, they aren't good at what I want you to be arguing for. Like how cards are made for different types of players or experiences than you, as have posted repeatedly in this thread alone. If you aren't supporting my desires specifically with your every argument, I view it as fraud.
You have committed fraud under your argument. Please contact me privately to compensate me for your criminal activity.
I still consider the cards you've been advocating to be poorly designed and not competitive in vintage, which is a format that I happen to care about. Until you make all your cards tier 1 vintage-competitive without warping limited, I will consider your set to be fradulent. Please contact me once you have done so.
I'm seeking punitive damages for your criminal activity. Additionally, I have yet to recieve the refund of my time even 1x - let alone 3x. But in any case, if you sincerely admit you have committed fraud in this thread and that your behavior has been immoral - then I'll accept that as a start.
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
Yes.
That is not the sole argument to be made, but sufficient. Hence no one is actually suing WotC - unless you just decide to not talk about ongoing legal procedure openly.
I actually pointed out that this is not even true for every card you can open in a booster. Please, why don't you pick up on my example? I want to better understand your perspective and think a comment on the status of banned cards i. e. cards that are unplayable for being "too strong" rather than "too weak" would be enlightening.
I see you fear to have wasted your legal fees on this.
It isn't? It certainly is part of the larger argument.
Please restate. I am not certain what you want to express.
Here is the thing: Is it morally reprehensible to create a product of which a subset of costumers will throw away part after opening it? By its nature Magic is many games disguised as a single one. And one of those games requires a power gradient and clear signaling. But that has been pointed out to you. Do you think it would be better to split up the several games Magic is? Ethically? Economically? Ecologically?
I suggest that the discussion in this thread disproves this claim. What is it we are having here if not a prolonged public dispute concerning a matter of opinion i. e. a controversy?
I'm not stuck arguing that WotC doesn't have to bring their A game to a set - not for the overall success and quality of the game. Their B game or C game though is entirely sufficient to not commit fraud. Which is loaded language you brought into this discussion and a point you decided to stick with.
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
Do you think someone at WOTC said "Defensive Stance is a card that a significant portion of our customers will enjoy, so let's print it."? No, of course you don't.
And that's just the point. You can't seriously tell me that cards like this are good, good for the game, good for customers, or not a waste of trees. So instead you have to make arguments like we're willing victims, WOTC has done nothing legally wrong, WOTC needs bad cards to balance limited and thus because limited is important, bad cards are essential, etc, etc, etc. But why? Why are you lobbying to defend cards like Defensive Stance? You demonstrably don't get a better limited environment, you demonstrably don't attract new players, so forth and so on.
Yeah, it's easy to argue that WOTC shouldn't be going to jail for Defensive Stance. I wouldn't want them to either. But I sure as heck don't want them to print another Defensive Stance. What scares me is that you seem to act as though you want them to print another Defensive Stance - but you'll never be happy opening it, and never want it passed to you in draft. So you say one thing that is demonstrably false - you don't want it to be printed because you don't want it.
Yep, we can. For lots of reasons. Just one of which is that it's the only way to efficiently nerf a color late in the deveopment cycle by a tiny fraction. You can't increase all the cards in a color's mana cost by 1/36th. And color balance is a good thing, wouldn't you agree?
Now Labarith, your example cards are STILL not playable in tier 1 vintage decks. Vintage is supposedly the format where all cards are legal. Why are cards that are too weak for vintage okay under your argument?
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
Demonstration required.
So is it fraud or not? Make up your mind.
'I don't want to own a copy of the card' is completely tangential to 'I want the card to exist in set'. I can hold both positions on Defensive Stance without contradiction. The reason for the card to exist is not correlated to any expectation that players will want it. It exists to make limited play well and act as a learning tool. The occasional card that is unplayable to the extent of Defensive Stance is perfectly acceptable. MtG's business model is not ideal for the customer, but a part of that is simply WotC needing to make a good profit, and that's okay. The game developers need to make a living somehow and it's not like you'd anything drastically different in the same position. WotC is not a charity. If you as a customer are not willing to pay the prices they have set, then don't, but obviously people are okay with the trade off, and WotC shouldn't need to be guilty about that. What they haven't done is intentionally make useless cards that create poor gameplay.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
As mentioned by several others Defensive Stance was deliberately bad as a developmental tool for color balance in limited
Also you are still ignore the very important comprehension complexity, aesthetic elegance and focus costs that most of your designs and all of your redesigns have.
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
Let me know if there are any questions, thanks.
-GM