2. An evergreen mechanic is a keyword mechanic that shows up in (almost) every set. If you had to make an existing keyword mechanic evergreen, which one would you choose and why?
Flashback
3. If you had to remove evergreen status from a keyword mechanic that is currently evergreen, which one would you remove and why?
Hexproof
5. What is Magic's greatest strength and why?
Community
6. What is Magic's greatest weakness and why?
Community
7. What Magic mechanic most deserves a second chance (aka which had the worst first introduction compared to its potential)?
Skulk
8. Of all the Magic expansions that you've played with, pick your favorite and then explain the biggest problem with it.
Return to Ravnica - The power imbalance between guilds, both for Sealed and Constructed formats was too drastic.
9. Of all the Magic expansions that you've played with, pick your least favorite and then explain the best part about it.
Modern Masters 2015 - It felt like a drastically improved drafting environment over MMA and Conspiracy, one that is probably the most stand out drafting to date.
10. You have the ability to change any one thing about Magic. What do you change and why?
I would increase the rate and amount of cards banned and unbanned after each set for all 3 major formats.
Out of curiosity - did everyone who submitted within the rules make it to round 2, or no?
2. If you had to make an existing keyword mechanic evergreen, which one would you choose and why?
Flashback. It is a widely liked mechanic that has a wide range of uses and is very popular. It is not particularly complex and also can be situated as the UB overlap mechanic. Past attempts to give UB a creature focused overlap haven't been particularly successful, so perhaps giving them a spell focused one will work out.
3. If you had to remove evergreen status from a keyword mechanic that is currently evergreen, which one would you remove and why?
Trample would be the keyword that I remove. While the mechanic itself serves a purpose (keeping big creatures from being blocked repeatedly by smaller ones), it is fairly complex mechanically and as magic has grown as a game, more and more complex cases relating to trample keep popping up. Also, the mechanic has weird half-flavor, why does being stomped on by a giant elephant hurt less if it has to go over my 0/4 wall first? Finally, less complex evasion mechanics for big green creatures, such as 'can't be blocked by power X or less', are increasingly making trample obsolete by providing alternative technology that does the same thing.
5. What is Magic's greatest strength and why?
Magic's greatest strength is the diversity of people that it can appeal to and the number of different ways that players can enjoy the game. Magic can appeal to both casual and competitive players, and provides so many different ways that players can build decks and enjoy the game that it gives it a reach that few other games have.
6. What is Magic's greatest weakness and why?
Magic's greatest weakness is related to its strength. With so many different ways to get enjoyment from the game, there can be issues when players who enjoy different aspects of magic meet and try to play together. For example, if a player who plays powerful combo decks in legacy meets with a player who enjoys playing unique tribal decks, neither of them are going to have a good time since each player is not contributing to the game in a way that the other enjoys. Magic has taken steps to alleviate this issue by creating and supporting a wide range of formal play rulesets, but keeping all of the different types of players happy is always going to be a struggle.
7. What Magic mechanic most deserves a second chance (aka which had the worst first introduction compared to its potential)?
Empirically the answer is probably meld. The mechanic had a lot going for it when it was first introduced, but was hampered by its low frequency (there are only 3 sets of meld cards), the fact that it was competing for space with a very popular mechanic (transform) and that it was tied to a tribe that had generated widespread negative impressions after its unpopular use in the previous block (Eldrazi in BFZ). Ultimately, it felt that design/development wasn't ready to commit the space that meld needs in a set to shine, and that if given a chance it could drastically outperform it's performance in EMN.
8. Of all the Magic expansions that you've played with, pick your favorite and then explain the biggest problem with it.
Of the 'core' expansions, I always felt that it was strange that in Innistrad the two of the colours that care the least about creatures were the ones that had the most incentive to put creatures in their own graveyard. I felt that GB in particular would have benefited from having a stronger graveyard theme.
9. Of all the Magic expansions that you've played with, pick your least favorite and then explain the best part about it.
BFZ. Despite all of the issues that the set had, converge was a very interesting mechanic that has a lot of potential. It was extremely misplaced in the format however.
10. You have the ability to change any one thing about Magic. What do you change and why?
Mechanically? I would add subtypes to spells similar to what we have for creatures. It would help create a sense of flavor for each spell, and opens up some design space that isn't currently available (by caring about specific spell types, for example you could create a creature that deals a damage to a craeture or player whenever you cast a 'fire' spell).
Round 2 is live. A lot of the questions were pretty straight forward but there were a few that gave me trouble. Overall I feel pretty confident that I did well but I wouldn't be surprised if I miss two questions and that knocks me out of contention.
I caught one very mean spirited trap that'll probably be the 80%+ incorrect question, but overall this seemed easier than GDS2's multiple choice.
And here's my trial one summaries, I went out there for #3 and especially #10.
2. Cycling promotion for reasons stated above. Also suggested a possible name change to "Rethink" or "Reconsider".
3. Equipment demotion to deciduous/Storm Scale 3. Repeat effects have always been problematic, and it seems like they've been struggling with equipment designs for a while now. The common/uncommon equipment have been super similar for ages, and we haven't had a constructed playable one in years (Runechanter's Pike was the last one by my figure). Vehicles play in a similar creature enhancement space, but as non recurring artifact creatures they're way easier to design and vary.
4. Get them playing asap, if they have TCG experience show how Magic differs in simple ways with common decks (e.g if they're from hearthstone, make a deck with instant speed interaction, discard, and defensive creatures to show defender's advantage).
5. Modularity of cards, sheer number of different formats and ways to play.
6. Barriers to entry in multiple different fashions.
7. Converge from BFZ. Way undersupported, terrible common payoffs, placed in an inappropriate set, and centered in a color so bad that pros were advocating to never draft it.
8. Kaladesh, limited was too complex.
9. BFZ, the Eldrazi faction was super cool, and were a great lower cost execution of the tribe.
10. Try to alleviate mana screw somewhat. Wouldn't blindly implement, but would like to seriously test: "Once per game, if you would draw your card for turn, you may instead play a special tapped colorless mana land (counts as land drop for turn)". Variant might be "Only after Turn X". Would have a "token" card with the rules all on it, though not required to use it.
My Answers. I wish I had given myself more time to proof this, but I let other events get in the way. Still I feel the overall content is strong. Skip to question ten for why I picked the last CCL challenge.
1. Introduce yourself and explain why you are a good fit for this internship.
My name is *snip* and my qualifications for your internship are numerous. Not only do I have a history designing for Magic, but I’ve also studied game development and have a multifaceted professional background that gives me a perspective many designers lack.
I’ve been designing Magic cards for 15 years ranging from individual cards to full sets. I always try to adhere to the design philosophies of Wizards of the Coast while simultaneously experimenting with new territory. That means fresh mechanics, unique card types, set structures, new formats, and product design. I also coordinate with others in my work setting design goals, deadlines, playtests, and documenting the process.
However what I’m most known for is my success in unofficial MTG design competitions. I play in several monthly contests, mostly on the MTGSalvation forums. They have organized contests there for nearly a decade. In 2017 I made history by winning their top two competitions more than any contestant in a single year. I feel that this proves my designs have appeal to my peers and potentially a huge audience. That, and If I’m in the top eight of this contest, I’ll know how to put on a show.
I’ve also studied game development, receiving my bachelors from the Savannah College of Art and Design. Much of my focus was on non digital games and that remains a huge part of my life and studies today. I play new board and card games weekly and it remains my biggest hobby.
As a professional I’ve primarily worked as a graphic artist. This aids me as a potential intern, since I understand the constraints in printing cards. More importantly, I’d be able to work towards new designs, organizing them visually to communicate ideas and gameplay effectively.
Lastly I feel it’s important to note I’ve been a high school teacher. This gives me an insight into how people learn and the hurdles understanding new ideas. That is essential to Magic.
I think you’d be hard pressed to find an intern with my qualifications.
2. An evergreen mechanic is a keyword mechanic that shows up in (almost) every set. If you had to make an existing keyword mechanic evergreen, which one would you choose and why?
I would choose Convoke.
Convoke is a mechanic that rewards players for something the game already wants them to do, play creatures. This has been a dedicated shift in design over the past decade. That is, making the game about creatures and their interactions and less about powerful one shot spells or enchantments. Convoke is a mechanic that can be put on almost any card type while still emphasizing creatures.
Not only does convoke encourage players to do something they already want, it gives something they enjoy, cheaper cards. It has mass appeal. Timmy gets to play his large creatures and momentus spells, johnny gets to be clever in how he plays his cards to hit key numbers, and spike loves the flexibility convoke has.
Convoke is also a way to help players avoid mana screw and ensure more consistent games like how adding scry to evergreen keywords did.
Perhaps one of the best things about it is how incredible easy it is to understand. Once players learn the basics of the game, adding a mechanic that essentially reads “you can use your creatures as lands too” is pretty simple to grok. This is a big part of why convoke was already used in a core set.
Convoke adds meaningful,strategic decisions to the game as well, both when playing and deck building. Do I use my creature as a resource to cast my spell or do I keep it untapped to attack and block with? Then when players are building a deck they have to consider their convoke cards. What kind of discount/value will they get? As long as they are designed well, even tapping one creature to get a spell off a turn earlier feels good, but players will be pushed to make the discount bigger and more often, playing extra creatures. That generally promotes healthier limited games too, subtly nudging newer players to make better decisions.
If anything, I feel convoke could use a rename, but it is an ideal candidate for evergreen.
3. If you had to remove evergreen status from a keyword mechanic that is currently evergreen, which one would you remove and why?
I would choose defender.
I think having the defender-esque ability is important, but not important enough to be evergreen. It’s used extremely infrequently as is because it promotes some of the worst things about the game, inaction and and an overall lack of interaction. Defender cards typically don’t incite a lot of excitement. Further it could be a lot more interesting using conditional attacker clauses.
It’s important in games to have mechanics that push them to a conclusion, and defender works against that. They encourage sitting back a make it so your opponent is forced to do the same. It creates a game of solitaire without offering options to brake stalemates. Sure, they can help enable control decks. They also have can be designed in ways to mitigate some of these flaws. However, with how few defender cards are realistic in a set (usually one or two) why dedicate a keyword? There are so many better ways to add cards that push towards the late game while actually encouraging interaction, from functional life gain cards (adding tension as players race) to strategic removal (forcing players to make strategic decisions to work around such cards.)
Defender would work better written out like “can’t be blocked” clauses so they can have flexibility. It is a much more interesting design space to have “This can’t attack unless you control an enchantment” or “Unless you have 10 or less life” or “Unless an opponent attacked you since your last turn.” Since defender creatures are used so infrequently, this would have little effect on NWO as well.
4. You're going to teach Magic to a stranger. What's your strategy to have the best possible outcome?
First it’s important for me to understand my audience. What kind of experience does this stranger have with games? With card games? What brings him or her to trying to learn a game of Magic? From there a lesson can begin.
If they have a lot of experience with games, it would be easier to teach them but very important to emphasize what makes magic stand out as a game. What makes it distinctly fun. I would cater our games to show the unique ideas Magic has will simultaneously teaching the basics. All the while emphasizing the narrative of what was being played. Further if they have played games like it before I can narrow down how they might like to play before we even start. Get a lean towards what color(s) or archetypes would draw their appeal.
I’d then setup our first game using non randomized preconstructed decks to ensure the turn by turn went as planned. This decks would likely stick to commons and uncommons and be a smaller than normal size. We would play with our hands open so I could go over what each of us will do, when, and why. I’d give them a victory playing with cards that fit how they might like to play while creating some cool moments planned for them. Afterwards we would shuffle our decks and play a randomized game with our hands private. At this point an experienced game player would have an idea of how their cards are used and start applying them on their own. From there we could bring into full sized decks with higher mana curves.
For players who have little to no experience, my strategy would be similar but have a key differences.I would probably stick to white and green colored decks for simplicity of play, and after our first game with the planned outcome we would still play with open hands. Depending how quickly he or she picked up certain ideas would lead me to emphasize certain types of cards when we move to full sized decks.
5. What is Magic's greatest strength and why?
The greatest strength of Magic comes from its colors. This is proven by how they have survived relatively untouched despite numerous trails, experiments, design philosophies shifts, and rule changes. Colors define Magic. It’s what makes it interesting, give it and players identities. There is a reason why so many other games mimic it.
Magic has earned the advantage of being long lived, and this has allowed designers and developers to test many ideas and take the game in new strategic directions. Since the games inception, game design has become an academic field taught at hundreds of schools, but Magic had to learn lessons on its own. What is perhaps most interesting is how little each color of magic has changed very little.
The core idea of what makes white white or blue blue has stayed in similar bounds. White gains life, taxes, builds an army, throws around combat tricks, etc… while blue draws cards, counters, and flies. Similarly each color’s philosophies have basically remained intact. This is because each colors identity is strong, relatable, fun, and gives each player an identity as well. Colors have traits. They have allies. They have enemies. The relationships colors have help form relationships between players. Players in turn talk about decks based on their colors, and refer to themselves based on their preference of colors. The challenge and creativity in combining the mechanical resources of different colors drives players to keep playing, expressing themselves in a numerous ways competitively and casually.
Magic wouldn’t be magic without it’s strong core of color identity.
6. What is Magic's greatest weakness and why?
Complexity, complexity, complexity. Magic is a game that suffers from being overly complex, which is a key concern in drawing new players in.
It’s easy to forget that over many years folks like myself and the ones reading my responses have learned the rules inside and out. We have a grip on concepts like the stack. We understand hidden concepts like summoning sickness or how creatures attack. We see the full scope of how to use a card despite its subtle, lenticular nature. But Magics rules are numerous and continually growing. The interactions between cards and the ability to track them can even been a challenge to experience players.
R&D realizes this and continues to emphasize elegance with its designs, the ability grok them, and enforcement of NWO amongst other things. Regardless the stack is a hard concept to grasp for anyone who hasn’t played a similar card game before. Even the more basic rules can be a challenge. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve have to teach new players who are confused about why there is summoning sickness, or why his or her creatures can only attack the opposing player, not the opposing creatures. It easy to forgot how many rules in magic are both inherent and unintuitive.
Even after understanding these rules, Magic is a game that takes a great amount of time to master. Applying these rules is difficult, and even more so with new cards and mechanics coming every few months.
Don’t get me wrong, complexity isn’t evil. However, it is something that needs to be watched. There are healthy ways to add depth to the game and there a ways the muddy it up. The barrier of entry for Magic is already quite high, and certain mechanics can make a board unreadable for even experienced players. Our goal should be to “simplify” magic in lenticular ways wherever possible.
7. What Magic mechanic most deserves a second chance (aka which had the worst first introduction compared to its potential)?
I’d have to say Converge.
Converged was just in the wrong set. So many cards the Battle for Zendikar were focused on colorless cards. Coupled with little multicolored support it made little sense here. The attempt to make it showcase a contrast to the Eldrazi failed because in the end players didn’t feel a flavorful fit to the setting and the mechanic pulled them in a direction the set mechanically didn’t nurture. The only reward for playing multicolored cards was converge cards, and most of them provided minimal payoff.
Part of this misstep was the change in block structure. It is a shame since Converge had a lot of potential. The variety of effects it could be used are numerous, as are the twists by making some converge cards multicolored, using hybrid mana, or adding additional effects that cared about the mana spent in additional ways.
Many players didn’t understand what Converge represent on Zendikar or why it was used here. It didn;t provide a solid identity as it was to abstract in flavor. The name “Converge” also didn’t really translate well to players in the given setting. Despite this, I feel it’s a good name. It just needs a home where a convergence makes sense.
Some of the best mechanics in R&D history stemmed from the idea of rewarding what players already want to do. In a multicolor set, Converge would do just that. Instead in Battle for Zendikar it pulled players away from what made sense for their limited format decks. Converge deserves to be tried in an environment that caters to its effects
8. Of all the Magic expansions that you've played with, pick your favorite and then explain the biggest problem with it.
New Phyrexia was an amazing set for a lot of reason, but it did have a major problem. Phyrexian mana. Magic is a game based on color and the identity that provides. Phyrexian mana warped that identity. It’s appeal to more casual players also felt limited, but the real danger was how it has bled the color pie across many Magic formats.
New Phyrexia was a set that already came from a line of color bleeds. With the flavor of Mirrodin being compleated, black effects cross color boundaries. But phyrexian mana took it to a new level, allowing blue and green decks to gain access to potent removal (dismember) and any deck being able to run disruption (mental misstep.) The ramifications of this affected modern and eternal formats and allowed decks to not have to rely on other colors to shore up their weaknesses.
Using life as a resource also proved too small. A number of phyrexian mana cards could be paid solely with life as well, which proved problematic. They were effectively the Pact cycle from Future Sight with much smaller drawbacks. This also contributed to their rampant bleed among colors.
Phyrexian mana was a very Spike oriented mechanic that excluded a lot of Tmmys and casual players, who resent paying life. Having mechanics that cater to different psychographics to a degree is fine, but New Phyrexia was already a part of a strongly decisive block that had very strong positive and negative reactions around infect. Having strong reactions to mechanics is a good thing, but phyrexian mana in combination with the rest of the block felt like alienation.
Keeping the colors of Magic relatively separate is important, as this how both players and the game itself makes their identity. Phyrexian mana took bleed to a new level allowing powerful effects out of their colors at discounted rates in exchange for paying life, a resource that is almost always available. If design space like this is explored in such breadth again, it deserves more caution.
9. Of all the Magic expansions that you've played with, pick your least favorite and then explain the best part about it.
Mirrodin was never my favorite set. It divorced the game too much from colors and a had a host of problems, casual and competitively. However I am very thankful for it bring us what is one the best subtypes in the game, equipments. It finally delivered on a iconic aspect of fantasy that hadn’t really been done effectively until that point.
The equipment subtype is something the game had wanted for a long time. It has massive appeal in terms of having big, iconic weapons for Timmy, tons of potential interactions for Johnny as repeatable “auras”, and durability with flexibility for spike players.
Vorthos was finally satisfied with these as well, and the distinction between equipment and auras was quite clear. An aura faded when the enchanted creature died, but a sword? A sword could be passed on, a relic from the past user to the next. Groking the mechanic became easy because the narrative made sense.
Part of what make equipment so successful is the different design knobs they have. Not only do the have a cost, but the activated ability to actually equip the card gave a lot of options in how to balance them. This was all before you considered other abilities you could add.
The splitting of cost also created an interesting tension. Equipment require time to setup, time an opponent could often react to.This also gave strategic decisions. Do I wait for when I can equip this card right away or do I split the invest across two turns? In a artifact heavy blocked filled with hate this was a more important decision then it has in most sets.
All these things together made it an easy decision to make the subtype evergreen
10. You have the ability to change any one thing about Magic. What do you change and why?
Magic is a game that needs to emphasize interaction and responsiveness. To that end, I would say instead of having an instant card type be its own separate type, it should be a supertype that is applied to any other nonland card. In addition to adding an easier to use tool for designing responsive cards, it frees up a huge amount of space for new abilities. This also gets rid of the relatively small division between how Instant and Sorcery cards work, by combining them into a single card type with the supertype “instant”.
In a game of Magic we want players to respond against each other. The more options the game gives players to do that, the better. Being able to tit-for-tat creates memorable moments and pushes the games competitive nature by allowing for more mind games By making instants a supertype, this would allow it to be more frequently used on cards and therefore create more of this tat-for-tat envoirnment.
As this change removes flash from cards, that frees up more design space for cards. This allows for more experimentation and tighter type lines when integrating instant speed cards with other abilities.I feel the change would be relatively natural to players as well, since it would ask you to look at the same type line to identify the speed at which you could cast a spell instead of needing a separate ability, flash, to define that for other card types.
Finally the division between what is an Instant versus what a Sorcery is already pretty small from a comprehension perspective. The flavor difference between what and instant and sorcery card is isn’t their either. I don’t think they deserve to be seperate types.
The mean spirited trap I was talking about was the Felidar Guardian Question, #44. The slow flicker change is the cleanest way of fixing the interaction, and would be 100% correct in a vacuum. But the flicker effects in Kaledash block were all fast flickers, and R&D makes an explicit point not to mix the two in the same set.
The iconic reprint question i.e #46 annoyed me. I think this was also a trap and you were supposed to pick lightning bolt, because Llanowar Elves has flavor issues that prevent a reprint. Except a. We're going to Dominaria literally next set b. the core sets are back. So Lightning Bolt can be in any set and possibly reprinted, but given Llanowar Elves can be in the set it's the far more likely reprint, and there's a nonzero but smaller amount of sets it can be in. So ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
On the other hand, I'm a complete idiot and overthought first creature's rarity (it's pretty clearly an uncommon) and the #7 rarity (I had an argument for why the hexproof didn't actually matter and didn't increase the complexity over common-rarity threaten effects... but forgot it was a multicolored card!).
llanowar was my first choice on that one, but i switched to lightning bolt. i understand that 1 drop mana dorks have been determined by development to be too strong, so llanowar elf is in a similar boat as lightning bolt (tho obviously not quite as powerful), on top of the narrow flavor restriction that lightning bolt certainly doesn't have. i am not sure if i chose right on this question, i was quite on the fence.
just like in years past, many questions were obscure, confusing, misleadimg, subjective n poorly written. it's not a good test for determining designer potential, but it serves the purpose of narrowing the field, and that's it.
i'm glad i looked over each question carefully n repeatedly over many hours n didn't rush thru it. still, i really wanted to 100% this test, n 100% don't think i did.
as an aside, did maro design the gotcha mechanic? just wondering...
Well if it makes you feel better, the highest score at WotC was only a 74/75.
How many more people signed up this year than GDS2? The pass threshold last year was 44/50, so a similar threshold would be a doable 66. But if more people signed up that threshold is gonna be pushed upwards.
I know for a fact I got two (embarrassingly easy) questions wrong, two I guessed between two options, and four I'm not sure on but >50% on the correct answer. So assuming my hit rate was 95% on the rest of the questions (3 wrong out of the remaining ~65), I'm in good shape to pass the 66 threshold but would need some luck to break 70 or something.
The mean spirited trap I was talking about was the Felidar Guardian Question, #44. The slow flicker change is the cleanest way of fixing the interaction, and would be 100% correct in a vacuum. But the flicker effects in Kaledash block were all fast flickers, and R&D makes an explicit point not to mix the two in the same set.
i answered the slow flicker change. i see your point, but as the question is about this specific interaction i still feel that's the likely answer. what do you think it was instead?
i answered the slow flicker change. i see your point, but as the question is about this specific interaction i still feel that's the likely answer. what do you think it was instead?
I'm also curious about this. The other answers did not seem good to me, for various reasons.
@Flicker I went with EtB tapped, it's inelegant but otherwise solves the problem (the 3 card combo with annointer priest or w/e isn't remotely close to standard playable). I was really surprised "restrict to creatures+artifacts" wasn't on there, that was what Sam said he would have done in hindsight. That was a little of why I smelled a trap; if they weren't giving us the obvious straightforward answer, they're probably doing something tricky with the question.
Although someone pointed out Del Tora said they'd have added better interaction, so I think that's probably the right answer.
I think it's also too big for red at common - typically green gets 1-2 and blue gets 0-1 large common creatures, but red/white/black don't.
Ehh Red gets stuff like Granitic Titan and Desert Cerodon, it's not that out there size wise. But the double combat keyword definitely pushes it to uncommon (maybe it could be common if needed, but it wouldn't start there).
they should have a Great Test Designer Search, they're badly in need of someone in that department.
heh, i'm salty. i know i could've done better. i should've done better. but it really wasn't a well designed test at all, so i think it's ok for me to be upset about that too.
I just went with Boros. Aggressive combat-focused creature-wide faction would love having Battle Cry, and it's already in WR! I could see it justified in Gruul or Selesnya (as a token spam payoff), but Boros is the most natural fit.
Other questions I'm not sure on:
20. Design considers a card “too slow for tournament play.” What does that mean?
I guessed tournament overtime, but I hadn't heard the term before and wasn't sure.
35. Assuming the creature is strong enough to see Standard play, which of the following isn't a good quality for a green creature to have?
I'm assuming the non-combat related draw, but there's precedent for that. Do they consider those mistakes?
53. Which of the following changes is Set Design most likely to make to this card?
Wasn't sure on this one at all, I guessed fix to a locked number.
72. Which of the following is the most important reason that some cards' mana costs are higher than others?
I put "So that people will play them later in the game", but I could see "To make cards different" being correct.
Gah. I really want to hear results and see If I made the cut. We should know when you think? Tomorrow or Tuesday? They said they wanted to give 5 days for the next round and it ends February 3rd if they stick to their schedule.
Gah. I really want to hear results and see If I made the cut. We should know when you think? Tomorrow or Tuesday? They said they wanted to give 5 days for the next round and it ends February 3rd if they stick to their schedule.
Did anyone else get thrown by the wording of Question 28?
We try to avoid making two-color cards where the card could be done as a monocolor card in one of the two colors. Given that, suppose you have a two-color 4/4 creature with flying and vigilance (and no other abilities). Which of the following color combinations would be the best choice for this card?
The gut instinct answer I had was UW, but since these abilities could both be mono-W... the choice I ended up with was BG. The answer doesn't feel right, but each ability is secondary in one of those colors. Idk, I think I overthought this one way too much.
Did anyone else get thrown by the wording of Question 28?
We try to avoid making two-color cards where the card could be done as a monocolor card in one of the two colors. Given that, suppose you have a two-color 4/4 creature with flying and vigilance (and no other abilities). Which of the following color combinations would be the best choice for this card?
The gut instinct answer I had was UW, but since these abilities could both be mono-W... the choice I ended up with was BG. The answer doesn't feel right, but each ability is secondary in one of those colors. Idk, I think I overthought this one way too much.
I answered WU, but I agree it's tricky. I'm wondering if that was the best answer given the preface. I just know this one was meant to trick us, but the question is how?
Edit 2: #74 brings up a quibble I've always had. Why aren't you allowed to have cards that roll dice, but you can have cards that flip a coin?
I worked in TCG industry long time ago and the answer is easy (at least it was true 4-5 years ago). Dice with points are associated with gambling which is not good for game's image (the change was made to the game I was working on was explained this way by game HQ).
Though it can be not true for WotC at all since we still have Unstable.
The mean spirited trap I was talking about was the Felidar Guardian Question, #44. The slow flicker change is the cleanest way of fixing the interaction, and would be 100% correct in a vacuum. But the flicker effects in Kaledash block were all fast flickers, and R&D makes an explicit point not to mix the two in the same set.
If Design came out with a 4 mana, 1/4, ETBT flicker creature, we probably would have criticized them much harder than when they missed the obvious Saheeli combo.
^ Yeeeeah. Frankly all the options sucked, I dunno why "only flickers creatures and artifacts" wasn't on there. Maybe they really wanted to preserve the (non-infinite) planeswalker synergy?
There were 3 times as many test takers on this one, the cutoff was definitely gonna be proportionally higher. That said god DAMN that's high, I thought it'd be ~70.
Well shoot. I know I missed #2 and #5, so I need to nail EVERY question outside of them to pass. And there's at least 3 questions I'm 50:50 on or worse.
I actually "played" the test more aggressively because I thought the threshold would be really high (though not THAT high). You could (just) pass GDS2 by nailing the more straightforward questions, but if the threshold was any higher you'd need to get a good chunk of the trick questions as well. So I went against test-taking advice and intentionally second guessed myself on my second readthrough, trying really hard to catch those trap/trick questions. I'd more than likely just overthink some questions and score lower than I would have, but that doesn't matter if I'm already below the pass threshold – a 65 and a 60 fail just the same. But there was a reasonable chance I'd nail the required trap questions and pass.
E: There was apparently a typo on #5 and Maro is counting both versions as correct. If the typo somehow pushed it down to a common, I get some breathing room.
2. If you had to make an existing keyword mechanic evergreen, which one would you choose and why?
Skulk. It's simple, it's a nice flavor fit, and it can be on noncreature cards. And there isn't a UB evergreen mechanic.
3. If you had to remove evergreen status from a keyword mechanic that is currently evergreen, which one would you remove and why?
Flash because, while not as grockable, its effect can be imitated with an instant that creates a creature token.
5. What is Magic's greatest strength and why?
Mana screw.
6. What is Magic's greatest weakness and why?
Mana screw.
7. What Magic mechanic most deserves a second chance (aka which had the worst first introduction compared to its potential)?
Haunt.
8. Of all the Magic expansions that you've played with, pick your favorite and then explain the biggest problem with it.
Kaladesh. Energy.
9. Of all the Magic expansions that you've played with, pick your least favorite and then explain the best part about it.
Ixilan. It's a suitable launch set for Arena. It's made significant contributions to tribal and Commander. The flavor is phenomenal.
10. You have the ability to change any one thing about Magic. What do you change and why?
Remove all mana producing lands from the reserve list. The very bedrock of Magic should not be reserved.
Flashback
3. If you had to remove evergreen status from a keyword mechanic that is currently evergreen, which one would you remove and why?
Hexproof
5. What is Magic's greatest strength and why?
Community
6. What is Magic's greatest weakness and why?
Community
7. What Magic mechanic most deserves a second chance (aka which had the worst first introduction compared to its potential)?
Skulk
8. Of all the Magic expansions that you've played with, pick your favorite and then explain the biggest problem with it.
Return to Ravnica - The power imbalance between guilds, both for Sealed and Constructed formats was too drastic.
9. Of all the Magic expansions that you've played with, pick your least favorite and then explain the best part about it.
Modern Masters 2015 - It felt like a drastically improved drafting environment over MMA and Conspiracy, one that is probably the most stand out drafting to date.
10. You have the ability to change any one thing about Magic. What do you change and why?
I would increase the rate and amount of cards banned and unbanned after each set for all 3 major formats.
Out of curiosity - did everyone who submitted within the rules make it to round 2, or no?
2. If you had to make an existing keyword mechanic evergreen, which one would you choose and why?
Flashback. It is a widely liked mechanic that has a wide range of uses and is very popular. It is not particularly complex and also can be situated as the UB overlap mechanic. Past attempts to give UB a creature focused overlap haven't been particularly successful, so perhaps giving them a spell focused one will work out.
3. If you had to remove evergreen status from a keyword mechanic that is currently evergreen, which one would you remove and why?
Trample would be the keyword that I remove. While the mechanic itself serves a purpose (keeping big creatures from being blocked repeatedly by smaller ones), it is fairly complex mechanically and as magic has grown as a game, more and more complex cases relating to trample keep popping up. Also, the mechanic has weird half-flavor, why does being stomped on by a giant elephant hurt less if it has to go over my 0/4 wall first? Finally, less complex evasion mechanics for big green creatures, such as 'can't be blocked by power X or less', are increasingly making trample obsolete by providing alternative technology that does the same thing.
5. What is Magic's greatest strength and why?
Magic's greatest strength is the diversity of people that it can appeal to and the number of different ways that players can enjoy the game. Magic can appeal to both casual and competitive players, and provides so many different ways that players can build decks and enjoy the game that it gives it a reach that few other games have.
6. What is Magic's greatest weakness and why?
Magic's greatest weakness is related to its strength. With so many different ways to get enjoyment from the game, there can be issues when players who enjoy different aspects of magic meet and try to play together. For example, if a player who plays powerful combo decks in legacy meets with a player who enjoys playing unique tribal decks, neither of them are going to have a good time since each player is not contributing to the game in a way that the other enjoys. Magic has taken steps to alleviate this issue by creating and supporting a wide range of formal play rulesets, but keeping all of the different types of players happy is always going to be a struggle.
7. What Magic mechanic most deserves a second chance (aka which had the worst first introduction compared to its potential)?
Empirically the answer is probably meld. The mechanic had a lot going for it when it was first introduced, but was hampered by its low frequency (there are only 3 sets of meld cards), the fact that it was competing for space with a very popular mechanic (transform) and that it was tied to a tribe that had generated widespread negative impressions after its unpopular use in the previous block (Eldrazi in BFZ). Ultimately, it felt that design/development wasn't ready to commit the space that meld needs in a set to shine, and that if given a chance it could drastically outperform it's performance in EMN.
8. Of all the Magic expansions that you've played with, pick your favorite and then explain the biggest problem with it.
Of the 'core' expansions, I always felt that it was strange that in Innistrad the two of the colours that care the least about creatures were the ones that had the most incentive to put creatures in their own graveyard. I felt that GB in particular would have benefited from having a stronger graveyard theme.
9. Of all the Magic expansions that you've played with, pick your least favorite and then explain the best part about it.
BFZ. Despite all of the issues that the set had, converge was a very interesting mechanic that has a lot of potential. It was extremely misplaced in the format however.
10. You have the ability to change any one thing about Magic. What do you change and why?
Mechanically? I would add subtypes to spells similar to what we have for creatures. It would help create a sense of flavor for each spell, and opens up some design space that isn't currently available (by caring about specific spell types, for example you could create a creature that deals a damage to a craeture or player whenever you cast a 'fire' spell).
BGStandard Green AggroGB
UWRGModern Saheeli CobraGRWU
UBRGLegacy StormGRBU
Wizards Certified Rules Advisor
And here's my trial one summaries, I went out there for #3 and especially #10.
2. Cycling promotion for reasons stated above. Also suggested a possible name change to "Rethink" or "Reconsider".
3. Equipment demotion to deciduous/Storm Scale 3. Repeat effects have always been problematic, and it seems like they've been struggling with equipment designs for a while now. The common/uncommon equipment have been super similar for ages, and we haven't had a constructed playable one in years (Runechanter's Pike was the last one by my figure). Vehicles play in a similar creature enhancement space, but as non recurring artifact creatures they're way easier to design and vary.
4. Get them playing asap, if they have TCG experience show how Magic differs in simple ways with common decks (e.g if they're from hearthstone, make a deck with instant speed interaction, discard, and defensive creatures to show defender's advantage).
5. Modularity of cards, sheer number of different formats and ways to play.
6. Barriers to entry in multiple different fashions.
7. Converge from BFZ. Way undersupported, terrible common payoffs, placed in an inappropriate set, and centered in a color so bad that pros were advocating to never draft it.
8. Kaladesh, limited was too complex.
9. BFZ, the Eldrazi faction was super cool, and were a great lower cost execution of the tribe.
10. Try to alleviate mana screw somewhat. Wouldn't blindly implement, but would like to seriously test: "Once per game, if you would draw your card for turn, you may instead play a special tapped colorless mana land (counts as land drop for turn)". Variant might be "Only after Turn X". Would have a "token" card with the rules all on it, though not required to use it.
My name is *snip* and my qualifications for your internship are numerous. Not only do I have a history designing for Magic, but I’ve also studied game development and have a multifaceted professional background that gives me a perspective many designers lack.
I’ve been designing Magic cards for 15 years ranging from individual cards to full sets. I always try to adhere to the design philosophies of Wizards of the Coast while simultaneously experimenting with new territory. That means fresh mechanics, unique card types, set structures, new formats, and product design. I also coordinate with others in my work setting design goals, deadlines, playtests, and documenting the process.
However what I’m most known for is my success in unofficial MTG design competitions. I play in several monthly contests, mostly on the MTGSalvation forums. They have organized contests there for nearly a decade. In 2017 I made history by winning their top two competitions more than any contestant in a single year. I feel that this proves my designs have appeal to my peers and potentially a huge audience. That, and If I’m in the top eight of this contest, I’ll know how to put on a show.
I’ve also studied game development, receiving my bachelors from the Savannah College of Art and Design. Much of my focus was on non digital games and that remains a huge part of my life and studies today. I play new board and card games weekly and it remains my biggest hobby.
As a professional I’ve primarily worked as a graphic artist. This aids me as a potential intern, since I understand the constraints in printing cards. More importantly, I’d be able to work towards new designs, organizing them visually to communicate ideas and gameplay effectively.
Lastly I feel it’s important to note I’ve been a high school teacher. This gives me an insight into how people learn and the hurdles understanding new ideas. That is essential to Magic.
I think you’d be hard pressed to find an intern with my qualifications.
2. An evergreen mechanic is a keyword mechanic that shows up in (almost) every set. If you had to make an existing keyword mechanic evergreen, which one would you choose and why?
I would choose Convoke.
Convoke is a mechanic that rewards players for something the game already wants them to do, play creatures. This has been a dedicated shift in design over the past decade. That is, making the game about creatures and their interactions and less about powerful one shot spells or enchantments. Convoke is a mechanic that can be put on almost any card type while still emphasizing creatures.
Not only does convoke encourage players to do something they already want, it gives something they enjoy, cheaper cards. It has mass appeal. Timmy gets to play his large creatures and momentus spells, johnny gets to be clever in how he plays his cards to hit key numbers, and spike loves the flexibility convoke has.
Convoke is also a way to help players avoid mana screw and ensure more consistent games like how adding scry to evergreen keywords did.
Perhaps one of the best things about it is how incredible easy it is to understand. Once players learn the basics of the game, adding a mechanic that essentially reads “you can use your creatures as lands too” is pretty simple to grok. This is a big part of why convoke was already used in a core set.
Convoke adds meaningful,strategic decisions to the game as well, both when playing and deck building. Do I use my creature as a resource to cast my spell or do I keep it untapped to attack and block with? Then when players are building a deck they have to consider their convoke cards. What kind of discount/value will they get? As long as they are designed well, even tapping one creature to get a spell off a turn earlier feels good, but players will be pushed to make the discount bigger and more often, playing extra creatures. That generally promotes healthier limited games too, subtly nudging newer players to make better decisions.
If anything, I feel convoke could use a rename, but it is an ideal candidate for evergreen.
3. If you had to remove evergreen status from a keyword mechanic that is currently evergreen, which one would you remove and why?
I would choose defender.
I think having the defender-esque ability is important, but not important enough to be evergreen. It’s used extremely infrequently as is because it promotes some of the worst things about the game, inaction and and an overall lack of interaction. Defender cards typically don’t incite a lot of excitement. Further it could be a lot more interesting using conditional attacker clauses.
It’s important in games to have mechanics that push them to a conclusion, and defender works against that. They encourage sitting back a make it so your opponent is forced to do the same. It creates a game of solitaire without offering options to brake stalemates. Sure, they can help enable control decks. They also have can be designed in ways to mitigate some of these flaws. However, with how few defender cards are realistic in a set (usually one or two) why dedicate a keyword? There are so many better ways to add cards that push towards the late game while actually encouraging interaction, from functional life gain cards (adding tension as players race) to strategic removal (forcing players to make strategic decisions to work around such cards.)
Defender would work better written out like “can’t be blocked” clauses so they can have flexibility. It is a much more interesting design space to have “This can’t attack unless you control an enchantment” or “Unless you have 10 or less life” or “Unless an opponent attacked you since your last turn.” Since defender creatures are used so infrequently, this would have little effect on NWO as well.
4. You're going to teach Magic to a stranger. What's your strategy to have the best possible outcome?
First it’s important for me to understand my audience. What kind of experience does this stranger have with games? With card games? What brings him or her to trying to learn a game of Magic? From there a lesson can begin.
If they have a lot of experience with games, it would be easier to teach them but very important to emphasize what makes magic stand out as a game. What makes it distinctly fun. I would cater our games to show the unique ideas Magic has will simultaneously teaching the basics. All the while emphasizing the narrative of what was being played. Further if they have played games like it before I can narrow down how they might like to play before we even start. Get a lean towards what color(s) or archetypes would draw their appeal.
I’d then setup our first game using non randomized preconstructed decks to ensure the turn by turn went as planned. This decks would likely stick to commons and uncommons and be a smaller than normal size. We would play with our hands open so I could go over what each of us will do, when, and why. I’d give them a victory playing with cards that fit how they might like to play while creating some cool moments planned for them. Afterwards we would shuffle our decks and play a randomized game with our hands private. At this point an experienced game player would have an idea of how their cards are used and start applying them on their own. From there we could bring into full sized decks with higher mana curves.
For players who have little to no experience, my strategy would be similar but have a key differences.I would probably stick to white and green colored decks for simplicity of play, and after our first game with the planned outcome we would still play with open hands. Depending how quickly he or she picked up certain ideas would lead me to emphasize certain types of cards when we move to full sized decks.
5. What is Magic's greatest strength and why?
The greatest strength of Magic comes from its colors. This is proven by how they have survived relatively untouched despite numerous trails, experiments, design philosophies shifts, and rule changes. Colors define Magic. It’s what makes it interesting, give it and players identities. There is a reason why so many other games mimic it.
Magic has earned the advantage of being long lived, and this has allowed designers and developers to test many ideas and take the game in new strategic directions. Since the games inception, game design has become an academic field taught at hundreds of schools, but Magic had to learn lessons on its own. What is perhaps most interesting is how little each color of magic has changed very little.
The core idea of what makes white white or blue blue has stayed in similar bounds. White gains life, taxes, builds an army, throws around combat tricks, etc… while blue draws cards, counters, and flies. Similarly each color’s philosophies have basically remained intact. This is because each colors identity is strong, relatable, fun, and gives each player an identity as well. Colors have traits. They have allies. They have enemies. The relationships colors have help form relationships between players. Players in turn talk about decks based on their colors, and refer to themselves based on their preference of colors. The challenge and creativity in combining the mechanical resources of different colors drives players to keep playing, expressing themselves in a numerous ways competitively and casually.
Magic wouldn’t be magic without it’s strong core of color identity.
6. What is Magic's greatest weakness and why?
Complexity, complexity, complexity. Magic is a game that suffers from being overly complex, which is a key concern in drawing new players in.
It’s easy to forget that over many years folks like myself and the ones reading my responses have learned the rules inside and out. We have a grip on concepts like the stack. We understand hidden concepts like summoning sickness or how creatures attack. We see the full scope of how to use a card despite its subtle, lenticular nature. But Magics rules are numerous and continually growing. The interactions between cards and the ability to track them can even been a challenge to experience players.
R&D realizes this and continues to emphasize elegance with its designs, the ability grok them, and enforcement of NWO amongst other things. Regardless the stack is a hard concept to grasp for anyone who hasn’t played a similar card game before. Even the more basic rules can be a challenge. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve have to teach new players who are confused about why there is summoning sickness, or why his or her creatures can only attack the opposing player, not the opposing creatures. It easy to forgot how many rules in magic are both inherent and unintuitive.
Even after understanding these rules, Magic is a game that takes a great amount of time to master. Applying these rules is difficult, and even more so with new cards and mechanics coming every few months.
Don’t get me wrong, complexity isn’t evil. However, it is something that needs to be watched. There are healthy ways to add depth to the game and there a ways the muddy it up. The barrier of entry for Magic is already quite high, and certain mechanics can make a board unreadable for even experienced players. Our goal should be to “simplify” magic in lenticular ways wherever possible.
7. What Magic mechanic most deserves a second chance (aka which had the worst first introduction compared to its potential)?
I’d have to say Converge.
Converged was just in the wrong set. So many cards the Battle for Zendikar were focused on colorless cards. Coupled with little multicolored support it made little sense here. The attempt to make it showcase a contrast to the Eldrazi failed because in the end players didn’t feel a flavorful fit to the setting and the mechanic pulled them in a direction the set mechanically didn’t nurture. The only reward for playing multicolored cards was converge cards, and most of them provided minimal payoff.
Part of this misstep was the change in block structure. It is a shame since Converge had a lot of potential. The variety of effects it could be used are numerous, as are the twists by making some converge cards multicolored, using hybrid mana, or adding additional effects that cared about the mana spent in additional ways.
Many players didn’t understand what Converge represent on Zendikar or why it was used here. It didn;t provide a solid identity as it was to abstract in flavor. The name “Converge” also didn’t really translate well to players in the given setting. Despite this, I feel it’s a good name. It just needs a home where a convergence makes sense.
Some of the best mechanics in R&D history stemmed from the idea of rewarding what players already want to do. In a multicolor set, Converge would do just that. Instead in Battle for Zendikar it pulled players away from what made sense for their limited format decks. Converge deserves to be tried in an environment that caters to its effects
8. Of all the Magic expansions that you've played with, pick your favorite and then explain the biggest problem with it.
New Phyrexia was an amazing set for a lot of reason, but it did have a major problem. Phyrexian mana. Magic is a game based on color and the identity that provides. Phyrexian mana warped that identity. It’s appeal to more casual players also felt limited, but the real danger was how it has bled the color pie across many Magic formats.
New Phyrexia was a set that already came from a line of color bleeds. With the flavor of Mirrodin being compleated, black effects cross color boundaries. But phyrexian mana took it to a new level, allowing blue and green decks to gain access to potent removal (dismember) and any deck being able to run disruption (mental misstep.) The ramifications of this affected modern and eternal formats and allowed decks to not have to rely on other colors to shore up their weaknesses.
Using life as a resource also proved too small. A number of phyrexian mana cards could be paid solely with life as well, which proved problematic. They were effectively the Pact cycle from Future Sight with much smaller drawbacks. This also contributed to their rampant bleed among colors.
Phyrexian mana was a very Spike oriented mechanic that excluded a lot of Tmmys and casual players, who resent paying life. Having mechanics that cater to different psychographics to a degree is fine, but New Phyrexia was already a part of a strongly decisive block that had very strong positive and negative reactions around infect. Having strong reactions to mechanics is a good thing, but phyrexian mana in combination with the rest of the block felt like alienation.
Keeping the colors of Magic relatively separate is important, as this how both players and the game itself makes their identity. Phyrexian mana took bleed to a new level allowing powerful effects out of their colors at discounted rates in exchange for paying life, a resource that is almost always available. If design space like this is explored in such breadth again, it deserves more caution.
9. Of all the Magic expansions that you've played with, pick your least favorite and then explain the best part about it.
Mirrodin was never my favorite set. It divorced the game too much from colors and a had a host of problems, casual and competitively. However I am very thankful for it bring us what is one the best subtypes in the game, equipments. It finally delivered on a iconic aspect of fantasy that hadn’t really been done effectively until that point.
The equipment subtype is something the game had wanted for a long time. It has massive appeal in terms of having big, iconic weapons for Timmy, tons of potential interactions for Johnny as repeatable “auras”, and durability with flexibility for spike players.
Vorthos was finally satisfied with these as well, and the distinction between equipment and auras was quite clear. An aura faded when the enchanted creature died, but a sword? A sword could be passed on, a relic from the past user to the next. Groking the mechanic became easy because the narrative made sense.
Part of what make equipment so successful is the different design knobs they have. Not only do the have a cost, but the activated ability to actually equip the card gave a lot of options in how to balance them. This was all before you considered other abilities you could add.
The splitting of cost also created an interesting tension. Equipment require time to setup, time an opponent could often react to.This also gave strategic decisions. Do I wait for when I can equip this card right away or do I split the invest across two turns? In a artifact heavy blocked filled with hate this was a more important decision then it has in most sets.
All these things together made it an easy decision to make the subtype evergreen
10. You have the ability to change any one thing about Magic. What do you change and why?
Magic is a game that needs to emphasize interaction and responsiveness. To that end, I would say instead of having an instant card type be its own separate type, it should be a supertype that is applied to any other nonland card. In addition to adding an easier to use tool for designing responsive cards, it frees up a huge amount of space for new abilities. This also gets rid of the relatively small division between how Instant and Sorcery cards work, by combining them into a single card type with the supertype “instant”.
In a game of Magic we want players to respond against each other. The more options the game gives players to do that, the better. Being able to tit-for-tat creates memorable moments and pushes the games competitive nature by allowing for more mind games By making instants a supertype, this would allow it to be more frequently used on cards and therefore create more of this tat-for-tat envoirnment.
As this change removes flash from cards, that frees up more design space for cards. This allows for more experimentation and tighter type lines when integrating instant speed cards with other abilities.I feel the change would be relatively natural to players as well, since it would ask you to look at the same type line to identify the speed at which you could cast a spell instead of needing a separate ability, flash, to define that for other card types.
Finally the division between what is an Instant versus what a Sorcery is already pretty small from a comprehension perspective. The flavor difference between what and instant and sorcery card is isn’t their either. I don’t think they deserve to be seperate types.
The mean spirited trap I was talking about was the Felidar Guardian Question, #44. The slow flicker change is the cleanest way of fixing the interaction, and would be 100% correct in a vacuum. But the flicker effects in Kaledash block were all fast flickers, and R&D makes an explicit point not to mix the two in the same set.
The iconic reprint question i.e #46 annoyed me. I think this was also a trap and you were supposed to pick lightning bolt, because Llanowar Elves has flavor issues that prevent a reprint. Except a. We're going to Dominaria literally next set b. the core sets are back. So Lightning Bolt can be in any set and possibly reprinted, but given Llanowar Elves can be in the set it's the far more likely reprint, and there's a nonzero but smaller amount of sets it can be in. So ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
On the other hand, I'm a complete idiot and overthought first creature's rarity (it's pretty clearly an uncommon) and the #7 rarity (I had an argument for why the hexproof didn't actually matter and didn't increase the complexity over common-rarity threaten effects... but forgot it was a multicolored card!).
just like in years past, many questions were obscure, confusing, misleadimg, subjective n poorly written. it's not a good test for determining designer potential, but it serves the purpose of narrowing the field, and that's it.
i'm glad i looked over each question carefully n repeatedly over many hours n didn't rush thru it. still, i really wanted to 100% this test, n 100% don't think i did.
as an aside, did maro design the gotcha mechanic? just wondering...
How many more people signed up this year than GDS2? The pass threshold last year was 44/50, so a similar threshold would be a doable 66. But if more people signed up that threshold is gonna be pushed upwards.
I know for a fact I got two (embarrassingly easy) questions wrong, two I guessed between two options, and four I'm not sure on but >50% on the correct answer. So assuming my hit rate was 95% on the rest of the questions (3 wrong out of the remaining ~65), I'm in good shape to pass the 66 threshold but would need some luck to break 70 or something.
*****, i did the same thing! my first go thru i had it at uncommon and changed it last minute to common. ugh
i answered the slow flicker change. i see your point, but as the question is about this specific interaction i still feel that's the likely answer. what do you think it was instead?
I think it's also too big for red at common - typically green gets 1-2 and blue gets 0-1 large common creatures, but red/white/black don't.
I'm also curious about this. The other answers did not seem good to me, for various reasons.
Although someone pointed out Del Tora said they'd have added better interaction, so I think that's probably the right answer.
Ehh Red gets stuff like Granitic Titan and Desert Cerodon, it's not that out there size wise. But the double combat keyword definitely pushes it to uncommon (maybe it could be common if needed, but it wouldn't start there).
heh, i'm salty. i know i could've done better. i should've done better. but it really wasn't a well designed test at all, so i think it's ok for me to be upset about that too.
Other questions I'm not sure on:
20. Design considers a card “too slow for tournament play.” What does that mean?
I guessed tournament overtime, but I hadn't heard the term before and wasn't sure.
35. Assuming the creature is strong enough to see Standard play, which of the following isn't a good quality for a green creature to have?
I'm assuming the non-combat related draw, but there's precedent for that. Do they consider those mistakes?
53. Which of the following changes is Set Design most likely to make to this card?
Wasn't sure on this one at all, I guessed fix to a locked number.
72. Which of the following is the most important reason that some cards' mana costs are higher than others?
I put "So that people will play them later in the game", but I could see "To make cards different" being correct.
Man I'm so mad I punted #2 and #5 like that.
MaRo says Tuesday.
We try to avoid making two-color cards where the card could be done as a monocolor card in one of the two colors. Given that, suppose you have a two-color 4/4 creature with flying and vigilance (and no other abilities). Which of the following color combinations would be the best choice for this card?
The gut instinct answer I had was UW, but since these abilities could both be mono-W... the choice I ended up with was BG. The answer doesn't feel right, but each ability is secondary in one of those colors. Idk, I think I overthought this one way too much.
Archenemy: Nicol Bolas Upgrades
Also dice can sub for coins but if you don't have dice and are asked for them it's harder to properly simulate
I worked in TCG industry long time ago and the answer is easy (at least it was true 4-5 years ago). Dice with points are associated with gambling which is not good for game's image (the change was made to the game I was working on was explained this way by game HQ).
Though it can be not true for WotC at all since we still have Unstable.
http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/170286279953/info-on-the-gds3-multiple-choice-test
Archenemy: Nicol Bolas Upgrades
If Design came out with a 4 mana, 1/4, ETBT flicker creature, we probably would have criticized them much harder than when they missed the obvious Saheeli combo.
Modern: (G/U)Infect (G/U)Tron
Legacy: (U/B)Tezzeret (U/B)(W/U)Miracles(W/U)(B/G)Dredge(R/W)
Commander:(U/R)Mizzix (U/R)(W/U)Sydri(U/B)(W/U)Zur(U/B)
There were 3 times as many test takers on this one, the cutoff was definitely gonna be proportionally higher. That said god DAMN that's high, I thought it'd be ~70.
Well shoot. I know I missed #2 and #5, so I need to nail EVERY question outside of them to pass. And there's at least 3 questions I'm 50:50 on or worse.
I actually "played" the test more aggressively because I thought the threshold would be really high (though not THAT high). You could (just) pass GDS2 by nailing the more straightforward questions, but if the threshold was any higher you'd need to get a good chunk of the trick questions as well. So I went against test-taking advice and intentionally second guessed myself on my second readthrough, trying really hard to catch those trap/trick questions. I'd more than likely just overthink some questions and score lower than I would have, but that doesn't matter if I'm already below the pass threshold – a 65 and a 60 fail just the same. But there was a reasonable chance I'd nail the required trap questions and pass.
E: There was apparently a typo on #5 and Maro is counting both versions as correct. If the typo somehow pushed it down to a common, I get some breathing room.